Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-02-11; City Council; 17077 part 1 of 3; Appeal Casa Montessori De Vista School CUP 01-12AB# 17,077 MTG. DEPT. PLN @ 2-11-03 CITY OF CARLSBAD -AGENDA BILL TITLE: DEPT. HD. APPEAL OF CASA MONTESSORI DE VISTA SCHOOL CITY ATTY. flnh/ CUP 01-12 I W‘ I CITY MGR % RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council ADOPT Resolution No. 2003-046 , DENYING the appeal of CUP 01-12, and uphold the denial of the project by the Planning Commission on November 20, 2002 by Planning Commission Resolution No. 5225. ITEM EXPLANATION: This item was originally scheduled for the Planning Commission Meeting of July 17, 2002, with a recommendation for denial. The applicant requested a continuance of the item in order to modify the project to address staff concerns. The project was continued to August 7, 2002, however the applicant’s representative was unable to attend the meeting. The project was continued again and the first public hearing was held on October 2, 2002. The project was revised so that the proposed Montessori school would consist of a maximum of 36 children (in grades 1-6) and 4 teachers. The project would be located in an existing residence at 3016 Highland Drive which would be converted and enlarged to accommodate the school. A new IO-space parking lot would be constructed in front of the school and new landscaping would be provided around the site. The site is located in the R-l- 10,000 zone and in Local Facilities Management Zone 1. Even though changes were made to the original project, staff still brought forward a recommendation for denial to the Planning Commission. The primary concerns staff had centered on traffic and safety, aesthetics, and neighborhood compatibility as outlined in detail in the staff reports dated July 17, 2002 and October 2, 2002. During the public hearing, public testimony was given both in favor and against the project. Persons in favor of the project generally felt that the school would not impact the neighborhood and that it would be an asset to the community. Many of the project proponents had children which had previously attended the Montessori School when it was located in Vista. Neighbors who spoke against the project felt that the introduction of a commercial venture in the neighborhood was an inappropriate use, that the parking lot would detract from the neighborhood character, and that the project would impact traffic on Highland Drive. Petitions and letters both in favor and against the project are included as an attachment to this report. The Planning Commission had mixed feeling about the project. Commissioners White and Heineman indicated support of the project, while Commissioners Baker and Whitton voiced strong opposition. Commissioners Trigas and Segal felt they could see both sides of the issues and were undecided. Commissioner Dominguez was absent. A motion was made to recommend denial of the project and that motion failed to pass (2-3-1: 2 ayes, 3 nays, 1 abstain). A second motion was made and passed (4-2: 4 ayes, 2 nays) for staff to return to the Planning Commission with a resolution approving the CUP for this project and to return the CUP with its findings and associated conditions for the Planning Commission to make a decision upon. Staff prepared the recommendation for approval along with a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, as directed, and the project was re-noticed for the November 20, 2002 Planning Commission hearing. At the hearing staff discussed the conditions that were suggested by the applicant in order to ensure safety and land use compatibility with the neighborhood. These conditions are discussed in the staff report dated November 20, 2002. Again, many people spoke in favor and against the project. The Planning Commission also questioned the current use of the site as a large family daycare. Staff confirmed that the applicant has approval of a large family daycare for a maximum of 14 children where children are “tutored” and that the applicant must live at the home. The applicant PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 17,077 had recently received a violation notice for utilizing the garage for daycare purposes, but she assured the Planning Commission that she would correct the situation. The Planning Commission discussed the project and Commissioners Heineman and White still supported the project. However the other Commissioners (Dominguez absent) could not support the project and felt that the conditions that would be required to make the project compatible with the neighborhood would be impractical and unenforceable. A motion was made to approve the project, however that motion failed (2-4: 2 ayes, 4 nays). A second motion was made to deny the project and that motion passed (4-2: 4 ayes, 2 nays). More detailed information regarding the proposal is included in the attached staff reports dated July 17, 2002, October 2, 2002, and November 20, 2002 to the Planning Commission and in the Planning Commission minutes. The project was appealed on December 2, 2002, and the reasons for appeal are included as an attachment to this report. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: A denial of the project would fall under a class of projects found to be a statutory exemption from the requirements for the preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Section 1520 - Projects which are disapproved, of the state CEQA Guidelines. If the Council overturns the Planning Commission's denial of the project and approves the project, adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would be necessary. An initial study was prepared for the project pursuant to CEQA, and it was determined that there may be noise impacts from the adjacent roadway. Appropriate mitigation measures are included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Depending upon the outcome of the hearing, either a Notice of Exemption or a Notice of Determination will be filed by the Planning Director. FISCAL IMPACT: There are no direct City related costs associated with either the approval or denial of the project. If approved, all required improvements needed to serve this project will be funded by the developer. EXHIBITS: 1. City Council Resolution No. 2003-046 2. Location Map 3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5225 DENYING the project. 4. Planning Commission Staff Reports, dated July 17, 2002, October 2, 2002 and November 20, 5. Planning Commission Resolutions No 5314 and 5315 (NOT ADOPTED) for approval of the 6. Excerpts of Planning Commission minutes, dated October 2, 2002 and November 20, 2002. 7. Letters and Petition of Support 8. Letters and Petition of Opposition 9. Letter of appeal, dated December 2,2002. 2002. Mitigated Negative Declaration and approval of the project. 10. Police Activity Report. (Note: Exhibits 3-10 are on file in the City Clerk's Office) d 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2003-046 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO DENY A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PRIVATE SCHOOL ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT 3016 HIGHLAND DRIVE ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHLAND DRIVE AND CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. CASE NAME: CASA MONTESSORI DE VISTA SCHOOL CASE NO: CUP 01 -1 2 WHEREAS, on November 20, 2002, the Carlsbad Planning Commission denied a Conditional Use Permit CUP 01-12 to allow a private school for 36 children in grades 1 -6; and WHEREAS, the appellant on December 2, 2002, timely filed an appeal with the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, on day of , 2003 the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, co al; and WHEREAS, upon co ide * g the peal, the City Council considered all factors relating to the appeal. NOW, THEREFORE, BE I EREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows: 1. That the a ye re ‘tations are true and correct. n 2. Planning Commission in Planning Commission and incorporated herein by reference constitute .... .. .. .. .. ..I. .... \ .. .. .. .. ..I. .. .. .. .... 3 1 2 i - 4 4 c 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad Cib Council held on the day of , 2003, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAl N CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor ATTEST: LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk (SEAL) lesolution No. 2003-046 -2- Y EXHIBIT 2 SITE CASA MONTESSORI DE VISTA SCHOOL CUP 01-12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 II EXHIBIT 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5225 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PRIVATE SCHOOL ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT 3016 HIGHLAND DRIVE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. CASE NAME: CASA MONTESSORI DE VISTA SCHOOL CASE NO.: CUP 01-12 WHEREAS, Jan Taylor, "Developer," has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by E. Lamont Geissinger, "Owner," described as That portion of Lot Twenty-one of Patterson's addition to town of Carlsbad, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 565, files in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, September 22,1888 ("the Property"); and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Conditional Use Permit as shown on Exhibit(s) "A" - "D" dated October 2, 2002, on file in the Carlsbad Planning Department, CASA MONTESSORI DE VISTA SCHOOL - CUP 01-12, as provided by Chapter 21.42 and 21 SO of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 17th day of July, 2002, on the 2nd .day of October, 2002, and on the 20th day of November, 2002 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the CUP. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. L 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission DENIES CASA MONTESSORI DE VISTA SCHOOL - CUP 01-12, based on the following findings: FindinPs: 1. That the requested use is not necessary or desirable for the development of the community, is not essentially in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan, and is detrimental to existing uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the proposed use is located, in that the development of the parking lot for the use would be inconsistent with the General Pian objective “to preserve the neighborhood atmosphere and identity of existing residential areas” in that it would have- a negative visual impact and detract from the quality of the neighborhood. In addition, the potential for traffic conflicts could be detrimental to existing residential uses. 2. That the site for the intended use is not adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, in that the location of the required handicap pedestrian ramp reduces the amount of landscape area necessary to screen vehicles. 3. That all the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features necessary to adjust the requested use to existing or permitted future uses in the neighborhood cannot be provided and maintained, in that due to the site topography and location of the handicap ramp, the proposed landscaping will not adequately screen vehicles from off-site views. 4. That the street system serving the proposed use is not adequate to properly handle all traffic generated by the proposed use, in that the proposed on-site circulation has the potential to detrimentally impact street circulation and that monitoring of the proposed staggered start/dismissai times would be difficult and impractical to enforce. Additionally, the parking arrangement for parents visiting before or after school is inadequate. 5. Thai the Planning Director has determined that the project belongs to a class of projects that the State Secretary for Resources has found to be a statutory exemption from the requirement for the preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Section 15270- Projects Which are Disapproved, of the state CEQA Guidelines. ... ... ... ... PC RES0 NO. 5225 7 -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 .28 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 20th day of November, 2002 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Baker, Whitton, and Segall NOES: Commissioner White and Heineman ABSENT: Commissioner Dominguez ABSTAIN: None SEENA TRIGAS, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION - ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HOLmILLM Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5225 -3- 8 The City of Carlsbad Planning Departslent EXHIBIT 4 A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION P.C. AGENDA OF: July 17,2002 Application complete date: February 1,2002 Project Planner: Barbara Kennedy Project Engineer: David Rick SUBJECT: CUP 01-12 - CASA MONTESSORI DE VISTA SCHOOL - Request for a private school located at 3016 Highland Drive on a 0.7 acre lot. The site is located at the southeast comer of the intersection of Highland Drive and Carlsbad Village Drive in the R-1-10,000 zone and in Local Facilities Management Zone 1. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 5225 DENYING Conditional Use Permit CUP 01-12, based on the findings contained therein. 11. INTRODUCTION The application is for a private Montessori School for grades 1-6 with a maximum of 45 students and 5 teachers. An existing residence located at the southeast intersection of Highland Drive and Carlsbad Village Drive at 3016 Highland Drive would be converted and remodeled into classrooms to accommodate the school. Issues related to the proposal are land use compatibility and traffic. Staff feels that the findings for approval cannot be made and therefore, is recommending denial of the Conditional Use Permit. 111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The project proposes conversion of an existing residence located at 3016 Highland Drive to accommodate the Casa Montessori De Vista School. The 0.7 acre site is located at the southeast comer of the intersection of Highland Drive and Carlsbad Village Drive and is surrounded by single-family residences. The existing residence sits at the high point of the site which is about 13 feet above Carlsbad Village Drive. The site slopes down to the east and the west from this point. A tall retaining wall topped with a chainlink fence is located along the Carlsbad Village Drive property line. The proposal includes conversion of a 2,069 square foot house into two elementary school classrooms, office space, kitchen, restrooms, and study area. The proposal also includes construction of 668 square feet of additional classroom area at the rear of the existing residence. The existing detached garage with a second-story room above (754 square feet total) would be converted into a multi-purpose room. Site improvements consist of the installation of a 10 space parking lot (9 standard, 1 handicap), a 3.5 foot high keystone retaining wall along the front property line, and new retaining walls, sloped landscape areas ,and steps at the entrance to the building. Approximately 10,000 square feet of play aredsports field would be located at the rear of the property. New landscaping would be provided around most of the perimeter of the site and within the new parking lot. In addition, a 6-foot high sound wall with 4 feet of chain link fencing is proposed along the south and east property lines. 4 CUP 01-12 - CASA MONTESSORI DE VISTA SCHOOL July 17,2002 Page 2 The applicant previously operated a 15 to 45 student Montessori School at the North County Tabernacle of Praise located at 1930 Sunset Drive in Vista. However, the lease was terminated this June and the applicant seeks to relocate the school. The proposal is a request for approval for up to 45 students in grades 1 through 6 and 5 teachers. Originally, school hours of operation were proposed from 9:00 AM to 3:OO PM. However, in order to show from a traffic analysis standpoint that there would be adequate queuing for vehicles, the applicant has modified the proposal to include staggered start times between 8:30 to 9: 15 AM and staggered dismissal times from 3:OO to 3:45 PM. Extended-day hours for before and after school care are proposed from 8:OO AM to 5:30 PM. Staff has received 19 letters of support and a petition with 22 signatures of support for the project. Staff has also received a number of phone calls, 8 letters, and a petition with 120 signatures of opposition to the project. These items are included as attachments to the staff report. In addition, a letter from the applicant is also attached to the staff report. The applicant recently applied for and received approval of a Large Family Day Care Permit for care of 14 or fewer children at this location. Operation of a school is not permitted under the daycare permit and the applicant is aware of this restriction. The proposed project is subject to the following regulations: A. R-1 One Family Residential Zone (R-1-10,000) (Chapter 21.10 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code); B. Parking (Chapter 21.44 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code); C. Conditional Use Permit Regulations (Chapter 2 1.42 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code); and D. Growth Management (Chapter 2 1.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code). IV. ANALYSIS The recommendation for denial of this conditional use permit was developed by analyzing the project’s consistency with the applicable City regulations, policies, and findings. The reasons for recommending denial of the project are discussed in detail in the sections below. A. R-1 One-Family Residential (R-1-10,000) Zoning The proposed site has a zoning designation of R-1-10,000 - One-Family Residential with a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. The General Plan land use designation for this site is RLM which supports low-medium density residential development characterized by single- family homes and planned developments with densities at 0-4 ddac. Public and private schools may be permitted in all zones including residential with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Section 21.42.010(2)(C) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) (Conditional Uses) only if findings for approval can be made. These findings are discussed in Section “C” of the staff report. CUP 01-12 - CASA MONTESSORI DE VISTA SCHOOL July 17,2002 Page 3 Staff researched other private schools (K-6 and K-8) within the City and found that of the four private schools, none were identical to the applicant’s proposal. Three of the private schools are associated with a church (Beautiful Savior Lutheran School, St. Patrick’s School, and First Baptist Church). Since church services are not in session during school hours, the parking lots can easily accommodate the school traffic. The other private school, Carlsbad Montessori School, is the most similar since it is also located in a converted residence. However, the Carlsbad Montessori has a capacity for 124 children and contains both a preschool (24 months and older) and K-6 school age children. It is located at the northeast comer of Madison Street and Pine Avenue in the R-3 multi-family zone and is surrounded by both single-family and multi-family uses, as well as the Carlsbad Senior Center and Carlsbad Community Church. Although on-site parking is minimal at this site, an adequate drop-off area is provided, the streets surrounding the Carlsbad Montessori School are hlly improved, and overflow parking can easily be accommodated on the street. B. Parking Parking requirements for elementary schools are 1 space per employee plus an adequate loading and unloading area. In this instance, 5 spaces would be required. The applicant proposes 10 parking spaces since the location and configuration of the site presents difficulties in being able to providing adequate loading and unloading areas. Together with the 10 parking spaces and the circular drive aisle, the traffic report indicates that there is adequate queuing for 7 vehicles in the driveway. Assuming that 5 spaces are in use by the staff, this would allow stackindparking for 11 or 12 vehicles of parents dropping off or picking up their child. Unlike private schools observed in other areas of the City, the street frontage along Highland Drive is unimproved. Overflow parking typically occurs around school sites and it is usually accommodated on the surrounding local streets. This site has limited on-street parking since no parking is permitted on Carlsbad Village Drive east of Highland and the unimproved nature of Highland Drive does not lend itself to convenient “curbside parking.” In order to accommodate the proposed parking area, a reduction of the parking area setbacks would need to be approved. Section 21.44.050(c) of the CMC states that “All parking areas in the R-A, R-E, and R-1 zones shall be subject to the same restrictions governing location of accessory buildings on a lot.. .” In other words, a 20’ front setback and 5’ side setback to the paved parking area would be required. Yard requirements (setbacks) may be reduced, per Section 2 1.42.050 of the CMC if findings are made as part of the review of the Conditional Use Permit. In this instance, the applicant proposes a 9’ landscaped fkont setback, 0 to 5’ on the north side, and a 5’ to 6’ setback on the south side, which will contain a sidewalk, but no landscaping. This results in a limited amount of planting to screen the parking lot from off-site views. If the 20’ front and 5’ side setbacks could be provided, it would allow for more substantial landscaping around the parking areas and would reduce the visual impact of the parking lot, but it would require redesign of the parking area and a loss of parking spaces. Furthermore, staff does not support the setback reduction since even for single-family residences, no more than 30% of the front yard setback can be paved and this site would pave approximately 52% of the 20’ front setback area. These paving limitations and setback requirements for commercial parking areas in single-family residential zones allow for a landscaped buffer between the street frontage and parking areas. Since the required parking setbacks cannot be provided, staff does not believe that the project is compatible with the residential character of the neighborhood. CUP 01-12 - CASA MONTESSORI DE VISTA SCHOOL July 17,2002 Page 4 C. Conditional Use Permit Regulations . Uses subject to a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) are declared to possess characteristics of such unique and special form as to make impracticable their being included automatically in any land use class. In granting a CUP, certain safeguards to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the public may be required as conditions of approval. In addition, CUPS may only be granted when the appropriate findings of fact can be made. Staff feels that the required findings to recommend approval of the project cannot be made, nor could the findings be made even if certain conditions of approval were placed on the project. These findings and reasons for recommending denial are as follows: 1. That the requested use is necessary or desirable for the development of the community, is essentially in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan, and is not detrimental to existing uses speciJicalIy permitted in the zone in which the proposed use is located. One of the stated objectives of the General Plan is “To preserve the neighborhood atmosphere and identity of existing residential areas.” Highland Drive is an unique area which is zoned R-1- 10,000 along the length of the street from Elmwood Street south past Chinquapin Drive. The areas surrounding Highland are all zoned R-1 which allows for a smaller lot size of 7,500 square feet. Highland Drive is characterized by larger lots and homes with an estate type of character. The design of the parking lot and proposed grading would detract from the scenichesidential quality of the neighborhood since over 60% of the front yard area (from the property line to the front of the house) would be paved with asphalt. In addition, a reduction of the front and side setbacks would need to be granted to allow the paved parking area to extend into the required 20’ front and 5’ side setback areas. If the setback is reduced, the resulting landscape buffer would be inadequate to screen vehicles fiom off-site views. Therefore, staff feels that the proposal would be inconsistent with the General Plan goals and objectives in that the parking required for the proposed use would have a negative visual impact and detract from the neighborhood character. 2. That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use. The site may be inadequate to accommodate certain features required for the use due to the site constraints of steep slopes along the fiontage. The applicant was informed that the building department requires a pedestrian ramp with a maximum 8% slope which needs to be provided to the front property line and should connect to the existing sidewalk at the comer. As currently shown, the ramp has a slope of about 15% which exceeds handicap ramp standards. The ramp could be designed with a series of switchbacks to meet the ramping requirements, however this would result in redesign of the parking area and potentially a loss of the number of required parking spaces. The applicant has also submitted a sketch (Attachment 11) showing how a ramp could be designed parallel to the south property line. In order to maintain a maximum 8% slope, retaining walls would need to be located adjacent to the ramp. This results in a design where the ramp is located below the driveway grade to a depth of 2.5 feet. Also, as currently designed, the ramp ends at the property line at Highland Drive which is an unimproved street frontage. This frontage will likely remain unimproved for quite some time since the street is classified as an Alternative Design Street. Alternative Design Streets require special design approval and any street improvements would need to be proposed and agreed upon by the property owners along the street. If a variance could be made for the slope of the ramp, handicap accessibility still CUP 01-12 - CASA MONTESSORI DE VISTA SCHOOL July 17,2002 Page 5 would not be practicable since an unimproved section of road would exist between the ramp and the sidewalk at the comer of Highland Drive and Carlsbad Village Drive. . 3. That all the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features necessary to adjust the requested use to existing or permitted future uses in the neighborhood will be provided and maintained. As proposed, the project would require a reduction of the required parking area setback from 20’ to 9’ in the front yard and to less than 5’ in the side yards as discussed in detail under Section “B” - Parking. The proposed landscaping surrounding the parking lot is inadequate to screen the parking area from off-site views therefore, staff does not support a reduction of the parking area setbacks since it would be incompatible with the surrounding residential character. The height of the proposed combination sound walVchainlink fence is not compatible with the height of fencing in the surrounding neighborhood. Staff agrees with the applicant’s proposal for the 10’ overall fence height since the additional fence height around the play areas may be necessary to prevent balls from flying into neighbors’ yards, or more importantly perhaps, into Carlsbad Village Drive. However, any fencing solution exceeding 6 feet high would be incompatible with the neighborhood. In reviewing the fencing situations at the other private schools, the observed fence heights do not exceed 6’. The reason that it does not seem to be a problem in other areas is that either the site is much larger so that active sports areas are located in a more centralized area of the site or the site is located adjacent to lower traffic volume roadways. 4. That the street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all trafic generated by the proposed use. The traffic report shows that the surrounding streets and roadways can adequately handle the additional ADT generated by the school (existing residential = 10 ADT; school = 202 ADT). However, staffs concern with regard to traffic is focused on the site’s ability to accommodate on- site circulation without detrimentally impacting street circulation. According to the report dated 12/1/01, the peak time of traffic will occur during two 30 minute time periods each day: 8:30 AM to 9:00 AM, and 3:OO PM To 3:30 PM. Up to 45 vehicles will enter and exit the site during each peak period. Engineering staff had expressed concern that unlike a preschool or child daycare which often has staggered hours of drop-off, the elementary school would start at 9:00 AM for all students. This would result in the arrival of most of the projected 45 vehicles to occur within 5 to 10 minutes of start time. Even if only half the vehicles (22) arrived in this time frame the site is only able to accommodate 7 vehicles in the driveway and 4-5 in parking stalls; a shortage of 10 spaces. Once the site were to reach full capacity, drivers would either be forced to park on Highland Drive or wait on Highland Drive to turn left into the driveway. Either of these scenarios would be unacceptable. Because the driveway is so close to the Highland Drive/Carlsbad Village Drive signalized intersection (approx. 100’) and space is not available for drivers to steer around a southbound idling vehicle, there would be a real potential for vehicles to back-up to the intersection. Movement of vehicles on-site could be further stalled if northbound vehicles waiting at the signalized intersection were to extend back to the driveway. It is projected that 70% of the drivers exiting the driveway on to Highland Drive will turn right . towards the intersection. These drivers will be stalled on site until the signal turn allows this traffic to move through the intersection. Although the traffic report concluded that the projected congestion will not occur all the time, staff anticipates that it would occur frequently enough to CUP 01-12 - CASA MONTESSORI DE VISTA SCHOOL July 17,2002 Page 6 detrimentally disrupt traffic flow on Highlahd Drive and at the intersection. Staff expressed that the potential for on-site congestion would be even worse during pick-up. Since all children would be let out at 3:OO PM, parents often arrive 5-10 minutes early and park their cars when . picking up their children. This scenario results in many vehicles arriving, but none leaving until class lets out. Anywhere from 25 to 45 vehicles could be waiting at this time each day, resulting in many of these drivers being forced to park off-site on Highland Drive. Subsequent to the applicant receiving these comments, the traffic report was revised (dated 4/22/02) to state that start times would be staggered between 8:30 AM and 9:00 AM with dismissal times staggered between 3:OO PM and 3:45 PM. The report stated that students would not be required to be checked in by their parents and that a staff person would greet and dismiss the students such that the parents will not have to park and get out of their vehicle. The report also stated that a staff member would monitor the lot to ensure free flow of traffic and to prevent any queuing from backing up onto Highland Drive. The traffic report estimated that with the staggered times, there would be a parking demand for 12 vehicles per 15 minute increment and 11 to12 vehicles could be accommodated on site (4-5 in parking stalls, depending upon usage of the handicap parking space and 7 in the driveways). Depending on the specifics of the start and dismissal times which were not provided in the report, a staggering of times could resolve the issues as the report indicates. However, monitoring and enforcement of the staggered times by City staff would be difficult and impracticable. Because the arrival and dismissal times are so critical to the,functioning of the site, staff cannot support the project on a good faith effort by the school operators to continuously enforce the staggered times. Staff has similar concerns about special event parking (such as open house) and circulation. The report states that such events will be staggered or held off-site and, if necessary, the school will make arrangements for shared parking with a nearby school. Again, staff would be unable to enforce these measures. D. Growth Management The site is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 1. The conversion of the residence to a public school will not result in increased public facilities demands; therefore, the proposal will not exceed performance standards for public facilities. V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Planning Director has determined that the project belongs to a class of projects that the State Secretary for Resources has found to be a statutory exemption from the requirement for the preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Section 15270 - Projects Which are Disapproved, of the state CEQA Guidelines. CUP 01-12 - CASA MONTESSORI DE VISTA SCHOOL July 17,2002 ATTACHMENTS: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5225 (CUP) Location Map Background Data Sheet Disclosure Statement Casa Montessori De Vista School project description Lettedpetitions of support I Lettedpetitions of opposition Private schools and zoning map Reduced Exhibits Exhibits “A” - “D7’ dated July 17,2002 11. Conceptual handicap ramp design BKcs:mh BACKGROUND DATA SHEET CASE NO: CUP 01-12 CASE NAME: Casa Montessori De Vista School APPLICANT: Jan Tavlor REQUEST AND LOCATION: Request to convert an existing residence located at 3016 Highland Drive to a private school for 45 children. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: That portion of Lot Twenty-one of Patterson's addition to town of Carlsbad, in the Citv of Carlsbad, County of San Diego. State of California, according to Mar, thereof No. 565, files in the Ofice of the Countv Recorder of San Dieno Countv, September 22. 1888. APN: 156-21 1-06 Acres: 0.7 acres Proposed No. of Lots/Units: 1 GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Land Use'Designation: RLM Density Allowed: 3.2 ddac Density Proposed: N/A Existing Zone: R- 1 - 1 0.000 Proposed Zone: N/A Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use: Zoning General Plan Site R-1-10,000 RLM North R- 1 - 10,000 RLM South R- 1 - 10,000 RLM East R- 1 RLM West R-1-10,000 RLM Current Land Use ~ ~~ - Single-family residence Single-family residence Single-family residence Single-family residence - ~~~ - Single-familv residence PUBLIC FACILITIES School District: CUSD Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 1 EDU ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 0 Negative Declaration, issued 0 Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated Other, Statutory Exemption, Section 15270 - Projects Which are Disapproved. DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant‘s statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board, Commission or Committee. The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your project cannot be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print. Note: Person is defined as “Any individual, fm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, mst, receiver, syndicate, in this and any other county, city and county, city municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group or Combination acting as a unit.” Agents may sign this document; however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and property owner must be provided below. 1. APPLICANT (Not the applicant‘s agent) Provide the COMPLETE, LEGAL names and addresses of persons having a financial interest in the application. If the applicant includes a coruoration or partnership. include the names. title. addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO ..APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publiclv-owned coruoration, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON- Corp/Part Title Address A. 7 OWNER (Not the owner‘s agent) Provide the COMPLETE, LEGAL names and addresses of persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Also. provide the nature of the legal ownership (i.e, partnership. tenants in common. non:profit, corporation. etc.). If the ownership includes a corporation or uartnershiu. include the names, title. addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE WIA) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publiclv- o\vned corporation, include the names. titles. and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary,) L 4 Person X - Corp/Part Title bUr e b r Title 2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576 * (760) 438-11 61 - FAX (760) 438-0894 @ /7 1 J. NON-PROFIT 0 mA&ATION OR TRUST If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a nonprofit organization or a trust. list the * names and addresses of ANY person serving as an officer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the. Non ProfitfTrust Non Profiflrust Title Title Address Address 4. Have you had ore than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff. P * Boards, Commi ions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months? 0 Yes d No If yes, please indicate person(s): NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary. 1 certify that all the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. h 6 Signature of owneddate v Signature of owneddate v 6 Print or type name of owner / Print or type name of applicant ' Signature of owner/applicant's agent if applicable/date Print or type name of owner/applicant's agent L H:ADMIN\COUNTER\DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 5/98 Page 2 of 2 ' /8 P. 01 Montessori Arts and Sciences 3016 Highland Drive Carlsbad, CA -1915 (760) 434-6440 Fax (760) 434-6440 Project Description/ Explanation CUP 01 -1 2 Project Name- Casa Montessori Elementary Applicant Name- Jan Taylor The Applicant wishes to relocate a small Montessori elementary schod for chiMren aged 6-12 years of age to 3016 Highland Drive, the south east corner of Carlsbad Village Drive and Highland Drive near Carlsbads Cole Library and Fire Station 1. This school fill function as an individualized program for maximum 45 children In grades 1-6. The students will use hands-on equipment and materials following the philosophy of Maria Montessori. Universal human values, community Service and compassion for others is part of the philosophy. The educational approach combines visual, auditory, oral, kinetic and imaginative learning styles to maximize a child's , potential. The proposed project will also serve as an extension of the developmental programs provided by Casa Montessori de Carlsbad, located for over thirty years at 3470 Madison Street. It is proposed that the existing singlestory house be converted into a schoolhouse of classrooms and a small office for administration. Although property would not function as a singlefamily residence, the converted school would maintain the home-like exterior to be compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood. An additional 868 sq. foot classroom is proposed to be attached to the back of the existing bullding. It will be similar to the existing building with a ramp to a redwood deck, while maintaining the existing building's stucco exterior, painted with white and brick shadow. It is proposed to remodel the garage on the northeast side of the house for use as a multipurpose room and library In which music and foreign language classes can be held. The bathroom facilities would be modernized and enlarged to provide adequate sanitary facilities for the students or staff. The proposed school basically follows the traditional school year set by the Cartsbad Unified School District. Since Montessori children work at their own pace fotlowing guidetines within the curriculum, 'the Casa Montessori proposes to have staggered drop-off times between 830 and 9:15 a.m. and staggered dismissal times from 3:OO- 345 p.m. to accommodate any concerns that there may be traffic congestion. A staff person or parent volunteer will greet and dismiss the children. Since the proposed school will not have preschool. drivers will not be required to sign the /9 P. 03 children in and out. Parents will not have to park and get out of their cars. Extended day care will be provided for up to 14 children, which is intended to be a setvice to the families who work outside home or when desired. The major use of the property is tor classroom instruction and quiet study, however, the children will be allowed to play outside during lunch and recess which begins at approximately 12:30 p.m. The majority of this use will be on the north side of the property to avoid disturbing any nearby residents. A play field of grass is proposed for a SoCcBr field at the east side of the property. A sound attenuation wall topped with a fence and a border of trees and shrubbery will shelter sound and keep balls on the property. A sand area is proposed with a swing and a regulation climbing structure. A sports court for basketball, four-square, tether ball and jump rope is proposed. The maximum staff that would be on the premises for either part or all of the school day is two head teachers, two assistants and one administrative person. Although it is required to have only one parking space for each staff member, the applicant has proposed 10 spaces so visitors would not be required to park on Highland Drive. The proposed drive is two-lane and there is room for dropping osf and picking up students, with cueing space for cars and room to pass. This front half of the property will be developed in to a circular drive which will allow a fire truck the radius needed to turn. A handicapped access to the right of way is possible, but the applicant requests delaying construction until the Alternate Street Design be placed. It is proposed to have a sheltered patio area. Plants that represent Modiversity will be used for botany classes and gardening of flowers and vegetables wilt occur In raised garden boxes. A tile sign, which is 3 feet by 2.5 feet and iettered Cam Montessori Elementaty would be attached to the front of the building. Cut and fill totals are 560 cubic yards with landscaping that will be compatible with the neighborhood. A landscape buffer has been proposed to screen parking from Carlsbad Village Drive and Highland Drive in order to maintain the appearance of the R-10,000 zone. Applicant respectfully submits this application for the discretionary use of a small school. It is believed that since mere is no zone in Carlsbad codes that is designed especiatly for schools. The property at 3016 Highland Drive, that is close to other civic, church, agricultural and professional uses, is 8 greater and valid use than a single-family residence. The applicant has been either a teacher or director of Casa Montessori schools since 1981 , and believes it to be a community benefit to have the elementary program near to the preschool-kindergarten. Those choosing this option wil be serviced better. +!