The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1992-02-05; Planning Commission; Resolution 33357 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3335 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW THE EXPANSION OF THE PILGRIM CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH TO INCLUDE AN ADJACENT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE TO BE USED FOR SUNDAY SCHOOL CLASSROOMS AND ADULT MEETING ROOMS. CASE NAME: PILGRIM CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH CASE NO: CUP 85(B) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 5th day of February, 199; hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering a testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the informatio submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Plannin Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commissio as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Plannir Commission hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration according to Exhil: "ND", dated October 3,1991, and "PII", dated September 20,1991, attached here and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: F;ld;lsrs: 1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project mi have a significant impact on the environment since the facility is existing a~ regular use is limited to Sundays and weekly evening meetings. 25 26 27 2. The site has been previously graded pursuant to an earlier environmental analys and no site alteration is required. ... 28 0 0 3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the proposed 1 4. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be significant13 2 project. impacted by this project. 3 4 5 6 7 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 5th day of February, 1992 by the following vote, to wit: a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ATTEST: AYES: Chairman Erwin, Commissioners: Schramm, Holmes, Savary & Noble. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioners: Hall & Schlehuber. ABSTAIN: None. zh" TOM ERWIN, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 e MICHAEL J. HOLZMI~LER PLANNING DIRECTOR PC RESO NO. 3335 -2- 28 NEGATIVE DECLARATlON PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: 2020 & 2030 Chestnut Avenue located on the northeast comer of Chestnut Avenue and Monroe Street. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Amendment to a Conditional Use Permit for Pilgrim Congregational Church to expand the existing church facility to include an adjacent single family residence to be used for church Sunday school classrooms and adult meeting rooms. 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, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 21 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Anne Hysong in the Planning Department at 438-1161, extension 4477. DATED: OCTOBER 3, 1991 CASE NO: CUP 85(B) MICHAEL J. HOL~ZMIL~E~ Planning Director APPLICANT: RICHARD ALLEN PUBLISH DATE: OCTOBER 3, 1991 AH :vd 2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad. California 92009-4859 (619) 438-1 161 0 a ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) BACKGROUND CASE NO. CUP 85(1 DATE: SeDtember 20, 195 1. CASE NAM.E: CUP 85(B) - Pilarim Conmenational Church 2. APPLICANT: Richard Allen 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 3609 Laredo Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMInED: November 19, 1990 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for an amendment to an existinn Conditional Use Permil allowing a- church expansion to include an adiacent single family residence to be used for Sunday school classes and adult meetings. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City conduct a1 :nvironmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environmenl rhe Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklis 3 identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project an1 x-ovides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environment: mpact Report or Negative Declaration. ' A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project o any of its aspects may cause a. significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, "NO" will be checkec to indicate this determination. r An EER must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of thl project may cause a si&ficant effect on the environment. The project may qual@ for a Negatiw Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deemec insinnificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings 'YES-sigtt and YES-insig' respectively. L discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form undel )ISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing litigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. 0 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT wru THE PROPOSAL D~RECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Result in unstable earth conditions or increase the exposure of people or property to geologic hazards? Appreciably change the topography or any unique physical features? Result in or be affected by erosion of soils either on or off the site? Result in changes in the deposition of beach sands, or modification of the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? Result in substantial adverse effecrs on ambient air quality? Result in substantial changes in air movement, odor, moisture, or temperature? Substantially change the course or flow of water (marine, fresh or flood waters)? Affect the quantity or quality of surface water, ground water or public water supply? Substantially increase usage or cause depletion of any natural resources? Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy? Alter a significant archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure or object? -2- e YES (sigl - - - - - - - YES (insig) - - - - - - - NO X X - X x X X X X X X - X e 0 BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES big) 12. Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic plants)? - 13, Introduce new species of plants into an area, or a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? 14. Reduce the amount of acreage of any agricultural crop or affect prime, unique or other farmland of state or local importance? - 15. Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals, all water dwelling organisms and insects? 16. Introduce new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? - HUMAN ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 17. Alter the present or planned land use of an area? YES ~ (sk) - 18. Substantially affect public utilities, schools, police, fire, emergency or other public services? - -3- YES (insig) - - - - - YES (ins&> X - - NO X x - X X X - NO - X - 0 HUMAN ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 19. Result in the need for new or modified sewer systems, solid waste or hazardous waste control systems? 20. Increase existing noise levels? 21. Produce new light or glare? 22. Involve a significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? 23. Substantially alter the density of the human population of an area? 24. Affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 25. Generate substantial additional traffic? 26. Affect existing parking facilities, or create a large demand for new parking? 27. Impact existing transportation systems or alter present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? 28. Alter waterborne, rail or air traffic? 29. Increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 30. Interfere with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans? 31. Obstruct any scenic vista or create an aesthetically offensive public view? 32. Affect the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? -4- 0 YES big) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - YES (insig) X - X - NO X - - X - X - X - X X - X X X X X - X a 0 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE j5 NILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO s big) (ins ig) 33. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wild- life species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or en- dangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. X levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or 34. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the dis- advantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) 35. Does the project have the possible environmental effects which are in- dividually limited but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively con- siderable" means that the incremental effects of an individual 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.) 36. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X X X - - -5- 0 0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 4 1-1 6. The proposed church expansion to include an adjacent existing single family residence for the parpos of providing additional Sunday School classroom space and adult meeting rooms will create no advers environmental impact to the surrounding physical or biological environment since it requires n additional grading or exterior structural alteration to the existing development. 17. Although the proposed conversion of a single family residence to church class and meeting rooms is a alteration of the present residential land Lse, church uses are allowed in residentially designated are: by conditional use permit. 18-19. The proposed church expansion in an existing single family residence will have no signlficant impac on public services, utilities, or existing sewer systems. 20. .The proposed church expansion may result in increased noise levels during very limited time perioc since the church classrooms will be occupied by children attending Sunday School classes he1 concurrent with Church services on Sunday morning and for church meetings to be held occasional] in the evening hours. The facility will be occupied only during these limited time periods; therefor{ the intermittent increase in noise levels will not create a significant impact. 21-22, The church expansion involves the addition of an existing single family residence to the church facilit for classroom purposes; therefore, no new light or glare or risk of an explosion or the release c hazardous substances will be produced. 23. The church expansion will not substantially alter the density of the human population of the area sinc the project consists only of new church clasdmeeting rooms to accommodate the existing Churc membership. 24. The church expansion will not significantly impact existing housing or create a demand for addition: housing since the project involves a change in use of only one single family residence from residenti: to church class/meeting rooms to accommodate the existing church membership. 25-27. The church expansion to create Sunday school classrooms attended by children on Sunday morning concurrent with Church services and adult church meeting rooms in an existing single family residencc will generate no additional traffic and will not significantly impact existing parking facilities o transportation systems or alter present circulation patterns since no additional trips or new demand fo parking will occur as a result of the proposed project. 28-31. The proposed project consists of a use change in an existing structure, therefore, it will not alte traffic or create traff'ic hazards, interfere with emergency response or emergency evacuation plam obstruct any scenic view or create an aesthetically offensive public view, or affect the quality or quantit of existing recreational opportunities. -6- 0 0 ANALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATlVES TO THE PROPOSED.PROJECT SUCH AS: D a) Phased development of the project, b) alternate site designs, c) alternate scale of development, d) alternate uses for the site, e) development at some future time rather than now, f) alternate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternative. a) Phased development of the project is not applicable since the proposed church expansion involves no ne construction. b&c)The proposed church expansion involves no physical changes to the existing site design other th; expanding the. church site to include the existing single family structure on an adjacent lot. Therefore, discussion of alternative site designs or scale is inappropriate. d) The proposed church expansion consists of the part time use of an adjacent single family residence fc Sunday school classrooms and adult meeting rooms. Church uses are allowed in single family zones wil an approved conditional use permit which ensures compatibility with the surrounding single family use The existing residential use is the only alternative use permitted by the zone. e) Development at some future time is not applicable to this project since no new development or si alteration is proposed. f) The proposed site is a single family lot with frontage on the same collector street as the adjacent Churc site. The existing church facility has two parking lots located within walking distance of the proposed sit sites include other surrounding single family lots located along local streets which are not easily accessibl from the church site. The use of these alternative sites located on local streets could impact th surrounding neighborhoods if the lack of easy access from existing church parking lots resulted in on stret parking. which provide adequate parking facilities to conveniently serve users of the meeting rooms. Alternatit g) The proposed church expansion will result in no new development or site alteration and will have r significant impact on the surrounding neighborhood since no additional traffic will be generated and c new parking facilities are required. The no project alternative is therefore not applicable to this projec. -7- 0 0 DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department) On the basis of this initial evaluation: - X I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATII DECLARATION will be prepared. - I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, because tl environmental effects of the proposed project have already been considered in conjunction wi previously certified environmental documents and no additional environmental review is require Therefore, a Notice of Determination has been prepared. - I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there w not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative Declaration will be proposed. - I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENT1 IMPACT REPORT is required. fl +a3 -9/ Date b A, .f ' /- /t p' / . .- /. ./;/ f ; ? /- 'I I ,!//->- L-&y4(,!,.,2 LC- .. .: /> d .- ,, -.. I . , .i , Datk Planning Director- i LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) ATTACH MITIGATION MONITOEUNG PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) -8- 0 e APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. . .. Date Signature AH:vd -9-