HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP 00-09; Daybreak Community Church; Coastal Development Permit (CDP)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: SDP 00-06/CUP 00-06/CDP 00-09
DATE: October 16,2000
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Daybreak Community Church
2. APPLICANT: Daybreak Community Church
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2270 Camino Vida Roble. Suite M.
Carlsbad. CA 92009 (760) 931-7773
4.
5.
DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: February 29. 2000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Site Development Plan. Conditional Use Permit and Coastal
Development Permit to allow the construction and occupation of a 10.867 square foot church and
daycare facility on a pregraded pad in Aviara Planning Area 32B
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.
I Land Use and Planning
| _ I Population and Housing
I _ | Geological Problems
Water
/\| Air Quality
X Transportation/Circulation
I I Biological Resources
I j Hazards
I I Noise
| Public Services
I Utilities & Service Systems
| | Energy & Mineral Resources | | Aesthetics
j Cultural Resources
Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03/28/96
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
I I I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I I 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 I I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I I I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) 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.
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 earlier EIRs and a Mitigated
Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to those earlier EIRs and Mitigated Negative Declaration, including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore,
a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
/O -
Planner Signature / / Date
Planning Directors Signature Date
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 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 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.
• "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
• Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but all 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 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.
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.
• 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.
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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; #2, pgs 4-1 - 4-26;
#3, pgs 11- 14)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18; #2, pgs 4-1 - 4-26; #3,
pgs 11-14)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18; #2, pgs 4-1 - 4-26; #3, pgs 11-
14)
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; #2, pgs 4-1 - 4-26;
#3, pgs 11-14)
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; #2, pgs
4-1 -4-26; #3, pgs 11-14)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D D
D
Less Than
Significant
Impact
n
n
n
n
No
Impact
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local I I I I I I
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6; #2, pgs
4-1-4-26; #3, pgs 11-14)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or I I I I I I
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 -
5.5-6; #2, pgs 4-1 - 4-26; #3, pgs 11-14)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable I I I I I I
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6; #2, pgs 4-1 - 4-26; #3, "—' —
pgs 11-14)
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2, pgs 4-150 -
4-156; #3, pgs 7 -8)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2,
pgs 4-150 - 4-156; #3, pgs 7 - 8)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1 - 5.1.15; #2, pgs 4-150 - 4-156; #3, pgs 7 - 8)
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
5.1-15; #2, pgs 4-150-4-156; #3, pgs 7 - 8)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2,
pgs 4-150 -4-156; #3, pgs 7 -8)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2, pgs 4-150 - 4-156; #3, pgs 7 - 8)
g) Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2, pgs
4-150 -4-156; #3, pgs 7 -8)
h) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2, pgs 4-150
-4-156; #3, pgs 7 -8)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
5.1-15; #2, pgs 4-150 - 4-156; #3, pgs 7 - 8)
n
n
n
n
nn
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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; #2,pgs 4-110-4-118; #3,pgs 8-9)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11; #2, pgs 4-110
-4-118;#3,pgs8-9)
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; #2, pgs 4-
110-4-118; #3, pgs 8-9)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11; #2, pgs 4-110 - 4-118;
#3, pgs 8-9)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11; #2, pgs 4-110-4-
118; #3, pgs 8-9)
f) 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; #2, pgs 4-110 - 4-
118; #3, pgs 8-9)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11; #2, pgs 4-110-4-118; #3, pgs
8-9)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-
11; #2, pgs 4-110 - 4-118; #3, pgs 8-9)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs
5.2-1 - 5..2-11; #2, pgs 4-110 - 4-118; #3, pgs 8-9)
n
n
D
n
n
n EI
n n
n n
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-
1 - 5.3-12; #2, pgs 4-110 - 4-118; #3, pg 8)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1
- 5.3-12; #2, pgs 4-110-4-118; #3, pg 8)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12; #2, pgs
4-110-4-118; #3, pg 8)
d) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12; #2,
pgs 4-110-4-118; #3, pg 8)
n
n n
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
5.7-1 - 5.7.22; #2, pgs 4-63 - 4-80; #3, pg 6)
b) 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; #2, pgs
4-63-4-80; #3, pg 6)
n
n n
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22; #2, pgs 4-63-4-80; #3, pg 6)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22; #2, pgs 4-63 - 4-80; #3, pg 6)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22; #2, pgs 4-63 - 4-80; #3, pg 6)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22; #2, pgs 4-63 - 4-80; #3, pg 6)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -
5.7.22; #2, pgs 4-63 - 4-80; #3, pg 6)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
D D
D
D
VII. BIOLOGICAL 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 - 5.4-24; #2, pgs 4-
119-4-149; #3, pgs 10-11)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24; #2, pgs 4-119 - 4-149; #3, pgs
10-11)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24; #2,
pgs 4-119 - 4-149; #3, pgs 10-11)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24; #2, pgs 4-119 - 4-149; #3, pgs