-\ N i G. - I z 1 I I '3 I ELEMENTARY i a a3 I The City of Carlsbad Planning Department A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Item No. @ Application complete date: February 1, 2002 P.C. AGENDA OF: October 2,2002 Project Planner: Barbara Kennedy Project Engineer: David Rick SUBJECT: CUP 01-12 - CASA MONTESSORI DE VISTA SCHOOL - Request for a private school located at 3016 Highland Drive on a 0.7 acre lot. The site is located at the southeast comer of the intersection of Highland Drive and Carlsbad Village Drive in the R-1-10,000 zone and in Local Facilities Management Zone 1. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 5225 DENYING Conditional Use Permit CUP 01 -12, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. 11. INTRODUCTION The applicant requested a continuance of this item from the July 17,2002 Planning Commission meeting to the August 7, 2002 meeting so that the applicant could try to modify the project design in response to staff concerns as outlined in the staff report. Subsequently, the applicant’s representative requested a second continuance to a date uncertain due to scheduling conflicts. Since that time, the applicant has submitted new plans and has reduced the proposed number of children at the school from 45 to 36. The site plan has been revised to address most of the concerns staff had regarding the project’s conformance with development standards. For example, the project now incorporates an adequately designed handicap ramp, parking no longer encroaches into the front setback, landscape areas have now been provided along the side property lines, and the fencing has been reduced to 6 feet high. The remaining concerns that staff has relate to: 1) traffic and safety, 2) aesthetics, and 3) neighborhood compatibilitykommunity character to the project. Traffic and Safety One of staffs greatest concerns is the site’s ability to accommodate on-site circulation without detrimentally impacting street circulation. According to the most recent plans, the number of students has been reduced fiom 45 to 36. In addition, the school start and dismissal times will be separated by three 20 minute intervals in the morning and three 20 minute intervals in the afternoon. The schedule is as follows: Track I - 8:30 AM/3:00 PM Track I1 - 850 AM/3:20 PM Track I11 - 9:lO AM/3:40 PM CUP 01-12 - CASA MONTESSORI DE VISTA SCHOOL October 2,2002 PAGE 2 Since no Track will contain more than 12 students, 9 to 10 vehicles per interval are expected based on a ratio of 1.3 students per vehicle. A total of 27 vehicles are expected to occur during each start and dismissal time. If the school were to operate accordingly, the parking and driveway design is suitable to handle the expected traffic since 12 stacking spaces and 4 employee parking spaces are proposed. However, monitoring and enforcement of the staggered times by City staff would be difficult and impracticable. Because the arrival and dismissal times are so critical to the functioning of the site, staff still cannot support the project based on a good faith effort by the school operators to continuously enforce the staggered times. If the school operators did not stagger start and dismissal times, then a majority of the vehicles could arrive within 5 to 10 minutes of start or dismissal times. With the ability to accommodate up to 12 vehicles, the site would be insufficient to handle 27 or more vehicles. This scenario creates the potential for vehicles to back into Highland Drive. Staff has the same concerns about special event parking and circulation. The traffic report states that such events will be staggered or held off-site and if necessary, the school will make arrangements for shared parking with a nearby school. Again, staff would be unable to effectively enforce these measures. The applicant proposes that 6 “off-peak” parking spaces would be provided parallel to the drive aisle (see attachment 4) for parents who would need to park and come into the school. These spaces would only be available after the drop-off or pick-up times since the use of these spaces would conflict with the flow of traffic during drop-off or pick-up times. Again, parking in these areas would need to be monitored and enforced by the school operator. Staff feels that the arrangement has a great potential to create circulation conflicts, particularly if parents want to meet with teachers either prior to or after school. The Fire Department also expressed concerns about the proposed redesign. The areas proposed for stacking and “off-peak” parking reduce the drive aisle widths to less than 24 feet and an emergency vehicle would be unable to circulate through the parking area. In addition, the driveway into the project would also still need to be increased to at least 27’ wide. The applicant has addressed the Fire Departments concerns by indicating that a fire sprinkler system would be installed for the project. Although sprinkerling the building is acceptable, according to the Fire Department it is not the preferred solution. Aesthetics Staff also has concerns regarding the aesthetics of the proposal, specifically as it relates to the proposed parking area. The parking area has been redesigned so that it no longer encroaches into the fiont setback and 5’ wide landscape areas are provided along the side property lines in most areas. The parking area is about 10 feet above the street elevation and because of the topography, will be quite visible from Carlsbad Village Drive. Even with the additional landscape areas, the project still results in a relatively large paved parking lot. Also, rather than having a full 20’ landscaped setback along the frontage, about 40% of that area is taken up by the handicap ramp. So although landscaping may partially screen vehicles, the introduction of a commercial parking lot into the neighborhood will certainly contrast with the existing residential community character and aesthetics. a7 CUP 01-12 - CASA MONTESSORI DE VISTA SCHOOL October 2,2002 PAGE 3 Neiphborhood Compatibility . Subsequent to the July 17,2002 Planning Commission meeting, staff received 9 additional letters of support and a petition of support with 38 signatures. Staff also received an additional 42 letters of opposition and a replacement petition of opposition with 169 signatures. When the applicant first submitted a preliminary review to the City in April 1999 (PRE 99-3 l), staff brought up neighborhood concerns and compatibility with the surrounding properties as a primary issue for the project. Although the site is located near government buildings such as the library, City Hall and the fire station, it is adjacent to single family residential properties in a neighborhood that epitomizes “Olde Carlsbad”. The majority of the people opposing the project live nearby and are concerned about the impact it will have on traffic, safety, and the community character. In contrast, most of the project advocates live outside of the immediate project vicinity. Given that the project will affect the “Olde Carlsbad” character of the neighborhood by introducing a commercial use which is not compatible with the surrounding residential uses; and that the operations of the school have the potential to cause safety and traffic concerns, staff still cannot support the proposal. A revised resolution of project denial is attached. In regard to the current use of the property, the applicant has approval for a large family day care for up to 14 children at this site. A complaint was received on 9-3-02 by Code Enforcement regarding the use of the house as a school without the required CUP. The schooVday care matter is pending fkther investigation and analysis by Code Enforcement and the City Attorney’s office. ATTACHMENTS: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Revised Planning Commission Resolution No. 5225 (CUP) Location Map Revised Reduced Exhibits Parking and Fire Access Exhibit Letter fiom Jack Henthorn Jz Associates dated 9/5/02! addressing changes to plans Additional letterdpetition of support Additional Letterdpetition of opposition List of local private schools with approval dates Staff Report dated July 17,2002 (with attachments) Revised Full Size Exhibits “A” - “D” dated October 2,2002 ” --- I 9 fiq 3 * e m 2; 0 .$ i=5 a > W -I W a G [I W I- X. W .. .. .. I t"""" I IC--/ 1 34 E Jack Henthorn & Associates 5365 Avenida Encinas, Suite A Carlsbad, California 92008 (760) 438-4090 Fax (760) 438-0981 September 5,2002 Barbara Kennedy City of Carlsbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Subject: CUP 01-12 Casa Montessori Elementary School Dear Ms. Kennedy: This letter is written to address the changes made by the Casa Montessori development team to address issues of neighborhood compatibility raised in the staff report dated July 17,2002 and subsequent meetings. These changes address both site plan and operational issues that are cited in the staff report to the Planning Commission as well as those raised subsequently by the Fire Department. The modifications have been made in an effort to insure safety and land use compatibility with the existing residential uses found in the neighborhood. Site Plan The site plan has beh reconfigured to: Accommodate vehicle stacking for pick up and drop off for 12 students (in addition to staff parking per ordinance) Accommodate 11 off-peak standard sized parking spaces Eliminate parking in the front yard setback Visually screen parking and drop off areas Provide a pedestridwheel chair accessible ramp meeting the 8% grade requirement and connecting to the existing sidewalk at Highland and Carlsbad Village Provide landscaped 5 ’ side yards Reduce the fence and wall combination height to the 6’ maximum Provide a location for check valves and other equipment related to the proposed fire sprinkler system. The operational chawes proposed include: Three 20 minute separated start/dismissal intervals 0 Restricted Physical Education activities to eliminate potential for play 0 ArrivaVDeparture-based parentheacher scheduling 0 Maximum student/staff load reduction fiom 4215 to 36/4 equipment to leave site. Each of the above referenced items is discussed below. Accommodate 12 vehicle stackinp spaces for pick UP and drop off (staff per ordinance) The primary concern associated with traffic circulation initially was with the potential for all vehicles to arrive at one time, thereby overflowing on to Highland Drive. The applicant is proposing to stagger startldismissal times into three 20 - minute intervals. This would result in a combined parkingktacking demand of 9 to 10 vehicles per interval according to the updated analysis fiom the project traffic engineer. This is based on 12 students per time interval and 1.3 students per vehicle-trip factor The new site configuration would accommodate 12 stacking spaces along with a fiee- flow center drive aisle to maximize the efficiency of the site during the arrival and departure times. This approach is further enhanced by the reduction in studenvstaff load and the three anivaVdeparture intervals. The start times would be 8:30 AM; 850 AM and 9:lO AM. Departure times would be 3:OO PM; 3:20 PM and 3:40 PM. Provide 11 off peak parkinq spaces The revised site plan would accommodate up to 11 vehicles at off peak periods while leaving a free-flow aisle for ingress and egress, and providing emergency vehicle turn- around space. Eliminate parking in the front yard setback Most of the revisions to the site plan occurred as a function of finding a solution to the pedestridwheelchair ramp issue. The solution was found by evaluating the site for future use by a residential owner requiring wheel chair access. This necessitated incorporating an 8% access ramp system into the front yard landscaping design. As a result, non-required angle parking was eliminated in favor of parallel spaces that function more efficiently during peak demand periods. Screen Darkinp and drop off areas The revised landscape plan shows that the designated parking area will be accessed via a residential 24’ wide driveway opening. The driveway opening will be flanked by landscape accent areas and will incorporate accent paving to clearly delineate the access to the site while softening the view into the site. The visual impacts are further reduced through the addition of a five foot wide landscaped strip adjacent to the southem property line, further screening the views into the,parking area fiom the south toward the north: Additionally, the central staff-parking island incorporates a landscape accent area on its south end that will function to break up the view into the driveway area from the west. The fiont yard setbacWaccess ramp area will be heavily landscaped with plant materials that will create a visual buffer between this site and properties to the west. It will also, offer visual relief for traffic viewing the site from west to east. Provide a pedestriadwheel chair accessible ramD meetin? the 8% grade reauirement and connectinp to the existing sidewalk at Hbhland and Carlsbad Villape The ramp, as shown on the plans, incorporates a switch-back system with a series of landings that will provide unrestricted access to the site and its facilities fiom the existing public sidewalk system. This ramp design will accommodate both pedestrian and wheelchair access through a pleasant, attractive landscaped setting. Provide landscalled 5’ side vards when the access ramp configuration was changed, an area was opened up along the south property line. This created an opportunity to provide a 5’wide landscape screen along the south property line, thereby effectively screening the proposed driveway and parking area from view from the south. Reduce the fence and wall combination height to the 6’ maximum The four-foot chain link fence has been removed from the top of the sound wall. The applicant has developed a physical education plan with alternative activities that would eliminate concerns that play equipment, such as sports balls, might exit the site on to Carlsbad Village Drive or adjacent private properties. The applicant is willing to accept a condition of approval that would restrict such activities. Operational items Three 20 minute separated.start/dismissal tracks The applicant is proposing the following schedule for arrival and departure (staddismissal) times: Track I - 8:30AM/3:00 PM Track 11 - 8:50M3:20 PM Track 111 - 9: 10 AM/3:40 PM Each track would contain a maximum of 12 students, who would be assisted from their transportation vehicles to the school facility. Restricted Phvsical Education activities to eliminate Dotential for Play equipment to leave site. Since the school provides all physical education equipment, the applicant is willing to accept a condition that would require that all play equipment be used in a manner that would preclude it from leaving the confines of the site. Arrivameparture based parentlteacher scheduling Parenvteacher conferences and other activities requiring on site parking will be scheduled on a track-by-track basis or off peak schedule when individual conferences are necessary. In addition, any activities involving the entire enrollment (to the extent that it would exceed a projected demand in excess of available parking spaces) will be scheduled at offsite locations to insure that there would be no impact to the surrounding owners or neighbors. Maximum studentlstaff load reduction from 495 to 3614 After a full evaluation of the Montessori business plan and the past experience of the school, the applicant is proposing to reduce the maximum student load to 36 and the maximum staffing level to 4. This reduction has been proposed to allow the site to be to be redesigned in an attempt to address issues raised relating to neighborhood compatibility and those concerns expressed by surrounding residents. Fire sprinkler svstem The applicant has incorporated a fully automatic fire sprinkler system into the design of the proposed school. The system will be connected directly to the main water supply and will incorporate s check valve system and other features required to meet the Carlsbad Fire Departments concerns. The building lableled “care taker’s room” is proposed as a multipurpose room and will not be occupied for any residential or care taker purpose. This building was historically called the “care taker’s room”. General CommentslResDonses The proposed modifications insure that all impacts associated with the operation of a school at this site will be mitigated and compatible with surrounding residential uses. In fact, vehicle movements and parking conditions will be considerably better than found along most of Highland Drive. The site is well located for this type of use. It is immediately adjacent to circulation at a signalized intersection. It is within a block of library, fire, paramedic and civic facilities. 37 b The applicant’s redesign addresses all issues raised in the staff report and the findings used to support a recommendation to deny the project. Private schools are not a “permitted” use in any zoning classification, except upon the approval of a conditional use permit. The schools analyzed in the staff report appear to rely on a companion facility, or utilization of on-street public parking to meet parking and drop off needs. This proposal meets all requirements internal to the subject site and does not result in burdens being placed on public parking, or reliance on joint use agreements. The staffreport cites that ONE of the goals of the General Plan is “ To preserve the neighborhood atmosphere and identity of existing residential areas.” The residential character of this site would be preserved under the proposed plan. The visual character of the site would be dramatically improved with the addition of the proposed landscape screening. The revised landscaping plan screens the parking area fiom view fiom a11 directions. Although the report contends that 60% of the fiont yard area would be paved, it should be clearly noted that there is no restriction on paving outside of the REQUIRED fiont yard setback. There is no restriction that would prohibit a residential owner fiom constructing a basketball court, parking area for an RV, or any other surfaced area between the house and the 20’ statutory setback. Therefore, as revised, the site plan would not conflict with this goal on the basis as set forth in the staff report. It is requested that the staff and members of the Planning Commission reconsider the project in light of the modifications to the site plan and operational plan for the proposed school. Thank you for your consideration. pk E. Henthorn JEH:wpc. Copies: Chairman and Members Carlsbad Planning Commission Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director David Rick Assistant Engineer 38 PRIVATE SCHOOLS CUP# 55-60 students K-8 5/26/70 Beautiful Savior CUP 54 # of Children Grades Approval School Date Lutheran Church CUP 124 124 children 23mo. thru 9/22/76 Carlsbad Montessori Closed in August 2002 sp Highlighted Parcels The City of Carlsbad Planning Department A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application complete date: February 1,2002 P.C. AGENDA OF: November 20,2002 Project Planner: Barbara Kennedy Project Engineer: David Rick SUBJECT: CUP 01-12 - CASA MONTESSORI DE VISTA SCHOOL - Request for approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Conditional Use Pemit (CUP) for a private school located at 3016 Highland Drive on a 0.7-acre lot. The site is located, at the southeast comer of the intersection of Highland Drive and Carlsbad Village Drive in the R-1-10,000 zone and in Local Facilities Management Zone 1. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 5314 ADOPTING the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 5315 APPROVING CUP 01-12, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. 11. INTRODUCTION At the October 2, 2002 Planning Commission public hearing, staff presented the Casa Montessori De Vista School with a recommendation for denial. After hearing public testimony and considering the matter, the Planning Commission voted 4-2 (Ayes: Trigas, Heineman, Segal, and White; Nays: Baker and Whitton, Absent: Dominguez) for staff to return to the Planning Commission with a resolution approving the CUP for this project and to return the CUP with its findings and associated conditions for the Planning Commission to make a decision upon. A new resolution recommending approval with findings for support of the project is attached. Public hearing notices were sent to property owners within 600’ of the subject property. 111. DISCUSSION The new resolution makes findings for approval of the proposed school and adds certain project- specific conditions. During public testimony, the applicant and her representatives expressed that certain features would be incorporated into the project in order to ensure safety and land use compatibility with the neighborhood. The resolution incorporates these “applicant proposed” conditions as follows: Condition # 16. This condition requires that all plant materials around the perimeter of the parking area shall be installed fiom specimen size containers so that immediate screening of the parking area can be achieved. The sizes proposed shall be subject to approval by the Planning Director. Typically specimen size shrubs will be from 5 or 15 gallon containers and trees would be from 24” box or larger containers. CUP 01-12 - CASA MON1’ESSOR.I DE VISTA SCHOOL November 20,2002 PAGE 2 Condition # 18. The applicant proposes a maximum of thirty-six (36) children and a maximum staff level of four (4) persons at the private school. Conditions # 19. The applicant proposed the following arrival and departure (staddismissal) schedule to minimize traffic impacts at the school and on the surrounding streets: Track I - 8:30 AM/3:00 PM Track I1 - 8150 AM/3:20 PM Track 111 - 9:lO AM/3:40 PM Each track may contain a maximum of 12 students, who will be assisted from their transportation vehicles to the school facility by school staff personnel. Staff suggests that minor modifications to this schedule would be allowed with administrative approval by the Planning Director as long as the 20 minute stagger time is adhered to. Staff felt that the extended day hours for before and after school child day care would not be subject to the school arrival and departure schedule since it would help to reduce the peak period arrival and departure traffic. Staff is not proposing to limit the hours for before and after school care. Condition # 20. The applicant has proposed that parenvteacher conferences and other activities requiring on-site parking shall be scheduled on a track-by-track basis or off-peak schedule when individual conferences are necessary. In addition, any activities involving the entire enrollment (to the extent it would exceed a projected demand in excess of available parking spaces) will be scheduled at offsite locations to ensure that there would be no impact to the surrounding owners or neighbors. Condition # 21. The applicant has proposed that play equipment shall be used in a manner which precludes it from leaving the site. Condition # 22. Staff is clarifying that the existing building labeled “care taker’s room” is intended for use as a multi-purpose room and shall not be occupied for any residential or care taker purpose. The CUP would be valid for five years from the date of approval. In addition, CUP’S are reviewed by the Planning Department on a yearly basis to determine if all conditions of the permit have been met and that the use does not have a substantial negative effect on surrounding properties or the public health and welfare. If the Planning Director determines that the use has such substantial negative effects, the Planning Director will recommend that the Planning Commission, after providing the permittee the opportunity to be heard, add additional conditions to reduce or eliminate the substantial negative effects. Since the applicant currently has a daycare where children are “tutored,” staff will need to determine at what point the conditions of approval will be implemented. Since the daycare only allows a maximum of 14 children, any increase in the number of children over 14 would require . that the project be considered a school, and the conditions of approval would need to be implemented prior to that time. Or, if the applicant does not comply with the conditions of approval for a large family daycare (such as residing at the residence) the applicant would then 42 CUP 01-12 - CASA MONI'ESSORI DE VISTA SCHOOL November 20,2002 PAGE 3 need to convert the daycare to a school. The city's standard condition (#12) requires that building permits shall be issued for the conversion of the daycare into a school within 18 months of approval of the CUP, or the CUP will expire. The school would not be permitted to operate until the building permits are finaled and all associated interior and exterior improvements are installed. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The subject site is already improved with the existing building and the applicant is proposing to convert the existing structure and expand the building to accommodate the proposed use. A new parking area, landscaping, and play areas will be installed with the project. Staff has conducted an environmental impact assessment to determine if the project could have a potentially significant impact on the environment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Ordinance (Title 19) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. As a result of said review, the initial study (EIA Part 2) identified that the project could result in exposure of humans to noise levels in excess of the standards established in the Noise Guidelines Manual. The project site is identified as being located between the 60 and 65 dBA CNEL noise contour as shown on the Existing Noise Exposure Contours Map of the City's General Plan. The City's Noise Guidelines Manual states that the Non-Residential Interior Noise Guideline for schools is 45 dBA CNEL. Since the existing structure may not be adequately constructed to achieve an exterior to interior noise reduction to 45 dBA, a mitigation measure is included to require submittal of an acoustical analysis concurrent with plan check to determine if additional noise attenuation will be required. If it is determined. that mitigation is required, noise mitigation of the interior spaces is feasible and attainable through standard construction practices and techniques. In consideration of the foregoing, the Planning Director issued a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project on October 28, 2002. No comments were received during the 20-day public review. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 53 14 (Mit. Neg. Dec.) 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5315 (CUP) 3. Minutes of the October 2,2002 Planning Commission meeting 4. Additional letterdpetitions of support/opposition received on or after October 2,2002. 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1C 15 1E 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 EXHBlT 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5314 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR A PRIVATE SCHOOL ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT 301 6 HIGHLAND DRIVE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1 .' CASE NAME: CASA MONTESSORI DE VISTA SCHOOL CASE NO.: CUP 01-12 WHEREAS, Jan Taylor, "Developer," has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by E. Lamont Geissinger, "Owner," described as That portion of Lot Twenty-one of Patterson's addition to town of Carlsbad, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 565, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, September 22,1888 ("the Property"); and WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did'on the on the 20th day of November, 2002, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby ADOPTS the Mitigated Negative Declaration according to Exhibit "ND" dated October 28, 2002, and "PII" dated October 15, 2002, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: AcIf 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Findinm: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Casa Montessori de Vista School Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to APPROVING the project; and b. the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad; and d. based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Conditions: 1. Developer shall implement or cause the implementation of the Casa Montessori de Vista School Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. ... .. . ... ... ... ... .. . ... ... ... PC RES0 NO. 5314 -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2c 21 22 23 24 25 2f 2; 2E PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 20th day of November, 2002, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioner Heineman and White NOES: Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Baker, Segall, and Whitton ABSENT: Commissioner Dominguez ABSTAIN: None n SEENA TRIGAS, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 53 14 -3- MICHAEL J. HCMMILMR - City of Carlsbad MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project AddressLocation: 301 6 Highland Drive (APN 156-21 1-06) Southeast comer of the intersection of Highland Drive and Carlsbad Village Drive Project Description: Conditional Use Permit for the conversion and expansion of an existing residence into a private school for grades 1-6. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EM Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City that the project “as revised” may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Barbara Kennedy in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4626. DATED: OCTOBER 28,2002 CASE NO: CUP 01-12 CASE NAME: CASA MONTESSORI DE VISTA SCHOOL PUBLISH DATE: OCTOBER 28,2002 MICHAEL J. H~ZMMLER Planning Director 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us @ 47 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 BACKGROUND (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: CUP 01-12 DATE: October 15.2002 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. CASE NAME: Casa Montessori de Vista School LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: Ciw of Carlsbad, Planning Department: 1635 Faraday Ave.. Carlsbad. CA 92008 CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER Barbara Kennedy. 760-602-4626 PROJECT LOCATION: 301 6 Highland Drive PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: Jan Taylor 3016 Highland Drive Carlsbad. CA 92008 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RLM (Residential Low-Medium) ZONING: R-1-10.000 (Single-family residential, 10.000 sa.ft. min. lot size) OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): None PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: Conditional Use Permit to allow the conversion and expansion of an existing residence located at 3016 Highland Drive into a private school for 36 children in grades 1-6. A parking lot, play areas, and landscaping are also included with the development proposal. The 0.7 acre site is located on the southeast comer of the intersection of Highland Drive and Carlsbad Village Drive. Single family residential properties surround .the site. 1 Rev. 07/03/02 @ ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. 0 Aesthetics Geology/Soils Noise 0 Agricultural Resources 0 HazarddHazardous Materials 0 Popu1ation and Housing Air Quality HydrologyNater Quality 0 Public Services Biological Resources Land Use and Planning 0 Recreation Cultural Resources 0 Mineral Resources TransportatiodCirculation Mandatory Findings of Significance 0 Utilities LQ Service Systems 2 Rev. 07/03/02 49 DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have "potentially significant impact(s)" on the environment, but at least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required. 3 .Rev. 07/03/02 C5.d ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the . environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. 0 A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. 0 “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. 0 “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. 0 “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significantly adverse. 0 Based on an “EM-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the environment, but potentially significant adverse effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required. 0 When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant adverse effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. 0 A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant adverse effect on the environment. 0 If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. 4 Rev. 07/03/02 3-1 e An EIR must be prepared if “PotentiaIly Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant adverse effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of Ovemding Considerations” for the significant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; or (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts, which would otherwise be determined significant. 5 Rev. 07/03/02 5a Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? 0 0 0 0 c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTRAL RESOURCES - (In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model-1997 prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or 0 Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or 0 a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? 0 III. AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.) Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 0 0 applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Potentially Significant Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact lmpact Unless Less Than 0 OIXI 0 0' OIXI ON 6 Rev. 07/03/02 53 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means? Interfere substantially with the movement of. any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? Potentially Significant Impact cl. 0 0 0 0 o cl 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 I7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact IXI 0 cl cl 0 0 cl 0 0 0 7 Rev. 07/03/02 54 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: Cause a Substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in fj 15064.5? Cause a Substantial adverse change in the signifi- cance of an archeological resource pursuant to 0 15064.5? Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologi- cal resource or site or unique geologic feature? Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: Expose people or structures to potential Substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other Substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating Substantial risks to life or property? Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I7 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Impact IXI IXI Ixl IXI IXI IXI IXI IXI IXI IXI Ixl 8 Rev. 07/03/02 55& Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? W. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste withm one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or environment? For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or workmg in the project area? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 9 Potentially Significant Impact cl 0 0 0 0 I7 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact Unless Less Than 0 om 0 OH U 0 0 OH om 0 om 0 Rev. 07/03/02 56 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water recharge 0 0 OB such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 0 d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the 0 0 site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or Aver, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the 0 . OIXI site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off- site? f) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned 0 0 om stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 0 0 UIXI h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or 0 0 om Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, 0 0 OB which would impede or redirect flood flows? j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving flooding, including 0 0 om flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 0 0 uIx1 1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. 0 0 om m) Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, 0 om nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash) into receiving surface waters or other alteration of receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? 10 Rev. 07/03/02 5 7 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact om n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction? 0 0 0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? 0 0 om p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? IX. LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? I7 Ixl Ixl b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdxtion over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? cl 17 c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural comqnmity conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: 0 0 a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? 0 cl b) Result in the, loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? XI. NOISE - Would the project result in: 0 Ixl 170 a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? 0 om b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? 0 0 c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 0 0 d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 11 Rev. 07/03/02 4i-g Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact 0. 0 0 No Impact (XI (XI IXI (XI IXI For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, wih 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 0 0 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or worlung in the project area to excessive noise levels? XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: o 0 Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 0 0 0 Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, a need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: 0 0 0 0 0 0 IXI IXI IXI IXI IXI i) ii) iii) iv) v) .Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? 0 0 0 0 o XIV. RECREATION 0 0 I7 (XI a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 12 Rev. 07/03/02 59 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRC - Would the project: Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Result in inadequate emergency access? Result in insufficient parking capacity? Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus tum- outs, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project: Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects? Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage, facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Potentially Significant Impact 0- 0 0 I7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 Less Than Significant Impact cl NO Impact Ix1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ian 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ixl Ixl Ia [XI IXI Ixl Ixl 13 Rev. 07/03/02 bo Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? 0 0 OB f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? 0 0 u[xI g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and 0 OB regulations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 0 0 0 b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumula- tively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?) 0 0 UIXI c) Does the project have environmental effects, which 0 will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 0 om XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify. earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less Than Significant with Mitigation 14 Rev. 07/03/02 61 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AESTHETICS No Impact. The project will have no aesthetic impacts since the proposed building addition is designed . to match the existing structure. Specimen size landscaping will be provided around the parking area to screen vehicles from view. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES No Impact. There will be no impact on agricultural resources due to the proposed project. The subject site is zoned Single-family residential and the proposed use will be located on a previously developed site. The conversion of the existing residence to a private school will cause no impacts on agricultural resources. AIR QUALITY-Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The project site is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is a federal and state non- attainment area for ozone (03), and a state non-attainment area for particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM,,). The periodic violations of national Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), particularly for ozone in inland foothill areas, requires that a plan be developed outlining the pollution controls that will be undertaken to improve air quality. In San Diego County, this attainment planning process is embodied in the Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) developed jointly by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and the San Diego Association of Governments (SNAG). A plan to meet the federal standard for ozone was developed in 1994 during the process of updating the 1991 state-mandated plan. This local plan was combined with plans from all other California non- attainment areas having serious ozone problems and used to create the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP was adopted by the Air Resources Board (ARB) after public hearings on November 9th through 10th in 1994, and was forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. After considerable analysis and debate, particularly regarding airsheds with the worst smog problems, EPA approved the SIP in mid- 1996. The proposed project relates to the SIP andor RAQS through the land use and growth assumptions that are incorporated into the air quality planning document. These growth assumptions are based on each city’s and the County’s general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its applicable General Plan, then the project presumably has been anticipated with the regional air quality planning process. Such consistency would ensure that the project would not have an adverse regional air quality impact. Section 15 125(B) of the State of California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains specific reference to the need to evaluate any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable air quality management plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part of the RAQS. The RAQS and TCM plan set forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards. The California Air Resources Board provides criteria for determining whether a project conforms with the RAQS which include the following: 0 Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area? 0 Is the project consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan? The project area is located in the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located in an area where a RAQS is being implemented. The project is consistent with the growth assumptions of the City’s General Plan and 15 Rev. 07/03/02 La the RAQS. Therefore, the project is consistent with the regional air quality plan and will in no way conflict or obstruct implementation of the regional plan. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less Than Significant Impact. The closest air quality monitoring station to the project site is in the City of Oceanside. Data available for this monitoring site through April, 2002 indicate that the most recent air quality violations recorded were for the state one hour standard for ozone (one day in both 2000 and 2001) and one day in 2001 for the federal 8-hour average for ozone and one day for the 24-hour state standard for suspended particulates in 1996. No violations of any other air quality standards have been recorded recently. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less Than Significant Impact. The Air Basin is currently in a non-attainment zone for ozone and suspended fme particulates. The .proposed project would represent a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with the proposed project would be minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with the proposed project, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the proposed project is implemented. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 (a)(4), the proposed project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considered de minirnus. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No Impact. As noted above, the proposed project would not result in substantial pollutant emissions or concentrations. No impact is assessed. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Impact. The proposed project constitutes use of an existing building for a private school and will not generate any odors. BIOLOGICAL. RESOURCES No Impact. There will be no impacts on biological resources due to the proposed project since the site has already been graded and developed with a single-family residence. The site does not contain any sensitive habitat or species. CULTURAL RESOURCES No Impact. The subject site is an already improved and disturbed site. It is developed with a single- family residence which will be converted into a private school. There will be no impacts on cultural resources. GEOLOGY AND SOILS No Impact. There will be no impacts on geology and soil since the project constitutes the expansion and conversion of an existing single-family residence into a private school. All new construction will be required to comply with UBC construction standards. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 16 Rev. 07/03/02 c3 No Impact. There will be no impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials. The project constitutes conversion of an existing building into a private school. The project is located in an urbanized area and is not adjacent to wildlands. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY No Impact. The project does not violate any water quality standards nor does it impact ground water supply. The project is conditioned to be consistent with the City’s requirements of National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The project consists of the, expansion and conversion of an existing residence into a private school and according to the flood insurance rate map, the subject site is located outside the 500 year floodplain. LAND USE AND PLANNING No Impact. The project is consistent with General Plan, Local Coastal Program and Zoning designations in that the site is designated as “Residential Low-medium Density” in the Land Use element of the General Plan and is zoned “Single-family residential”. These designations allow the establishment of a private school with a Conditional Use Permit. The project constitutes the expansion and conversion of an existing building into a private school. MINERAL RESOURCES No Impact. According to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, November 1992, the project site does not contain any mineral resources. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or mineral resource recovery site. NOISE Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The project site is located between the 60 and 65 dBA CNEL noise contour as shown on the Existing Noise Exposure Contours Map of the City’s General Plan. The City’s Noise Guidelines Manual states that the Non-Residential Interior Noise Guideline for schools is 45 dBA CNEL. Since the existing structure may not be adequately constructed to achieve an exterior to interior noise reduction to 45 dBA, a mitigation measure is included to require submittal of an acoustical analysis concurrent with plan check to determine if additional noise attenuation will be required. If it is determined that mitigation is required, noise mitigation of the interior spaces is feasible and attainable through standard construction practices and techniques. There may be an increase in exterior noise levels due to school children playing outside, however, a 6’ high solid masonry wall will be constructed along the east and a portion of the south property lines. A solid masonry wall such as that proposed is the most effective barrier for protecting the surrounding properties from on site ground level noise. POPULATION AND HOUSING No Impact. The project consists of the expansion and conversion of an existing single-family residence into a private school. As such, there will be no significant impacts on population and housing. PUBLIC SERVICES No Impact. The project consists of the expansion and conversion of an existing single-family residence into a private school. As such, there will be no significant impact on public services. 17 Rev. 07/03/02 Pf RECREATION No Impacts. Recreational facilities will not be impacted by the conversion of the existing residence into a private school. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC-Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? Less Than Significant Impact. The project will generate approximately 162 ADT, 78 morning peak hour tips and 76 afternoon peak hour trips. The school will have staggered start and dismissal times within three tracks of 12 students. The site plan can accommodate 12 vehicles in the stacking lanes and 4 parking spaces are provided for the teachers. Therefore, the proposed site plan can provide adequate storage for vehicles that are picking-up or dropping off children. According to the traffic study, the intersection Carlsbad Village Drivernighland Drive will operate at LOS A with the proposed project and no improvements are required at the intersection nor are any off-site improvements identified in the traffic study for the proposed project. The proposed project would not result in a significant increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of’the street system. The impacts from thr proposed project are, therefore, less than significant. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less Than Significant Impact. SANDAG acting as the County Congestion Management Agency has designated three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway segments in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The Existing and Buildout average daily traffic (ADT) and Existing LOS on these designated roads and highways in Carlsbad is: Existing ADT* - LOS Buildout ADT* Rancho Santa Fe Road 15-32 “A-C” 28-43 El Camino Real 21-50 “A-C” 32-65 Palomar Airport Road 10-52 “A-B” 29-77 SR 78 120 “F” 144 1-5 183-198 “D” 2 19-249 *The numbers are in thousands of daily trips. The Congestion Management Program’s (CMP) acceptable Level of Service (LOS) standard is “E, or LOS “F” if that was the LOS in the 1990 base year (e.g., SR 78 in Carlsbad was LOS “F” in 1990). Accordingly, all designated roads and highways are currently operating at or better than the acceptable standard LOS. Note that the buildout ADT projections are based on the full implementation of the region’s general and community plans. The proposed project is consistent with the general plan and, therefore, its traffic was used in modeling the buildout projections. Achievement of the CMP acceptable Level of Service (LOS) “E’ standard assumes implementation of the adopted CMP strategies. Based on the design capacity(ies) of the designated roads and highways and implementation of the CMP strategies, they will function at acceptable level(s) of service in the short-term and at buildout. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffc levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 18 Rev. 07/03/02 65‘ No Impact. The proposed project does not include any aviation components. The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the McClellan-Palomar Airport. It would not, therefore, result in a change of air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks. No impact assessed. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses? No Impact. All project circulation improvements will be designed and constructed to City standards; and, therefore, would not result in design hazards. The proposed project is consistent with the City’s general plan and zoning. Therefore, it would not increase hazards due to an incompatible use. No impact assessed. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. The proposed project has been designed and will be conditioned to satisfy the emergency requirements of the Fire and Police Departments. No impact assessed. 0 Result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact. The proposed project provides one parlung space per employees plus an adequate area for loading and unloading of children, consistent with the zoning code requirements. No impact assessed. g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)? No Impact. The project is adjacent to an existing bus line and bicycle lane. There is adequate space at the rear of the site for bicycle storage if necessary. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS No Impacts. The project consists of the conversion of an existing residence into a private school. No significant impacts on utilities and services systems are anticipated. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE No Impact -The proposed conversion of the existing residence to a private school will not degrade the quality of the environment. The project site does not contain any fish or wildlife species. Therefore, the project will not reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species. The project site is currently developed with an older residential structure and the site has been previously disturbed by grading, and is not identified by any habitat conservation plan as containing a protected, rare or endangered plant or animal community. Therefore, the project will not threaten or reduce the number a plant or animal community. Although the residence is listed on the City’s Historic Resources Inventory, it is not listed as a significant resource. The existing residence will be preserved and the proposed addition is complementary to the existing architectural design. The project will not result in the elimination of any important examples of California History or prehistory. Less Than Significant Impact -There are two regional issues that development within the City of Carlsbad has the potential to have a cumulatively considerable impact on. Those issues are air quality and regional circulation. As discussed above, the project would contribute to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with the development would be minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with the development of the site as a school, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the development is implemented. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15 130 (a)(4), the project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considered de minimus. Any impact is assessed as less than ‘significant. 19 Rev. 07/03/02 66 Also, as discussed above, the County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) has designated three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway segments in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The CMA has determined, based on the City’s g-ro\\-th projections in the General Plan, that these designated roadways will function at acceptable levels of service in the short-term and at build-out. The project is consistent with the City’s growth projections, and therefore, the cumulative impact from the project to the regional circulation system is less than significant. With regard to any other potential impact associated with the project, City standards and regulations will ensure that the development of the site will not result in a significant cumulative considerable impact. Less than Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated - Based upon the nature of the project and the fact that future development of the site will comply with City standards, the project will not result in any direct or indirect substantial adverse environmental effects on human beings. The project site is located in an area which may be exposed to significantly high noise levels generated from traffic on adjacent roadways. As discussed above, any potential impact from noise can be mitigated to a level less than significant through construction techniques. If, after review of an acoustical analysis, noise mitigation measures are required they will be incorporated into the desigdupgrades for the building. Any future development on the site will be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, regional and City regulations, which will ensure the development of the site will not result in an adverse impact on human beings, either directly or indirectly. EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008. 1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01). City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994. 2. City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analvsis and Maming Study, November 1992. 3. Revised Traffic Impact Analvsis for Prouosed 45-student Casa Montessori De Vista School in the City of Carlsbad, Damell & Associates, Inc., April 22,2002. 4. Casa Montessori De Vista School in the Citv of Carlsbad - Reduced Trip Generation, Darnel1 & Associates, Inc., July 25, 2002. 20 Rev. 07/03/02 b? LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES Prior to issuance of a building permit, the owner shall submit an acoustical analysis which analyzes the noise impacts of the roadway on the interior spaces of the building. If it is found that interior noise levels exceed 45 dBA, then recommendations for interior noise mitigation shall be included. The acoustical consultant shall review the building plans and submit a letter stating that that the building plans have been designed (existing and proposed construction) to comply with the State of California interior noise standard of 45 CNEL. The architectural plans shall incorporate any additional measures (thicker glazing, sound absorption material, shielding of vents, or artificial circulation system) to attenuate the noise to an acceptable level. Where windows are required to be unopenable or kept closed in order to meet the interior noise standards, mechanical ventilation and cooling, if necessary, shall be provided to maintain a habitable environment. The system shall supply two air changes per hour to each habitable room including 20% (one-fifth) fresh make-up air obtained directly from the outdoors. The fresh air inlet duct shall be of sound attenuating construction and shall consist of a minimum of ten feet of straight or curved duct of six feet plus one sharp 90’ bend. APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. 21 Rev. 07103102 b(51 W .. z b9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5315 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PRIVATE SCHOOL ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT 3016 HIGHLAND DRIVE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. CASE NAME: CASA MONTESSORI DE VISTA SCHOOL CASE NO.: CUP 01-12 WHEREAS, Jan Taylor, "Developer," has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by E. Lamont Geissinger, "Owner," described as That portion of Lot Twenty-one of Patterson's addition to town of Carlsbad, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 565, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, September 22,1888 ("the Property"); and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Conditional Use Permit as shown on Exhibit(s) "A" - 'ID" dated October 2, 2002, on file in the Carlsbad Planning Department, CASA MONTESSORI DE VISTA SCHOOL - CUP 01-12, as provided by Chapter 21.42 and 21.50 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 17th day of July, 2002, on the 2nd day of October, 2002, and on the 20th day of November, 2002 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the CUP. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission APPROVES CASA MONTESSORJ DE VISTA SCHOOL - CUP 01-12, based on the following findings: Findinm: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. That the requested use is necessary or desirable for the development of the community, is essentially in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan, and is not detrimental to existing uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the proposed use is located, in that the development of the site for a private school would be consistent with the General Plan objective “to preserve the neighborhood atmosphere and identity of existing residential areas” in that the project will not detract from the quality of the neighborhood; and the traffic generated by the school will not conflict with the existing residential uses. That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, in that the site can accommodate the required handicap pedestrian ramp, parking lot, and landscape areas without the need for a variance from development standards. That all the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features necessary to adjust the requested use to existing or permitted future uses in the neighborhood can be provided and maintained, in that sound walls will be provided adjacent to the existing residential properties and specimen size landscaping will be installed around the parking area for immediate screening of the parking lot. That the street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic generated by the proposed use, in that the proposed on-site circulation will not impact street circulation since the project will be required to comply with the proposed staggered start/dismissal times, and on-site parental parking will be not be permitted during the start/dismissal times. The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project. Conditions: Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first. 1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions 0; seek damages for their violation. No PC RES0 NO. 5315 -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City’s approval of this Conditional Use Permit. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the Conditional Use Permit documents, as necessary to make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval. Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project are challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section 66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be invalid unless the City Council determines that the project without the condition complies with all requirements of law. Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of, the Casa Montessori de Vista School Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and attorney’s fees incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City’s approval and issuance of this Conditional Use Permit, (b) City’s approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non- discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c) Developer/Operator’s installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby, including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. This obligation survives until all legal proceedings have been concluded and continues even if the City’s approval is not validated. Developer shall submit to the Planning Department a reproducible 24” x 36”, mylar copy of the Site Plan reflecting the conditions approved by the ‘final decision making body. Developer shall include, as part of the plans submitted for any permit plan check. a reduced legible version of all approving resolution(s) in a 24” x 36” blueline drawing format (including any applicable Coastal Commission approvals). Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the Director from the Carlsbad Unified School District that this project has satisfied its obligation to provide school facilities. PC RES0 NO. 5315 -3- 72 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required as part of the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5314 for those other approvals. This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this project within 18 months &om the date of project approval. Construction and installation of all required improvements, including but not limited to parking areas, handicap ramp, walls, fencing, and landscaping as shown on the approved plans shall be completed prior to operation of the building as a school. Building permits will not be issued for this project unless the local agency providing water and sewer services to the project provides written certification to the City that adequate water service and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at the time of the application for the building permit, and that water and sewer capacity and facilities will continue to be available until the time of occupancy HousinP (Non-Residential) 15. Developer is aware that the City is preparing a non-residential housing impact fee (linkage fee) consistent with Program 4.1 of the Housing Element. The applicant is further aware that the City may determine that certain non-residential projects may have to pay a linkage fee, in order to be found consistent with the Housing Element of the General' Plan. If a linkage fee is established by City Council ordinance andor resolution and this project becomes subject to a linkage fee pursuant to said ordinance andor resolution, then the Developer, or hishedtheir successor(s) in interest shall pay the , linkage fee. The linkage fee shall be paid at the time of issuance of building permits, except for projects involving a request for a non-residential planned development for an existing development, in which case, the fee shall be paid on approval of the final map, parcel map or certificate of compliance, required to process the non-residential PUD, whichever pertains. If linkage fees are required for this project, and they are not paid, this project will not he consistent with the General Plan and approval for this project will become null and void. Landscape 16. Developer shall submit and obtain Planning Director approval of a Final Landscape and Irrigation Plan showing conformance with the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan and the City's Landscape Manual. All plant materials around the perimeter of the parking area shall be installed from specimen size containers so that immediate screening of the parking area can be achieved. The sizes proposed shall be subject to approval by the Planning Director. Developer shall construct and install all PC RES0 NO. 5315 -4- ,73 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. landscaping as shown on the approved Final Plans, and maintain all landscaping in a healthy and thriving condition, free fiom weeds,’trash, and debris. The first submittal of Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans shall be pursuant to the landscape plan check process on file in the Planning Department and accompanied by the project’s building, improvement, and grading plans. A maximum of thirty-six (36) children and a maximum staff level of four (4) persons shall be permitted at the private school. The following schedule shall be utilized for arrival and departure (startldismissal) times of the school: Track I - 8:30 AM/3:00 PM Track I1 - 8:50 AM/3:20 PM Track I11 - 9:lO AM/3:40 PM Each track may contain a maximum of 12 students, who will be assisted from their transportation vehicles to the school facility by school staff personnel. Minor modifications to this schedule may be approved administratively by .the Planning Director. Extended day hours for before and after school child day care are not subject to the school arrival and departure schedule. ParentAeacher conferences and other activities requiring on-site parking shall be scheduled on a track-by-track basis or off-peak schedule when individual conferences are necessary. In addition, any activities involving the entire enrollment (to the extent it would exceed a projected demand in excess of available parking spaces) will be scheduled at offsite locations to insure that there would be no impact to the surrounding owners or neighbors. Play equipment shall be used in a manner which precludes it from leaving the site. The existing building labeled “care taker’s room” is intended for use as a multi- purpose room and shall not be occupied for any residential or care taker purpose. This Conditional Use Permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Director on a yearly basis to determine if all conditions of this permit have been met and that the use does not have a substantial negative effect on surrounding properties or the public health and welfare. If the Planning Director determines that the use has such substantial negative effects, the Planning Director shall recommend that the Planning Commission, after providing the permittee the opportunity to be heard, add additional conditions to reduce or eliminate the substantial negative effects. This Conditional Use Permit is granted for a period of five (5) years from November 20, 2002 through November 19,2007. This permit may be revoked at any time after a public hearing, if it is found that the use has a substantial detrimental effect on surrounding land PC RES0 NO. 5315 -5- 73 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2; 25 uses and the public’s health and welfare, or the conditions imposed herein have not been met. This permit may be extended for a reasonable period of time not to exceed five (5) years upon written application of the permittee.made no less than 90 days prior to the expiration date. The Planning Commission may not grant such extension, unless it finds that there are no substantial negative effects on surrounding land uses or the public’s health and welfare. If a substantial negative effect on surrounding land uses or the public’s health and welfare is found, the extension shall be denied or granted with conditions which will eliminate or substantially reduce such effects. There is no limit to the number of extensions the Planning Commission may grant. Notice 25. Developer shall report, in writing, to the Planning Director within 30 days, any address change from that which is shown on the permit application. 26. Prior to the issuance of the building permit, Developer shall submit to the City a Notice of Restriction to be filed in the office of the County Recorder, subject to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, notifying all interested parties and successors in interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued a(n) Conditional Use Permit by Resolution(s) No. 5314 on the property. Said Notice of Restriction shall note the property description, location of the file containing complete project details and all conditions of approval as well as any conditions or restrictions specified for inclusion in the Notice of Restriction. The Planning Director has the authority to execute and record an amendment to the notice which modifies or terminates said notice upon a showing of good cause by the Developer or successor in interest. EnPineerinP: General 27. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site within this project, Developer shall apply for and obtain approval from, the City Engineer for the proposed haul route. FeedAgreements 28. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to. the City Engineer for recordation the City’s standard form Drainage Hold Harmless Agreement regarding drainage across the adjacent property. 29. Developer shall cause property owner to enter into a Neighborhood Improvement Agreement with the City for the future public improvement of Highland Drive along the subdivision frontage for a half street width of 30 feet. Public improvements shall include but are not limited to paving, base, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, grading, fire hydrants, and streetlights. 30. Prior to approval of any grading or building permits for this project, Developer shall cause Owner to give written consent to the City Engineer to the annexation of the area PC RES0 NO. 53 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 shown within the boundaries of the subdivision into the existing City of Carlsbad Street Lighting and Landscaping District No. 1, on a form provided by the City Engineer. Grading 3 1. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the site plan, a grading permit for this project is required. Developer shall apply for and obtain a grading permit from the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit for the project. Dedications/Improvements 32. Developer shall comply with the City's requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Developer shall provide improvements constructed pursuant to best management practices as referenced in the "California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook" to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge to sensitive areas. A Storm Water Management Plan for such improvements shall be submitted to and subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Said plans shall include but not be limited to notifying prospective owners and tenants of the following: All owners and tenants shall coordinate efforts to establish or work with established disposal programs to remove and properly dispose of toxic and hazardous waste products. Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor oil, antifreeze, solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives, and other such fluids shall not be discharged into any street, public or private, or into storm drain or storm water conveyance systems. Use and disposal of pesticides, fbngicides, herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers and other such chemical treatments shall meet Federal, State, County and City requirements as prescribed. in their respective containers. Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface pollutants when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface improvements. B C) Water: 33. Prior to approval of building permits, Developer shall meet with the Fire Marshal to determine if fire protection 'measures (fire flows, fire hydrant locations, building sprinklers) are required to serve the project. Fire hydrants, if proposed, shall be considered public improvements and shall be served by public water mains to the satisfaction of the District Engineer. 34. Prior to issuance of building permits, Developer shall pay all fees, deposits, and charges for connection to public facilities. Developer shall pay the San Diego County Water Authority capacity chargeis) prior to issuance of Building Permits. PC RES0 NO. 5315 .7- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 35. 36. 37. The Developer shall install potable water services and meters at a location approved by the District Engineer. The locations of said services shall be reflected on public improvement plans. The Developer shall install sewer laterals and clean-outs at a location approved by the District Engineer. The locations of sewer laterals shall be reflected on public improvement plans. This project is approved upon the express condition that building permits will not be issued for the development of the subject property, unless the District Engineer has determined that adequate water and sewer facilities are available at the time of occupancy. BuildinP: 38. 39. 40. 41. No part of the site or the structures thereon shall be utilized as an E-2 Occupancy as defined by the 2001 California Building Code prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy by the City or Carlsbad Building Department and Fire Marshal. All existing and new facilities on site shall be remodeled to meet the 2001 California Building, Fire, Electrical, Mechanical, and Plumbing Code requirements for an E-2 Occupancy prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy being issued. All facilities shall be modified to comply with the accessibility requirements contained in the State of California Code of Regulations Title 24 Part 2 Volume 1 Building Code prior the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The floor plan and buildings as shown on the exhibit will require significant revisions to meet the above requirements. Those revisions include but are not PC RES0 NO. 5315 For use by 36 students, the restroom facilities will need more fixtures and those restrooms will have to be fully accessible to the disabled. Hallways and doorways may require modifications depending upon door swing and hallway width. All entrances must be made fully accessible for the handicapped and accessible paths of travel must be developed amongst and between buildings on site. The type of wiring for the existing electrical system is unknown. If it is in Non-metallic wiring (most likely) that type of wiring is not an allowed use in an educational occupancy. The wiring system will need to be modified to comply with the current CEC for the new occupancy. -8- 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 E) The 2001 CBC requires minimum light and ventilation requirements for E occupancies. It must be demonstrated that the new occupancy (E2) complies with CBC Sec. 1202. Fire: 42. The project will require installation of a commercial-type fire sprinkler system with a backflow preventer and Fire Department Connection inlet valve just inside the property line in front. 43. The project will require installation of a fully compliant evacuationhe alarm system. Monthly fire drills, pursuant to state law, will be required of the school. Code Reminders 44. 45. 46. 47. Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section 20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided herein. The project shall comply with the latest non-residential disabled access requirements pursuant to Title 24 of the State Building Code. Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be designed in conformance with the City’s Sign Ordinance and shall require review and approval of the Planning Director prior to installation of such signs. NOTICE Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as “fees/exactions.” You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these feedexactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. PC RES0 NO. 53 15 -9- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 20th day of November, 2002 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioner Heineman and White NOES: Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Baker, Segall, and Whitton ABSENT: Commissioner Dominguez ABSTAIN: None SEENA TRIGAS, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: GICHAEL J. HOE MILL^ Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5315 -10- Planning Commission Minutes October 2,2002 CUP 01-12 - CASA MONTESSORI DE VISTA SCHOOL - Request for a private school located at 3016 Highland Drive on a 0.7acre lot. The site is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Highland Drive and Carlsbad Village Drive in the R-1-10,000 zone and in Local Facilities Management Zone 1. Mr. Neu introduced Item #1 and stated that the presentation would be made by Barbara Kennedy, Associate Planner, assisted by David Rick, Assistant Engineer. Chairperson Trigas opened the public hearing for Item #la Barbara Kennedy, Associate Planner, stated that the applicant is requesting approval of a CUP to allow a private school for up to 36 children in grades 1 through 6. The site at 3016 Highland Drive is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Carlsbad Village Drive and Highland Drive and is surrounded by single-family residences. The applicant requested a continuance from the July 17th Planning Commission meeting in order to address some of Staffs concerns and the following revisions were made. The number of students was reduced from 45 to 36, which allowed the number of teachers to be reduced from 5 to 4. This also reduced the ADT from 202 to 162. The parking area was reduced from 10 spaces to 5 spaces and the parking is now designed so that it does not encroach into the 20-foot setback. The handicapped ramp was reconfigured to meet design standards and now connects into the sidewalk at the intersection. Additional landscape is provided along the site property lines and the perimeter fence was reduced in height from 10 feet to 6 feet. Ms. Kennedy said the existing residence would be remodeled into classrooms and an additional 668 square feet of classroom space would be added to the rear of the existing structure. Play yards proposed in the rear are already provided in conjunction with the large family daycare that was approved in May. She pointed out the location of the parking spaces and said that vehicle stacking during arrival and dismissal times would occur in the drive aisle, which can accommodate 12 cars. Parents would not be allowed to park in that area during arrival and dismissal times. The 6 parking spaces along the drive aisle could only be used during off-peak hours. Ms. Kennedy addressed the following concerns that still remain after modifications were made to the site plan: Traffic and Safety - One of the major concerns has been the ability to accommodate the onsite circulation without impacting the traffic flow on Highland and Carlsbad Village Drive. Ms. Kennedy described the applicant's proposed staggered schedule that would provide three 20-minute intervals for arrivals in the morning and dismissals in the afternoons. In theory, the circulation could function properly if the parents adhere to the arrival and dismissal schedule; however, Staff feels it would be nearly impossible to enforce the staggered schedule. The proposal does not allow for onsite parking for parents who would need to stay and visit the school during arrival or dismissal times. The only area for parent parking is along the drive aisle and would only be allowed during the off-peak times. There is potential for circulation problems if the staggered schedules didn't function perfectly or if parents needed to park rather than just drop off or pick up a child. That could cause a backup of vehicles onto Highland Drive and conflicts with the flow of traffic on Highland and at the intersection. Aesthetics - Ms. Kennedy stated that Staff does not believe the proposed landscape would be adequate to screen the parking area because of the topography of the parking lot sitting up in a prominent location. Because the handicapped ramp is now located in the front setback area, it reduces the amount of landscape that would normally be in a 20-foot front setback. Neighborhood Compatibility - Staff believes the parking lot is inappropriate and incompatible with the existing neighborhood character. Even though there are other commercial uses nearby, all of the properties immediately surrounding the site are residential. Ms. Kennedy said the neighborhood has been very vocal about their opposition to this project beginning in 1999 when the applicant submitted a preliminary review for the school. There have also been a number of people who support the project. To date 31 letters of support and a petition of support with 38 signatures have been received. 