Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-11-17; Planning Commission; Resolution 57841 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. 5784 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 DEVELOP A CHURCH CAMPUS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF POINSETTIA LANE AND AVIARA PARKWAY IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 20. CASE NAME: NORTH COAST CALVARY CHAPEL CASE NO.: GPA 04-1 6/ZC 04-12/LCPA 04-1YSDP 04-021 CUP 04-05/HDP 04-01/CDP 04-03 WHEREAS, North Coast Calvary Chapel, a California Non-Profit Corporation, “Developer/Owner,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as The Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter together with the South Half of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter both of Section 22, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, together with Lot 1 of Carlsbad Tract No. 91- 12, according to the Map thereof No. 13394, recorded January 24, 1997 in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, all in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 17th day of November 2004, 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 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 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 RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and mitigation monitoring and reporting program, Exhibit “ND,” according to Exhibits ‘“01” dated September 20, 2004, and “PII” dated September 14, 2004, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Findings: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration for 12/SDP 04-O2/CUP 04-05MDP 04-01/CDP 04-03, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and NORTH COAST CALVARY CHAPEL - GPA 04-16/ZC 04-12KCPA 04- 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. The Developer shall implement or cause the implementation of the North Coast Calvary Chapel Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. ... ... ... ... PC RES0 NO. 5784 -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 17th day of November 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Whitton, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery, and Segall NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: n MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLE~~ Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5784 -3 - NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: NORTH COAST CALVARY CHAPEL CASE NO: GPA 04- 16/ZC 04- 12/LCPA 04- 12/CT.JP 04-03/SDP 04-02/CDP 04- 03/HDP 04-01 PROJECT LOCATION: Northeast comer of Aviara Parkway and Poinsettia Lane, Carlsbad, San Diego Countv, APN 215-070-13 and 26 and 214-550-01 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project is the development of a 26.94 acre site with a 13 acre church campus consisting of a 49,000 square foot multi-purpose building/family center with a capacity of 1,800 people, a 19,000 square foot two story preschool for 150 students, a 4,000 square foot chapel building, a 7,000 square foot gymnasium, a 13,000 square foot youth building, and a 6,000 square foot adult education building. The project grading will include 53,400 cu yds of cut, 40,700 cu yds of fill and 12,700 cu yds of export. Other improvements to the site include: sidewalk, curb and gutter along the project’s frontage, a traffic signal at Aviara Parkway and Camino De Las Ondas, an access road to the existing SDG&E transmission line easement, and drainage improvements. PROPOSED DETERMINATION: 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 will be recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad City Council. A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration are on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments &om the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of the date of this notice. The proposed project and Mitigated Negative Declaration are subject to review and approval/adoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission and City CounciI. Additional public notices will be issued when those public hearings are scheduled. If you have any questions, please call Van Lynch in the Planning Department at (760) 602-46 13. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD PUBLISH DATE SEPTEMBER 20,2004 SEPTEMBER 20,2004 THROUGH OCTOBER 20,2004 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 ww&&@rjfj,Q&ca.us @ - City of Carlsbad MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: NORTH COAST CALVARY CHAPEL CASE NO: GPA 04-16 /ZC 04-12 LCPA 04-12 /CUP 04-03 /SDP 04-02 /CDP 04-03 /HDP 04-01 PROJECT LOCATION: Northeast comer of Aviara Parkway and Poinsettia Lane, Carlsbad, San Diego County, APN 215-070-13 and 26 and 214-550-01 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project is the development of a 29.94 acre site with a 13 acre church campus consisting of a 49,000 square foot multi-purpose building/family center with a capacity of 1,800 people, a 19,000 square foot two story preschool for 150 students, a 4,000 square foot chapel building, a 7,000 square foot gymnasium, a 13,000 square foot youth building, and a 6,000 square foot adult education building. The project grading will include 53,400 cu yds of cut, 40,700 cu yds of fill and 12,700 cu yds of export. Other improvements to the site include: sidewalk, curb and gutter along the project’s frontage, a traffic signal at Aviara Parkway and Camino De Las Ondas, an access road to the existing SDG&E transmission line easement, and drainage improvements. DETERMINATION: 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 (EL4 Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as follows: 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. 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. (Mitigated Negative Declaration applies only to the effects that remained to be addressed). 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. A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the Negative Declaration is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. ADOPTED: , mmuant to City Council Ordinance No. ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director 49 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 ‘ CASE NO: GPA 04-16/ZC 04-12LCPA 04-12/cuP 04-05/SDP 04-02/CDP 04-03/HDP 04-01 DATE: September 14,2004 BACKGROUND 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. CASE NAME: North Coast Calvarv Chapel LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad, 1635 Faraday Ave, Carlsbad, CA CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Van Lynch, City of Carlsbad, (760) 6024613 PROJECT LOCATION: Northeast comer of Aviara Parkway and Poinsettia Lane, Carlsbad, San Diego County, APN 215-070-13 and 36 and 214-550-01 PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: North Coast Calvary ChaDel, Mark Foreman, 7188 Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad, CA GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Low-Medium (RLM) ZONING: Residential Single Family - Qualified development overlav zone (R-1-7,500 - 0) OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (Le., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): California Coastal Commission (LCPA) PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: The project is the development of a 30.9 acre site with a 13.1 acre church campus consisting of a 49,000 square foot multi-purpose building/family center with a capacity of 1,800 people, a 19,000 square foot two story preschool for 150 students, a 4,000 square foot chapel building, a 7,000 square foot gymnasium, a 13,000 square foot youth building, and a 6,000 square foot adult education building. The church project will be developed on the southern portion of the site, and north of Poinsettia Lane and east of Aviara Parkway. The remainder of the site will be preserved as natural open space. Administrative offices, nursery, library, bookstore, and coffee shop uses are included within the project. The preschool will operate Monday through Friday as well as administrative offices. Access to the site will be from a signalized intersection at Aviara Parkway and Camino De Las Ondas, a right in and right out only on Aviara Parkway and a right in and right out only on Poinsettia Lane. Vehicular circulation and parking will surround the “campus” group of buildings. A total of 1,049 parking spaces are proposed and consist of surface parking and a proposed two level parking structure. The project grading will include 53,400 cubic yards of cut, 40,700 cubic yards of fill and 12,700 cubic yards of export. Other improvements to the site include: sidewalk, curb and gutter along the project’s frontage, a traffic signal at Aviara Parkway and Camino De Las Ondas and drainage improvements, and an access road to the existing SDG&E transmission line easement which is located on the easterly side of the property. 1 Rev. 07103102 The portion of the site that is proposed for development is relatively flat and has been previously disturbed by agricultural uses. The northern portion of the site is vegetated with native habitat (8.9 acres) and slopes northerly to a natural drainage finger canyon of Encinas Creek. The native habitat will be preserved as open space. South of Poinsettia Lane is a triangular area (5.1 acres) that contains manufactured slopes of Poinsettia Lane, a SDG&E transmission tower, and native habitats which will be preserved in open space. A public pedestrian trail is proposed on the existing service road within the SDG&E easement north of Poinsettia Lane. No duel criteria slopes are being disturbed and the project does not impact any of the sensitive habitats or species found on the site. The project preserves the existing 7.58 ac. of Coastal Sage Scrub 1.49 ac. Southern Maritime Chaparral, .67 ac. Southern Willow Scrub, and .60 ac of wetland ruderal vegetation. Wart-stemmed Ceanothus and Ashy spike-moss were also found on site and are not being disturbed. A previous protocol Coastal California Gnatcatcher survey identified three pair of birds in areas not proposed for development. The property to the north is developed with multi-family housing and portions are in open space. To the east is fallow agricultural lands and open space. To the south is single family residential and to the west are a remnant open space parcel and a residential subdivision under construction. Poinsettia Lane and Aviara Parkway intersect on the southwestern corner of the property and divide the property into three sections. 2 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. Aesthetics 0 Geology/Soils u Noise 0 Agricultural Resources [7 Air Quality [7 Hydrology/Water Quality 0 Public Services Biologcal Resources 0 Land Use and Planning 0 Recreation 0 HazardsMazardous Materials c] Popu1ation and Housing Cultural Resources c] Mineral Resources 0 TransportatiodCirculation Utilities & Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance 3 Rev. 07/03/02 DETERMINATION. 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. 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 @) 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, nothmg further is required. . V Q!tb/oLt- Planning Director’s Siwe Date 4 Rev. 07/03/02 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Arhcle 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 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. “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. “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. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significantly adverse. Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the environment, but all 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 ElR 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. 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. 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. 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. 5 Rev. 07/03/02 e An EIR the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant adverse effect has not been dwussed 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 ELA-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. be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not hted to 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. 6 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: 0 0 Ixlo a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 0 Ixlo b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and hstoric buildmgs within a State scenic highway? 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, whch would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 11. AGRICULTURAL TSOURCES - (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 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? 0 o b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 0 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? 111. 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: 0 a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? o b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 17 0 0 0 0 Ixlo OB 7 Rev. Ql103IO2 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 US. Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural copmunity identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by California Department of Fish and Game or US. 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, veinal 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 Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact n U U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 om om no om ow OH OH 8 Rev. Oll03102 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Cause a Substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Q 15064.5? b) Cause a Substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to 6 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) 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. 11. ... 111. 1v. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Pnolo 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. Strong seismic ground shaking? Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 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 (1997), creating Substantial risks to life or property? Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 IXI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact IXI [XI 0 [XI 0 0 0 0 0 n 9 Rev. 07/03/02 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 withn 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 withn an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, withm two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working 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? Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 cl 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 CI o 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 No Impact KI IXI IXI IXI KI [XI [XI IXI la [XI 10 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 0 0 OB Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water recharge 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)? 0 Impacts to groundwater quality? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? 0 0 Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the 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, whch would result in flooding on- or off- site? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 0 OH Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 0 OB Place housing withm a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? 0 OH urn Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? 0 Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? 0 Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ow Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. 0 Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash) into receiving surface waters or other alteration of receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidlty)'? 11 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction? 0 0 0 ' w 0 0 [XI 0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? 0 0 IXI 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? 0 !XI w b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction 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? 0 c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 0 0 0 X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: El 0 w 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 0 0 [XI 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 CI IXI 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? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? 0 0 IXI El 0 [XI c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 0 IXI d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 12 Rev. OllO3102 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 0 0 OB e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 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? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? o f) XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: a) 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 mfrastructure)? 0 b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 0 c) 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 whch could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? XIV. RECREATION 0 0 0 0 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? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OB OB 13 Rev. 07103102 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Does the project include .require the construction or recreational facilities or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment'? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - 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 hghways? 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 parlung capacity? Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn- 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 whch 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 Significani Impact 0 cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 e o Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 1xI 17 0 El 0 0 0 0 cl I7 No Impact IXI IXI El Ixl IxI [XI El [XI [XI !XI IxI 14 Rev. 07103102 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, whch 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? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 0 0 0 17 OB ow XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 17 0 om 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? 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?) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? O 0 om b) 0 0 OB c) 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. 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. 15 Rev. 07/03/02 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AESTHETICS No Impact. The project is not located withm a significant view shed. The project is designed to incorporate landscaping of manufactured slopes, top of slope setbacks, building setbacks, and interesting archtecture and building masses to reduce visual impacts. The project is preserving a significant portion of the canyon as open space. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES No Impact. The project will impact farmland of statewide importance as identified in the Zone 20 EIR. The project will mitigate the impact by the payment of an agricultural mitigation fee for the conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses for each acre converted pursuant to the Local Coastal Program and the mitigation measures that were adopted with the EIR for the Zone 20 Specific Plan. No Williamson Act lands exist on the site. 