HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-05-15; Planning Commission; Resolution 51971
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. 5197
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM TO ALLOW A CHURCH ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF CAMINO DE LOS
COCHES BETWEEN RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD AND LA
COSTA AVENUE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
ZONE 11.
CASE NAME: CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST - LDS
CASE NO.: GPA 01-13/CUP 01-04LHDP 01-10
WHEREAS, The Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter Day Saints, “Developer” and “Owner”, has filed a verified application with the
City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
That portion of Parcel 4 of Parcel Map 13524 in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, filed in the
Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, October
28, 1984, as File No. 84-403293 of Official Records, including a
portion of Mision Estancia dedicated on said Parcel Map.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with
said project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 15th day of May, 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:
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
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program according to
Exhibit "ND" dated January 23, 2002, and "PII" dated December 21, 2001,
attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
A. It has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the
environmental impacts therein identified for this project, and any comments
thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL, of 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 Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program.
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
.. .
.. .
PC RES0 NO. 5197 -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
Commissio
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
In of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 15th day of May, 2002, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Baker, Heineman, Segall, and
White
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Dominguez and Whitton
ABSTAIN: None
SEENA TRIGAS, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST: .
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5 197 -3-
.
- City of Carlsbad
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddressLocation: The west side of Camino de 10s Coches and adjacent to the north of
the Stagecoach Community Park in the City’s southeast quadrant.
Project Description: General Plan Amendment to adjust designated open space boundaries
to coincide with the boundaries of the north-south drainage channel
and wetland and riparian habitat existing on the property, and a
conditional use permit to allow a 16,842 square foot church and
parking lot on the 6.8 parcel designated for Residential Medium). (RM)
density development
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 (EIA 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 fkom the
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30
days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Anne Hysong in the Planning
Department at (760) 602-4622.
DATED:
CASE NO:
CASE NAME:
PUBLISH DATE:
January 23,2002
GPA 01-13/CUP 01-04/HDP 01-10
Church of Jesus Christ LDS
January 23,2002
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us @
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: GPA 0 1 - 1 3/CUP 0 1 -04/HDP 0 1 - 10
DATE: December 21,2001
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Church of Jesus Christ LDS
2. APPLICANT: Eric Jennings, BSW
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT 2201 Duuont Drive, Suite 140, Imine,
CA 92612
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: March 14,2001
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: General Plan Amendment to adiust desimated open mace
boundaries to coincide with the boundaries of the north-south drainage channel and wetland and
riparian habitat existing on the urouerty. and a conditional use permit to allow a 16,842 square
foot church and parking lot on the 6.8 parcel designated for Residential Medium density (RM)
develoument and located on the west side of Camino de 10s Coches and adiacent to the north of
the Stagecoach Community Park in the City’s southeast quadrant.
SUMMARY OF 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.
c] Land Use and Planning Ix] Transportation/Circulation 0 Public Services
Population and Housing Ix] Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
Geological Problems Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
Water 0 Hazards
Air Quality 0 Noise
Cultural Resources
Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
0 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.
0 I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect@) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 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(n) is required,
but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
0 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 pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier, including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore,
a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
.. .
Lkw* $&tZn-+
Planner Signature Date
11 1 b/DZ
Planning Director%ignkdre Date I
2 Rev. 03/28/96
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.
a 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.
a “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted
general standards and policies.
“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.
a “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
a Based on an “EIA-Part IT’, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but fl potentially significant 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 (Prior Compliance).
When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant 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.
a 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 effect on the environment.
3
*
Rev. 03/28/96
If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if
there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce 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.
e An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant 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 impact to less than
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not
reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II 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.
4 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
(#l:PgS 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
LI. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 -
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
5.5-6)
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
Potentially Significant Impact
17
0
0
0
0
0
17
Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impact
Mitigation Incorporated
Unless hpact
CI
0
Ian
OH
nIxI
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #4)
Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #4)
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#1 :Pgs
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15’ #4)
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs 0 IZ on
Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #4)
Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
0 om CI 0 OH
5.1-1 - 5.1.15) 0 om
5.1-15; #4) CI 0 OIa
0 om
0 0 OH 0 IZ 00
5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #4)
5.1-15) 0 0 OIxI
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-
11; #5)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11; #5)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11; #5, #h5)
0 0 mo
0 UIXI
0 IXI no
5 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-11)
Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-
11) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs
body? (#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3-
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
d) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
1 - 5.3-12)
- 5.3-12)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -
5.7.22)
5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#1 :PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22; #4)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
VILBIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.424; X?)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
Potentially Significant Impact
0
0
0
0
0
cl
IXI
0
0
0
Ixl
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially Significant
Unless
Mitigation Incorporated 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
IXI
0
0
0
IXI
0
6 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant
Impact
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 -5.4-24)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#1 :Pgs 5.4- 1
I7
0
0 (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24; #2)
- 5.4-24)
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13-
c) 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? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
proposal?