49 letters of opposition and a petition of opposition with 169 signatures have been received. Ms. Kennedy said she has received phone calls from neighbors stating that the current daycare has caused traffic problems in the area. She said another neighbor called today to tell her that some of the children from the daycare were almost hit by a car and asked her to convey that to the Commission, as she was unable to attend the meeting. She was very concerned about the traffic and safety. Planning Commission Minutes October 2,2002 Page 5 Ms. Kennedy said that four findings must be made in order to recommend approval of the project. Staff does not believe the findings for approval can be made and recommends denial of the project for the following reasons: Is the use necessary or desirable for the development of the community, is it in harmony with the General Plan and is it compatible with the surrounding uses? The use is desirable but not necessary for the development of the community since there are already several private schools, including a Montessori School for ages 24 months through 6th grade in the northwest quadrant. The project does not meet the General Plan objective of preserving the neighborhood atmosphere and identity of the existing residential areas. The project detracts from the neighborhood character primarily because of the addition of a commercial parking lot that cannot be adequately screened due to the topography of the site and the location of the handicapped access ramp. Is the site adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use? The conversion of the residence to a school requires that it comply with certain standards such as providing parking and handicapped access. Because of the topography the site is not ideal for conversion to a commercial use. The area used for the ramp reduces the area in the front setback that could be used for screening the parking area. Due to the site constraints, much of the parking area is devoted to the circulation aisle to get the cars in and out of the one access point. They would normally expect overflow parking to occur around the site but in this instance on-street parking is limited. It is not allowed on Carlsbad Village Drive east of the intersection, and Highland Drive is not fully improved, which makes parking difficult along the street. Can all setbacks be met if certain features are provided to make the use compatible with the neighborhood? Although the project complies with the required development standards, the area for the landscape screening is reduced because of the location of the handicapped ramp. Staff also has concerns that there will not be adequate visitor parking because of on-street parking constraints and because the 6 parking spaces on the site for parents are only available during non-peak times. Is the street system adequate to handle the traffic generated by the use? The project is currently proposed to generate 162 ADT as opposed to 10 ADT for a single-family residence. The surrounding streets and roadways are adequate to handle the increase in ADT, however, the concern for this project is how it will impact the street circulation. Great potential exists for the project to disrupt the traffic flow on Highland because of cars waiting to enter the site. If the parents park on Highland it would impede the flow of traffic since the street frontage on Highland is not fully improved. The project also has the potential to impact the intersection if vehicles become stacked trying to enter or exit the site. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to enforce the staggered arrival and dismissal times since it would be dependent on both the parents and school operators to abide by the schedule. Since it would be critical to how the site functions Staff cannot support the staggered schedule without a viable means of enforcement. Ms. Kennedy stated that a statutory exemption has been prepared for the project pursuant to CEQA for projects that are denied. If the Planning Commission were to approve the project, additional environmental review would be required, either in the form of a negative declaration or a categorical exemption. Ms. Kennedy stated that Staff cannot support the proposal and recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution denying CUP 01-12. Chairperson Trigas acknowledged receipt of an additional group of petitions in support of the school submitted prior to the meeting. Commissioner Segall asked if cars would come in and out of the same driveway and if the area is adequate for the fire department. Ms. Kennedy pointed out the parking area and showed how cars would circulate in a one-way pattern. David Rick, Assistant Engineer, pointed out where the fire department could enter and then back up to exit, stating it isn’t their preferred option but is acceptable to them. Chairperson Trigas opened public testimony. Jack Henthorn, 5365 Avenida Encinas, Suite A, Carlsbad, stated he was present to represent Jan Taylor, the property owner and applicant. Mr. Henthorn wanted everyone to understand they are not seeking a $1 Planning Commission Minutes October 2,2002 Page 6 true land use change and are not seeking to establish a commercial use. They are seeking to establish a use that is not permitted in any of the City’s zones with the exception of the CUP process. He said they revised the plan and brought it into compliance technically with the City‘s requirements. They spoke with the fire department and made a number of modifications. A paramedic unit can access the driveway. Janann Taylor, 3016 Highland Drive, Carlsbad, the applicant for the project, stated that she and her husband lived in the Olde Carlsbad community since 1979. She described her credentials and stated that she has provided learning experiences for children in both public and private schools for 30 years. She described the Montessori philosophy of individuals to learn to one’s potential. She said she views the proposed school as offering an alternative approach to traditional education. It has been her goal to operate an independent facility for the elementary age child when land was available in Carlsbad. Casa Montessori de Vista was established in leased space and it was always the intention of the directors to obtain a permanent site for the school and to be conveniently located close to the parent school. She said the property fits the school’s needs and the square footage at 3016 Highland Drive is similar to the elementary school leased in Vista. She said it‘s close to Casa Montessori de Carlsbad in a corridor that they believe has civic, professional, and educational uses and is a good buffer to the busy artery to the neighboring residential area. Her intention has always been to be a benefit to the community and to be a good neighbor. The Dunne House, built in the 1930’s, is to stay intact, with a few modifications. Landscaping is to be enhanced and the property to remain in one parcel to retain the low intensity appearance. She said they have worked diligently to meet the concerns of the Planning Department and Engineering. They have met with the neighborhood and taken into account their concerns regarding traffic, visual impact, and compatibility. She said the school will provide a quality learning option for families who desire an individualized approach. The major use of the property is for classroom instruction and quiet study. Jack Henthorn added that he became involved in the project about a year and a half ago. There was concern at that point whether or not they could meet various City standards. After talking with the Staff, he became aware that there were concerns in the neighborhood and in February of 2001 he insisted that they have a meeting with the community to get first hand information on their concerns. They attempted to address those concerns as they went through the submittal and review process with the City. When they saw the Staff Report in July, with very detailed recommendations and analysis relating to the denial of the project, they were able to get a clear-cut definition of what Staff perceived the issues to be. They then requested a continuance so they could redesign to address those issues, recognizing that there was still the underlying concern with commercial encroachment into residential area. They believe that is addressed in the CUP process and the City’s ability to revoke that permit in the event that the applicant does not comply with the conditions that the Commission might impose. Mr. Henthorn said that Staff emphasizes the lack of resources that they have to enforce those conditions. However, the bulk of those conditions were proposed by the applicant and she is capable of enforcing those conditions without assistance from Staff or stretching Staff resources. The traffic study that was submitted to the City has been fully reviewed and not disputed. They acknowledge that the driveway and stacking count is adequate to handle the operation by the method proposed by the applicant. He said it was their understanding they had worked everything out with the fire department but the Staff Report indicated concern with the width of the driveway. There is currently more than 27 feet available in the driveway to accommodate fire department ingress and egress. The site had been deteriorating over the years and the owner began to improve the appearance and halt the deterioration. He described how the parking lot would be screened from the public view. He said it‘s his understanding that a CUP does not set precedents for commercial use and it can be revoked and is subject to review at the will of the Planning Director if someone complains that compliance isn’t being maintained. He said it‘s unfortunate that they’re here tonight with what on the surface appears to be a well thought out use for a site that will otherwise be demolished and become a higher intensity residential site. They feel very strongly that the applicant can enforce the conditions. Commissioner Segall asked if Staff had proposed parking and time restrictions and front yard setbacks. Mr. Henthorn said the applicants proposed the time restrictions, etc. He said the issue was with the handicapped access and pointed out how they were able to gain handicapped access that would work. Commissioner Segall asked if the number of students could be reduced from 36 if the Commission feels there is still too much traffic. Mr. Henthorn said they would defer to the Commission on that, but it would Planning Commission Minutes October 2,2002 Page 7 be up to the applicant to reevaluate their business plan and establish whether or not they could operate at the level the Commission felt was acceptable. Commissioner White asked what students do immediately upon arrival if their class does not start right away. Ms. Taylor replied that in the Montessori environment a child would start with whatever they have in mind that they would like to do or the teacher may work with that child. It‘s an independent program and the emphasis is really on the individual, so whether they arrive at 8:30 or 9:00 they still get in the full time for their schooling. Commissioner White asked what in the daily structure ensures that a child that is supposed to arrive at 8:30 arrives at that time and not at 8:40 or 8:45 because that suits the child better. She wanted to know how far she would be willing to go to enforce it with parent clientele who do not follow the rules. Ms. Taylor said they had a handbook for the last 17 years and there’s also a contract that the parents sign. If the director deems that it‘s disruptive, the contract is a legal document that states the director can ask that family to leave. She said the families attracted to Montessori are very sincere and really want to instill trustworthiness, accountability, and responsibility in their children. She said she holds people accountable if they say they’re going to do something and holds herself accountable as well. Commissioner Whitton asked when the property was purchased and if they spoke to the Planning Department before or after the purchase. Mrs. Taylor believed it was purchased in June of 1999 and said they spoke to the Planning Department about this property and others both before and after the purchase. Commissioner Whitton asked why the comment was made that the property could be demolished. Mr. Henthorn said it was made because there could be an intensification of the use on the site; it‘s large enough to be split into two residential lots and if that’s done it would intensify the amount of use on the site relative to the building area, etc. The Montessori School would maintain the low intensity use of the site. Commissioner Whitton asked if she is teaching the same curriculum at the childcare center that would be taught in the Montessori School. Ms. Taylor said no. Commissioner Baker asked if she was willing to take the chance of investing a sizeable amount of money to improve the property only to have the CUP revoked if there are issues. Ms. Taylor replied that she was willing to do that. Commissioner Baker asked if the extraordinary efforts she’s willing to do, such as staggered start and stop times, no balls, special PE programs, would hamper her ability to teach the Montessori program as it‘s intended. Ms. Taylor said they’ve been in a leased facility for the last 17 years and could not be there on the weekends or evenings and were using other facilities for activities and they can very easily adapt to the conditions they proposed. They can go offsite for more extensive athletics. Commissioner Baker asked if she considered looking at other sites with environments that might have been more conducive to their program. Ms. Taylor said they looked at very many sites and the same issues seem to come up regardless of where the site is. Commissioner Baker asked if a family has two children that start at different times, what would the student do whose class hasn’t started. Ms. Taylor said the staff will be there and there’s a lot of collaboration between the older and younger students. They would just come in and start their daily requirements. Commissioner Heineman asked if she felt confident that people would arrive in the morning and leave in the afternoon in a way that will solve any traffic problems. Ms. Taylor said she does and added that the families that attended Casa Montessori de Vista for the last 18 years are exemplary citizens, are very committed, and follow the rules. Commissioner Trigas asked if a parent wants to speak to a teacher when they drop off their child would they be asked to come back at an off-peak time. Ms. Taylor said they have had in their handbook that parents need to call and make an appointment because it‘s very disruptive, so they don’t entertain questions at the beginning of the day. Mark Nordquist, 3495 Seacrest Drive, Carlsbad stated that he had personal experience in Jan Taylor’s ability to keep and hold disciplines amongst both the children and parents. He mentioned a 3-day trip to 83 Planning Commission Minutes October 2,2002 Page 8 Catalina with 10 adults and 20 children and her ability to control with a velvet hammer and also to make sure it was a poignant learning experience. He expressed there is no question in his mind about her ability to make sure the parents show up on time to drop off and pick up their children. Lis1 Angel, 1315 Pine Avenue, Carlsbad, said she became aware of the Montessori School issue by a woman walking in the neighborhood with a petition who described a situation that sounded like it needed to be addressed because of the safety, traffic, and aesthetics concerns. She said they did not sign the petition because they were not informed of all the facts. She and her husband went to the site and found it was none of the things that was presented to them. She also noticed that one block east there was a Lutheran church and school, also in a residential area. She made another visit to the school during the week and found the environment quiet and enjoyable. The concerns of a noisy daycare-like environment were put out of her mind. She said it is not a detriment to the community. She said she has an objection to the false information she felt she received regarding the school. She said she and her four-year old son witnessed obscenities being yelled by a neighbor as the children were being dropped off and picked up - the same person who asked them to sign the petition to protect their community. She said it seems the petition was for personal reasons, not to protect the community. Lisa Ohlson, 277 Hillcrest Drive, Encinitas, said she has known Jan Taylor for nearly two years and her daughter was a student at Casa Montessori de Vista. Both of her daughters are currently in her care at the new facility. She addressed the issue of parking limitations and traffic flow at the former site and stated that Ms. Taylor was very stringent that the rules and guidelines be adhered to at all times. It was put in writing in the school information paperwork at the start of the year. She recalled times when Ms. Taylor asked them not to use the parking lot for conversation so as to respect the church facility and for the children's safety. She wanted to illustrate the point that she is certain that whatever the City of Carlsbad requires and requests of Ms. Taylor, she will comply with without hesitation. Elva Vollbrecht, 1363 Pine Avenue, Carlsbad, stated that she and her husband have lived next to the owner of the property on Highland Drive and Jan Taylor for 15 years. The care and concern for their own property have enhanced both their neighborhood and property values. Their landscaping is aesthetically pleasing and blends with the feel of Olde Carlsbad. She believes and knows they will maintain the property on Highland Avenue with the same care and concern they have demonstrated over the years on Pine. They are committed to preserving the integrity of the house and maintaining the grounds in keeping with other residences. Ms. Vollbrecht read a letter from Tim Ellrott, 3225 McKinley Street, Carlsbad, that stated after reviewing the plans for CUP 01-12 he feels it would be an efficient and wise use of the property. He asked that his name be stricken from the petition opposing CUP 01-12 and changed to support for it. The complete letter is on file at the Planning Department. Kim Shea, 3936 Syme Drive, Carlsbad, stated that her daughter attended Jan Taylor's school and it was a rich and well-rounded education unmatched by other schools. She stated how Ms. Taylor insisted that her students be respectful of the other school they shared space with. She wanted to be a good neighbor to the other school and the surrounding homes and knows she would demand the same standards of behavior from her students. The exacting standards expected from her students and their parents would assure a very perceptible impact on the neighbors while providing a wonderful learning opportunity for North County children. Jane Myers, 1362 Eldean Lane, Oceanside, CA was present in support of Jan Taylor and her vision. Both of her children have greatly appreciated their Montessori base at her school and which helped prepare them for their future. She said the best gift that a community can give itself is the best education they can give to their children. She said that Jan Taylor is the type of person you want in your community directing this type of environment for the children; she's a woman of great character and great integrity. She said it's important to take her at her word when she tells you exactly what she plans to do and how she will follow up. Ms. Myers said it's time to give Jan Taylor an opportunity to perform for the community and give the children the opportunity to grow and be strong citizens for Carlsbad. She spoke about how her children flourished as a result of Montessori. Don Dewhurst, 3425 Seacrest Drive, Carlsbad, lived in Carlsbad for almost 40 years and served two terms on the Planning Commission. He said this application is a win-win for the City of Carlsbad in his view because they can preserve the character of Olde Carlsbad and provide an opportunity for a very Planning Commission Minutes October 2,2002 Page 9 unique educational experience for future generations. He said he has seen Jan Taylor in action at one of their musical/art shows and spoke of how fantastic it was. He urged the Commission’s positive support of this item. Victoria Barnes, 127 W. Elder, Fallbrook, President of Fallbrook Montessori School, stated that Nicole Gless, of Casa Montessori de Carlsbad, 3470 Madison, was unable to be present and wanted to personally express her wholehearted support of Casa Montessori Elementary. Ms. Barnes said that before they purchased their present location their school had a CUP for over 70 children and it was in a residential area. She heard no complaints about traffic or any other negative in the 14 years and neighbors expressed true sorrow when they moved to another property. She said she receives inquiries from all over the world for people looking for Montessori schools in North County. It‘s an honor and privilege to have Montessori schools in the community. She said she knows Jan Taylor to embody the careful, competent model that children need to see in order to become involved citizens. She talked about the accomplishments of Maria Montessori in coming up with an astonishing method of teaching children and her exile to India from Italy, as Mussolini did not tolerate the Montessori teaching children to think for themselves. She highlighted children who attended Montessori schools, such as Anne Frank and Helen Keller. She said it‘s an insult to Jan Taylor to not take the time to investigate what she’s offering this community and the children and it‘s an insult to the future to take away this opportunity. Tim Johnson, 3275 Meadowlark Lane, Carlsbad, concurred with the prior speakers regarding Jan Taylor and the type of ship she runs. He thought it was important to understand that in order for Jan to put in what she does for these children, to try and instill this way of life, that you have to practice what you preach. That’s respecting yourself, respecting others, and respecting property. Michele Levy, 3021 Highland, Carlsbad, stated she lives across the street from 3016 Highland and was present to ask the Commission to deny CUP 01-12. She said 42 letters were written in addition to those that were previously submitted. She stated that as of 9/3/02 Jan Taylor has had a mini school of about a third of the people she wanted to have. She is in violation of the code and a letter was sent to her on 9/16 to notify her. For the last month children arrived as early as 8:OO and the flow of traffic into the property is dangerous with only a third of the children she wants to have. Ms. Levy said she took a video of the traffic flow. She said drivers have backed up on Highland creating a blind spot and wanted to know if they have to have an accident before the City realizes how dangerous this lot is for a business that will have 72 trips a day. She said people don’t drop off and pick up their children on the schedule set up and therefore, doesn’t believe the tracks will work. She asked if a person who is already breaking a law of the City is going to make sure that other people don’t break the law. She said during September they saw how often and how many parents park their cars and stay from 10 minutes to half a day. Linda Simpkins, 3042 Highland Drive, Carlsbad, said one of the nicest things about living on Highland Drive is the convenience of the shops, libraries, and freeways, but when turning on Highland Drive you’re immediately in a different world with a narrow tree-lined street, slow traffic, cooler, and quieter. Highland Drive is definitely unique Olde Carlsbad and definitely residential. There are 169+ signatures on a petition opposing a school at 3016 Highland Drive representing 148 surrounding properties, 70 on Highland Drive. This is a private school for children whose parents do not want to put them in their own neighborhood schools. She expressed concern that this is a high impact, high traffic, for- profit business that would not preserve the existing Olde Carlsbad atmosphere and identity of Highland Drive. She commented how an area like Aviara would not allow someone to put a commercial school in a home on one of their streets or pave a front yard for a commercial parking lot. She said Highland Drive does not have a developer or homeowners association to make sure the area is kept residential, and they are relying on the Planning Commission to enforce the zoning regulations and not alter the Olde Carlsbad residential feel of Highland Drive. She asked them to deny the project and shield them from this creeping commercialism Terry Simpkins, 3042 Highland Drive, Carlsbad, said that Jan Taylor is currently conducting an illegal school evidenced by the letter from Code Enforcement. He questioned how those children are being educated if she’s not conducting a school. He stated the issue is not Montessori, it‘s Staffs Report about this and the compatibility with the neighborhood. He said maintaining the integrity of the house is a bit of a smokescreen because you can hardly see the house with three cars there, and with the vegetation the house wouldn’t be seen at all. He said it‘s a for-profit business with a very high impact. He said a small manufacturing concern of about 12 people would have less impact with only 25-30 ADT. The school with 36 students, staff of 4, visitors, and deliveries, would be at least 80 traffic movements every day in and out of this property. If the proposed timing gets off by only a couple minutes there would be a huge mess with 83- Planning Commission Minutes October 2,2002 Page 10 traffic backed up onto Highland Drive. He said the current drop-off time for kids arriving at the daycare center averages 4 % minutes and he has a log to show what‘s going on. Several parents have already been seen backing onto Highland Drive. He said Jan Taylor’s husband’s car has already rolled down across the front lawn unattended across Highland Drive into Michele Levy’s yard. He said it‘s interesting that the people speaking in favor of Jan Taylor are mostly customers or business associates, not residents. Pat Hansen, 3514 Highland Drive, Carlsbad, said she believes that the Montessori School planned at that location is an excellent use for the former home of Mayor Dunne and the surrounding property. There are at least 8 schools within a half-mile radius of the property, all with considerably more than 36 students and all in residential neighborhoods. When she received a notice of the neighbors objecting to the high impact business she checked it out and was very impressed with all aspects after meeting with Jan Taylor. She said she was concerned for the safety of students and parents coming and going and was shown the plans for mitigating danger and for landscaping to keep the property attractive. She believes the small inconvenience of added traffic is greatly outweighed by service to children. She believes the City should make every effort to make it possible for this excellent educational facility to begin and that this school will upgrade the neighborhood. James Gardner, 1636 James Drive, Carlsbad, stated their property borders the Taylor’s property along the shared 5-foot chain link fence in the back, and felt they would be affected as much or more than anyone by this school. Traffic is already a problem on Highland and adding 35 more cars twice a day at already busy traffic times will cause a considerable jam at Highland and Carlsbad Village Drive and force the traffic to flow through all the surrounding residential neighborhoods. He expressed concern that the school would be a large liability issue for the surrounding neighbors and the safety issues will lead to increased insurance costs to the close neighbors. He said he works as a commercial fisherman and sleeps during the day. His bedroom is 50 feet from the proposed play area and he doesn’t think it‘s right to force him to listen to noise from 35 children up to 13 years old that someone else is making money from. Their privacy and happiness will be impaired by this proposal. He said Jan Taylor has been dishonest on many occasions in her representation of her school. Since the beginning, she’s done whatever she’s wanted from illegal grading to telling people that he had no problem with her school as she tried to recruit their support and she also threatened them with building and subdivision of the property. He said he doesn’t trust her to follow the conditions of a CUP and the neighbors would have to police her actions. He cannot tolerate this infringement on his home, family, and their quality of life and is very much opposed to this proposal. His wife added that they have nothing against Montessori schools; it‘s the point that it‘s going to be built in a residential area right above their house and wants that taken into consideration. Marilyn Janssen, 3307 Highland Drive, Carlsbad, said that Ms. Taylor is in direct violation of her current permit for a large daycare home. She said Ms. Taylor was caught red-handed on September 3rd by one of the City investigators with school age children at her daycare home during school hours. She asked what Ms. Taylor’s penalty would be for this blatant violation of her permit and if it would begin on the day she was caught red-handed by Code Enforcement or the day she received the letter to cease and desist her school operation. She wanted to know why it would take 2 days to go over the verbiage in Ms. Taylor’s permit before any conclusion of wrongdoing was reached, as she was told by Julia Coleman at the City Attorney’s office. She asked if Ms. Taylor is allowed to get away with this and come out unscathed, why do we even have City codes and laws. She said she assumes the Planning Commission intends to remedy this situation immediately. She said she has copies of her letter for each of them and would appreciate a letter from them addressing her questions and concerns. She felt the Montessori School would be inappropriate to their neighborhood. They do not need or want a business on Highland Drive. They are not opposed to the Montessori School, simply the location. Dr. David Waite, 1648 James Drive, Carlsbad, commented that this is a bad idea. It‘s a hazard to children and will add more traffic to James Drive. He said there is no way someone could sign something saying they would be there at a certain time due to the unknowns of traffic. Montessori School is a wonderful thing, but the people of the community have very valid concerns and they are not being taken into account. He said it’s not about education or people’s character; it‘s in the wrong place. RECESS Chairperson Trigas called a recess at 751 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes October 2,2002 Page 11 MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Chairperson Trigas called the meeting back to order at 8:03 p.m. Clarke Vollbrecht, 1363 Pine Avenue, Carlsbad, stated that he remembers David Dunne and his beautiful home. However, time changes things and sometimes property gets rundown and overgrown. Now we have an opportunity to preserve the home and should do so. As a retired public school administrator, teacher, counselor he believes this proposal gives them the best opportunity for both preservation and productive use. He believes the late Mayor Dunne would approve of this use for that facility and he urged approval of the proposal. Don Petersen, 1410 Yourell Avenue, Carlsbad, stated his two children attended Casa Montessori de Carlsbad and Casa Montessori de Vista. He said he couldn’t put into words the foundation they received through the education of Jan Taylor. The parents at Casa Montessori were so involved and so adherent to what Jan wanted that he doesn’t feel the restrictions put on them regarding dropping off and picking up will be a problem. He dropped off and picked his children up both at Vista and Carlsbad and was told several times that there will be no talking in the parking lot. He went on several field trips and has seen the way Jan operates. He hoped the Commission would take into consideration the children and the education they receive from Jan Taylor. Harry Ekdahl, 1630 James Drive, Carlsbad, stated he felt Staff made a good case for denying the application due to traffic concerns, parking that would be expected on Highland Drive, and noise from 36 children. He said he didn’t know why there was a decrease in the proposed perimeter wall from 10 to 6 feet, as that was not addressing the concerns of the neighbors. Marjorie Howard-Jones, 4823 Argosy Lane, Carlsbad, said for about 28 years she lived within earshot of Magnolia and Valley Junior High and she used to hear the children; it was a part of their lives and they didn’t think that was so terrible. Housing needs and uses of houses change. The Dunne house served as a home for many years and it was in a rural isolated location, but it‘s not anymore. Ms. Taylor has done some wonderful things without changing anything of the house and her use of it as a school would be a perfect example of adaptive reuse, which is the best way to save an historic property. She said converting it to a school would be the highest and best use of it and it would be a great asset to the community. Tim Royalty, 4947 Avila Avenue, Carlsbad, stated that his children attended Casa Montessori. He said Jan Taylor did not organize carpools, the parents did. He said he’s convinced that parents will again do car pools and reduce traffic that way. He added that her 6th grade class 6 years ago recently graduated and 3 graduated with honors and one was Salutatorian of Carlsbad High. He encourages passage if they want something that would be a tremendous asset to the Carlsbad community. Peter Taylor, 301 6 Highland Drive, Carlsbad, husband of the applicant, said it‘s not unusual for individuals to develop a commitment to a cause or goal that has positive implications for the community. It wasn’t easy to find a property for the expression of this educational contribution. Since taking ownership of the property at 301 6 Highland Drive, Jan and her father have worked to bring the property back from 15 years of neglect. When the process began to get the necessary approval from the City for a small school he said they expected the following: 0 It would take perseverance, determination, courage, time, resources, and community support. 0 To work closely with the City to design and engineer a suitable layout of facilities to maintain the integrity of the property. 0 To work closely with the City to design the appropriate access to the property made difficult by the unusual circumstance of being located at the intersection of a four-lane major artery through the city and a country lane. 0 The neighbors appeared to be interested, so a meeting was immediately scheduled to invite their participation. They did not expect the following: 0 Neighbors shouting obscenities to our family, friends, and visitors. 0 Neighbors making obscene gestures to our family, friends, and visitors. 0 Neighbors surreptitiously taking photos day and night over the last two years of the activities of our family, friends, and guests from all vantage points. 87 Planning Commission Minutes October 2,2002 Page 12 0 A City Planning Department acting with a pronounced prejudicial view of the application - a view that 0 City Planners requesting we continue to invest in traffic studies to prove and reprove that the traffic 0 City Planners imposing requirements well beyond those of most projects of this scale and impact, and Mr. Taylor said the applicant is seeking a rational, logical, balanced and unbiased consideration of a request for a CUP. The Planning Department‘s recommendation for denial lacks substance and is consistent with an attitude that has been exhibited today. Traffic studies have shown that the incremental traffic is inconsequential using the City’s formulas for impact analysis. The fact that the property has no dependency on off street parking, as all other schools in the area do, is an inconsistent application of standards. The property is being held to a higher standard than like properties in the neighborhood and already exceeds any observable standard regarding landscaping and presentation. Jan’s own standards will result in a presentation of the property that will enhance its current stature and community acceptance. He said all schools in Carlsbad are in neighborhoods and there are at least six within less than a mile radius of this property. All these schools create congestion during school opening and closing times and none are required to stagger school hours. There is no proof that the presence of schools drives down property values because they are incompatible. The structure is an integral contributor to the character of the neighborhood with the 1930’s architecture. This is an opportunity to bring some rational thinking to the consideration of this application and review it within the scale and context it deserves. This is your opportunity to restore fairness and reasonableness to this process and your opportunity to show the same commitment to the community that the applicant has demonstrated. was designed to pressure the applicant to go away. impact is inconsequential. offering no clear direction for engineering solutions. Jack Nathan, 1350 Oak Avenue, Carlsbad, stated he has no opposition to a Montessori School, but is opposed to the location. He said he lives on the corner of Highland and Oak and witnessed three accidents this summer, one near fatal of his next door neighbor. A blind resident was hit, and there was a head-on collision on Oak and Highland. The congestion has exponentially grown over the years and the speeding has increased. He was concerned that many people who will attend the school do not live locally and will be unaware of traffic patterns and children walking home from the other schools. He does not believe they need more cars and schools. Gary Nessim, 2987 Highland Drive, Carlsbad, stated that even though there would be traffic generated by the school it‘s not that significant compared to that generated from Buena Vista Elementary a few blocks away. There is no zoning anywhere in the City of Carlsbad to put a school because Planning doesn’t zone anyplace in the City of Carlsbad for a school. All schools are in residential neighborhoods only and there is no infill possibility for putting a school anyplace. He said the greater good is to have a school there and it happens to be a transitional area. As President of the Carlsbad Historical Society he said this is a very good way to save an historic home from the 30’s. If there are violations of the CUP, it doesn’t have to be renewed. He said there is a large quantity of on street parking located adjacent to the residence on Carlsbad Village Drive. Margie Dawson, 1232 Pine Avenue, Carlsbad, said she knows Jan Taylor and agrees with what everyone said in support of her and supports approval of the school 100 percent. She added that she lives directly across from Kruger House Preschool at Basswood and Pine and there has never been an impact or huge concern with traffic. She urged approval, adding it would be an excellent addition to the community. Andrea Patterson, 1945 Camino Vida Roble, Carlsbad, stated that her child is in Casita Magnet School in Vista that runs on two tracks at the same time; they have in excess of 720 students being picked up and dropped off at the same time. They have two dual lanes running about the size of less than a football field to drop off and pick up the kids and it is completed in a 15-minute time span. She said she takes exception to the fact that it takes 4 % minutes to load and offload children if they are going around a circular driveway. She said her child in a car safety seat takes less than one minute to get himself out. Schools belong in residential areas and she doesn’t believe the situation is half as dangerous as the existing situation with the Carlsbad High School. Mary Prefontaine, 4455 Sunnyhill Drive, Carlsbad said she recently met Jan Taylor and had never met anyone with so much passion for knowledge, arts, and community, and strong desire to share her gifts with the children. It was not until she walked into the facility with her two boys that she was able to grasp what a plethora of information would be available to her son upon enrolling him in the daycare center. She could not exmess how fortunate they are as parents and as a community to have Jan Taylor in their Planning Commission Minutes October 2,2002 Page 13 children’s lives. She took part in a walking trip to the fire station and was thoroughly impressed with the attention to detail Ms. Taylor took explaining safety rules and courtesy to others. She is a stickler for rules and always enforces them. Rich Johnston, 2850 Highland Drive, Carlsbad, stated that he was skeptical in the beginning so he went up to the school and met Jan, went through the school, and got an idea of what they’ve done to the property. He said it‘s ideal for the children of Carlsbad and the building itself epitomizes Olde Carlsbad. He thinks the traffic is a concern, but as demonstrated, she is willing to work with Staff. He’s confident that if there are problems, Ms. Taylor would work with the City of Carlsbad. He asked the Commission to give her a chance and give the children of Carlsbad a chance. Anne Marie Michel, 1771 Andrea Avenue, Carlsbad, said her home is near Magnolia Elementary‘s playground. She feels that Casa Montessori is a beautiful asset to that neighborhood and if the property was left to be in disrepair, it would be purchased by someone who would ultimately subdivide it and possibly put 2-4 dwellings on it, which would contribute to traffic 7/24. She said that when traveling on Highland you’re already slowing down for the traffic light. She added that Jan is truly a gifted educator. Dina Luke, 5451 Loganberry Way, Oceanside, said she is an alumni parent of Casa Montessori and observed a lot over the years. Casa Montessori is an inspiring place where children learn what it takes to become active and concerned citizens in their community. Jan works hard to remind them daily of their responsibility to give back to the community and to protect their environment. She suggested that those who are afraid of the impact the school may have in the community consider the true social impact of letting the school grow. Casa Montessori will be producing more conscientious young citizens to serve the community. She asked if you have a way to add more intelligent, active, and caring future citizens to your roster without spending a dime, why wouldn’t you do it. She said her own son benefited so much from this school and hoped they allow other children that chance. Jack Henthorn addressed the following issues brought up during public testimony. Various activities occurring on the site while the large family daycare permit is in place - He said it‘s important to note that there are no conditions imposed except that they can’t run a school at that location and no more than 14 children are allowed. There are no requirements to buffer the sound from the site or enhance the landscaping. It could continue as is with no mitigation on the site. The opportunity before the Commission is to regulate the site to minimize the impact of the use on the neighborhood. The proposal includes 6-foot high sound walls at the east side of the site and a sound wall partially along the south side of the site buffering the play area. He said the City Attorney would address the issue relating to the violation that was testified to. He said a letter issued by the City dated September 16th basically sets the conditions that were observed the day the code enforcement officer visited the site as a result of a complaint by a neighbor. The officer observed 5-6 school age children basically involved in some activities that appeared to be related to math. He said to his knowledge there is no restriction on a limited amount of tutoring in conjunction with daycare activities. There are probably certain instructional activities that occur in most daycare centers and by virtue of the fact that there’s limited tutoring doesn’t make it a school. It makes it an adjunct to home schooling that is done. There’s