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 (PMlo). 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 (SANDAG). 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 15125(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? 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 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 16 Rev. 07103102 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. The project would involve minimal short-term emissions associated with grading and construction. Such emissions would be minimized through standard construction measures such as the use of properly tuned equipment and watering the site for dust control. Long-term emissions associated with travel to and from the project will be minimal. Although air pollutant emissions would be associated with the project, they would neither result in the violation of any air quality standard (comprising only an incremental contribution to overall air basin quality readings), nor contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. 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 fine 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 15 130 (a)(4), the proposed project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considered de minimus. 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. In addition, there are no sensitive receptors (e.g., schools or hospitals) located in the vicinity of the project. No impact is assessed. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? NO Impact. The construction of the proposed project could generate fumes from the operation of construction equipment, which may be considered objectionable by some people. Such exposure would be short-term or transient. In addition, the number of people exposed to such transient impacts is not considered substantial. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES No Impact. The project does not impact any of the sensitive habitats or species found on the site. The project preserves the existing 7.58 ac. of Coastal Sage Scrub 1.49 ac. Southern Maritime Chaparral, .67 ac. Southern Willow Scrub, and .60 ac of wetland ruderal vegetation. Wart-stemmed Ceanothus and Ashy spke-moss was also found on site and are not being disturbed. A protocol Coastal California Gnatcatcher survey identified three pair of birds in areas not proposed for development. The project is in conformance with the City of Carlsbad Draft Habitat Management Plan. The site was previously entitled for a residential subdivision which also established a “hardline preserve boundary”, which the current project follows. The site is identified as Figure 38, Promenade, in the second addendum of the Habitat Management Plan, June 2003. In accordance with the City’s HMP, open spaces areas which are conserved or created as mitigation for project impacts (both on-site and off-site) will be professionally managed by an appropriate land management entity and maintained with adequate funds. CULTURAL RESOURCES No Impact. The Zone 20 EIR does not identify the project site as a potentially significant cultural resource site. Less Than Significant Impact. The site has the potential to produce fossil resources that would be a significant impact. Implementation of the mitigation measures listed below would reduce the impacts to a level of insignificance. GEOLOGY AND SOILS No Impact. A geotechnical study prepared for the site does not identify any significant geological hazards or geotechnical issues that would preclude development of the site. 17 Rev. 07103/02 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS No Impact. Project site does not contain any significant hazardous material as identified in the Phase 1 environmental assessment report. The proposed church project does not include the use of hazardous materials and is not within the Palomar Airport Land Use Plan area. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY No Impact. The project will rely on an existing public storm drain system and is subject to City standards regarding water quality, drainage and erosion control, including storm water permit (NPDES) requirements and best management practices. The project is conditioned to require a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) that will ensure that it is designed and constructed in compliance with the City's "DES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity issued by the State Water Resources Control Board and the San Diego "DES Municipal Storm Water Permit issued to San Diego County and Cities by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. No wells or deep excavation are proposed therefore no impacts to groundwater supplies, recharge, or quality will occur. The project site is not located within the 100-year floodplain nor is it subject to flooding, seiches, tsunamis, or mudslides. The project site is not located adjacent to any body of water. Drainage from the site is subject to the City's drainage and storm water pollution control standards (NPDES and best management practices), which ensure that sediment and pollutants from any development of the site will not discharge into any downstream receiving surface waters. Also, the City's drainage and storm water pollution control standards ensure that development does not reduce water quality of any marine, fresh or wetland waters or groundwater. The project is designed to drain into an existing natural drainage courses and existing storm drains, and the project will be conhtioned to prepare a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) to ensure that City standards are met. LANDUSE AND PLANNING No Impact. The church is a use that is allowed in residential zone subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Two major arterial roadways, Aviara Parkway and Poinsettia Lane, separate the project site form the adjacent residential land uses. The project is also separated from existing adjacent residential land uses by open space. The church buildings are further buffered by the perimeter parking lot for the church. An SDG&E transmission line easement is on the easterly side of the site and acts as a habitat corridor and buffer to future residential development to the east. The Zone 20 specific plan allows residential or commercial on this site. The project is in conformance with the Habitat Management Plan by developing outside the hardlined open space established for the property. 