(#l:PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) 0
0
0 1 - 5.13-9)
5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 -
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
5.10.1-5)
hazards? (#l:PgS 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
0
0
0
0
0
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9-
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9- 15) o
0 1 - 5.9-15)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated 0
IXI
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
XI
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6)
Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4) 0 0 0 0 0 Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? () n n
Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -
5.12.8-7)
LessThan No
Significant Impact Impact
UIXI on
OIXI
om
0 0 0
0
IXI IXI IXI IXI IXI
XII.UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
7 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0
LessThan No
Significant Impact Impact
a) Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
b) Communications systems?
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7)
e) Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8)
f) Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -
5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
5.12.3-7)
0 0 OM OIXI
I7 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
b) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs
c) Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.1 1-1 - 5.1 1-5)
5.11-1 -5.11-5)
5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
0
0
0
0 OM
OIXI om 0
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
c) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs 5.8-
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
10)
1 0)
1 - 5.8-10)
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
0
0
OM
OM
0 0
0 UM
XV.RECREATI0NAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 -
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l:Pgs
5.12.8-7)
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7)
0
0
0
0
XVI. 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 OB
8 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively 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)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 OH
0
XVII. 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)@). 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.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation
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.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The site is a triangular shaped lot located west of the intersection of Camino de 10s Coches and
Via Calendo and north of the Stagecoach Community Park. The site covers approximately 6.82
acres and is bounded on the west by a drainage channel designated as open space and on the east
by Camino de 10s Coches. The property is abutted by multi-family residential development to
the west, Stagecoach Park to the south, and single family development above Camino de 10s
Coches to the east. Although no approved grading permit has been issued by the City of
Carlsbad, the site has been previously disturbed by grading. Topographically, the site is terraced
with two relatively flat pads. An elevation differential of approximately 11 feet exists between
the southern and northern pads within the area to be developed. A descending slope to the level
portion exists adjacent to Camino de 10s Coches. The site descends toward the drainage channel
to the south and west of the level portion. Drainage is accomplished via sheetflow toward a
north-south drainage channel. Vegetation is comprised of disturbed habitat, except in the onsite
drainages, which support approximately .5 acre of Southern Willow Sc$b and Freshwater March
vegetation.
9 Rev. 03/28/96
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. Land Use and Planning
The project includes a General Plan Amendment to adjust the open space designation to coincide
with the drainage area on the site. The General Plan Map, which shows generalized boundaries
of constrained lands and presently designated open space, identifies an approximate 200’ wide
open space area along the drainage channel. The project’s storm drainage study and biological
analysis delineates the drainage channel and associated wetland vegetation. The proposed open
space boundary includes a habitat buffer on each side of the channel 70 wide drainage easement.
Therefore, the actual open space exists within a drainage corridor that includes the creek and
adjacent wetland habitat. This adjustment to reflect the boundaries of the sensitive biological
resources as open space is consistent with the provisions of the General Plan Land Use and Open
Space Elements.
Chapter 21.42 of the Zoning Ordinance permits churches in residentially designated areas upon
approval of a conditional use permit (CUP). The CUP requires compatibility findings with the
surrounding neighborhood. The project is consistent with and not detrimental to surrounding
development in that the proposed site abuts another community facility, Stagecoach Community
Park, to the south, is separated from multi-family residences to the west by a drainage channel,
and is separated from single family residential development to the east by Camino de Los
Coches, a secondary arterial roadway and a significant grade separation. Additionally, direct
access to the site is provided from the north and south by circulation arterial roadways (Camino
de Los Coches and La Costa Avenue via Rancho Santa Fe Road) thereby avoiding the use of
local residential streets for access. The proposed 16,842 square foot church is single story with
a 60’ high steeple which results in minimal (5.67%) building coverage. An 193 space parking lot
to serve the project is proposed to satisfy the projects parking demand and avoid on-street
parking, and with the exception of Sundays or daydnights of assembly, the church would
generate approximately the same number of average daily trips (ADT) that a multi-family
residential development would generate. The proposed small scale, traditional architectural style
is consistent with surrounding residential development. Landscaping to screen the parking lot
and a required lighting plan to avoid light spillage onto adjacent sites will reduce visual impacts.