nothing illegal relating to any of those activities. In the letter from City there is no cease and desist language as was indicated by a speaker. It’s still an open issue and the City continues to investigate it. Compatibility with the neighborhood - The proposal to landscape all the frontages of this site will be exemplary for the Highland Avenue area. The landscape treatment that‘s going to occur should set a standard for the properties along Highland, but they don’t envision anyone being held to their standard. They feel that as a function of the CUP they should be held to a higher standard and are committed to ensuring that that occurs. Arrival times - The testimony spoke to Ms. Taylor’s ability to enforce this and she identified the vehicle she has to enforce those provisions and has customarily done so at other locations. Grading and parking area - The final grade in the parking lot is about 6 feet higher than Highland. The current grade differential is about 10 feet higher, so the grade will come down and result in the flattening of the driveway and parking area. The driveway into the site will have a grade because you have to pick up that elevation difference between the street and the parking area. The parking area is basically a two-tier 8? Planning Commission Minutes October 2,2002 Page 14 system with the center island being the top tier with four pull-in spaces, and the bottom as you come down around the site is a separate tier. Restrictions on activities - There is currently no restriction on activities such as basketball or volleyball. The Commission has the ability to restrict them as requested by the applicant in her efforts to show that she wants to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Confusion of turning movements on Highland - This site eliminates some of that to the extent that it can eliminate any of it. One of the two driveways on Highland is going to be removed. The closest one to Carlsbad Village Drive, which should serve as the most opportunity for confusion for traffic, either turning into Highland or exiting Highland, is going to be closed and relocated to the south side of the property. Five-year life of CUP - There’s a day-to-day life on the CUP. It’s at the City’s discretion as to whether or not the CUP remains in effect for five years. If the applicant violates the conditions, the Planning Director can initiate an investigation and bring recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council to revoke the CUP. He asked that the Commission take all the testimony into consideration, along with the written record, and recognize that the applicant is fully cognizant of what she proposed and is willing to run the risk that she would comply with the conditions if the Commission elects to approve the project. He asked that they consider approval of the project so they can offer quality education services to the children. Commissioner Segall asked if the solid masonry wall addresses the concern of Mr. Gardner. Mr. Henthorn said the subject property is behind the chain link fence and the sound wall will be 8 feet inside the chain link fence. It will be 6 feet high and there’s approximately 10 feet of grade differential. They talked with a noise consultant to get an opinion if it would adequately buffer the noise. He said since the unit is below the source of the sound, the wall deflects the noise up back into the site. Commissioner Baker asked what the distance is between the proposed driveway and Carlsbad Village Drive. Mr. Henthorn replied that it‘s about 80 feet. Commissioner Trigas asked what time of the day were the school age children observed doing math manipulatives. Ms. Taylor said it was approximately 9:15. She said they are operating a large family childcare. According to the State of California Department of Education a parent has a right to do home schooling. This year there needs to be a credentialed teacher taking the responsibility that they are completing the curriculum that‘s required, but there is no law that says a child that is of school age needs to be in a public or private school. Chairperson Trigas said when a parent says their child is being home schooled that means they’re being home schooled. Ms. Taylor said that home schooling is another category, although there is currently some debate in the State of California about that. Home schooling means that your child needs to be registered with the county or the district home schooling office. Chairperson Trigas asked if all the children were registered with the home schooling office and none was registered with her as a school. Ms. Taylor replied that they are not a school and the children were not registered with the county home schooling office. They are receiving some tutoring and basically are receiving supervision and the parents are taking responsibility for independent study. There’s a clause that says their parents have the right to do this. She said she was advised to do this and that’s why she went forth to do it. Chairperson Trigas asked if that was to get around the issue of being a school. Ms. Taylor said it was advised to her because they wanted to be in compliance with all the codes and regulations. It was recommended to go ahead to use the site as a large family childcare so therefore, she went through the expense and the extra training and inspections to ensure that she was in compliance with the State of California and the childcare licensing and the City of Carlsbad and fire department. Commissioner White wanted to clarify that there will be no stopped cars between 8:30 - 9:lO a.m. in the parking lot except for the teachers’ cars, and the only reason a car would be stopped would be because it was waiting in line to unload or exit the parking lot. Mr. Henthorn said that‘s true and outside of those times cars would be stopped there if they made an appointment to come to the school. He showed how cars would exit after they dropped their children off. Commissioner Baker said what he showed was incredibly dangerous because when children are exiting cars at the sidewalk, cars should not be pulling out around them, even if it‘s on the other side of the car. Mr. Henthorn said that as the children arrive there’s a staff member to help the children away from the curbside as they’re dropped off. Planning Commission Minutes October 2,2002 Page 15 Commissioner White asked if it‘s her normal practice to not have children exit the car unless there is a staff member there as the doors open. Ms. Taylor replied that in the proposed school they have committed to have a staff person to help monitor the parking area. Commissioner White asked if it would make the parking drop off more efficient if they could have more than one staff member available, not only for safety reasons, but for moving cars through the parking lot in the most efficient manner so that cars are not backing up on Highland Drive. Ms. Taylor said they could do that. Commissioner Whitton asked if the children doing the math were of traditional school age and why they weren’t in a traditional school if it was during the school year, and if they were registered in the daycare center. Ms. Taylor said the children were age 6 and above. It was September 3rd and neighbors called and complained and were taking photographs. They were making abusive comments and called code enforcement. Code enforcement came and she was very open to show what she had been doing. She said she realizes it seems like a fine line and it is traditionally thought that a school age child would be in school, otherwise they would be considered truant. She said she would not be jeopardizing this project that she worked on for three years and basically her career, her family, and the families and children that come to see her. She said she would not do that if she did not believe it was okay and if it had not been advised to her that it was perfectly okay. She said she has documentation that states that a parent can choose not to attend public school, not to attend private school, but to take the responsibility of the education of their child. She said she didn’t want to debate the issue; she has a letter from the Department of Education and they consider it a large family daycare. Commissioner Heineman asked if the school would be willing to restrict playground activities once it is in operation. Mr. Henthorn replied that the applicant proposed to restrict activities that would involve a thrown object. Chairperson Trigas closed public testimony. Commissioner Baker stated an outstanding issue was the code enforcement case mentioned in the letter and the conversation with the Staff Attorney. Cindie McMahon, Deputy City Attorney, responded that the issues they were inquiring of the applicant are issues that are involved in the code enforcement complaint that‘s under investigation. She explained that the distinction between a complaint of violation and a determination of violation is very important. A code enforcement action is a criminal action and there are safeguards that are involved in criminal actions. Determinations of violation are normally made by judges in courtrooms. Some alternative forms are allowed but they have to have the same kinds of safeguards. Usually the decision maker about the violation is someone who is not with the City and usually the person accused of a violation has the opportunity to call witnesses and cross-examine witnesses and do things that this Commission isn’t set up to do. We have to follow what the law has set up and allow that to be made through the criminal process and not through this process. It‘s generally the practice of the City Attorney’s office not to comment on ongoing criminal investigations. Commissioner Segall asked how long it generally takes before a case might be determined. Ms. McMahon said it varies. If the code enforcement department believes a violation occurred, their first tact is to try to get voluntary compliance. A criminal matter is pretty serious so you want court to be the last resort. She added it‘s important to note that we have the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt so we try not to walk into the courtroom unless we’re sure we can win. In response to the question of why the wall height was decreased, Ms. Kennedy said they originally had concerns about balls going out into the street or the neighbors’ properties so they proposed a 10-foot high wall in response. That was not compatible with the neighborhood, so they came back with a proposal to lower the wall to 6 feet and modify their recreation program. Regarding how many cars could be at this property if it was developed, Ms. Kennedy said she didn’t think it could be developed into any more than two homes. They can’t limit the number of cars, for two single- family residences it would be about 20 ADT compared to 162 ADT for the school with 36 students and 4 teachers. Chairperson Trigas asked if they are precluded from building onto the house because of its historical significance. Ms. Kennedy replied they do want to have an addition on the back of the home and the Planning Commission Minutes October 2,2002 Page 16 addition maintains the character of the home. If they want to add on beyond that, if the CUP is approved, they would have to get an amendment. She said she checked with Jeff Armour of their Library Department and Historical Society about the historical significance of the home and he said it‘s not one of high historical significance, so the City of Carlsbad would probably not have issues with it if it were demolished. Commissioner Segall asked if there are any plans to improve the width of Highland and if on-street parking is allowed on Highland. David Rick, Assistant Engineer replied there are no plans to improve that area. It‘s been designated as an alternative design street, which means it‘s going to require a special design to be placed on that street and has to go through a separate process that usually has to be instigated by the property owners on the block. On-street parking is allowed, but there are places that room isn’t available, and it is not marked. There is parking on Carlsbad Village Drive west of Highland. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Baker and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 5225 denying Conditional Use Permit CUP 01-12, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. DISCUSSION Commissioner Segall said he understood both sides of the issues and had concerns with issues raised from both sides. He said if he were to vote against the denial, it would in a large part, be due to the public testimony in support of the project. The code enforcement issue drives to an integrity issue that may not exist because the applicant has not been found guilty. He said he likes the project and what it will do for the community, it‘s compatible with the area, and believes the traffic and safety issues could be mitigated. He said he could support the project, but was concerned with the code enforcement issue. Commissioner White said she wasn’t going to make a decision based on the code violation issue because she understood that should not be part of the decision tonight. She has sympathy for the people close to the intersection that might be most affected by the traffic situation at the intersection. Because the property is off of Carlsbad Village Drive rather than farther down, she felt it‘s in a transition area. She said the applicant sounds as though she would make a very good effort to control the traffic. If a school is there it will take a superhuman effort on the part of the school directors and parents to make an effort not to do anything that would disrupt the community traffic situation anymore than possible. She thought it would be doable if they have staggered times and have enough staff or volunteers to unload the children as fast as possible. She said she would be willing to vote in opposition to staffs recommendation. Commissioner Heineman said the Montessori School would be an excellent addition in that location. He said he drives through that intersection many times a day and the traffic is surprisingly lighter than would be expected and the intersection handles it very well. If the school can keep the children off the street he thinks it will work. He took issue with the idea promoted by the opponents of the school that a private school is something in the nature of a 99-cent store or another commercial project. A school is a lot different even though it is a private school and run for profit. He said he would vote in opposition to the Staff recommendation. Commissioner Whitton said he would support the neighborhood because it is residential in a rural kind of atmosphere. He was opposed to putting a commercial venture that would generate a lot of traffic and supports the City’s position that the traffic generation has a potential of being very hazardous and that the fire department doesn’t have the best means of getting in and out of the property. He said he would support the City because he didn’t think it was the proper setting for the school. Commissioner Baker said she is not opposed to Montessori and agreed that schools are located in neighborhoods all over the city, however, in most cases the schools were there before the homes came in. She said Carlsbad Village Drive is somewhat commercial, however, Highland is not commercial by any stretch of the imagination and she would have a hard time supporting the concept that Highland is fringe area. She was concerned about rules being truly enforced because they have no way of knowing if they are. She was somewhat concerned with the investment the applicant would put in the CUP only to later on say things weren’t working and she would be stuck with all the improvements on the property that might Planning Commission Minutes October 2,2002 Page 17 not be appropriate for residential use. She was also concerned that cars might be queuing up at the stoplight because there are only 80 feet from the exit driveway to the stoplight. She added that most of the people who supported the project during public testimony do not live in the neighborhood and it appears that the majority of the people opposing the project live in the neighborhood. She wasn’t convinced the school is the best use of the property. The applicant is volunteering to create several scenarios that may make it more difficult to operate the school, such as staggered start times, kids can’t play with balls, can’t have meetings at the school site, parents can’t volunteer because there’s no parking. She wasn’t convinced that there isn’t a better place that would allow the Montessori to operate their school the way they want to operate it. She was also concerned about the acrimony with the neighborhood. She felt the Commission was in a lose-lose position, no one would be happy with what they decide. Chairperson Trigas said what concerns her the most is the acrimony and the enforcement issue. She has visions of neighbors trying to catch the school violating or not enforcing the restrictions and regulations that would be imposed on them and the police and fire department being called every other week to investigate. She felt they were trying to create a perfect scenario in an ideal world, but it‘s not an ideal world where everyone follows the rules. Commissioner Segall said he was actively involved in mitigating the traffic and safety at Aviara Oaks Middle School and the elementary school and there was no CUP. He felt he could support this project because it has a CUP. He said the client has a vested interest to make sure it works and trusts that she would make that happen. Chairperson Trigas wanted to know what would happen if there was a violation, such as, the staggered hours don’t work. Cindie McMahon said one possibility would be a code enforcement action and another would be the revocation of the CUP. To revoke a CUP there would be notice to the CUP holder and a public hearing and deliberations as whether to revoke or not. The first tactic with most violations is to try for voluntary compliance and work-with the person complaining and the person being complained of to try to achieve a resolution. Commissioner Segall asked if she had any advice on the code enforcement issue. Ms. McMahon said she did not mean to convey that you couldn’t consider testimony about first hand observations. What she meant to convey was that this Commission cannot be the determining body whether or not there has been a violation. If the CUP were to be approved by this Commission or on appeal, the underlying criminal investigation would be moot. She said generally they don’t let the criminal violation drive the Commission. Commissioner Whitton made the observation that Ms. Taylor and those that want the school have all good intents, but most of those people are not very close to that neighborhood. The neighbors who are overwhelmingly against the project have exhibited some evidence of taking photographs and logging complaints. There’s a faction that doesn’t live anywhere near the property wanting a school on the property and by approving it we’re generating another problem where people in the neighborhood would be taking pictures. Commissioner White said that aside from the people who live right behind the property, next door, and across the street, no one else who lives on Highland is being unduly burdened by a school at the end of the street. Chairperson Trigas said the integrity issue bothers her the most and she would like to be guaranteed that there would be a sincere effort of compliance and not trying to work the system. Commissioner Heineman said they don’t know the validity of the complaint and suggested that it be balanced against the many people who have years of experience with Ms. Taylor and her school and their tremendous support for her. It seems there is a very vindictive group on one hand and people who have had experience with her on the other. Commissioner Baker said the situation.isn’t about the Montessori School, but it’s whether or not it‘s a good site to locate the school. She said she’s not sure that this is the best place to put it. Commissioner Heineman suggested there’s no place left in Carlsbad for infill of any kind, including schools. It’s not easy to find a location for anything, and if it will fit in this particular location and do the job it‘s designed to do, they should approve the project. 93 Planning Commission Minutes October 2,2002 Page 18 VOTE: 2-3-1 AYES: Commissioners Baker and Whitton NOES: Commissioners Heineman, Segall, and White ABSTAIN: Chairperson Trigas Discussion was held as to what action the Commission was to take since the majority vote was against the Staff recommendation. Ms. McMahon said if they have enough information to make the findings necessary they could vote as to whether or not they would approve a CUP. Ms. Kennedy said Staff would come back with a resolution to see if that's what they want to adopt. Ms. McMahon clarified that Ms. Kennedy would be acting as a scribe; it's up to the Commission to make the findings. If there were a motion to approve the project and subsequent deliberations, it would help her and the rest of Staff if they articulate the reasons behind their findings. Ms. Kennedy said they would also have to go through the environmental review process so it would probably be a little over a month before they get back to them. Mr. Neu suggested that it may be beneficial for Staff if they were to make a motion and if the motion carried that their desire was for Staff to come back with a resolution containing findings for approval and draft conditions and they could review them. If the findings are made in the affirmative, then various conditions would probably be put in place to support making those findings in the affirmative and then the Commission would need to decide whether they felt those measures were adequate and reasonable. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner White and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission request that the Planning Staff return at a date uncertain with a resolution approving the CUP for this project and return the CUP with its findings and associated conditions for the Planning Commission to make a decision upon. DISCUSSION Commissioner Segall asked if the public hearing would need to be reopened. Mr. Neu said they would want the public to be able to comment on the proposed conditions and mitigation and whether they felt they were adequate or not. It would be renoticed. VOTE: 4-2 AYES: Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Heineman, Segall, and White NOES: Commissioners Baker and Whitton ABSTAIN: None Planning Commission Minutes November 20,2002 Page 8 1. CUP 01-12 - CASA MONTESSORI DE VISTA SCHOOL - Request for approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a private school located at 3016 Highland Drive on a 0.7-acre lot. The site is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Highland Drive and Carlsbad Village Drive in the R-l- 10,000 zone and in Local Facilities Management Zone 1. Mr. Wayne introduced Agenda Item #1 and stated that Barbara Kennedy would make the presentation, assisted by David Rick. He said the Commission’s action is final unless appealed to the City Council. Barbara Kennedy, Associate Planner, stated that the project was presented at the October 2, 2002 Planning Commission hearing with a recommendation for denial. The motion for denial failed and a second motion was made and approved for Staff to return to the Planning Commission with a resolution of approval for the CUP and to return with the. findings and associated conditions for the Planning Commission to decide upon. The new resolution adds certain project specific conditions that the applicant proposed in order to ensure safety and land use compatibility with the neighborhood. She explained the following conditions of approval. Condition #16 states that all plant materials around the perimeter of the parking area shall be installed from specimen sized containers so that immediate screening of the parking area can be achieved. Typically specimen sized shrubs will be from 5 or 15 gallon containers and trees would be from 24” box or larger containers. The sizes proposed are subject to approval by the Planning Director. Condition #18 limits the school to a maximum of 36 children and a maximum of four staff members. Condition #19 reflects the applicant’s proposed arrival and departure schedule to minimize traffic impacts at the school and surrounding streets. There will be three tracks with 20-minute intervals between arrival and dismissal times for each track. Staff is recommending that the Commission allow minor modifications to the schedule with administrative approval by the Planning Director. The extended day hours for before and after school care would not be subject to the school arrival and dismissal schedule since it would help to reduce the peak period arrival and departure traffic. Condition #20 requires that parenffteacher conferences would be scheduled on a track-by-track basis or off-peak schedule when individual conferences are necessary. Any activities that involve the entire enrollment would need to be scheduled at an offsite location to ensure there would no impact to surrounding neighbors. Condition #21 states that the play equipment should be used in a manner that precludes it from leaving the site and would need to be monitored by the applicant. Condition #22 is included to clarify that the existing building labeled “care taker‘s room” is intended for use as a multi-purpose room and shall not be occupied for any residential or care taker purpose. Ms. Kennedy stated that in addition to the applicant‘s proposed conditions there are a number of standard conditions and some project specific conditions are also included in the resolution: 0 The CUP would be valid for five years from the date of project approval and then the applicant would need to apply for extensions to the CUP for continued operation of the school. 0 Building permits must be issued for the school within 18 months of project approval or the CUP will expire. All improvements must be completed prior to the operation of the site as a school. That includes landscaping, installation of the parking lot, upgrades to the existing building, and completion of the new construction. The project must be constructed to meet all of the building codes for operation as a school. Planning Commission Minutes November 20,2002 Page 9 The project must meet the fire code requirements and includes installation of a commercial-type fire sprinkler system. Ms. Kennedy stated that Staff prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been incorporated into the project approval. Staff identified that the project could result in noise exposure inside the building, which exceeds the standards established in the Noise Guidelines Manual. A mitigation measure is included to require submittal of an acoustical analysis concurrent with plan check to determine if additional noise attenuation will be required. If mitigation is required, noise mitigation of the interior space is feasible and attainable through standard construction practices. Chairperson Trigas stated that petitions and letters opposing approval of the CUP were received tonight. A letter was also received from Julia Coleman, Deputy City Attorney, in regard to the Large Family Child Care Home Permit. She stated that requests to speak were filled out by people who did not wish to speak but wanted to voice their position on the project. The following people oppose the project: Joan Coffey, Debbie Fletcher, Grant Healey, John Coffey, Robert Strause, Michael Levy, Mary P. Porter, Ian M. Levy, Scott Craft, Pam Hamrin, Janet Humphrey, Anthony Wary, Gerri Santiago, Robert and Janice Thompson. Commissioner Segall said he had an opportunity to look at the site and the house and had some questions. On the north side that faces Carlsbad Village Drive there appears to be a 3 or 4-foot fence that the applicant indicated is a City fence. He asked if there are any plans to build a sound wall on that side of the street that would either connect with the City fence or on the applicant‘s property. He said she indicated there was no plan but he was wondering if a wall is needed there from a sound attenuation and aesthetics standpoint. Ms. Kennedy replied they would prefer to have the construction of the building be the sound attenuation rather than having a noise wall because there is already a high retaining wall. Another additional 6 feet of solid wall would be very massive along that elevation so they would prefer to have the construction of the building be upgraded if necessary. Commissioner Segall asked if the chain link fence on Carlsbad Village Drive is sufficient to keep kids in. Ms. Kennedy said it is. Commissioner Segall said he was confused as to what the location is currently permitted to do. He said there were students there today and he wanted an explanation on how they differentiate from a daycare and what this process is. Ms. Kennedy said they currently have approval for a large family day care, which allows 14 children, and there is no age limit. The letter from Julia Coleman of the attorney’s office says that you can tutor in a large day care setting and it‘s not considered a private school. She said she believes that’s what Jan Taylor is currently doing and it appears to be within the guidelines. Commissioner Segall said the other issue in the letter from Julia Coleman has to do with the garage. He said its set up and looks like a classroom. There’s carpet, desks, a chalkboard, yesterday’s date written a number of times on the chalkboard, and there was a teacher sitting in there. He asked if that would stay under this provision. He said he was confused as to what has to revert back to a garage and what can be a classroom. Ms. Kennedy replied that with a large family day care it‘s prohibited to use the garage for the day care use. Julia Coleman’s letter said there was an outstanding code enforcement action and that was the use of the garage for children at the day care. There was a subsequent letter sent out by code enforcement and they have 21 days to take the carpet, chairs, and table out and that‘s not to be used for children. That’s part of the conditions of approval and part of the application they sign when they come in for a day care application and it’s definitely prohibited. Ms. Taylor should be aware that‘s not allowed with a large family day care. Commissioner Segall asked if the garage is not to be used for a classroom or day care. Ms. Kennedy read from the Large Family Day Care Home Requirements, Item #9, which says, “Required garages shall be prohibited for use as a large family day care home and shall be utilized for parking two of the applicant’s onsite vehicles during the daily operation of the day care home rather than parking the vehicles on the street or in the driveway.” She said they have the applicant sign a list of 12 different items for the large family day care. She stated the issue before the Commission is the CUP for the school. Commissioner Segall said he noticed there’s a requirement for sprinklers in the building and remembered from the last hearing there’s a requirement to have a wide enough driveway to bring in an engine company. He asked if that was needed in this area because he never saw a fire truck drive up a driveway before and wanted to know why that‘s being required and sprinklers are being required. Deputy Fire Planning Commission Minutes November 20,2002 Page 10 Marshal Ryan replied that they are using the sprinklers as mitigation to their inability to access the property. Commissioner Segall asked in normal fire suppression wouldn’t they keep the apparatus at the street and is there a reason it‘s included in here. Mr. Ryan replied that the code reflects that fire department access must be within 150 feet of the furthest reaches of the structure. Because of the site configuration they’re denied that access, so that‘s what prompted the requirement for sprinklers. The sprinklers mitigate the need for the driveway being wide enough for a fire engine, but they still have a concern regarding ambulance response and an ambulance being able to traverse the incline up to the property and the ability to maneuver within the site. Commissioner Segall asked why the need now occurs to have the apparatus go up the driveway since the house has been there for 30 or 40 years - is it because it‘s a different use. Mr. Ryan said that‘s correct and it’s his understanding that the residence was built some time before the City formally adopted the fire code as it reads today. There haven’t been any substantial changes to the way the fire code reads with regard to fire department access in the last 14 years. He said they don’t know exactly what the requirements were with respect to the code when this single-family residence was constructed. Because the applicant is now changing the use of that property, they will have to meet substantial compliance with the code as adopted. Chairperson Trigas asked what kind of mitigation is possible for the ambulance concern. Mr. Ryan said they asked the applicant’s engineer and architect to come up with a driveway that would allow a typical ambulance to maneuver, as would a passenger vehicle. The sprinkler requirement was prompted because we cannot get a fire engine onto that property. We have a concern about the ability of an ambulance to maneuver within the circle if there is curbside parking on both sides of the driveway. We’ve been instructed by the applicant that because of the comings and goings of the vehicles that our impact to access with an ambulance is going to be minimal. Chairperson Trigas asked if they would put signs on the curbsides to indicate there could be no parking. Mr. Ryan said if they were to do that, it‘s his understanding the applicant would not meet the Planning requirement for onsite parking because they would effectively have to eliminate all the curbside parking. The curbside parking is going to inhibit our maneuverability on the site, but it‘s not supposed to be for parking per se, it‘s for drop off and pick up. Chairperson Trigas asked if the sprinklers are sufficient as far as code for school. Mr. Ryan said the sprinkler system is going to have to be designed to the same standards they require for any public school. Commissioner Whitton asked where the closest fire hydrant is to the property. Mr. Ryan said there is a fire hydrant on Highland across the street approximately 80-90 feet from the intersection of Carlsbad Village Drive and Highland. Commissioner Whitton asked where the children would go if there were a fire. Mr. Ryan replied that because fire engines won’t be driving onto the site they’re looking at the current drive area to the front of the property as an area of refuge. The rear would be an alternate area if the occupants could not exit to the front of the property. Commissioner Whitton said with Highland being a narrow street and at the different points of access when people are coming down from Highland to turn into the school or going north on Highland to enter into Carlsbad Village Drive in the morning and traffic going in, it can block Highland, it can block access into the property and it can block a lane on Carlsbad Village Drive. Furthermore, about 2:30-3:00 in the afternoon there is a lot of high school traffic going through the area. It would seem you’re going to be impacted significantly during those times, particularly if the means of access to the property were blocked by traffic. Mr. Ryan said he echoed all their concerns. There’s no provision in the fire code that gives them authority to place conditions on a project based on prevailing or assumed traffic conditions. He said they look at it very black and white with regard to design criteria, widths of streets, widths of accesses, and vertical clearances. Commissioner Whitton said if he could surmise the conditions as they currently exist, with the day care being there and only 14 children, is far safer and more desirable than a Montessori School with 34 kids and 5 staff. Mr. Ryan said he was asking him to form an opinion on an assumption and he was not Planning Commission Minutes November 20,2002 Page 11 prepared to do that. The proposal to sprinkler the building is certainly a safer proposition than what currently exists, but sprinklers are only as good as they’re maintained, and that‘s another concern. Commissioner Segall asked if they’re allowed to drop the children off in the street and have them walk up or do the conditions require them to go through the loop. Ms. Kennedy said the plan is to have them drop off in front of the school. There’s stacking for 12 vehicles along the front. She didn’t think they could condition the project to not have someone park on the street because the street is for public parking. She thought Ms. Taylor would tell the people that they need to drop the kids off on the site. Commissioner Segall said he didn’t see a lot of room to safely stop to offload the kids. Ms. Kennedy said that was one of their initial concerns and one of the reasons they recommended denial of this project. They thought the staggered drop off hours would be very difficult to enforce. At any school you always see that there’s overflow parking on the streets and they didn’t feel Highland was appropriate for that. Commissioner Segall asked if it‘s appropriate to put a condition on that they cannot offload kids on Highland. Ms. Mobaldi said that they can pull up and park next to the school on Highland, so she didn’t think they could. She said it‘s a public street and they’re going to have the same type of access and use as any other member of the public. Commissioner White said Condition #19 states that the students have to be assisted from their vehicles to the school facility by school staff personnel. That could leave a loophole for school personnel to walk down to Highland and take a child out of the car at Highland. The inference to me is that when they say assisted by school staff personnel that is in reference to unloading the child at the front of the school in the school parking lot closest to the front door of the school, not on Highland. She asked for her opinion if that‘s covered or not covered. Ms. Mobaldi said it was her understanding of the condition that she was requesting that the applicant have the parents drive up onto the driveway and then the teacher would come and assist the children. Ms. Kennedy said that‘s her understanding of how they plan to operate the school. Commissioner Segall asked if they could put in a provision to say that they want a comprehensive review back to the Commission in one year. Ms. Kennedy replied they could say that and suggested it say one year from the date that it becomes operational. Commissioner Whitton said the traffic situation is going to significantly increase with 36 students. He said he can foresee this traffic is going to impact the traffic northbound on Highland and prevent people from coming from the school onto Highland, possibly even back up traffic on eastbound Carlsbad Village Drive and even with carpooling, you’re still going to have a greater impact than there currently is on that property and asked the traffic representative to address the safety of that. Mr. Rick replied that they had a very big concern with the arrival and departure times being at one particular time because they would expect close to 32 vehicles arriving or departing in a very narrow time. Because there’s only about 85 feet between the intersection and driveway, which would accommodate about 4 cars, they believed the queuing would back up to the driveway. It comes down to whether you feel comfortable with the enforcement of the staggered hours by the business operator. If they do stagger the hours as they’re proposing, then you’re looking at approximately 10-12 vehicles arriving at any one particular time which the site can accommodate. The right turns on Highland Drive and the intersection should suffice to keep the traffic moving. It would not be a significant amount of vehicles to block that area. Commissioner Whitton asked if it would be accurate to say that if any of the parents dropping off students in that driveway decide to engage in conversation, that would back up traffic so the traffic on Highland couldn’t access the property. Mr. Rick said that‘s a possibility and that was the other concern that vehicles heading southbound from the intersection trying to turn onto the property may have to queue in the lanes which could back up to the intersection if the vehicles were not circulating fast enough onsite. Commissioner Heineman asked how soon the Montessori School could be in operation and would they have to wait until the next school year to get a permit. Ms. Kennedy responded that if they get approval of the project they need to submit building permits and then they would need to do the construction and install the parking lot and landscaping. She said she doesn’t know what the applicant would do with the children that are currently there while the house is getting converted. Planning Commission Minutes November 20,2002 Page 12 Commissioner Heineman commented that from a practical standpoint it seems unlikely that the Montessori School could begin before the next school year. Ms. Kennedy agreed. Commissioner Heineman said in effect there’s a learning period for traffic and everything else since they’re probably looking at 6 months before the Montessori School could be put into operation. He asked if that would be a good opportunity to try out the traffic situation while working with the large family day care. He asked if the alterations to the front of the lot would have been done by then. Ms. Kennedy replied that none of those improvements are required if it‘s going to be operated as a large family day care. She added that the neighbors have probably been observing the large family day care since September. Commissioner White wanted to know if the Traffic Department had ever considered putting a restriction on left turns out of the parking lot in the morning and afternoon so that no one holds up traffic in the parking lot. Mr. Rick said they could add a condition to require a sign to be posted at the end of the driveway so that anyone exiting the site would read a sign that says no left turns. It would be a private sign on the property. He wasn’t sure it would provide much benefit to mitigating the traffic. Chairperson Trigas asked once this becomes a Montessori School how many kids would be allowed to be under an extended day care situation on the same site. Ms. Kennedy said it would be 36 total children. Some of the