10-11)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1
- 5.4-24; #2, pgs 4-119 - 4-149; #3, pgs 10-11)
D
D
D
D
D
D D
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9; #2, pgs
4-94-4-109; #3, pg 9)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13-
1 - 5.13-9; #2, pgs 4-94 - 4-109; #3, pg 9)
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 &
5.13-1 - 5.13-9; #2, pgs 4-94 - 4-109; #3, pg 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;
#2, pgs 4-94 - 4-109; #3, pg 9)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 -
5.10.1-5; #2, pgs 4-94 - 4-109; #3, pg 9)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5; #2, pgs 4-94 - 4-
109;#3,pg9)
D
D
D
D
D D
a
D
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5; #2, pgs 4-
94-4-109; #3, pg 9)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5; #2, pgs 4-
94-4-109; #3, pg 9)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
Less Than
Significant
Impact
D
No
Impact
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9-
15; #2, pgs 4-81 - 4-84; #3, pgs 12-13)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-
1 - 5.9-15; #2, pgs 4-81 - 4-84; #3, pgs 12-13)
n
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6; #2, pg 4-
94-4-109; #3, pgs 9-12)
b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4; #2, pg
4-94-4-109; #3, pgs 9-12)
c) Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5; #2, pg 4-94 - 4-
109; #3, pgs 9-12)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5; #2, pg 4-94 - 4-109; #3,
pgs 9-12)
e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -
5.12.8-7; #2, pg 4-94 - 4-109; #3, pgs 9-12)
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & [~~| (~~|
5.13-1 - 5.13-9; #2, pg 4-94 - 4-109; #3, pgs 9-12)
b) Communications systems? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 I I
& 5.13-1 - 5.13-9; #2, pg 4-94 - 4-109; #3, pgs 9-12) '—
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution I I
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7; #2, pg 4-94 -4-
109; #3, pgs 9-12)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7; #2, I 1
pg 4-94 - 4-109; #3, pgs 9-12)
e) Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8; #2, pg 4-94 - 4- I I
109; #3, pgs 9-12)
f) Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3; #2, I I I I
pg 4-94-4-109; #3, pgs 9-12)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - I I I I
5.12.3-7; #2, pg 4-94-4-109; #3, pgs 9-12) '—
D
n
n n
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
5.11-1 - 5.11-5; #2, pgs 4-35 -4-62; #3,pg 15)
b) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs
5.11-1 - 5.11-5; #2, pgs 4-35-4-62; #3,pg 15)
c) Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.11-5; #2, pgs
4.35 _ 4.62; #3, pg 15)
n
n
n
n
n
n
8 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
10; #2, pgs 4-157 - 4-167; #3, pgs 9-10)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
10; #2, pgs 4-157 - 4-167; #3, pgs 9-10)
c) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10; #2,
pgs 4-157 - 4-167; #3, pgs 9-10)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs 5.8-
1 - 5.8-10; #2, pgs 4-157 - 4-167; #3, pgs 9-10)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10; #2, pgs 4-
157-4-167; #3, pgs 9-10)
D
n
D D
D
D d
D
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 -
5.12.8-7; #2, pgs 4-157 - 4-167; #3, pg 15)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l:Pgs
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7; #2, pgs 4-157-4-167; #3, pg 15)D
D
D
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?
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?
D
n n n
n
Rev. 03/28/96
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Referenced in the above checklist are the earlier environmental analyses that have been
conducted for the project site. Source #1 is the Master Environmental Impact Report for the
City's 1994 General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01) that reviewed the potential impacts of buildout
of the City's General Plan, including transportation and air quality impacts. Source #2 is the
Environmental Impact Report for the Pacific Rim Country Club and Resort (EIR 83-02(A) for
CT 85-35/MP 177) certified on December 8, 1987, that analyzed all of the potential impacts for
the development and occupation of the over 2,000 unit residential master plan (now known as
Aviara) with its associated 18 hole golf course, 550 room hotel, sports club, neighborhood
commercial site, and the development of Planning Area 32B with church/daycare uses. Source
#3 is the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Aviara Phase III Master Tentative Map and
Master Plan Amendment (CT 92-03/MP 177(G)), approved January 25, 1994, which reviewed
the grading and construction related to the development of Phase III, including grading and
development of Planning Area 32B with church/daycare uses. Without exception, the proposed
action has no additional impacts not previously analyzed in the earlier environmental review and
no additional review or mitigation measures are necessary.
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The proposal involves the construction and operation of 10,867 square foot church and daycare
facility on a pregraded pad in Aviara's Planning Area 32B. The proposed development meets all
applicable standards and policies, including parking, setbacks, building height, and architectural
style. No environmentally sensitive resources exist on the previously graded site and all public
facilities necessary to serve the development are already in place. Given the project description
and the previous environmental reviews, no significant adverse impacts to the environment are
anticipated.
AIR QUALITY:
In 1994 the City prepared and certified an EIR which analyzed the impacts which will result
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
10 Rev. 03/28/96
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 MEIR.
This document is available at the Planning Department.
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.
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.
This 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
11 Rev. 03/28/96
been known at the time the MEIR was certified. Therefore, the MEIR remains adequate to
review later projects.
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 Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994.
2. Environmental Impact Report for the Pacific Rim Country Club and Resort Master Plan
(EIR 83-02(A)), dated December 8, 1987.
3. Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Aviara Phase III Master Tentative Tract Map and
Master Plan Amendment (CT 92-03/MP 177(G)), dated January 25, 1994.
12 Rev. 03/28/96