The 60’ high steeple is an architectural protrusion typically associated with churches and
permitted by the zoning ordinance. The steeple height is consistent with the height of adjacent
single family development to the east due to the higher pad elevations of single family
residences.
II. GEOLOGY
According to the “Report of Geotechnical Investigation” prepared for the project by Southern
California Soil & Testing, Inc., “the main geotechnical conditions encountered that will affect
the development of the site are the presence of non-uniform, potentially compressible and
expansive fill and colluvial soils extending to significant depths beneath planned final grades.
High groundwater levels, particularly along the drainage channel, also are a concern. The
undocumented fill soils that extend to depths of 5 to more than 15 feet below the ground surface
are highly variable in consistency and compressibility. Some of the colluvial soils underlying
the fill soils are also compressible and most of the colluvial and some of the fill soils are highly
expansive. These materials are not suitable in their existing condition for support of structures
and other settlement-sensitive improvements. The report concludes that removal and
replacement of the compressible soils with suitable materials will be needed if structures are to
be supported on shallow foundations. As an alternative, deep foundations can be used for
10 Rev. 03/28/96
support of structures.
The current plan calls for 107,023 cubic yards of import to construct the proposed development
due to the necessary remedial work which would necessitate over 5,000 truck loads of soil to be
imported to the site via the existing roadways.
MitiPation
Due to the site’s proximity to existing residential development, the deep foundation alternative
shall be used along with all other recommendations of the preliminary geotechnical investigation
report as mitigation to avoid to the maximum extent possible the necessity for excessive import
andor export of soil. The deep foundation alternative would reduce the amount of remedial
grading necessary thereby reducing the grading quantities to approximately 42,000 cubic yards
of import Additionally, mitigation to reduce noise impacts resulting from the import of soil
shall include a restriction on the hours of operation to between 9:OO a.m. to 3:OO p.m. Monday
through Friday.
IV. Water
Stormwater from the site currently drains directly into the creek (unnamed tributary of Encinitas
Creek) located along the property’s western boundary. The site has been previously disturbed by
unauthorized grading and there is no existing storm water management system. The proposed
LDS Church project will result in 3.23 acres or 47.4% of the site being developed with
impervious surfaces. The development of the site will create an increase in pollutants discharged
in storm water. These include oxygen demand, sediment, nutrients, heavy metals, and oil and
grease. Many of these pollutants collect on roof and pavement surfaces, and are transported in
the “first flush” of rainfall.
The project proposes that runoff from controlled drainage areas will drain into five catch basins
and be discharged into the creek through underground storm sewers. A 24” RCP storm drain
will be installed by connecting to the existing 24” RCP to divert drainage into the creek. The
preliminary Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPP) prepared for the project by BSW
International indicates that sediment, the primary contaminant resulting from the grading
operation, will be controlled by numerous structural and non-structural devices as well as Best
Management Practices (BMPs) for construction activities. Specifically, during construction,
some of the BMP measures that will be implemented include the installation of stormceptors to
remove pollutants and sediments, dlrecting runoff through vegetated areas, developing and
enhancing vegetation and wildlife habitat areas along the existing drainage channel, protecting
the drainage channel from erosion by seeding, vegetation and rip-rap, and controlling storm
water discharge velocities by using energy dissipators. Compliance with the City’s Grading and
Erosion Control Ordinance through the implementation of erosion control measures specified in
the SWPP will avoid excessive sedimentation from the site being released into the creek.
Mitigation
Compliance with the SWPP for Construction Activity and installation of pollution control
devices as identified on the project Gradmg and Drainage Plan.
V. Air Oualitv
In 1994 the City prepared and certified an EIR which analyzed the impacts which will result
11 Rev. 03/28/96
from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concludes that
continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will have
cumulative significant impacts in the form of increased gas and electric power consumption and
vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon
monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates.
These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego
Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air
emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to build-out
as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air
quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan build-out, a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2)
measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation
Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including
mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5)
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is
located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked
“Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by
City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for
air quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all projects
covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR. This project is within the scope of that MER
This document is available at the Planning Department.
VI. Circulation
In 1994 the City prepared and certified a Master EIR which analyzed the impacts which would
result from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concluded
that continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will result in
increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate build-out
traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional
through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all
freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the
implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the
City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at build-out.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan build-out,
numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include:
1) measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to
develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks,
pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation
strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or
State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to
control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either
been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
12 Rev. 03/28/96
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the
failure of intersections at build-out of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore,
the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included
a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of
Overriding Considerations” applies to all projects covered by the General Plan’s Master EIR.
lks project is within the scope of that MEIR. This document is available at the Planning
Department.