children attending the school may come early or stay late. There are none coming for just before or after school care. Commissioner Whitton wanted to confirm if the current residents could not live in the property once the school is approved. Ms. Kennedy said that‘s correct, it would be a commercial structure at that time. Commissioner Whitton said that at the last meeting Mr. Henthorn indicated that the property was sufficient size to be split. If they split the lot then the family could build a house next to it because they can’t live on the property. So in essence they’re buying a piece of property with the total idea of converting it to a Montessori School in the first place. Ms. Kennedy said they would not process a subdivision on it if it‘s converted to a school. She said it‘s basically being converted to a commercial structure; it‘s no longer a residence. Commissioner Whitton asked if they approve a permit for the Montessori School, would it be a leap in logic to say that the next time somebody wants to put a charter school in a residential area they could get the same kind of permit. Ms. Kennedy said they have to look at each site individually. That‘s why schools are by conditional use permit; there are some areas where they are appropriate and some areas where they are not appropriate. Jack Henthorn, 5431 Avenida Encinas, Suite A, Carlsbad, stated that he represents Janann Taylor in the matter of the Montessori School. He said they reviewed the Staff Report recommendations and conditions that are recommended and concur with the project as presented for approval. They feel the conditions are adequate to address the residential compatibility issues as well as capable of being implemented by the applicant. He addressed the following items discussed by the Commission. Fire SafetyNehicle Access - There’s a 24-foot wide curb cut from curb-to-curb. The circular driveway contains a 14-foot wide area that would be clear at all times during drop off and 14 feet is adequate for a paramedic unit. There is adequate access and they have discussed this with the fire department. They also evaluated a tail-dragging scenario and adjusted the grades to accommodate the dragging of the tail end of the fire apparatus as it would enter the site. He said they have been working on those issues in concert with the fire department and thinks they have come up with a plan that addressed their concerns. There’s a 100-foot clear area from the structure to the rear property fine and there’s additional staging area in the front of the site. As the day care facility exists now there are no sprinklers, no widened driveway, and fire access to the site is probably inadequate in terms of what we’re proposing. Drop Off Area - There are 12 spaces around the interior driveway for drop off. Those spaces are reflective of the staged drop off start periods for the proposed school. The traffic report has been on file with the City for a period of time and the City has not objected to the conclusions that the traffic analyst reached in preparing that report. They’re talking about 12 cars coming through in a 20-minute period, that‘s one car about every minute and a half. There is no regulation right now on the arrival and departure Planning Commission Minutes November 20,2002 Page 13 I Corrected of the children at the day care facility. At least at one interval there are currently 14 vehicles entering and leaving, which is reflective of one of the operational periods associated with the proposed use. Zoning - Mr. Henthorn said that even though the facility will be required to meet commercial requirements, this is a conditional use permit. There is no underlying change in the zoning. In the event that the conditional use permit would expire or be revoked, the property would return to residential usage. This is not a rezoning; it is basically a conditioned use in a residential zone to be as compatible as it can be with the continued residential uses in the neighborhood. Commissioner Whitton asked if the day care traffic has to meet any particular time schedule. Mr. Henthorn said there is no time schedule; they do not have to meet a 20-minute window, but his point was they could all arrive at once. Commissioner White said what they’re trying to decide has to do with the best possible land use and not an examination of Ms. Taylor’s experiences over the last six months. However, in order for a project like this to be successful there are a number of conditions that she will have to meet or convince each one of her clients to meet. There is somewhat of an issue with the garage if she did sign a permit and that was one of the conditions in the permit about not using the garage for anything where children might play, be instructed, or come for anything. Commissioner White stated she wanted to ask the applicant why the garage has the appearance of being used for instruction or recreational purposes for children. She wanted her to explain this because it goes to the heart of her credibility to be able to carry out the conditions that require her to persuade people to do things with her. Jan Taylor stated that when she took the training for a large family child care she was instructed by the Child Care Licensing from San Diego County Department of Social Services that a garage could be used for up to two hours a day for supplemental child care. She said she brought copies of all the procedures with her and she’s very conscientious and tries to follow every single rule. Regarding the part that says required garages shall be prohibited for the use of a large family child care home, she said what that meant to her and Rita McGonya and Dana Lovelace, the child care advocate for the State of California, is that it can’t be used exclusively, solely as the home. The purpose of a large family childcare home is to provide a home environment. If you want to make an income in your home taking care of children you have to make the house available and there can be certain areas that are off bounds for the children. She said there’s a conflict with the way this code is read and was interpreted by the people she’s been working with in the Department of Social Services. She said she’s happy to follow the requirements and regulations and wasn’t aware she was in any noncompliance until she received a letter and spoke with Mike Peterson, Senior Building Inspector. Chairperson Trigas asked her if she questioned that when she signed it or if it was explained. Ms. Taylor said she didn’t question it at all because of the way its worded and because it was clearly stated on the health and safety codes. The Department of Social Services will say that space is available for supplemental projects for childcare. That cannot be considered the space solely that the children must stay. She said many people have used their garages as supplemental space because space is so limited. They have a lot of supplies and goals for the children to provide the best environment and most opportunities for them. She said she put the carpet in because the Department of Social Services told her it would be fine and she’s gone over this with the attorney. She said she’s also aware that the City of Carlsbad has the right to have ordinances that preclude statements by the State or County. She said she did not think there was any conflict when she did this and did not question it. She said they have made other changes to the house. They have replaced windows with vinyl windows and it‘s improved the quality of the environment for the children by keeping out noise and keeping the heat in and cold out. Commissioner Whitton said on October 31“ Code Enforcement visited the garage and said it wasn’t to be used for children, and according to what Mr. Segall said there were notes on the blackboard dated yesterday, so it‘s obviously still in the same use. He said that when he was talking with Mrs. Taylor he asked her if she had signed a permit for a child care center which had an item 9 included therein which specifically stated that a garage could not be used for students or family day care purposes. Ms. Taylor said, from what the City Attorney and Code Enforcement told her, they respond to complaints. They do not come onto the property seeking to find you doing inappropriate things. She said there have been an amazing number of complaints and Code Enforcement has come out several times and she has been in lo 0 Planning Commission Minutes November 20,2002 Page 14 continuous conversation with them. Julia Coleman, Deputy City Attorney, and Robin Nuschy, Code Enforcement, came to look at the site and walked freely through the property and then they asked her questions. She said she answered all the questions and at the end was given a letter about the garage and she asked what exactly she had done that‘s inappropriate. She was told she converted the garage to a habitable space. She told them that no one is living there and it’s still an operable garage. Commissioner Baker asked if the school age children that are being tutored are there for day care or do they come in for tutoring and then leave. Ms. Taylor said they come in while their parents are away and she supervises them. Most of them are there about six hours a day. Commissioner Baker asked how long they are tutored and wanted to get a feel for the difference between a tutor and a school. Ms. Taylor said she is basically supervising them, she is not instructing them in a traditional classroom instruction setting. She said she is a qualified multi-subject and single-subject California credential teacher with a bachelor’s degree. Part of the Montessori philosophy is that we instill the spirit of the child to initiate their own work and be self-reliant and responsible citizens. She said she is making sure that they are safe and they are purposely engaged in quality activities and she’s not teaching them for two hours a day. Commissioner Baker asked how many school age children are involved. Ms. Taylor replied there are 14. Commissioner Whitton asked if the parents filed an RF4 with the State saying that you are the supervising instructor and they’re there for that purpose. Ms. Taylor said yes, with the Department of Education, San Diego County. Ms. Mobaldi stated she wanted to bring some focus back and said they’re supposed to be focusing on the proposed CUP for the operation of the school. They’re not having a hearing on whether or not she’s violating an existing permit. Ms. Mobaldi said she understands they had some questions about her willingness to comply with conditions that may be imposed in conjunction with this new permit and that‘s appropriate. Ms. Taylor responded that as far as she understood she didn’t feel she was in violation. Ms. Mobaldi asked that they move on and try to focus on the new permit and what she intends to do if she gets it. Commissioner Segall said he wanted to follow up on the line of questioning in terms of the garage because that would determine how he decides on the issue. Ms. Mobaldi said he’s welcome to discuss it but said the applicant already answered the question to the best of her ability and did not feel she was in violation of her day care permit. Commissioner Segall asked her if she had any plans to mitigate the issue of the garage now that she had been notified on November 12th that there is a violation. Ms. Taylor said she received the letter on the 12th and she called and expressed her opinion. She called Mike Peterson on Friday, the 15th, and asked him what he would like her to do to be compliant and he said take out the desks and remove the carpet. She questioned that because her carpet person said she puts carpet in a lot of places. Mike Peterson spoke with code enforcement and told her she has been given 21 days to stop using the garage for the children and remove the carpet. Commissioner Segall said there are a variety of conditions on the property and asked her how she would deal with issues that come up that may be contrary to what the State says in terms of education. How will you deal with conflicts between the City conditions and the State law as in the garage situation. Ms. Taylor said the goal has always been to become a school. Currently she is licensed by the State for the large family childcare. It‘s always been her intention to follow all the rules and to her knowledge she has followed all the rules and regulations with this one exception. There should be no conflict between what the Department of Education asks and what the Building Department requires. Her understanding is that she would put in an application for the building or the grading permit and inspectors would come out. She said she makes mistakes but always tries to take care of them. Commissioner Whitton said he checked the education code and a number of other things and said the issue is whether we should grant a conditional use permit to go up to a Montessori School or not. The other issue here is this a viable and appropriate location for such a school. It’s not the licensing of the school per se and the credentials of Ms. Taylor. Planning Commission Minutes November 20,2002 Page 15 Chairperson Trigas opened public testimony. Mark Nordquist, 3495 Seacrest Drive, Carlsbad said he read the conditions as presented by Staff and thinks they address all the concerns and asked that they approve the project. He said he knows Jan Taylor is a woman of her word because of what he’s seen his grandson do and accomplish when she had the school in Vista. He said it‘s most important to keep in mind that Jan Taylor is building good citizens. Chairperson Trigas asked if the applicant wished to proceed with a Commission of six. The applicant wished to proceed. Gail Arciniega, 1810 Warmlands Avenue, Vista said she has three children who regularly visit their aunt who lives on Highland Drive. She said she had two older children who attended a school that had limited parking, a circular driveway, and staggered times to arrive and depart. Even with all these conditions met and a staff of more than four people helping kids in and out of cars and directing traffic, it created traffic problems and an unsafe environment for the children. She shared some of her firsthand observations. Most parents don’t want to wait in line to drop their kids off, so they let them out on the street, pull into driveways, and kids are running across the street. At pickup times they made arrangements to have their kids meet them someplace off campus so they didn’t have to wait in line. These problems happened at a school where there is enough room for cars to pass in the circular driveway. She asked them to vote no for the safety of the children. Doug Chartier, 2697 Wilson Street, stated he was in opposition to the project. He questioned who monitors Conditions 18, 19, and 20 and what happens if they’re violated. He asked where the offsite parking would be. He asked what kind of impact the ingress and egress occurring all day long with the extended day care will have on the rookery and neighborhood. He said if it‘s approved, the way he reads it the applicant wins every time and the residents lose. He felt the residents have to come first and a business should not be allowed on Highland Drive. He asked what happens if during the 5-year CUP or even during the first year if the rookery is damaged or we lose those precious resources. What happens if the neighborhood ambience, character, and charm are destroyed. What happens if the traffic is a disaster. Reversal is impossible. He said they’re going to lose Highland Drive as they know it today. If approved as is, the applicant will be rewarded because they will be allowed to permanently impose their will on the residents. Even if the violations are called out they will just be told to correct them. He said the environmental review process has a lot of “ifs”. there is a significant impact to the environment certain things would have to happen, fi the noise levels exceed a certain amount of dBAs certain things would happen, the structure is not adequately constructed, what happens then. He asked who will monitor the dBA levels, who will do the acoustic analysis and who will pay for it. He said it‘s an inappropriate project. Michele Levy, 3021 Highland, Carlsbad, said you have to see traffic in the real world. There are accidents and other unforeseen things that can make people late for this unrealistic schedule. She had a picture she took of 3016 Highland that shows five cars from the front door of the house to the street. She stated that in order to follow the schedule five more cars would be waiting on Highland Drive so that people next door would not be able to get out of their driveway for at least an hour. She asked to note that the real hours of this business are from 8:OO to 530 and they would be getting traffic before 7:30 because staff has to get there before 8:OO. She said no one will be able to enforce the track condition. She said this business will devalue their properties because of the way it will make their street look. She asked how many more businesses will be on Highland. She said it‘s important to note they have a blue heron rookery half a block away from this business which will have to deal with an extra 300 cars a week. She asked the Commission to remember the neighborhood and the people. Nancy Powers, 2860 Elmwood Street, Carlsbad, said she echoes everything Doug and Michele said. She mentioned that the City has a requirement for sidewalks around schools for safety of the children. She thought it was a given that the City would require sidewalks regardless if there is a traffic problem or not and the residents who live around the school will be required to pay for the sidewalks in front of their homes. She asked them to consider the impact on the residents - not only will the trees need to be removed to have the sidewalks put in, but the residents will have to pay for them. Lois Hinds, 3430 Highland, Carlsbad, a resident of Highland Drive since 1967, said traffic congestion has created a problem and the Montessori School would add to the traffic congestion. She said this is a very busy and dangerous area for any school. She added that incoming property owners are not aware of this situation and asked them not to degrade Highland Drive for a school like this. Planning Commission Minutes November 20,2002 Page 16 Maria Ekdahl, 1630 James Drive, Carlsbad, said the northwest corner of her property adjoins the proposed Montessori School property. She thought it’s in the City’s best interest to reject the proposal based on their own Staffs recommendations despite the testimonials of the parents of Ms. Taylor’s students. She mentioned many reasons to deny the application. All of the close neighbors and 99% of the nearby property owners are against the project. She can already hear within her house the children at the school and a five-foot wall would not take care of the large increase in noise from doubling the number of students. She said the property is too small for the proposed use and Highland Drive was not designed for commercial uses. Excessive noise from twice the current number of students would disturb all immediately surrounding neighbors. The potential for accidents along Highland Drive is substantially increased from cars backing up. She concluded by asking, “Should you try a questionable proposal such as this just to see how bad it might go?” Marilyn Janssen, 3307 Highland, Carlsbad, stated that on October 2nd the Planning Staff was told to come up with new findings to make this Commission’s vote to approve more palatable and asked if they’re simply bound and determined to issue this permit. She said the main focus of this issue got lost at the October 2nd meeting among all the rhetoric and accolades from Ms. Taylor’s supporters regarding her abilities. No one is questioning her teaching skills or business acumen, but all of that is irrelevant to the problem at hand. She stressed that they are not opposed to schools or children, simply the location. She stated that the front yard would be completely paved over for a parking lot. A buffer wall must be built on the two sides bordering the neighbors to partially drown out the sounds of 36 children in the backyard. This business would further increase traffic on this corner at two of the busiest times of day and property values in the immediate area will decline substantially. Most of Ms. Taylor’s vocal supporters were not from the immediate neighborhood; many were from other cities, while the people who spoke opposing the project all live in the immediate neighborhood. Ms. Janssen asked if the signatures of 169 residents on a petition opposing this business carry any weight at all with this Commission. She pointed out that there are two Montessori Schools in downtown Carlsbad already. She said this is a wakeup call for all Carlsbad residents that this could happen to them - just because you live in a residentially zoned neighborhood don’t live under the illusion that a business could not move next door to you. She stated that should this permit be approved, this action will be appealed to the Carlsbad City Council for a final decision. She urged the residents to write their City Council members and urge them to uphold the zoning regulations and protect our neighborhoods. Penny Johnson, 1360 Hillview Court, Carlsbad, said she agrees with everything that was said and opposes the Montessori School because it’s a commercial business in an R-1 zone. The Carlsbad Survey spoke to the concerns of the Carlsbad citizens and their primary concern was.the traffic and the impact that it has on their quiet village atmosphere and neighborhoods. This would greatly impact what they do not want in their neighborhoods. Tom Cleary, 3515 Highland Drive, Carlsbad, said he and his wife are not generally opposed to schools, but oppose the plan, specifically the traffic plan. He said the intersection is dangerous now and will be even more dangerous with the additional traffic. He mentioned that two cars going in opposite directions barely fit on Highland Drive and he talked about the impact to the street if emergency vehicles have to park on the street. He said he and his wife would like to see the CUP disapproved. Kelly Simpkins, 3042 Highland Drive, Carlsbad, talked about how fast vehicles travel on Highland Drive (35-40 miles per hour) and the danger it presents. He commented that he lives next door and always watches to see what‘s going on over there because the people have a problem obeying the codes and yesterday he saw children going in and out of the garage. Darryl Tell, 261 1 Highland Drive, Carlsbad, wanted to register his strong opposition to the project and asked each Commissioner to imagine that this project was being proposed next to their home and asked them to be objective about it. John Humphrey, 2824 Highland Drive, Carlsbad, said he was formerly a commercial real estate broker and sat in a lot of CUP hearings. He said if the Commission does this, it‘s etched in concrete. He bought in a residential neighborhood and is in firm opposition of this school. He added, “anyone in Olde Carlsbad be forewarned that this could go right on up to Skyline Drive. It won’t stop at Highland.” Planning Commission Minutes November 20,2002 Page 17 Kathy Tell, 261 1 Highland Drive, Carlsbad, stated her opposition and agreed with the Planning Staff that a Montessori School at that location is incompatible with the neighborhood. She has been a homeowner in the neighborhood for 26 years and is very familiar with the high traffic on Highland, a narrow street without sidewalks. It‘s a city bus route as well as a route for students going to and from junior high and high schools. A commercial business at this location would create serious traffic safety issues and negatively impact the surrounding established residential neighborhood. As an educator and parent, fire safety is another issue. She said she wouldn’t want any of her children or students attending a school without emergency vehicle access. She hoped their voices are not only heard but count for something. She said the citizens should have a say about how their neighborhoods change or how they remain the same. Van Lonergan, 1950 Magnolia Avenue, Carlsbad, a resident of 39 years, stated she usually avoids the area because of the congestion. Today she had to go that way because of construction, so she came up Elm and turned right on Highland and there was a bus and six cars lined up and she barely got through. She said that would not be a safe place for a school. She lives across the street from an elementary school and sees what goes on with traffic and thinks this is not something they want in Carlsbad. She suggested putting the school in Calavera Hills where they’re going to build. David Waite, 1648 James Drive, Carlsbad, made the observation that over 169 people who signed the petition probably represent 2,000 years living in this community. They know the community, the traffic, and have been a part of it. They have strong social equity in the community. He said it seems to be very precarious if you look at how delicately it‘s balanced. By the discussion and questions there are a lot of reservations and it seems to be right on the edge because it‘s a terrible site. Putting a school like that in a residential area on the corner in a bad traffic area is a bad idea. He questioned who does the enforcement on the schedules and who feels happy about the enforcement. The people of the neighborhood are going to suffer. In terms of the cars and rotation, it‘s a totally unworkable system. He said that with traffic variations you can’t guarantee that people coming from different areas will arrive at the scheduled times. Linda Simpkins, 3042 Highland Drive, Carlsbad, stated that the last vote came down to the board voting either for the school or the neighborhood. She said her granddaughter is in the Montessori School on Pine, less than a mile away from the proposed school and it does not have a waiting list. She said Ms. Taylor should be able to have her school; it‘s just that her lifelong dream of her school nestled in the middle of a residential neighborhood is flawed. It irreparably changes the neighborhood from residential to commercial. Ms. Taylor seems to completely underestimate how much noise and confusion this school would add to a residential street and seems to think she can magically make all the 36 students appear and disappear without causing a horrendous traffic jam on a residential street. She seems to think the neighbors won’t notice that the school is even there after she paves the whole front yard for a parking lot if she adds a few trees and bushes here and there and staggers the arrival and departure times of the 36 cars twice each day. Ms. Simpkins questioned how long will the staggered arrival and departure times work. She said this is definitely a business and they’re going to try to make a lot of money off of their neighborhood. She asked the Commission to please vote for the neighborhood, keep the zoning laws safe, and don’t send the signal that no one is safe from creeping commercialism unless they live in a gated community. Terry Simpkins, 3042 Highland Drive, Carlsbad, next-door neighbor to the subject property, stated the school is a very high impact for-profit business. The daily number of traffic movements is going to be 70 or 80 off of this property and is a safety issue. The proposed entrance is as steep as it is right now. Ms. Taylor’s husband has already let his car run unattended and it went across the yard, across Highland Drive and into Michele Levy’s yard and someone could have been killed. He said it’s a pretty high risk when that is multiplied by 70-80 traffic movements every day down that incline. He said Jan Taylor stated that Carlsbad needs more Montessori Schools but it‘s not true and he showed a currently running ad for the Carlsbad Montessori preschool and grade school advertising for children. The wall proposed between the properties stops way short of where it should stop - there’s no wall where the traffic is. There’s a lot of vegetation right on that property line and putting a wall there would take all the vegetation down. Bob Porter, 2635 Highland Drive, Carlsbad, requested that they protect the neighborhood from commercial encroachment and agreed with the opposition. James Gardner, 1636 James Drive, Carlsbad, stated he was still against this business for all the reasons he stated in the previous meetings. Most of the people who spoke at previous meetings on the Taylors’ Planning Commission Minutes November 20,2002 Page 18 behalf weren’t from this neighborhood and didn’t address the real issue of a commercial business in a residential neighborhood. He said Jan Taylor may be a great person in their eyes but she hasn’t portrayed herself that way to them. The noise and traffic issues haven’t changed. The only way to change them is to put the Taylor’s business some other place. He wanted clarification on what the actual hours would be, how much time and at what time children will be outside in the play areas, would there be any before or after hours child care and what would the hours be, what special events there would be and would there be any summer school. He added that he doesn’t feel the proposed wall is adequate and if they make the mistake of approving this he would like to see at least a ten foot sound wall set back from the property line at least 15 feet to act as a buffer, for not only the noise, but to keep play equipment from flying into his yard. Dawn Gardner, 1636 James Drive, Carlsbad, the property right below 3016 Highland Drive, said last week a car was coming out of the parking circle and almost hit her while she was in a stopped position. She expressed her concern about what may happen with kids and other cars once the school opens. She mentioned the Taylors graded their property without permits and dirt came down into their backyard and windows. They weren’t informed that they were going to do this so they could at least close their windows and they didn’t offer to help clean up their property. She said it‘s not the place for a school and doesn’t want to have a playground in her backyard. Doug Moore, 1624 James Drive, Carlsbad, said his primary concern is with Condition 19, the staggered departure and arrival times. Conceivably there could be a car arriving or departing every 30 seconds. He felt they should consider the traffic conditions because it‘s already a problem. He was also concerned about the noise level because he can already hear the noise with only 14 children. Renee Mullen, 2619 Highland Drive, Carlsbad, said they are newcomers to Highland but the reason they bought on Highland was because of its reputation. They have been fortunate to have wonderful neighbors and they value the surrounding properties and community and would hate to see commercial development happen on Highland. She added that several houses on Highland Drive have historic value and putting commercial property will distort the historic value of those houses. Jim Mullen, 2619 Highland Drive, Carlsbad, said he’s very passionate about his neighborhood and approving this project would start a precedent. Carlsbad is marketed as a seaside village and a historic neighborhood. He asked how many more common sense issues are needed to not approve this when there are traffic congestion, children safety, and fire safety issues, not to mention the neighbors. The Montessori School belongs in the business district of Carlsbad and not on Highland, one of the best streets in Carlsbad. He said it makes no sense. Alice Pendleton, 3700 Highland Drive, Carlsbad, voiced her opposition and said that one person’s dream shouldn’t ruin hundreds of other people’s dreams. She said she would also like to be in business for herself some day, but not at the expense of hundreds of neighbors who are really upset. Martha Law-Edwards, 1366 Pine Avenue, Carlsbad, said she lives about two blocks southwest of the subject property. She said she was present to speak in support of the rights and freedoms of property owners in Carlsbad and in any community in this country. If we, as a property owner, have complied with all the codes, regulations, ordinances, that need to be in place before creating or living on a property and then we don’t have the right to live on that property as we see fit, then we have lost that freedom and right as a property owner. Tonight we’re dealing with a lot of personal preference rather than the rights and freedoms of a property owner who has complied with all the regulations. She said you may decide there has not been accurate compliance with all the regulations, but if you find that is not the case, then how can you stop a person who owns that property to live on that property and use that property as he or she sees fit. If you say we can’t then that is taking away from all our freedoms and that is unacceptable. She asked the Commission to keep that in mind as they make their decision. It‘s more than just this particular property; it‘s related to the rights and freedoms of all property owners once they’ve reached compliance with the City rules and regulations. Bill Palenscar, 3788 Highland Drive, Carlsbad, wanted to know how many principals of the Montessori proposal actually live on Highland Drive. He said they own three acres on Highland Drive just south of the condominiums that were approved by City officials during Mayor Dunne’s realm. He talked about a drainage problem they had due to the condominiums and how they tried for many years to get the City to Planning Commission Minutes November 20,2002 Page 19 build a fence. Their claim was always rejected and they were told it was their fence when they had nothing to do with it. He asked the Commission not to bastardize Highland Drive. Avril Ferguson, 4260 Sunnyhill Drive, Carlsbad, a resident of 35 years, expressed her support for the Montessori School. She knew Jan Taylor for over 25 years and said she would do her very best to comply with any rules the City puts upon her. As a former administrator of Montessori Schools, she said the staggered drop off and pick up times can work and will have the least impact on the neighborhood. She said Ms. Taylor has agreed to hold activities offsite that include the entire school population, which mitigates a lot of the traffic for the neighborhood. She said having a private school near you is not a bad thing; there are no loud parties or loud music. Carol Pearson, 3265 Highland Drive, Carlsbad, who lived there for over 16 years, agreed with the opposition. She gave some examples of some things that happened to her in the last several weeks regarding the traffic and impact of the proposed school. A city crew was recently working on her property and at one time there were 5-6 city crew people, 50 feet of orange cones, and city vehicles parked on both sides of the street. During that time cars went by at 40 miles per hour and didn’t slow down. She also mentioned a time she was driving north on Highland and got to the first part of the circular driveway. There was a car parked with the back end of the car three or four feet out into Highland and it appeared the woman was on her cell phone and she sat there with no one in front of her and she was blocked. Ms. Pearson went around her to the stoplight and another car that apparently dropped off a child came down the driveway. At that point she realized how little room there was between that second driveway to make a right turn. With her car parked there, the other car could not turn onto Highland, which means that if one car is parked there they can’t get out of the driveway. There’s already a problem even before adding any more students. Ahmad Reza Hadaegh, 3969 Adams Street, Apt. #C209, Carlsbad, was present to support Jan Taylor. He said his son is in third grade and in the two months he has attended Montessori School things have gone beyond their expectations. He said the effect that Ms. Taylor made on his son in terms of education has been tremendous. If she has been able to make this much difference to his son in two months he asked to give her a chance for 6 months or a year to see if all these questions can be answered. Kim Shea, 3936 Syme Drive, Carlsbad, stated that her daughter has been with Jan Taylor for the last two months as well as last year. She said she is often the only one in the driveway dropping her daughter off and that‘s with 14 children at the school. If Jan Taylor is able to run a Montessori School on this site there will be only 12 children dropped off in a 20-minute window versus 14 right now. She said she never had a problem getting out of the driveway and has not experienced the traffic problem that other people said they have seen. Roger Grabo, 3145 Highland Drive, Carlsbad, said he and his wife moved to Carlsbad over 20 years ago. He said when you cross Carlsbad Village Drive onto Highland you’re given the impression of a tree-lined quaint little street and would like to keep it that way. With the proposed parking lot, you may as well put a used car lot there. He asked, “please don’t ruin our Carlsbad and my neighborhood.” John Mullen, 3270 McKinley Street, Carlsbad, echoed everything said in opposition. He said no one is questioning Jan’s ability as a teacher. He said he moved into the neighborhood in 2000. Now he’s wondering if he should make his roots here or is it time to put the for sale sign up and get a good value now before there is commercial in his neighborhood. He said he loves his house but doesn’t necessarily want to be in a neighborhood that‘s going to start allowing commercial properties. John Miller, 1642 James Drive, Carlsbad, said his issues concerned traffic, the historical value of Highland Drive, and the right to privacy for the neighborhood. He said in the three year period they have been there they have not been faced with traffic issues on James Drive. He said he noticed lately that more cars tend to drive down the lower flow traffic streets, so to avoid traffic people start driving on their street. He expressed concern about the safety concerns with traffic along Highland Drive. Kip McBane, 2691 Crest Drive, Carlsbad, stated he was speaking on his own behalf as the former President of the Carlsbad Historical Society, former Chair of the Carlsbad Historic Sites Commission, co- founder of Citizens for Preservation of Olde Carlsbad, and a former Planning Commissioner. He said the home of Carlsbad Mayor Dunne is an important historical site in an important historical zone and is identified as such in the City‘s cultural resources inventory. The only effective method of preservation of Planning Commission Minutes November 20,2002 Page 20 important historical buildings held in private in Carlsbad is adaptive reuse. The only way to save it is to find an economic use for it. Speaking from over 30 years experience as an architect and developer, he said he can assure you that if you don't find an economic use for this building it will be torn down and replaced by three or four mansions. He said there's no zoning for a private elementary school in Carlsbad, it must be permitted as a conditional use. Historically Montessori schools in Carlsbad have been relegated to the barrio where they have no clients. This project is in an appropriate location as it's close to its users and any possible negative effects have been mitigated. Unlike the other two houses on this side of Highland in this block, this owner is not trying to circumvent the City's ordinances by operating businesses in residential zone without appropriate permits. He said you have an opportunity, through permitting an adaptive reuse, to preserve and enhance the history and the charm of this historic site in the neighborhood. At the same time you will be strengthening the mission of Casa Montessori, an important and venerable Carlsbad institution. He asked for approval of the CUP for our children and grandchildren and the future of our neighborhood and community. He added that in ten years as a Montessori parent, he was never aware of a fire or EMT emergency at the Casa Montessori School. He also said they always carpooled with other families and it never resulted in more than 5 cars on the site at one time. Dina Luke, 5451 Loganberry Way, Oceanside, said she had a speech prepared about Jan Taylor, that despite the serious scrutiny of the neighbors and the number of hurdles issued by the Staff, she presses on, not motivated by meager profit but by the desire to build character into the children of this community. Instead of giving the speech, she wanted to address some of issues. Regarding the noise level, she described what happens on a daily basis while the children are inside and outside. She said the children immediately begin their individual work after being dropped off. You would see children working independently at their desks, in a corner on a mat speaking in normal conversation tones about a joint project, and others huddled around a computer with books in their hands and taking notes. In another room classical music plays softly while kids are at a long table with textbooks spread out and a timeline of life is being altered with quiet conversation. Outside the house kids are taking a snack, working around a vegetable garden, watering flowers, etc. Later in the afternoon there is a funeral in the back yard for a deceased critter they found that morning. .Poetry is read in honor of the critter and each child throws dirt onto the grave. Montessori expects a lot from the kids and expects them to behave and function as an adult would. She said there will be some impact to the community in terms of traffic, but the payoffs are tremendous. Communities with excellent schools that hold excellent reputations always have higher property values than their weaker counterparts. Jan is committed to complying with your concerns as she has proven and the product she will put forth will absolutely outweigh the costs. The product will be many active and concerned Carlsbad citizens for the future of this community. Peter Taylor, 3016 Highland Drive, Carlsbad, stated there were a number of unfortunate circumstances associated with this process and Jan never intended to be in this situation where her integrity would be subject to public discussion and where she would be asked to publicly interpret gray areas regarding conducting a family child care facility, areas that actually defy precise legal determination. As continues to be the case, she has been subject to illegal trespassing and surveillance by immediate neighbors. He said they expected that the neighborhood would have trouble adapting to this change of use and may not see the vision of a neighborhood school. He said it's not about creating some