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 project will not result in the loss of availability of a know mineral resource or mineral resource recovery site. A survey for oil and gas wells did not identify any on the subject property based on information provided to the City by the Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources. NOISE No Impact - The project complies with the Noise Guidelines Manual for interior noise levels. In addition, the project will not impact adjacent residential uses due to the distance between the church and associated uses and the residential developments. POPULATION AND HOUSING No Impact. The proposed project does not involve the construction, displacement, or removal of housing and does not produce any increases in population. No housing exists on site nor uses the property for access. The proposed church project is not subject to the City's Inclusionary Housing program. Therefore, the proposed project will not cause any significant adverse impacts to population and housing. PUBLIC SERVICES 18 Rev. 07/03/02 No Impact. The project site is located wihn Local Facilities Management Zone (LFMZ) 20. The provision of public facilities withm LFMZ 20, including fire protection, parks, libraries and other public facilities, has been planned to accommodate the projected growth of that area. Because the project will not exceed the total growth projections anticipated within LFMZ 20, all public facilities will be adequate to serve residential development on the site. Therefore, the project will not result in substantial adverse impacts to or result in the need for additional government facilities. RECREATION As part of the City’s Growth Management Program (GMP), a performance standard for parks was adopted. The park performance standard requires that 3 acres of Community Park and Special Use Area per 1,000 population withm a park district (quadrant) must be provided. The project site is located within Park District #3 (Southwest Quadrant). The necessary park acreage to achieve the GMP standard (3 acresl1,OOO population) for Park District #3 has been achieved; therefore recreational facilities are adequate to accommodate the project. TRANSPORTATIONlTRAFFIC-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 1,200 weekday Average Daily Trips (ADT) and 153 AM and 159 PM peak hour trips. Ths traffic will utilize the following roadways Aviara Parkway and Poinsettia Lane, both major arterials. Existing traffic on these arterials are 4,972 ADT (2004) for Aviara Parkway and 10, 524 ADT for Poinsettia Ln (2003) and the 2004 peak hour level of service (LOS) at the arterial intersections impacted by the project is LOS A. The design capacities of the arterial roads affected by the proposed project are 20,000 to 40,000 vehicles per day. The project traffic would represent 6% and 11% of the existing traffic volume and the design capacity respectively. While the increase in traffic from the proposed project may be slightly noticeable, the street system has been designed and sized to accommodate traffic from the project and cumulative development in the City of Carlsbad. The proposed project would not, therefore, cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. The impacts from the 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 17-35 “A-D” 35-56 El Camino Real 27-49 “A-C” 33-62 Palomar Aqort Road 10-57 “A-D” 30-73 SR 78 124-142 “F’ 156-180 1-5 199-216 “D” 260-272 *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. 19 Rev. 07/03/02 c) 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? No Impact. The proposed project does not include any aviation components. The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the McClellan-Palornar 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 to satisfy the emergency requirements of the Fire and Police Departments. No impact assessed. 9 Result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact. The proposed project is not requesting a parking variance. Additionally, the project would comply with the City’s parking requirements to ensure an adequate parking supply. 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 located along major circulation roadways conducive to public transportation. The project has also been condition to install bike racks to support alternative transportation. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS No Impact. The project site is located withm Local Facilities Management Zone (LFMZ) 20 which is served by the Encina wastewater treatment facility. Wastewater treatment capacity has been planned to accommodate the projected growth of Zone 20. Because the project will not exceed the total growth projections anticipated withm LFMZ 20, wastewater treatment capacity will be adequate to serve the proposed use on the site. Therefore, the project will not result in substantial adverse impacts to or result in the need for additional wastewater treatment facilities. All public facilities, including water facilities and drainage facilities, have been planned and designed to accommodate the growth projections for the City at build-out. The proposed church project will not result in growth that exceeds the City’s growth projections. Existing waste disposal services contracted by the City of Carlsbad are adequate to serve the proposed use without exceeding landfill capacities. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE The project will not degrade the quality of the physical environment in that the site is currently disturbed by previous agricultural uses. There are no historic structures on the site. Less than Significant Impact - San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) projects regional growth for the greater San Diego area, and local general plan land use policies are incorporated into SANDAG projections. Based upon those projections, region-wide standards, including storm water quality control, air quality standards, habitat conservation, congestion management standards, etc, are established to reduce the cumulative impacts of development in the region. All of the City’s development standards and regulations are consistent with the region- wide standards. The City’s standards and regulations, including grading standards, water quality and drainage standards, traffic standards, habitat and cultural resource protection regulations, and public facility standards, ensure that development within the City will not result in a significant cumulatively considerable 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 proposed development would represent a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with church use would be minimal. 