A MEIR may not be used to review projects if it was certified more than five years prior to the
filing of an application for a later project. The City is currently reviewing the 1994 MEIR to
determine whether it is still adequate to review subsequent projects. Although the MEIR was
certified more than five years ago, the City’s preliminary review of its adequacy finds that no
substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the MEIR was
certified. The only potential changed circumstance, the intersection failure at Palomar Airport
Rd. and El Camino Real, is in the process of being mitigated to below a level of significance.
Additionally, there is no new available information, which was not known and could not have
been known at the time the MEIR was certified. Therefore, the MEIR remains adequate to
review later projects.
VII. Biolo!zical Resources
The majority of the site (6.05) acres is highly disturbed and virtually devoid of native vegetation.
The site does contain jurisdictional wetland and riparian habitat consisting of about .5 acre of
Southern Willow Scrub and Freshwater Marsh vegetation with some isolated Coast Live Oaks
and Willow trees within two drainages that flow off-site to the south. These areas have defined
channels, to which the obligate and facultative wetland vegetation is restricted. In some
instances, willows occur high on the banks of the north-south channel, outside the area of
hydrologic influence and hydric soils. The limit of the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (Corps)
jurisdiction is the upper edge of channel banks of both drainages. Lengths of these features are
380 feet of the shorter, east west channel and 840 feet of the longer, north-south channel. The
jurisdictional areas of these are 4,560 square feet and 10,080 square feet, respectively. This
results in a total of 0.34 acre (14,640 square feet) of wetland habitat. The associated Willows
outside the Corps jurisdictional area constitute an additional jurisdiction area under the
California Department of Fish and Game, adding an additional 0.16 acre. This results in a total
habitat area of riparian vegetation of 0.5 acre. The on-site drainage course continues offsite to
the west, however, the habitats on the site are virtually landlocked by Camino de Los Coches on
the south and surrounding existing development.
A small isolated patch (approximately 25 individuals) of Southwestern Spiny Rush is located on
the site, however, due to its small size and isolation, it is not considered significant and
mitigation is not recommended.
As designed, the project would impact approximately .13 acre of Southern Willow Scrub
vegetation (300 feet of channel) and 4.95 acres of disturbed habitat. The loss of disturbed habitat
is not considered significant because of the low habitat value. However, the loss of 0.13 acre of
Southern Willow Scrub is considered significant unless mitigated.
A minor change in the original grading plan was made to widen the existing stream course on the
northwtefn and southwcshm portions of the site that allows the creation of treatment and
13 Rev. 03/28/96
mitigation wetlands to expand wetland area for filtering and capture of the first flush runoff from
the site.
Mitigation for impacts to the jurisdictional drainages would involve excavation of upland areas
adjacent to the north-south channel to allow for a widening of the floodway and increase in
wetland habitat. In concert with the new habitat areas, the discharge sites from the parhng lot
would be directed so that low flows are treated by the associated wetland vegetation.
The impacts to jurisdictional areas are as follows:
Type of Impact
East-West Channel
Area of Impact
300’/0.13 acre
(Wetlands and CDFG)
Mitigation for impact
North-South Channel Widening and
Augmentation as follows:
13,000 sq. ftJ0.3 acre wetland creation on
south side
4,800 sq. ft/O. 1 1 acre wetland creation on
north side
Total: .41 acre wetland creation
See attached Figure 3 for location of
proposed channel widening and wetland
augmentation.
Permits andor agreements for disturbance of jurisdictional areas will be obtained prior to
grading from the Corps and the California Department of Fish and Game.
XIV. Cultural Resources
The project is located within the southeastern portion of the La Costa Master Plan area. Previous
archaeological studies have been performed over the entire area. Although several
archaeological sites in the vicinity of the project are recorded, none have been identified at the
proposed project location. Cultural resource surveys were not required due the previous
archaeological studies performed in the area, the relatively small area of the site proposed for
development (approximately 5 acres), and the previous disturbance of the site by undocumented
grading.
EARLIER ANALYSES USED
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,
(760) 602-4600.
1. Final Master Environmental Imuact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
2. “LDS Meeting House-Cardiff 1 & 2 Site, Carlsbad, California, Biotic Resources
Assessment” prepared by Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc.
3. “Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day
Saints Meeting House Camino De Los Coches at Via Calendo, Carlsbad, California”,
prepared by Southern California Soil & Testing, Inc.