capitalistic enterprise; it's about providing a service to the community. He said they did not expect that the project would be a lightning rod for all of the neighborhood concern over traffic and the community frustration with city planning issues in Carlsbad. Clearly this project has taken on some sort of life that's well beyond what it deserves in terms of the community concern with traffic. The main points he wanted to make is that despite the attempt at character assassination, Jan has shown and will continue to show the highest level of integrity when dealing with City officials and City codes. He thought that City personnel would lay testimony that has been the record that she has shown today and he assured the Commissioners that will be what she continues to do. He also said he thinks we need to get back to a consideration of what is at stake. He asked them to consider the right of the individuals and property owners to use property in a manner that is compliant with City codes. That's all that's being requested - to give some consideration to a use that is reasonable and compliant with city codes. He said this is not about getting the community to vote on whether they think it's a good idea. This is about the rights of an individual to develop a property use and submit it to you for consideration. Joe Miraflor, 4922 Alameda Drive, Oceanside, Senior Pastor of North County Tabernacle of Praise, said he was the landlord of Jan Taylor for about 2 % years. He said he was present to rebut and refute a letter that was written allegedly in behalf of North County Tabernacle of Praise for Jan Taylor. He said it would definitely be a real challenge for her to follow and be in compliance with the rules and stipulations that the lo1 Planning Commission Minutes November 20,2002 Page 21 Commission would place on her. As her previous landlord, he said they had nothing but problems and he would unequivocally say that it would be a very problematic situation. He said it‘s not an assassination against her character, but there were a number of problems they had on the property site at 1930 Sunset Drive in Vista. It was his observation that he would characterize the driving habits of the way the parents drove into their parking lot was not conducive to the safety of the students and to each other. He said she was constantly chafing at the rules; always pushing the envelope. There were a number of situations that definitely endangered the students as well as the parents that would disembark their children there. He would characterize her tenure at 1930 Sunset Drive as a real nightmare. Gary Pearson, 3265 Highland Drive, Carlsbad, said the fact came up that she can also provide early hours and after hours daycare, which is basically a license to arrive at any time. He said you have to question whether or not the staggering in practicality will be enforced. Now there is cause to question, from further testimony, whether or not rules would be enforced in any case. The whole lynchpin of the mitigation was the staggering and there’s a loophole in that in terms of being able to arrive for early hour daycare. He said his issue relative to the traffic is risk to the City. There’s bound to be an accident in the next five years. If it can be shown that we’ve gone through all of this due diligence and Staff has recommended against it and you go ahead and approve it, the City is wide open for a lawsuit. It‘s a risk the City does not have to take. Seeing no one else wishing to testify, Chairperson Trigas asked the applicant or her representative to respond to questions. Jack Henthorn stated that it‘s clear in the Staff Report that the project as it was modified before it came to the Commission appeared to address most of the issues. The issues that remained related to traffic and those issues have been resolved with the exception of the question of whether or not the staggered arrivaVdeparture situation would work. He addressed the following concerns: Parking Lot - In the planned view the parking lot is paved and is basically in two tiers. There’s a center island that would buffer the parking spaces and provide additional buffering of the wall area in front of the house. The lower tier of parking and circulation has an additional buffering area with trees and shrubs to screen the area from view from Highland. He pointed out on the drawing to show what would be seen from the street. There are currently two access points. The access point to the north is going to be removed and will eliminate some of the conflicts that currently occur when traffic enters and exits the site. Traffic Circulation - Cars that pull in and are able to pull to the side have a free-through movement that they can make due to the existence of a 14-foot drive out that will remain completely open. There’s enough stacking for 12 vehicles around the perimeter of the area as well as a complete through-lane that would remain open at all times to allow for ingress and egress from the site, including emergency vehicle ingress and egress. Noise and Acoustic Study - The applicant would be required to present the acoustical analysis to the Building Department at the time building permits would be issued. It would be done by a licensed specialist in noise and that information would be presented along with the building permit application. Concerns about the noise currently emanating from the site are justified. There are currently no noise mitigation measures on the site. After project completion there would be a noise wall. There’s a slope outside the property line so the noise wall is 4 feet higher than the property line between the two properties. The noise wall is a solid masonry wall 6 feet high and Mr. Gardner’s house was about 10-15 feet below the grade of the subject property. Fire Trucks - Mr. Henthorn said fire apparatus on the street is a normal situation during an emergency even though the fire department told him they try to drive into the site when there’s more than 150 from the right-of-way to the furthest point in the structure from the fire truck. He pointed out that 150 feet would be in the area of the proposed configuration of the structures. He said he wasn’t sure if the fire department would actually drive in and would defer to the fire department on that. Zoning - Regarding something extraordinary being sought in a residential zone - conditional uses are permitted in residential zones. This happens to be one of those uses that, through the granting of a conditional use permit, is permitted in a residential zone. lo 8 Planning Commission Minutes November 20,2002 Page 22 Profit Motive - Mr. Henthorn didn’t think that was really an issue because whether it‘s profit, nonprofit, or a public school, his guess would be they would hear the same rhetoric. Noise Wall - The intent with the wall terminating at that location was to basically eliminate the noise from the play area. He didn’t think the applicant would object to a solid barrier being placed if it served to mitigate the next-door neighbors concerns. Mr. Henthorn stated that what‘s before the Commission is consideration of the CUP that‘s been requested and the conditions that Staff has brought forward that they feel would answer questions of neighborhood compatibility. Ms. Taylor addressed the following concerns: Hours - The application states the hours are from 8:OO to 530 Monday through Friday. She said they would normally be outside between 12:OO and 1 :00 for recess and lunch. Special Events - Planned to be held offsite. Summer School - If possible, the hours would be the same during the summer. Regarding the need to have a 10-foot wall at the rear of the property, Jack Henthorn stated that the situation at the rear property line is that there is kind of a mid-slope property line so there’s four feet of grade differential between the property line and the grade level on the property. The wall is proposed to be 6 feet high. The total distance between the top of the wall and the pad grade of Mr. Gardner’s house is approximately 16 feet of vertical separation. He wasn’t sure it would make any difference if it were a 10- foot or 6-foot wall because the house is below the source of noise and the wall is so much higher than the house. Commissioner Trigas closed public testimony. Ms. Kennedy responded to the following questions: Who would monitor Conditions 18, 19, and 20 - It will be up to the applicant to abide by those conditions. Code enforcement is operated on a complaint basis. If they get complaints they would first try to get voluntary compliance. If there were a situation where she is consistently not complying, it would be brought before the Planning Commission to see if additional conditions needed to be put onto the project or if they would want to revoke the CUP. How will they check the number of children - They are required to have fire drills and they have a list of children that go in and out of the school so they would be able to check that on a monthly basis, if necessary. How many supporters live on Highland Drive - Ms. Kennedy said she counted 7. The project is at 301 6 and the supporters were in the 2600 and 2800 blocks and the 3500 and 4300 blocks. They were not in the immediate area. Sidewalks - In regard to the statement that there is a requirement for sidewalks in front of schools, Mr. Rick said this project will not be required to install sidewalks. They will be required to enter into a Neighborhood Improvement Agreement that states that if the neighbors of that block were to ever form an assessment or some type of financial district to design and build sidewalk improvements along Highland Drive that they would agree to enter into such a district. Chairperson Trigas wanted to confirm her assumption that the family day care would not continue and she would only have the 36 children. Ms. Kennedy said there would be a maximum of 36 and if some of the 36 were before and after hours, that would be okay. Commissioner Segall asked for information on the statement regarding the applicant grading the property without a permit. Mr. Rick said it‘s their understanding that in the spring of 2000 there was a grading violation on the property. According to their engineering inspector the property owner responded and 9 Planning Commission Minutes November 20,2002 Page 23 rectified the problem within a reasonable time and that the violation was removed. He believed the applicant was the property owner at the time. Chairperson Trigas asked if the Commission wanted to extend the meeting until the issue was resolved. The Commission agreed to extend the meeting. RECESS Chairperson Trigas called a recess at 955 p.m. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Chairperson Trigas called the meeting back to order at 10:02 p.m. and asked for a discussion from the Commission prior to entertaining a motion. Commissioner Segall said he supported the project last month and likes the concept of the Montessori School and having it in the neighborhood. However, after hearing today’s testimony and looking at the site he was wondering if it is a good idea. He thought it would be very difficult to monitor and enforce the CUP conditions without getting the City involved. Once the City is involved it doesn’t mean it‘s going to be mitigated immediately due to the process, and he had concerns about that. He said he is now having second thoughts about whether it is compatible with the neighborhood and wasn’t sure he could support the CUP with the new information he had and after looking at the site. Commissioner White said she thinks Highland Drive is a very unique and attractive neighborhood. She still feels, as she did a month ago, that this particular site is a transition area because it‘s sitting on Carlsbad Village Drive. She felt its location is a special circumstance that does not make this property quite the same as other properties on Highland Drive. Her biggest concern is traffic and not causing backup on Carlsbad Village Drive or causing a safety issue. She thinks staggering times and letting the children out with adult help is a way to get around this. It would require the applicant to show a great willingness and being careful everyday with the parents to make sure this can work correctly. She was also somewhat persuaded by a speaker’s arguments that this is a private property issue as well as a community issue and thinks the applicant has some private property rights as long as her application is in compliance. She said she would support the project with an amendment that requires it to be reviewed within one year regardless of whether there have been any complaints or not. Speaking for herself, she said her support for this project does not in any way set a precedent for future commercialization from other applications that are coming down the line in this area. She wanted to assure everyone in the audience that they look at every application very carefully as a separate entity and they all appreciate the older neighborhoods of Carlsbad. Commissioner Heineman said he agrees in most part with Commissioner White. He felt the testimony, although sincere, grossly overstated the problems and understated the benefits. This is a service to the community and he felt it‘s a desirable and unique use that is not likely to spread along Highland Drive and turn it into a commercial venture. He said he’s in favor of it. Commissioner Whitton said their charge as a Commission is to be sensitive to citizens’ concerns as expressed in public hearings and correspondence while at the same time ensuring the long-term welfare of the City. Having said that, there are over 21 1 neighborhood people opposing the CUP for Montessori School and 47 people from various parts of Carlsbad and elsewhere supporting it. He said he’s not against the school per se, but in reality it‘s a business in a residential neighborhood and he cannot support it. The findings to allow the approval of the CUP had not been met in his opinion. So much of the rationale set forth to try to support and approve the site is based on human control and cooperation of all to make this function well. The most important issues to him are the safety and traffic issues. By approving the CUP he thinks they are setting somewhat of a precedent because somebody else in the community, regardless of whether it‘s Highland or elsewhere, can request a CUP to establish another kind of a business in a residential neighborhood. He said he thinks if they do approve it in this so called “fringe area” you’re putting a commercial venture on the edge of a neighborhood and it has potential to grow like a cancer sooner or later. He supports Montessori School and its concept, however, believes they would be best served to leave it as a day care center with 14 students and 2 staff as it currently is today. Planning Commission Minutes November 20,2002 Page 24 Commissioner Baker thanked everyone who came to this meeting as well as the meeting last month to give their testimony. She said she did not support the project the last time because she doesn’t think it‘s the right location. She’s in favor of having private schools of any kind in the community and even in neighborhoods, but has some major concerns that this is not the correct site. There are too many conditions imposed on it that will make it difficult for the school to function the way it needs to and make it workable for everyone. She encouraged the applicant to look at other places in the community where the Montessori School could be a valuable part of the community and applauded her tenacity in trying to make this work. Regarding private property rights and CUPS, Commissioner Baker said this is a zoned R-1 residential neighborhood and schools are in neighborhoods and allowed by CUP, which means the Commission and City Council have to take each one on a case by case basis and weigh the merits of each project. She said she didn’t know that allowing it would create a precedent or that disallowing it creates a precedent either. She said she thinks they’re being as respectful as they can of the Taylors’ property rights as well as those in the neighborhood and she could not support the project. Chairperson Trigas said she had some real ambivalence at the last hearing and her concern was the reality of this. She doesn’t believe all the conditions that were set up could be fulfilled without it being very difficult on the neighbors as well as the applicant with people spying on one another, people being defensive, people calling the City, and children being hurt in the long run. To expect children not to go outside and play ball and if the ball doesn’t stay in the yard the City immediately gets called is ridiculous. It puts a use in a neighborhood that is causing such animosity on both sides. The last time she voted in a way that they could come back and show where they could operate it with all the different requirements. She said she would have to agree with Staffs recommendation to not approve it because she does not feel it‘s a realistic resolution. Both sides will find it a very unworkable situation. She agreed that property rights should be considered but this is a residential zone. She thanked everyone for their input and said she cannot support it by hoping that this would work out knowing that it’s an untenable situation. MOTION ACTION: VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: MOTION ACTION: VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Motion by Commissioner White and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 5314 adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 5315 approving CUP 01-12, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. 2-4 Commissioners Heineman and White Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Baker, Segall, and Whitton None Motion by Commissioner Baker and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 5225 denying Conditional Use Permit CUP 01-12, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. 4-2 Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Baker, Segall, and Whitton Commissioners Heineman and White None STARRMATTERHORN PAGE 01 EXHBIT 7 GerryMattcr 3530 Avondale Cr. Carlsbad, CA 92008 November 20.2002 City of Carlsbad Planning Commission 1635 Faraday Catlsbad, CA 92008 Subject: Montessori Arts and Sciences Center Dcar Commissioners, Much is being said about the existence of the Montessori Center on Highland Drive. City requirements on zoning arc being met by Jan Taylor and I will not comment in this regard. I would, however, like to express my views on the children attending the Center. They came to my attention during a docent tour I conducted at a local art museum. I have led docent tours for many groups of children, but at the end of this onc, T rcalized this group had greatly impressed me. They were well behaved, intelligent, creative, inquisitive and provided me with a rewarding experience. Watching children blossom is inspiring. As a 24 year resident of Olde Carlsbad, I travel Highland Dr. often. Change in any area is uncomfortable. I have personally opposed changes impacting my neighborhood over the years. I have learned change is inevitable and compromise always wins the day. 'These children arc an asset to the community and they desem not only a chance, but the respect of their neighbors. Gerry Matter cc: Carlsbad City Council Jan Taylor The Planning Commission City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 November 12,2002 Subject: Conditional Use Permit CUPO1-12 3016 Highland Drive Casa Montessori Elementary, a private school Dear Commission Members, I would like to express my strong support for Jan Taylor’s proposal to provide the City of Carlsbad a healthy and inspiring environment for young children to grow and learn on Highland Drive. My wife and I have lived here in Old Carlsbad for nearly 17 years. Our children went to the areas public schools. One reason we moved to Carlsbad was for the schools. Top quality education is a powerful attraction for parents wanting the best for their children. As Commissioners, I would expect that one factor you consider when evaluating a project is how it helps the reputation of Carlsbad and whom it attracts. This school is an important and valuable addition to Carlsbad. Dreams are important. This dream for Casa Montessori School is worthy of your support. The property and house are intact and will remain intact. This immeasurably helps to maintain the “Old Carlsbad” residential appeal we value. I understand this property once belonged to a former mayor. This small school’s impact (traffic and noise) will be negligible. Just up and down Carlsbad Village Drive are the Lutheran Church, the Carlsbad Library, and the Fire Station. Two blocks north on Highland are Buena Vista ES and the Jehovah’s Witnesses Temple. The traffic impact from Casa Montessori is minor even when compared to any of these facilities. This project absolutely will benefit the community. It will help children that may not do well in larger class environments. And, good schools attract top-notch residents. In weighing this dream that Jan has, consider the benefits to the community and to the future of its residents: they are immeasurable. Imagine the young students, with their dreams blooming. And twenty, thirty years from now, they may return to Carlsbad to raise their families (as many of us have) in the special environment we have. The dreaming is then sustained long into the future. The purpose of the Planning Commission is to evaluate and exercise its vision for the future improved quality of Carlsbad. This proposal will significantly add to the quality of Carlsbad. The future is in our young ones. To help them learn and think and “do good works” is vital to the quality of our civilization. Please approve the Conditional Use Permit for Jan Taylor. ”- Sincerely, Douglwacobson 1 196 Magnolia Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008 (w) 858.573.5846 (h) 760.729.5526 cc: Ms. Jan Taylor Mayor Bud Lewis Ann J. Kulchin Ramona Finnila Matt Hall Julianne Nygaard -. 12250 El Camino Real San Diego, Ca 92130 Phone 858-481-5392 FAX 858-481-5394 November 8,2002 Planning Department, City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Ave. Carlsbad, Ca 92008-73 14 Re: Public Hearing Casa Montessori De Vista School. CUP 0 1- 12 We are owners of property receiving notice of the public hearing for a private school on Highland Ave. and Carlsbad Village Dr. Our property fronts on Carlsbad Village Dr south of Highland Dr. We support the private school's application, believing our education system needs all the help it can get and having experience with the Montessori program believe they will give the children of Carlsbad a great start. Sincerely, AI Kern Manager All Star Equities LLC '* . Mark and Susanne Millian 2029 Cordoba Place Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760) 720- 1778 September 19,2002 Barbara Kennedy City of Carlsbad Planning Commission 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Ms. Kennedy, I am writing this letter in support of Janann Taylor and her efforts to establish the Montessori Arts and Sciences school in Carlsbad. I have been a business owner in the village for almost 20 years, and also a homeowner in Carlsbad for many years. My children currently attend Carlsbad public schools (Kelly Elementary and Valley Middle School), and my wife is a substitute teacher for the Carlsbad School District, as well as the volunteer art program coordinator at Kelly. We have been, and are now, involved in innumerable activities and events in this city, from school PTAs, to Carlsbad Dance, to my role as a coordinator and coach for the Carlsbad Soccer Club and as a sports volunteer for the Boys and Girls Club, to my latest endeavor as a member of the discipline standards review committee at Valley. Through all of my involvement in this community, I feel I have come to know what makes Carlsbad the unique city that it clearly is. Other North County cities may be larger, or trendier, or wealthier, but none approaches the level of community that our city has. That sense of community, of everyone belonging to a shared set of values and goals, is a palpable feeling in our city, and a key ingredient to our quality of life. A huge part of these values and goals revolve around our children. While my children have attended public school since first grade, they both attended preschool and kindergarten at a private Montessori school in the village. 1 feel strongly that ensuring this variety of educational opportunity in Carlsbad is of tremendous importance. While my children are now happy and successful in the public school system, I know that there are many children who profit tremendously from the special environment that only a small private school can provide. Whether they need extra attention, or need a smaller, quieter setting, or are developmentally gifted and able to benefit from individualized opportunity, there are always going to be children, and families, that will benefit from the small private schools that are in our community. I also know that there will always be those who don't want anything at all in "their backyard", regardless of any other factor. But, the very real benefit to our community of a school like Montessori Arts and Sciences overwhelmingly outweighs the miniscule amount of traffic and noise generated by such a place. I strongly urge you to support this school, and the benefits it would bring to our city. Yours sincerely, Mark A. Millian July 15, 2002 Carlsbad Planning Commissioners 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Commissioners, As a parent of "past" Casa Montessori School students, I am writing in support of Jan Taylor and her endeavor to open a school at 3016 Highland Drive, here in Carlsbad. My association with Mrs. Taylor dates from 1992 through 1996, when two of my children attended "Casa" at its' Vista location. Throughout that involvement with Casa Montessori de Vista, the school was run in an organized and professional manner. Small class sizes and a qualified teaching staff were a few of the benefits, which drew my husband and I to the school in our initial "look into the program. Along with basic academic subjects, our children were offered both Spanish and German language classes, as well as art and music appreciation. With the ratio of teacher/students at approximately 2/15, the quality of education was extremely high, due to much individualized attention. Both teachers and parent volunteers supervised student activities and playtime, as well as lunchtimes. While the commute from Carlsbad to Vista was a bit longer than we would have liked, drop-off'and pick-up were an easy in and out. After hearing of Mrs. Taylor's hopes to relocate the school to Carlsbad, I was really pleased. As a Carlsbad resident and homeowner for the past 17 years, I believe ii would only be a benefit to have Casa Montessori in our midst. Organized, professional, and highly creative in its approach to education, I'm sure you would find that Casa Montessori would be a wonderful, new addition to the Carlsbad community. Kind regards, JUL-17-02 0S:lS PM JAYCE MCCLELLeN 760 729 S218 P. e1 Jayce McClellan MdClellan Insurance Agency . PO. Box 99 Carlshad. CA 92018-0099 emall: !aycsrn3cQClocJos,cal~a~.~~t License Ub424D: 2 (760) 729-3612 . FAX (7m 729-5218 Margie Damn 1232 Pine Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 c 17 July 2002 Carlsbad Planning Commission 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Planning Commissioners, This letter is respectfully submitted to you in support of Jan Taylor's application for Casa Montessori Elementary School at 3016 Highland Drive, Carlsbad, California. I am a resident of Carlsbad and live walking distance from the proposed location for Casa Montessori Elementary. I drive the corner of Highland and Carlsbad Village Drive several times a day and believe that 15 minutes or less of dropoff and pick-up tra€€ic two times a day will not adversely impact the intersection or flow of traf€ic on Highland Drive. More importantly, I currently live directly across the street from Kruger House Preschool, and can assure you that there is absolutely no negative impact on the amount of traffic during the drop off and pick-up times which are 4 times a day, 3 days a week, and 2 times a day, twice a week. In fact, it is a joy to see the children playing in the playground when school is in session It adds a comforting sense of community to our neighborhood. The benefits of having Casa Montessori Elementary School in our neighborhood far outweigh any "concerns" expressed against it. I fully support and believe that the addition of Casa Montessori Elementary School will add tremendous value to our community and bring honorable recognition to our city's support for education. Having choicesin our children's education is vital to us as parents and to have those choices here in Carlsbad will only make OUT city and community an outstanding one. Further, having Casa Montessori Elementary just blocks away from Casa Montessori de Carlsbad is an important and very beneficial extension for those of us whose wish to continue Montessori education for our children. Again, as a parent and resident of Carlsbad, I encourage and support and welcome the approval of Casa Montessori Elementary School and am very much looking forward to my children attending the school within the year. Please share in bringing this valuable asset to our community. Thank you for your attention. I you require further statements or information, please feel free to call me at 730-9413. Sincerely, Planning Commissioners 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, California 92008 4260 Sunnyhill Drive Carlsbad, California 92008 July 17,2002 PLANNING DEFAGTMENT CltV 3: Sarlsbad Dear Planning Commissioners: Montessori de Vista School for a conditional use permit to operate the school at 3016 Highland Avenue in Carlsbad. As the former dxector of both schools before retirement, T know that it will be a great service to parents to have both schools so much closer together that they have been for the past years. I am writing to express my support Tor the applicaiion by Casa I think that a small private school would be an excellent use for this older property and will be a good buffer to the neighborhood from the traffic on Carlsbad Village Drive. There are professional and civic buildings close by and a church with another small school in the next block. A school such as this will be a good neighbor. I have known Mrs. Taylor for twenty-five years and know that she will provide a good service to the children of Carlsbad and their fdes. Sincerely, Avril Ferpon J L 0 0 __ . - "-1.. , -., From: "Pat Hansen" <playreadersOadelphia.net> To: <bkennQci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: 7/17/02 12:09AM Subject: CUP 01 -1 2 Barbara Kennedy As a Highland Drive neighbor of the proposed Casa Montessori School, I believe the new Montessori school will be an asset to Carlsbads education programs, and a friendly neighbor. It appears to me that the owners have made every effort to comply with City needs; and I believe that a conditional use permit should be granted to them. The Planning Commission Agenda for July 17 notes that staff is recommending denying the request. I am surprised, and wonder on what grounds. I plan to attend the July 17 meeting and hope to speak to the Commission in favor of this project. Thank you, Pat Hansen 3514 Highland Drive' Carlsbad, CA 92008 This has been my family's residence for over 30 years. Our grown children attended K-12 grades in the local schools. Planning Commissioners 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad CA 92008 Dear Commissioners As a Highland Drive neighbor of the proposed Casa de Montessori School, I would like to express my support for that venture. Years of carell planning, and compliance with City requirements, are evident. The school will be an attractive neighbor, and traffic impact is minimal; only briefly in the morning and afternoon. The school has a good reputation for education and service to the community; and is primarily used only weekdays on a traditional school calendar. My family has been at our Highland Drive address for over 30 years, and our now grown children attended K through 12th grades in the nearby public schools. As a senior and retiree, 1 welcome the vitality that a children's education program adds to the neighborhood. Please consider granting a Conditional Use Pennit for the Casa Montessori School. Pat Hansen 3514 Highland Drive ' Carlsbad CA 92008 760 729 3383 4 TABERNACLE OF PRAISE 1930 SUNSET DR. VISTA, CA. 92083 PLANNING DEPARTME'iT City (if Carlrbao CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISIONERS 1200 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR. CARLSBAD, CA. 92008 JULY 23,20(12 . .' DEAR COMMISIONERS, I UNDERSTAND THAT JAN TAYLOR IS IN THE PROCESS OF CARLSBAD. TABERNACLE OF PRAISE HAS WORKED WITH JAN SINCE 1998. WITH JAN AS THE DIRECTOR, THE SCHOOL LEASED CLASSROOMS, PLAYGROUND, SPORTSFIELD AND PARKING LOT FOR SCHOOL DAYS. SHARING THE SPACE, TABERNACLE OF PRAISE USED THE SPACE FOR SUNDAY SCHOOL AND OTHER CHURCH RELATED ACTIVITIES ON THE WEEKENDS AND WEDNESDAY NIGHTS. APPLYING FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 01-12 IN THE CITY OF IN SEPTEMBER 2001, SUNSET LEARNING CENTER WAS ESTABLISHED AND SHARED SPACE WITH CASA MONTESSORI FOR THE EFFECTIVE EDUCATOR WHO IS CONCERNED ABOUT QUALITY OF ENVIRONMENT AND RESPECT FOR NEIGHBORS. I KNOW THAT JAN TAYLOR WILL COMPLY WITH ANY REQUIREMENTS REQUESTED BY THE CITY. ACADEMIC YEAR 2001-2002. I RECOMMEND JAN TAYLOR AS A HIGHLY THE FAMILIES WHO WORK WITH CASA MONTESSORI HAVE ALWAYS BEEN SUPPORTIVE OF OUR NEEDS AND RQUESTS. TRAFFIC AND PAKING WERE WELL MANAGED. I UNDERSTAND MONTESSORt TO BE AN INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATIONAL OPTION. THE CARS ARRIVED AND DEPARTED IN A STAGGERED MANNER, BY NATURE OF THE SCHOOL. OFTEN, FAMILIES WOULD CARPOOL. JAN TAYLOR AND HER EXCELLENT STAFF WORKED DILIGENTLY TO KEEP OUR CHURCH AND GROUNDS PROFESSIONALLY MAINTAINED. JAN ALSO HELPED US KEEP THE FACILITY SECURE. N MIRAFLOR BUSINESS MANAGER Barbara Kennedy City of Carlsbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Ms. Kennedy, July 8,2002 Carlsbad, CA 92008 ., .. My purpose in writing is to urge you to consider at least a temporary approval for the conditional use permit application at 3016 Highland Drive. This Montessori type school would not be a "high impact commercial" use as some have suggested. Noise and impacts from a small school of this size would be minimal. Children at play are not an "impact" in a residential neighborhood. Nearly every public school in the city (including the newest at Calavera Hills) is nestled among single family homes. And, numerous private institutions (including several Montessori, Pilgrim Children's Center, The Helen Almond Youth Center, etc.) border private residences without significant adversity. Besides, the proposed use for the subject property would be much less intrusive then Carlsbad Village Drive which it borders to the North. Therefore, I urge you to give the applicants a chance to demonstrate their willingness and ability to address all concerns in a reasonable and timely manner. Sincerely, Leanne Kellett ATTACHMENT 6 March 3,2002 Barbara Kennedy 1200 Carlsbad Village Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Ms. Kennedy: I am writing on behalf of Casa Montessori de Vista School which is in the process of moving its facility to Carlsbad. I happen to be a parent of a child there with specific educational needs since I work as a TV News anchor at night for Fox 6 News. This is one of the few schools in San Diego County that fills a niche for parents like me with difficult work schedules. My daughter, who is in second grade, works with me at home part of the day and at school part of the day. The teaching staff is incredibly cooperative in helping me develop a specialized education plan to fit our needs. whatever it takes to facilitate the needs of the school's administration to assure that other parents could take advantage of what they have to offer. This is a very rare yet necessary option to have in our schools. I hope you do Sincerely Yours, Estha Trouw Pando January 11,2002 City of Carlsbad Barbara Kennedy Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, Ca 92009 Re: 3016 Highland Drive Dear Barbara, The purpose of this letter is to support Mrs. Jan Taylor in providing a Montessori education located at her property at 3016 Highland Drive. My husband and I have reviewed the site plan, architectural plans and floor plans of the intended facility. The landscape and the “keeping” of the appearance of the former Mayor Dunne’s home would not only fit in the neighborhood but compliment the neighborhood as well. The property built in 1938 appears as a schoolhouse and encourages a small, private school. If this building were tom down and two houses with two granny flats were built on this site, the aesthetic qualities of this property would certainly be missed. We are familiar with the Montessori education as we have one child currently at Casa Montessori de Carlsbad and one at Casa Montessori de Vista. Montessori method encourages each child to work on hidher own curriculum. This being the case, drop offs tend to vary versus everybody showing up for a class at.the same time. Carlsbad would be fortunate to offer the quality of education that Jan Taylor’s school provides. Jan is commited to the education of our children. Her passion for her work is apparent through the results she produces with her students. She is commited to excellence! It is important to give the parents diverse options for the education of the children and obvioulsy, Carlsbad is in need of more schools. As parents and Carlsbad locals, (we have lived in Carlsbad for 35 years) we fully support this project and look forward to a favorable approval for Mrs. Taylor. Thank you for your consideration. 3275 Meadowlark Lanv Carlsbad, Ca 92008 I I November 16,2001 City of Carlsbad Barbars Kexedy Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, Ca 92009 Re: 3016 Highland Drive Dear Barbara, CA Don and I wanted to share our support for the proposed Montessori school on Highland Drive. It is our understanding that this site is in the process of staff review and would be a perfect site for a school that offers a Montessori education. The Montessori method was devised in 1907 and how appropriate to locate the school 011 a piece of property that was built in 1938. The proposed site of a small school would truly enhance the intersection and could well be a landmark for Carlsbad. It is apparant that Carlsbad needs more schools due to the over-crowding of the public schools. Our children attended Casa Montessori de Carlsbad 30 years ago, and as you well know it is still in existence with a long waiting list. Carisbad is growing by leaps and bounds and it is imperative that we have quality education as well as diverse options for parents and children who prefer the smaller setting and a less structured environment. We have lived in Carlsbad for over 36 years and well remember the Dunne family. They would be quiie proud 10 see their property preserved and used as.3 hfiuriiessori Schooihouse. We know Jan Taylor personally. Her passion and commitment to the education of our children is outstanding. We also know she is willing to work with staff to make this a win-win situation, not only for her school, but also for the City of Carlsbad. Barbara, thank you for your attention to this matter and our best to you and Kieth. cc: Bill Dominguez, Bob Nielsen Geofiey Bell D.D.S 3686 Highland Dr. Carlsbad Ca. Carlsbad City Council 1200 Elm Ave Carlsbad Ca. 92008 Dear Carlsbad City Council, I am writing to support the application by Jan Taylor to site a Montessori school on the corner of Highland and Carlsbad Village Drive. The proposed site is located within an area that has city services i.e. the library, city hall, and a fire station, and several churches, some of which also have schools. The school would be on the edge of a residential neighborhood but the city has a history of locating large public schools, ex. Carlsbad High School, and religious schools like Beautfil Savior in residential areas. To deny this permit would imply a prejudice against school placement solely because of its private and secular character. If you deny this permit then the Carlsbad School District’s application for placement of the new Village Academy on the comer of Magnolia and Valley should also be rejected given the impacts of this project would greatly exceed the impact of the Taylor’s project. This is a matter of fairness and the equal application of standards. If it is good enough for the public sector, and good enough for the religious sector then it should be good enough for the private sector. Sincerely c- / ple@e$Bell D.D.S. la 9 December 3 1,200 1 Barbara Kennedy City of Carlsbad Planning Department 1 635 Faraday Carlsbad, CA 92008 Regarding the property at 30 16 Highland Drive and application for a Montessori School at that site. Schools belong in neighborhoods as are all the other schools in Carlsbad. Lots adjacent to Carlsbad Village Drive are a buffer area and Carlsbad Village Drive has a fire station, city hall, 2 churches, library, and soon Senior Living all within one block of this propzrty. My only request is that Highland Drive be widened to 18 feet on the east side from the corner of Carlsbad Village Drive south for 150 feet with and asphalt berm connecting to the present street with diagonally after that. No Concrete curb, gutter or sidewalk. This will allow traffic turning onto Highland Drive heading south to pass cars waiting to turn left into the school parking lot. This will not affect any trees or utilities and the rural flavor of the neighborhood will not be lost. I have viewed the plans for the school and find all other aspects adequate. I live on the comer diagonally opposite from this property. ”1 7 k _- __.” / ”-- ” ary Nessim 2987 Highland Drive Carlsbad, Ca 92008 Barbara Kennedy Planning Department City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92009 December 3 1,200 1 Dear Ms. Kennedy, We are writing in support of the proposed Montessori school at 3016 Highland Drive which we understand is currently in Staff Review for a conditional use permit. We are property owners on Pine Avenue near Highland Drive. We see the proposal as a win-win for the residents of, and the city of, Carlsbad. Schools belong in the heart of a neighborhood, and this addition would offer parents a choice not currently available for their children's education. The proposed site is favorable as it is near a main artery, Carlsbad Village Drive, and neighborhood traffic impact should be minimal. Children, such as ours. will even be able to walk to school. We believe the landscaping plan is adequate and will provide a residential appearance to the historical landmark house. We support this project and hope that the Staff Review will as well. Sincerely, Paul and Tiffany Gamache 1436 Pine Avenue 760-434-6 162 October 26,2001 Barbara Kennedy City of Carlsbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92009 Re: Casa Montessori de Vista School Dear Ms. Kennedy: I am writing in regards to the proposed move ofthe Casa Montessori de Vista School to 3016 Highland Drive. I have toured the proposed property, seen the architectural plan, floor plan and site plan. I am in favor of the school being allowed to move to Highland Drive. As a parent of a 20-month old child who is currently enrolled in Montessori pre-school, 1 support the Montessori program and welcome the opportunity to have a nearby choice for my child’s education. 