The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1992-02-05; Planning Commission; Resolution 3340)I 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 x0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3340 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A CHURCH TO OCCUPY 5,270 CHURCH SERVICES AND MEETINGS AT 6355 CORTE DEL ABET0 IN THE PM ZONE. CASE NAME: REDEEMER BY THE SEA LUTHERAN CHURCH SQUARE FEET OF MULTI-TENANT INDUSTRIAL SPACE TO CONDUCT CASE NO: CUP 91-12 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 5th day of February, 1992, ho 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 a~ arguments, exa&g the ;n;dal study, analpkg the hformation submitted by staff, a] considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered i factors relating to the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planni Commission hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration according to Exhil "ND", dated December 26, 1991, and "PII", dated December 16, 1991, attach hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Findinns: 1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project rn have a significant impact on the environment. 2. The site has been previously graded pursuant to an earlier environmental analy: 3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the propos project. 4. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be significan impacted by this project. 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 I 27 28 e 0 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Plannin Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 5th day of February, 1992 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairman Erwin, Commissioners Schlehuber, Schramm, Holme Savary & Noble. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Hall. ABSTAIN: None. ATTEST: TOM ERWIN, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING DIRECTOR I PC RES0 NO. 3340 -2- I I 0 0 NEGAm DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: 6355 Corte del Abeto, Suites 101 & 102 Carlsbad, CA 92009 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Conditional Use Permit to allow the Redeemer by the Sea Lutheran Church to occupy 5,270 square feet of multi tenant industrial space to use for Church services, Sunday school, and a church office. 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: DECEMBER 26, 1991 CASE NO: CUP 91-12 Planning Director APPLICANT: REDEEMER BY THE SEA LUTHERAN CHURCH PUBLISH DATE: DECEMBER 26, 1991 AH:vd 2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-1 576 (61 9) 438-1 161 0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART 11 d (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) 4- BACKGROUND CASE NO. CUP 91. DATE: December 16, 15 1. CASE NAME: Redeemer by the Sea Lutheran Church 2. APPLICANT: Dounlas Moody 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2541 State Street, #lo3 Carlsbad. CA 92008 (619) 729-1767 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: October 9. 1991 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 5,270 square foot Church to be located in an existing multi ter industrial building in the PM Zone. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City conduct Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environm The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checl 8 identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environme. Impact Report or Negative Declaration. * A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no "substantial evidence that the projec any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, "NO" will be chec to indicate this determination. * An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of project may cause a significant effect on the environment. The project may qualify for a Nega Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deel insignificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings "YES-sig" and YES-ir respectively. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form UI DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL, EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discus mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. a PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 1. Result in unstable earth conditions or increase the exposure of people or property to geologic hazards? 2. 3. 4. 5. ,- 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 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 effects 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? 0 YES big) - - - - - - -2- YES (insig) - - NO X X X -x- X X X x X X X 0. 0 BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DERECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO big) (insig) 12. Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic plants)? X 13. Introduce new species of plants into an area, or a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? X 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? HUMANENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECIZY: 17. Alter the present or planned land use of an area? 18. Substantially affect public utilities, schools, police, fire, emergency or other public services? X - - x X - YES YES NO (ski (ins&) X - - x - - -3- I”ANENVl0NMENT 1) WILL 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: Result in the need for new or modified sewer systems, solid waste or hazardous waste control systems? Increase existing noise levels? Produce new light or glare? tnvolve a significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? Substantially alter the density of the human population of an area? Affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? Generate substantiai additional traffic? Affect existing parking facilities, or create a large demand for new parking? Impact existing transportation systems or alter present patterns of circulation or . movement of people and/or goods? Alter waterborne, rail or air traffic? Increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? Interfere with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans? Obstruct any scenic vista or create an aesthetically offensive public view? Affect the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? -4- 0 YES YES NO big) (insig) .& X X X X X - X - - - v A X - X - X - X - - - X X - - X - - 0 0 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 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 levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or 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. 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.) YES YES NO Wg) (insig) X - X 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 v - A - -5- DISCUSSION OF'ENVIRONMENT P EVALUATION e PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT 1-16. The project consists of the proposed occupancy of 5,270 square feet of an existing multi-ten industrial building by a church. NO exterior alteration of the previously developed site or build is proposed; therefore, impacts to the physical and biological environment have been previol considered. ,HUMAN ENVIRONMENT 17. The project will not alter the present or planned land use of the area since the proposed sit designated by the General Plan or industrial use and Chapter 21.42 of the Zoning Ordinance all( churches in industrial zone with an approved Conditional Use Permit. 18. The project will not adversely im:- xt public services since compliance with fire codes will required prior to occupancy, and increased traffic congestion will not result since church sew will occur on Sunday when the majority of surrounding industrial uses are closed. 20. Increased noise levels are likely to result on Sunday mornings during church services, however, majority of the surrounding uses will not be impacted since they will be closed, and the 1-2 h time period will not result in a significant adverse impact. 21. The proposed church will occupy an existing facility and no new light or glare will be produc 22. No significant risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances will occur as a result of proposed church use since no storage of chemicals or hazardous substances is necessary. Pro conditions requiring compliance with UBC regulations will ensure that the use will be conduc in such a say as to reduce potential risk in this connection below a level of significance. 23. The proposed church will not substantially alter the density of the human population of industrial area since the congregation will meet on Sunday mornings when the majority of surrounding industrial uses are closed. 24. Housing supply will not be impacted by the church use. 25-27. No substantial additional traffic will be generated by the proposed church since the church provide seating for a maximum of 144 people and peak use hours will occur on Sunday so that traffic or parking conflicts with other industrial park users is avoided. 28-32. Since the proposed church will occupy an existing industrial multi-tenant building in the Plan industrial Zone, it will not alter traffic, increase traffic hazards, interfere with emergency respc an offensive public view. plans, affect the quality or quantity of recreational opportunities, or obstruct a scenic vista or crl -6- 0 e 4NALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT SUCH AS: 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. Alternate uses for the proposed site include all uses permitted by right in the industrial zone, howev churches are allowed in the area if findings of consistency with the General Plan, site and street systt adequacy, and compatibility with surrounding uses can be made. The proposed church site and street systt serving the site are adequate to handle the use and the use is compatible with surrounding uses since traf and parking conflicts are avoided due to differing peak operating times Alternate sites for the proposed development include residentially or commercially zoned parcels. The cc of land acquisition and development in residential zones has become prohibitive for many small churches a the leasing of space in commercial developments results in traffic and parking conflicts since commercial u are typically open on Sunday during church peak operating hours. -7- 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 NEGATI DECLARATION will be prepared. - I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, because ' environmental effects of the proposed project have already been considered in conjunction w previously certified environmental documents and no additional environmental review is requir Therefore, a Notice of Determination has been prepared. - I find that although the proposed project could have a si@cant effect on the environment, there I 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 ENVIRONMEN'I IMPACT REPORT is required. Date Signature lzllql~ I 4> Date Planning Director LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) -8- 0 0 WPLICANT 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-