20 Rev. 07103102 Given the limited erriissions potentially associated with a church use of the site, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the development is implemented. Therefore, the impact is assessed as less than significant. Also, as lscussed 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 growth 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 proposed church use of the site will not result in a significant cumulative considerable impact. Development of the site will comply with City development standards designed to avoid substantial adverse environmental effects to existing and future residential dwelling units. 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. 2. 3. Final Master Environmental Imuact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01), City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994. Final Program Environmental Impact Reuort for the Zone 20 Specific Plan Proiect, Carlsbad, California, Brian F. Mooney Associates, dated June 1992. Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Updated Report for the Proposed Carlsbad Promenade Residential Development at the intersection of Aviara Parkway and Poinsettia Lane, Carisbad, California, Gradient Engineers, Inc. dated February 12,2001 Biological Resources Assessment for Carlsbad Promenade, Planning Systems, dated October 31,2001. Protocol coastal California Gnatcatcher survey on Carlsbad Promenade. San Dieao Countv, California Lincer & Associates, May 2, 2001 City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, November 1992 Transportation Analysis for North Coast Calvary Chapel in Carlsbad, Urban Systems Associates, Inc. January 28,2004 Updated Geotechnical evaluation, Proposed North Coast Calvary Chapel, Leighton and Associates, Inc, January 27,2004 Preliminary Draina.ge Study for Calvary ChaDel, O’Day Consultants, January 12,2004. 4. 5, 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Corresuondence from Mestre Greve and Associates, Acoustical engineer, dated September 8, 2004. 21 Rev. 07/03/02 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) 1. Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, the developer shall present a letter to the City of Carlsbad indicating that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to carry out an appropriate mitigation program. (A qualified paleontologist is defined as an individual with a MS or Ph.D. in paleontology or geology who is familiar with paleontological procedures and techniques. A qualified paleontologist shall be present at the pre-construction meeting to consult with the grading and excavation contractors. A paleontological monitor shall be on-site at all times during the original cutting of previously undistributed soils to inspect cuts for contained fossils. (A paleontological monitor is defined as an individual who has experience in the collection and salvage of fossil materials. The paleontological monitor shall work under the direction of a qualified paleontologist.) When fossils are discovered, the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) shall recover them. In most cases this fossil salvage can be completed in a short period of time. However, some fossil specimens (such as a complete large mammal skeleton) may require an extended salvage period. In these instances the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) shall be allowed to temporarily direct, divert, or halt grading to allow recovery of fossil remains in a timely manner. Because of the potential for the recovering of small fossil remains, such as isolated mammal teeth, it may be necessary in certain instances, to set up a screen- washing operation on the site. Fossil remains collected during the monitoring and salvage portion of the mitigation program shall be cleaned, repaired, sorted, and cataloged. Prepared fossils, along with copies of all pertinent field notes, photos, and maps, shall be made available to the scientific community or shall be deposited (as a donation) in a scientific institution with permanent paleontological collections such as the San Diego Natural History Museum. Donations of the fossils shall be accompanied by financial support for initial specimen storage. A final summary report shall be completed that outlines the results of the mitigation program and submitted to the City of Carlsbad Planning Department. Th~s report shall include discussions of the methods used, stratigraphic sections(s) exposed, fossils collected, and significance of recovered fossils. 22 Rev. 07/03/02 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. 23 Rev. 07103102 I PROJECT NAME: North Coast Calvary Chapel FILE NUMBERS: GPA 04-16/ZC 04-12] LCPA 04-12] CUP 04- 05ISDP 04-02/CDP 04-03IHDP 04-01 APPROVAL DATE: 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 3180 (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). Mitigation Measure 1. Prior to any grading of the project site: a. A paleontologist shall be retained to perform a walkover survey of the site and to review the grading plans to determine if the proposed grading will impact fossil resources. A copy of the paleontologist's report shall be provided to the Planning Director prior to issuance of a grading permit. b. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of the site and to salvage exposed fossils. Due to the small nature of some of the fossils present in the geologic strata, it may be necessary to collect matrix samples for laboratory processing through fine screens. The paleontologist shall make periodic reports to the Planning Director during the grading process. Monitoring Type Grading Permit Monitoring Department Planning Shown on Plans Yes Verified Implementation Remarks Explanation 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. 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. A Mitigation Measure c. The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area of an exposed fossil in order to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage artifacts. d. All fossils collected shall be donated to a public, nonprofit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the San Diego Natural History Museum. Any conflicts regarding the role of the paleontologist and the grading activities of the project shall be Monitoring Monitoring Shownon I Verified I I N 0, N ExDlanation 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. 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.