1 was initially concerned about the parking and drop-off situation, but after viewing the plans, it seems that there is ample parking and waiting areas for parents who drive the children to school. The building that the school will be located in seems very nice and ideal for a Montessori. school. Additionally, the backyard area offers a wonderfd large playground and grass area. I urge you to approve the Conditional Use Permit for this school as I think it will be a valuable asset to the community. Sincerely, Kim McKibben 13 80 Pine Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760) 720- 1994 32 f'. 0. Box 1808 Carlsbad, CA ,SZO I 8 Phone (7t;o) ,720-1 7 I I ................................................................ City of carfsbad Dear MS. Barbara Kennedy, After viewing the possible new site for the school, we are very excited. We wish to convey our wholehearted support for the plans. As a Carlsbad resident, we see this school as an asset to the city. The small school is compatible with a residential neighborhood especially due to the comer location. Having attended the Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses for Five years, we are confident MS. Taylofs reputation for politeness, organization and consideration will no doubt be greatly appreciated by the neighbors. We are thrilled someone has finally fiiled the void for an uppergrade Montessori school in Carlsbad. Sincerely, 49-4- Laye and Sandra f'ollak 133 h * ?..? f t-? -4 8 ," 4 " "" "-. - .. . f.. -.. .. . Kip McBane & Leslie Williams 2691 Crest Drive Carisbad, California 92008 (760) 729 5152 October 23,200 1 Barbara Kennedy, Project Planner Planning Department City of Carlsbad 163 5 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Dear Ms. Kennedy: re: Casa Montessori, Southeast Comer of Highland Drive & Carlsbad Village Drive We happily support the idea of Casa Montessori relocating to the southeast corner of Highland Drive and Carlsbad Village Drive in Carlsbad. Casa Montessori provides a high quality educational program for elementary school children. As parents of now college age graduates of Casa Montessori, we know that it provides a superior alternative to public school education for many students. Classes are small and well- managed, with far fewer behavior problems than associated with large groups of children. The location seems ideal from a compatibility, convenience and transportation point of view. It is well served by both public transit and the street and fieeway system, and within walking distance for many staff members and students. A small selective school in that location is consistent with other uses along Carlsbad Village Drive in the area: the City Hall, library, proposed retirement home, Lutheran Church and School, Jehovah's Witness' Temple, and the day care center at the southwest comer of Valley and Cq-lsbad Village Drive, to name but a few. Certainly the Casa Montessori project will generate much less traffic than most of these facilities, and it should be a welcome addition to the neighborhood. As past president of the Carlsbad Historical Society and a former chair of the Historical Sites Commission, I am enthusiastic about this opportunity to preserve the character of former Mayor Dunn's house through adaptive reuse of the facility. As you know, this interesting house and site were not only occupied by an important character in local history, but were pivotal in determining the layout of Elm Avenue (Carlsbad Village Drive) and the street system in the area. This house and site can now play a key roll in establishing the character of an alternative street design for Highland Drive while providing an important community amenity. As a former planning commissioner for the City of Carlsbad, I believe this to be an appropriate, compatible, desirable use for this location. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. We hope that the City works diligently with Caw Montessori to approve this project in a timely manner so that it is able to accept students in its new home not later than next fall. Thank you for your consideration. Since[ely, y,;; , .Ju;Y +a+"- -. Kip McBane and Leslie Williams cc: Jan Taylor Laurence A. Senseman, M.D. 1365 Pine Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 5 :? 3 I36 ~ , .. 801 Pme Avenue Carlsbad. CA 92008 (760) 729-9291 FAX (760) 729-9685 ... a worla class u!s!r!c: August 27,2001 To Whom It May Concern: Ms. Jan Taylor has recently informed the Carlsbad Unified School District of her intent to place a Montessori School for 6-12 year old children in a private residence located at the comer of Carlsbad Village Drive and Highland. The program that she will offer is based upon sound research and a proven track record. The Carlsbad Unified School District would support her efforts to obtain a conditional use permit to establish this school. We would see no conflict with our district’s offerings and programs. This particular location is not in close proximity to any of our current schools and would not pose a traffic issue for any Carlsbad schools which normally have high traffic volume at drop off and pick up times. Please contact us if you have any questions regarding our support of Ms. Taylor’s efforts to provide alternative private school programs. Cheryl Emst !’ Superintendent / 10/20/01 JAN TAYLOR CASA MONTESSORI DE VISTA SCHOOL 1930 SUNSET DRIVE VISTA CA 92083 DEAR JAN- I HOPE THIS LEITER SERVES AS OUR FAMILY'S SUPPORT TOWARDS CASA MONTESSORI SCHOOL MOVING TO 3016 HIGHLAND DRIVE. I AM CONFIDENT THAT THE NEW SCHOOL WILL HAVE A POSITIVE IMPACT ON OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY. I AM ESPECIALLY PLEASED WITH THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT YOU HAVE MADE TO THE PROPERTY ON HIGHLAND DRIVE. AS A NEIGHBORTO YOU AND THE NEW SCHOOL 1 AM LOOKING FORWARD TO THIS POSITIVE CHANGE TO OURQUAINT NEIGHBORHOOD. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE DO NOT HESITATE TO CALL ME AT (760) 434-8345. B LAYN E HARVEY 1420 PINE AVE. CARLSBAD, CA 92008 139 a 1 2-28-0 I To whom it may concern: I am writing this letter as a vote of confidence for the project at 3016 Highland Dr. Casa Montessori elementary. Jan Taylor and her school has proven itself over the years as a reputable and conscientious business entity. The project fits in the neighborhood, and to that extent, has vowed to keep the integrity of the architecture and surrounding grounds. I have no problem with this project. Sincerely: Zell Dwelley 2771 Wilson St. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad Planning Department Faraday Building This letter is to offer my support to Jan Taylor’s proposed Montessori school. It is my understanding; the school will be located in the former home of Mayor Due, on the comer of Highland and Carlsbad Village Drive. I was informed that neighbors oppose the school due to an increase in traffic and noise. All Carlsbad schools, private and public are already located within residential/ commercial areas. It appears that Ms Taylor’s’ school, in this home would be within the norm for locating a school in Carlsbad. Additionally, this area already supports Beautfil Savior Lutheran School just one block away, and without any added codision to the traffic pattern. Appropriate traffic signals are in place on Highland and.Carlsbad Village Drive, easing any additional congestion. This last point cannot be stressed enough. The confixion and chaos that exist on Magnolia and Valley, which do not have adequate traffic signals, or enforcement, are horrible. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Susan Gutierrez ? . ... ,.. . \ 4 September 20, 1999 Mike Grim City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 Dear Mike, My name is George Smith, a resident of Carlsbad and parent of a child attending Casa Montessori de Vista. I am writing to you in support of Jan Taylor and her efforts to gain approval to relocate the school to Carlsbad. Mrs. Taylor shared her vision with me and explained that a neighbor expressed concern regarding the level of noise that the children would possibly generate. I don’t consider myself an expert in this area, however I have been with these same children all day, every day, since the school year began and have found the circumstances to be quite serene. 1’11 explain. My son, Cameron, who is a student in Mrs. Taylor’s 4* grade class, is a special needs child with Cerebral Palsy. This summer he had surgery on both his legs and feet, necessitating his need to be in casts for nine weeks. As a result, the muscles in his legs are still developing and with therapy he is learning to walk all over again. Needless to say, he has been attending school in a wheelchair and I essentially have been camping out in the courtyard during class to provide moral support and attend to his toileting needs, My overall experience has been surprising and very pleasing. The atmosphere on campus is amazingly peacefbl, which is born out of the level of respect that the staff and children share for one another and their environment. The yelling or loud noise that you may hear around most schools is virtually non-existent, substituted instead by soft classical music played in the background as students study. Listening skills are stressed, therefore everyone communicates in a calm manner and tone. The grounds are maintained by all, with clean up, watering and nurturing of plants scheduled into each day. Mrs. Taylor has created an impressive culture at Casa Montessori and I encourage you to witness first-hand what I’m seeing. If noise or rowdiness is an issue, I’m confident a visit during school session will put any concern to rest. I’ll continue to attend myself with Cameron for the next few weeks and would look forward to meeting you. Sincerely, George Smith 4644 Telescope Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 1-760-434-7999 Carlsbad August 24, 1999 Mike Grim City of Carlsbad Planning Department 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: Conditional User Pennit for 3016 Higllland Drive Dear Mr. Grim I am the real estate agent who assistcd Mrs. Dunne in the sale of the homc located at 3016 Highland Drive in Carlsbad My oifice is not very far from this property. 1 am writing in support of Mrs. Taylor request to establish a Montessori school at 3016 Highland Drive. I believe this is the best use for this property. Old homes like this one are unsuitable for today standard of living and their upkeep is very costly. More and more in many cities included in San Diego, in order lo preserve the heritage of the past, old homes am hansformed from residential use to professional or commercial use. This home, although it is not old enough to be a Historical Home, has become a recognizable landmark in Carlsbad due also to its high visibility from Carlsbad Village Drive. It gives charm to a stretch of Carlsbad Village Drive hat otherwise is very unattractive as many clients have remarked to me. Mrs. Taylor desire to restore and preserve this home while adapting it lo a more suitable use is one of the reason why 1 hope you will ape her request for a conditional user permit. When this home was on the market for sale, potential buyers were attracted by the charm of the home, but quickly turned off by the location; they thought it was unsuitable for residential living because the area is too noisy, too commercial and run down. For the last eighty years Montessori schools all over the world have gain more and more in consideration and esteem for contributing so highly to the intellcctual and moral dcvclopmcnt of childrcn. The Monlcssori mclhod is strongly academic but also teachcs sclfdiscipline, problem solving and givcs children the mnlidencc to face the challenges of life. It is a rncthod that elTcctivcly assists parcnts in raising "good and balanced citizens". Carlsbad has only to gain from having a Montessori school at 3016 Highland Drive. Thank you very much for laking the time to read my letter. Sincerely, Daniela Marshall Daniela Marshall WMM Dr. TIN! sell 1241 Carlsbad Village Dr. A Carlsbad CA 92008 Office (760) 434 1400 Pager (760) 431 6131 email: daniela@thegrid.net NOMAD VENTURES 2835 Roosevelt Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 ' September 1, 1999 Mr. Mike Grim City of Carlsbad Planning Department 2075 Las Palmas Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Mr. Grim, We are writing to voice our support and encourage your favorable consideration for the application for a conditional use permit of the "Dunn House" on Highland Dr. at Carlsbad Village Drive to be used as a Montessori elementary school. As Carlsbad business owners, we feel this would not only be an appropriate use of this property, but a beneficial one as well for the City of Carlsbad. We understand that two of the concerns regarding the issuing of this permit revolve around parking and traffic flow. During the time our son attended Casa Montessori de Vista in Vista, it was my experience that the impact on traffic was completely minimal. It is a small school, and many of the families carpool. Also, many of the parents visit briefly after school, and leave over a period of time (usually 10-25 minutes), rather than all at once. Also, we would like to express our total confidence that the grounds would be consistently well-maintained and in keeping with the neighborhood atmosphere of this area. One of the philosophies and teachings of Montessori is ” concern and responsibility for one‘s immediate environment as well as community at large. Therefore, the students are held partially responsible for maintaining a pleasant . learning environment for themselves and their community, and Mrs. Taylor does an excellent job of seeing this through. It was always a pleasure to visit Casa Montessori, from. our first visit to our son‘s last day there. I have no doubt that this Montessori elementary school would be a top-quality business and one the best- uses of this property. The City of Carlsbad would be proud to be its home. Very truly yours, Bruce Damon Sharon Huking Owners, Nomad Ventures cc: Mrs. Jan Taylor, Casa Montessori de Vista z * COP Or -fL 3016 Highland Drive :;* Carlsbad, CA .- A t:- i LQ i;\,l . - !e f,. r: I .,I c- pLRNIj,~i~ ;.[L~R!.~I[~.L!*' - The undersigned citizens of Carlsbad have interest in the proposal for the former Mayor Dunne House, located on the southeast corner of Carlsbad Village Drive and Highland Drive. We express support forVhe Plannifig Commission to grant a Conditional Use Permit for Casa Montessori, the elementary school connected to the existing preschool -kindergarten, Casa Montessori de Carlsbad, located at 3470 Madison Avenue, Carlsbad, if all the standards and conditions set by City of Carlsbad Staff are met. We understand that the existing buildings are to be incorporated in the design to provide the traditional Olde Carlsbad atmosphere. A parking area will be screened with trees and flowering shrubbery. 301 6 Highland Drive Carisbad, CA The undersigned citizens of Carlsbad have interest in the proposal for the fomer Mayor Ounne House, located on the southeast corner of Carlsbad ViUage Drive and Highland Drive. We express support for the Planning Commission to grant a Conditional Use Permit for Casa Montessori, the elementary school connected to the existing preschool -kindergarten, Casa Montessori de Carisbad, located at 3470 Madison Avenue, Carisbad, if all the standards and conditions set by City of Carlsbad Staff am met. We understand that the existing buildings are to be incorporated in the design to pmvide the traditional Olde Cartsbad atmosphere. A parking area will be screened with trees and flowering shrubbery. Name Printed Address Pm Date Signature ” / ‘1,- ,/ . k?, > >/Am ‘U ?/ ’ t 301 6 Highland Drive Carlsbad, CA The undersigned citizens of Carlsbad have interest in the proposal for the former Mayor Dunne House, located on the southeast comer of Carlsbad Village Drive and Highland Drive. We express support for the Planning Commission to grant a Conditional Use Permit for Casa Montessori, the elementary school connected to the existing preschool -kindergarten, Casa Montessori de Carlsbad, located at 3470 Madison Avenue, Carlsbad, if all the standards and conditions set by City of Carlsbad Staff are met. We understand that the existing buildings are to be incorporated in the design to provide the traditional Olde Carlsbad atmosphere. A parking area will be screened with trees and flowering shrubbery. Name Printed 301 6 Highland Drive Carlsbad, CA The undersigned citizens of Carisbad have interest in the proposal for the former Mayor Dunne House, located on the southeast corner of Carlsbad Village Drive and Highland Drive. We express support for the Planning Commission to grant a Conditional Use Permit for Casa Montessori, the elementary school connected to the existing preschool -kindergarten, Casa Montessori de Carlsbad, located at 3470 Madison Avenue, Carlsbad, if all the standards and conditions set by City of Carlsbad Staff are met. We understand that the existing buildings are to be incorporated in the design to provide the traditional Olde Carlsbad atmosphere. A parking area will be screened with trees and flowering shrubbery. Date . Signature 301 6 Highland Drive Carlsbad, CA The undersigned citizens of Carlsbad have interest in the proposal for the former Mayor Dunne House, located on the southeast comer of Carlsbad Village Drive and Highland Drive. We express support for the Planning Commission to grant a Conditional Use Permit for Casa Montessori, the elementary school connected to the existing preschool -kindergarten, Casa Montessori de Carlsbad, located at 3470 Madison Avenue, Carlsbad, if all the standards and conditions set by City of Carlsbad Staff are met. We understand that the existing buildings are to be incorporated in the. design to provide the traditional Olde Carlsbad atmosphere. A parking area will be screened with trees and flowering shrubbery. 1 J 301 6 Highland Drive Carlsbad, CA The undersigned citizens of Carisbad have interest in the proposal for the former Mayor Dunne House, located on the southeast comer of Carlsbad Village Drive and Highland Drive. We express support for the Planning Commission to grant a Conditional Use Permit for Casa Montessori, the elementary school connected to the existing preschool -kindergarten, Casa Montessori de Carlsbad, located at 3470 Madison Avenue, Carisbad, if all the standards and conditions set by City of Carlsbad Staff are met. We understand that the existing buildings are to be incorporated in the design to provide the traditional Olde Carlsbad atmosphere. A parking area will be screened with trees and flowering shrubbery. Name Printed Address Printed Date Signature I I 301 6 Highland Drive Carlsbad, CA The undersigned citizens of Carlsbad have interest in the proposal for the former Mayor Dunne House, located on the southeast comer of Carlsbad Village Drive and Highland Drive. We express support for the Planning Commission to grant a Conditional Use Permit for Casa Montessori, the elementary school connected to the existing preschool -kindergarten, Casa Montessori de Carlsbad, located at 3470 Madison Avenue, Carlsbad, if all the standards and conditions set by City of Carlsbad Staff are met. We understand that the existing buildings are to be incorporated in the design to provide the traditional Olde Carlsbad atmosphere. A parking area will be screened with trees and flowering shrubbery. Name Printed Address Printed Date Signature 301 6 Highland Drive Carlsbad, CA The undersigned citizens of Carlsbad have interest in the proposal for the former Mayor Dunne House, located on the southeast comer of Carlsbad Village Drive and Highland Drive. We express support for the Planning Commission to grant a Conditional Use Permit for Casa Montessori, the elementary school connected to the existing preschool -kindergarten, Casa Montessori de Carlsbad, located at 3470 Madison Avenue, Carlsbad, if all the standards and conditions set by City of Carlsbad Staff are met. We understand that the existing buildings are to be incorporated in the design to provide the traditional Olde Carlsbad atmosphere. A parking area will be screened with trees and flowering shrubbery. Name Printed Address Printed Date Signature 301 6 Highland Drive Carlsbad, CA The undersigned citizens of Carlsbad have interest in the proposal for the former Mayor Dunne House, located on the southeast comer of Carlsbad Village Drive and Highland Drive. We express support for the Planning Commission to grant a Conditional Use Permit for Casa Montessori, the elementary school connected to the existing preschool -kindergarten, Casa Montessori de Carlsbad, located at 3470 Madison Avenue, Carlsbad, if all the standards and conditions set by City of Carlsbad Staff are met. We understand that the existing buildings are to be incorporated in the design to provide the traditional Olde Carlsbad atmosphere. A parking area will be screened with trees and flowering shrubbery. 301 6 Highland Drive Carlsbad, CA The undersigned citizens of Carlsbad have interest in the proposal for the former Mayor Dunne House, located on the southeast comer of Carlsbad Village Drive and Highland Drive. We express support for the Planning Commission to grant a Conditional Use Permit for Casa Montessori, the elementary school connected to the existing preschool -kindergarten, Casa Montessori de Carlsbad, located at 3470 Madison Avenue, Carlsbad, if all the standards and conditions set by City of Carlsbad Staff are met. We understand that the existing buildings are to be incorporated in the design to provide the traditional Olde Carlsbad atmosphere. A parking area will be screened with trees and flowering shrubbery. Address Printed ate ' nature Y- 3016 Highland Drive Carlsbad, CA The undersigned citizens of Carlsbad have interest in the proposal for the former Mayor Dunne House, located on the southeast corner of Carlsbad Village Drive and Highland Drive. We express support for the Planning Commission to grant a Conditional Use Permit for Casa Montessori, the elementary school connected to the existing preschool -kindergarten, Casa Montessori de Carlsbad, located at 3470 Madison Avenue, Carlsbad, if all the standards and conditions set by City of Carlsbad Staff are met. We understand that the existing buildings are to be incorporated in the. design to provide the traditional Olde Carlsbad atmosphere. A parking area will be screened with trees and flowering shrubbery. Name Printed Address Printed 301 6 Highland Drive Carlsbad, CA The undersigned citizens of Carlsbad have interest in the proposal for the former Mayor Dunne House, located on the southeast comer of Carlsbad Village Drive and Highland Drive. We express support for the Planning Commission to grant a Conditional Use Permit for Casa Montessori, the elementary school connected to the existing preschool -kindergarten, Casa Montessori de Carlsbad, located at 3470 Madison Avenue, Carlsbad, if all the standards and conditions set by City of Carlsbad Staff are met. We understand.that the existing buildings are to be incorporated in the design to provide the traditional Olde Carlsbad atmosphere. A parking area will be screened with trees and flowering shrubbery. 301 6 Highland Drive Carlsbad, CA . The undersigned citizens of Carlsbad have interest in the proposal for the former Mayor Dunne House, located on the southeast comer of Carlsbad Village Drive and Highland Drive. We express support for the Planning Commission to grant a Conditional Use Permit for Casa Montessori, the elementary school connected to the existing preschool -kindergarten, Casa Montessori de Carlsbad, located at 3470 Madison Avenue, Carlsbad, if all the standards and conditions set by City of Carlsbad Staff are met. We understand that the existing buildings are to be incorporated in the design to provide the traditional Olde Carlsbad atmosphere. A parking area will be screened with trees and flowering shrubbery. Name Printed I Address Printed Date Signatqe 07/16f 2002 10: 00 7604380981 HENTHDRN JUL"16-28e2 @It21 (1p4 CRSF, MONTESSORI DE VISTA 766 758 2414 rc1Ix uz r.eI 307 6 Highland Drive Carlsbad, CA The undersigned citizens of Carlsbad have Interest in !he proposal for the former Mayor Dunne Hause, focated on the southeast corner of Carfsbad Village Drive and Highland Drive. We express support for the Planning Commission to grant a Conditional Use Permit for Casa Montessori, the elementary school connected to the existing preschool -kindergarten, Casa Montessori de Cartsbad, located at 3470 Madison Avenue, Carlsbad, if ail the standards and conditions set by City of Carlsbad Staff are met. We understand that the existing buildings are to be incorporated in the design to provide the traditional Olde &kbad atmosphere. A parking area will be screened with trees and flowering shrubbery. c *' r c 301 6 Highland Drive Carlsbad, CA The undersigned citizens of Carlsbad have interest in the proposal for the former Mayor Dunne House, located on the southeast corner of Carlsbad Village Drive and Highland Drive. We express support for the Planning Commission to grant a Conditional Use Permit for Casa Montessori, the elementary school connected to the existing preschool -kindergarten, Casa Montessori de Carlsbad, located at 3470 Madison Avenue, Carlsbad, if all the standards and conditions set by City of Carlsbad Staff are met. We understand that the existing buildings are to be incorporated in the design to provide the traditional Olde Carlsbad atmosphere. A parking area will be screened with trees and flowering shrubbery. 301 6 Highland Drive Carisbad, CA The undersigned citizens of Carlsbad have interest in the proposal for the former Mayor Dunne House, located on the southeast comer of Carlsbad Village Drive and Highland Drive. We express support for the Planning Commission to grant a Conditional Use Permit for Casa Montessori, the elementary school connected to the existing preschool -kindergarten, Casa Montessori de Carlsbad, located at 3470 Madison .Avenue, Carlsbad, if all the standards and conditions set by City of Carlsbad Staff are met. We understand that the existing buildings are to be incorporated in the design to provide the traditional Olde Carlsbad atmosphere. A parking area will be screened with trees and flowering shrubbery. 301 6 Highland Drive Carlsbad, CA The undersigned citizens of Carlsbad have interest in the proposal for the former Mayor Dunne House, located on the southeast comer of Carlsbad Village Drive and Highland Drive. We express support for the Planning Commission to grant a Conditional Use Permit for Casa Montessori, the elementary school connected to the existing preschool -kindergarten, Casa Montessori de Carlsbad, located at 3470 Madison Avenue, Carlsbad, if all the standards and conditions set by City of Carlsbad Staff are met. We understand that the existing buildings are to be incorporated in the design to provide the traditional Olde Carlsbad.atmosphere. A parking'area will be screened with trees and flowering shrubbery. Name Printed Address Printed Date Signature 3016 Highland Drive Carlsbad, CA I No.434 P.2/2 The undersigned citizens of Carlsbad have interest in the proposal for the fomer Map Dunne House, located on the sbd.east corner of Carisbad. - Village Drive'ana Drive. We express support for the Planning Commission to grsnditional Use Perrnlt for Casa Montessori, the' elementary school cunnected to the existing preschool -kindergarten, Cam Montessori de Carlsbad, located at 3470 Madison Avenue, Carlsbad, if all the standards and condltions set by Crty of Carlsbad Staff are met. We understand that the existing buildings are to be incorporated in the design to provide the traditional Olde Carlsbad atmosphere. A parking area will be screened with trees and flowering shrubbery. Narhe Printed Address Printed Date ANN PETERSEN 1410 YOURELL AVENUE 4/11/01 DONALD PETERSEN 1410 YOURELL AVENUE 41 11 /01 301 6 Highland Drive Carlsbad, CA The undersigned citizens of Carlsbad have interest in the proposal for the former Mayor Dunne House, located on the southeast comer of Carlsbad Village Drive and Highland Drive. We express support for the Planning Commission to grant a Conditional Use Permit for Casa Montessori, the elementary school connected to the existing preschool -kindergarten, Casa Montessori de Carlsbad, located at 3470 Madison Avenue, Carlsbad, if all the standards and conditions set by City of Carlsbad Staff are met. We understand that the existing buildings are to be incorporated in the design to provide the traditional Olde Carlsbad atmosphere. A parking area will be screened with trees and flowering shrubbery. 301 6 Highland Drive Carlsbad, CA The undersigned citizens of Carlsbad have interest in the proposal for the former Mayor Ounne House, located on the southeast corner of Carlsbad Village Drive and Highland Drive. We express support for the Planning Commission to grant a Conditional Use Permit for Casa Montessori, the elementary school connected to the existing preschool -kindergarten, Cdsa Montessori de Carlsbad, located at 3470 Madison Avenue, Carlsbad, if all the standards and conditions set by City of Carlsbad Staff are met. We understand that the existing buildings are to be incorporated in the design to provide the traditional Olde Carlsbad atmosphere. A parking area will be screened with trees and flowering shrubbery. Name Printed Address Printed Date Signature From: <ggpggp@pacbell.net> To: <Council@smtp.ci.carlsbad.ca.us> EXHl6lT 8 Date: 11/11/2002 9:41 AM Subject: CITY OF CARLSBAD I CONTACT' A visitor to the City of Carlsbad Web site has completed . and posted the "Contact Us" form to department, Ci Council. Below, please find the information that was submitted: First Name: Gary Last Name: Pearson Address: 3265 Highland Dr City: Carlsbad state: ca Zip: 92008 Country: USA E-mail: ggpggp@pacbell.net Message: November 6,2002 Dear Carlsbad City Council and Mayor I have followed with interest the application for the special use permit for an educational facility at the amer of Highland Drive and Carlsbad Village Drive. I concurred with the staff recommendation to deny this permit, but was perplexed when the Planning Commission chose go forward with this project. I understand that certain minor changes have been mandated as a condition of approval, however I feel I must speak up on the matter now that it looks like it has a higher likelihood of approval. I have two concerns and both are based upon the added risk to the city for litigation and damage awards. My main concern is the impact on traffic congestion and the inherent hazard posed by the ingress and egress from the property, so close to the busy intersection. Highland is one lane each direction at this location. Left turns into the property will frequently be blocked by northbound traffic on Highland. This will, almost immediately, result in gridlock due to incomplete left turns from CVD on to Highland. Any accident caused by the resulting gridlock will put the city at risk of lawsuit due to their foreknowledge of this risk. Tinkering with arrival times or other procedural requirements will not eliminate the distinct possibility of a major accident on CVD due to this added traffic congestion. The City will clearly be negligent if it is aware of the risk, yet facilitates it. The next real concern is for the safety of the children. Most other schools in Carlsbad are in neighborhoods that have sidewalks that provide a safe portal for children that walk to the school. The schools that aren't served by sidewalks were built long before Carlsbad grew to its present size. As you know, Highland drive does not have these improvements and previous City Council action has decreed that the nature of Highland drive is such that curbs and gutters are not desired and will not be implemented. Unless the permitee/city can guarantee that no child will ever be permitted to walk on the edge of Highland to reach the property, the City is again at certain risk of a lawsuit. Obviously neither the city nor permitee can make such a guarantee. Therefore, the city, not the permittee, incurs the costs resulting from a lawsuit on behalf of a child injured in a traffic accident if it can be shown that the city knew of this risk when the permit was issued. I urge the Planning Commission to reconsider this permit and deny it for the reasons stated. lI 7 Deborah M. Gray Grant S. Healey 1671 James Drive Carlsbad, CA, 92008 November 6,2002 City of Carlsbad Planning Dept. 1635 Faraday Ave. Carlsbad, CAI 92008-7314 Re: CASA MONTESSORI DE VISTA SCHOOL Case file: CUP 01-12 To Whom It May Concern: I am in receipt of yet another Notice of Public Hearing regarding the proposed Montessori school at the comer of Highland Drive and Carlsbad Village Drive. I am unable to make the meeting on November 20 2002, and felt strongly enough about this issue to put my objections in writing. The site of this proposed school is on a tree-lined, firmly residential street, where where tasteful new houses blend harmoniously with the historic and sometimes oddly quaint homes of another era. And where thankfully the city and its residents have thus far been able to preserve the qualities that make this area a desirable place to live, and one of the reasons my family and I chose this very area in which to live. We enjoy being able to walk our children to the elementary school, bike in the area, play ball and skateboard on our street, be close enough to the village to get there easily, but not be assaulted by the noise and activity of living on top of retail shops and businesses. We even deliberately chose this very street because we could not hear the highway noise from this distance, but we were within a mile of the beach. h ancient, graceful pines welcome and shelter families of Blue Heron birds every year and Putting a commercial enterprise in this location, however moderately "commercial" it may appear to be, is to diminish the essence of this unique neighbourhood. With this type of erosion of the residential aspect of a part of Olde Carlsbad is to open the door to another fringe commercial venture, and yet another, until we on James Drive, and our friends and neighbours on the adjacent streets are ringed by businesses and all the attendant traffic and noise and disruption that comes with these enterprises. This is not why we choose to live here and not why any of our neighbours choose to either. Not only would our quality of life be severely compromised, but our property values would also be in jeopardy. I know you have heard from people about their concerns of increased traffic, children in the streets, people cutting through James Drive to get to and from Highland to drop off and pick up and congestion at the comer of Highland CVD - all concerns we share - but you apparently have also had meetings where some vocal residents of Carlsbad have faced off against this vehement opposition, in support of the Montessori school. I would Page two - 1 1/6/02 - Casa Montessori De Vista School like you to consider that these are friends of the owners of this property, who have been rallied by them to voice their support, but who do not live in close proximity to the site as we do. I know if any of you lived in this area you would feel as we do. How can you regulate our lives this way, when you don’t have to live with the consequences? We are not people who stir up the community over issues, come to meetings to debate with the council, attend rallies or wave signs under any circumstances, but we feel passionately about this issue that threatens our way of life, our homes, our children’s safety and our neighbourhood environment. We ask you to please, please reconsider granting any type of permit to this proposed venture. A school of this nature can find many different areas that would be more suitable to its use. We only have one home and one neighbourhood like this to live in. Sincerely, Sincerely, /LA+ Deborah M. Gray Grant S. Hdaley Oct. 5,2002 Carlsbad City Council Carlsbad, Ca Dear Ladies and Gentleman: We are very concerned about the City Planning Commission allowing a Montessori school at the comer of Highland and Carlsbad Village Drive! This is a very dangerous comer for children to be.. . .the people who want what goes on daily down those two stree ts... .the traflic is terrible, and ~isverymuchw~when.theHi~~a8dJx-Hi's~~ll.. Highland was built many years before thousands of people used it, and believe us when we .say, it is too slarrour, he are no ..sidewalks, d .people park all over it! ! Ihir children -to .be hrq probab.ly don't .liY'e in lh€%c*, rn do they-see Olde Carlsbad needs some consideration when it comes to these hwWdool.. ven.ture~, after ally that. is- a ResidmtiaL Neighborhood.. . all of us consider it so! And we would appreciate it being al~~~tobs=what~sfus~Y~itltooYertfse~~! Thank you very much for rejecting that schoovbusiness adventure at that Locatioa.. . Donna and Bill Garbp 345Q Woodland Way Carlsbad, Ca. 92008-2558 CC: City Planning Dept. To: Planning Commission Members Ms. Taylor is in direct violation of her current permit for a "Large Day Care Home" which was given to her after this commission turned her down for a Montessori School permit. Ms. Taylor was caught red-handed on Sept. 3 by one of your investigators with children of school age at her Day Care Home during school hours. Because we all know that you should not reward someone for poor behavior what will Ms. Taylor's penalty be for this blatant violation of her permit? Will the penalties begin on the day she was caught red-handed by code-enforcement or the day she received the letter notifying her to cease and desist her school operation? Montessori School that she would simple do it anyway and disregard the law. If you allow her to get away with this and come out unscathed then why do we even have city codes and laws at all? I understand that it took 10 days for a copy of her Day Care Permit to go from the Planning Dept. to the City Attorney's Office for perusal. WHY? In an age of instant communications that should have taken 10 minutes, at most. I was told by Julia Coleman, an Attorney at the City Attorney's Office that it would take 2 days to go over the verbiage in Ms. Taylor's Day Care Permit before any conclusion of wrong doing was reached. Why? I received a copy of her permit and read it in 5 minutes. It is pretty straight forward, Nowhere ,in the permit are the words, School, Teachers, Learning or Students. It is for Day Care ONLY. I assume you, on the Planning Commission, intend to remedy this situation immediately. I have copies of my letter for each of you and would appreciate a letter from you that addresses my questions and concerns. I guess Ms. Taylor feels if she couldn't get her permit for re-zoning to open a Thank You, Marilyn Janssen 3307 Highland Drive Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 I . " .. .. i .................... - ............. - ..... -. ...... - . ........ - ......... .. ..... - ... - ............. ." ...... .......... . ............ ... " . .. ...................... ........ - - ............. ." .. "_ . . - .................. - ........... .... .... - ... " .......... - "_ .......................................... /79 I __ 1 "" .. __ . "" - .. .. - - .- .... " - __"__ __ ......... ....... ....... -. ..... - .... ........ ....... .~ "" ........... - -. . - .... .. ......... ". - ... ... ." .... - " .. __ ". ................................ - . ". . - . - - .. - .......... ........... - ..... " ........................... - ..... .... ... - ~- . "_ ..... .... ...... ........ ........... ._ * "" .."""___I " " .- .. . . " " . I f I i ....... . - ." ..... I .... . " ! .. ....... ... 1 i 1 .. I .i I i 1 i .. ..... " . -. . ." .... " ....... .- . _.- .. .. .. .. _. , ........ ....... .... _- .... _. .... ". / "" ....... ... ... .. .. ............ . ." _" .. .. "" - .... " ........................... _. . ... -. .................. "" ........... .. " ._ ..... .. " I ... . ....... ... - - - - " . -. I "_ ." - .- - ... ............ ... - .- - ~ - .- ... .......... . ..... .............. ................... .- -. ......... "_ . " ........ ." . . __ . "" " ... - ...... ... *.-~......_...."I..""".""....."_......... .. . " - .. "_ " ... ..... ... .. - .. ""- .. - " . ." . - i ..... .. - i ... ..... ......... -. .. .... - - - ... .- .. - .......... " " " ..... .. .............. ..... _. ................. "" . "- I .- "" ................. . ....... - . - . i " ". _" . I ..... . " ...... - ". ". ... " . _" .... - ....... . -.-- . - ....... "".__ _" ...... . . ..... ----- .. I ! ... .... ...... ... ; i ! "~ " - - - - -~" ..... .. ... -. .... . - ................ - ." ." ! ............ - _" . ". . ... "- ..... .... ." ... - . "" .... _" . ..... "- "_ ..... ". . - .. ._ ........ .. . -I- . "" " . t- - .. - ." ". "" .. . . I i . I- i "" ...... ". .- ........ t . ." ..... "" .. " .. " " "" " . _" "" " . _" " - ... ..... ___ I " " I " /? 9 Aug, 15,2002 . Tom and Gwen Cleary 35 15 Highland Dr Carlsbad, CA 92008-2527 760.720.1304 To Barbara Kennedy, Carlsbad Planning Dept, We are writing to express our concern with the proposed Montessori School on the comer of Highland Dr and Carlsbad Village Drive. The additional cars, students and teachers would greatly impact the area in a negative way. The added trafic would severely burden the narrow surrounding streets and that busy comer would create havoc for the neighbors and local children. We live on the corner of Chestnut and Highland and would be affected by this school being approved. This Olde Carlsbad area is already losing the quiet, sleepy feel it had when I moved here 15 years - ago. Please deny the proposal and help keep our neighborhood safe, quiet and Tom and Gwen Cleary