14 Rev. 03/28/96
4. “Traffic Impact Analysis - The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Meeting
5. “Storm Drainage Study Report for LDS Church, City of Carlsbad, State of California”,
6. “Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWP3) for Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day
House”, prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
prepared by Mark Thompson, PE.
Saints Meeting House, Carlsbad, California”, prepared by BSW International.
15 Rev. 03/28/96
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
Geological Mitigation
Due to the site’s proximity to existing residential development, the deep foundation alternative
shall be used along with all other recommendations of the preliminary geotechnical investigation
report as mitigation to avoid to the maximum extent possible the necessity for excessive import
andor export of soil. The deep foundation alternative would reduce the amount of remedial
grading necessary thereby reducing the grading quantities to approximately 42,000 cubic yards
of import. Additionally, mitigation to reduce nuisance impacts resulting from the import of soil
shall include a restriction on the hours of operation to between 9:00 a.m. to 3:OO p.m. Monday
through Friday.
Water Ouality Mitigation
Compliance with the “SWPPfor Construction Activity of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day
Saints Meeting House, Carlsbad, CA”, and installation of pollution control devices as identified
on the project (CUP 01-04) Grading and Drainage Plan.
Biological Mitigation
Type of Impact
wetlands and riparian West Drainage Channel
300’/0.13 acre Elimination of East-
Area of Impact
habitat
Mitigation for impact
North-South Channel Widening and
Augmentation as follows:
13,000 sq. ftJ0.3 acre wetland augmentation on
south side
north side
4,800 sq. ft/O.l 1 acre augmentation on
Total: .41 acre wetland augmentation
See attached Figure 3 for location of proposed
wetland augmentation.
16 Rev. 03/28/96
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.
17 Rev. 03/28/96
. ~~
".
LO1 I
Vegetation 8 Sensitive Resources
SWS E Southern Willow Scrub (83320)
DH t Disturbed Habitat (11300)
JU = Juncur atutur
QUWCUS agdfOh
OFFSITE
UD = Urban Dmlopment
SWS = Southorn Willow Scrub
Vegetation ZSensitive Resources and Mitigation Sites - / Due
Assessor Parcel Number: 223-060-50
1
PROJECT NAME: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints FILE NUMBERS: GPA OI-l3/CUP 01-OWHDP 01-10
APPROVAL DATE: Mav 15,2002 CONDITIONAL NEG. DEC.:
The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project in order to mitigate
identified environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that
this mitigation measure has been complied with and implemented. and fulfills the City’s monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly
Bill 3186 (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6).
Mitigation Measure 1 Geoloqical Mitiqation
The deep foundation alternative shall be used along with all
other recommendations of the preliminary geotechnical
investigation report as mitigation to avoid to the maximum
extent possible the necessity for excessive import and/or
export of soil. The deep foundation alternative would reduce
the amount of remedial grading necessary thereby reducing
the grading quantities to approximately 42,000 cubic yards
of import. Additionally, mitigation to reduce nuisance
impacts resulting from the import of soil shall include a
restriction on the hours of operation to between 9:00 a.m. to 11 3:OO D.m. Mondav throuah Fridav. I Wate; Quality Mikation-
Compliance with the “SWPPP for Construction Activity of
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints Meeting House,
Carlsbad, CA, and installation of pollution control devices as
identified on the project (CUP 01-04) Grading and Drainage
Exdanation of Headings:
Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative.
Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular
mitigation measure.
information. Shown on Plans =When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be
initialed and dated.
Monitoring
Type
Grading
Permit
Grading
Permit
Monitoring
DeDartment
Engineering/
Planning
Engineering
Shown on Plans Verified
Implementation Remarks
Verified Implementation =When mitigation measure has been implemented,
Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other this column will be initialed and dated.
RD - Appendix P.
2
Mitigation Measure
Biological Mitigation
North-South Channel Widening and
Augmentation as follows:
13,000 sq. ft.lO.3 acre wetland augmentation on south side
4,800 sq. ftl0.l I acre augmentation on
north side
Total: .41 acre wetland augmentation
See attached Figure 3 for location of proposed wetland
augmentation.
Grading I Planning
Shown on Plans
1 I I 4- I I
Verified
Implementation Remarks
Explanation of Headinqs: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative.
Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular
mitigation measure.
information.
Shown on Plans =When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated.
Verified Implementation =When mitigation measure has been implemented,
Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other
this column will be initialed and dated.
RD - Appendix P.