Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-03-02; Planning Commission; Resolution 3636', I1 0 * 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3636 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 139 FOR A CHURCH TO EXPAND THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE AND ALLOW CHANGES TO THE LOCATIONS OF PROPOSED STRUCTURES ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ALGA ROAD AND EL FUERTE STREET. CASE NAME: ST. ELIZABETH SETON CATHOLIC CHURCH CASE NO: CUP 139(AI WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 2nd day of March, 199L 9 I) hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and 10 11 12 13 14 15 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimon and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staf and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered a factors relating to the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commissiol 16 as follows: 17 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 18 19 20 I B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Plannin, Commission hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration according to Exhibj "ND", dated February 10, 1994, and "P1Itt, dated January 13, 1994, attachel hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: 21 /1 Findinm: 22 23 25 2. The site has been previously graded pursuant to an earlier environmental analysis 24 have a significant impact on the environment. 3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the proposed project 1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project ma: 26 27 impacted by this project. 4. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be significant\ 28 ... 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 0 0 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Plannin Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 2nd day of March, 1994, b the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Savary; Commissioners: Schlehuber, Betz, Noblt Welshons, Erwin & Hall. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. ATTEST: t MICHAEL J. WLZMLER PLANNING DIRECTOR CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION PC RES0 NO. 3636 -2- I1 W City of e Carlsbad NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: 6628 Santa Isabel Street Carlsbad, CA 92009 SW comer of Alga Road and El Fuerte Street PROJECT DESCRIPTION! h amendment to an approved CUP for a church to expand the total square footage by approximately 5,000 square feet and to change the locations of proposed structures 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 Elaine Blackburn in the Planning Department at 438-1161, extension 4471. DATED: FEBRUARY 10,1994 CASE NO: CUP 139(A) Planning Director CASE NAME: ST. ELIZABETH SETON CATHOLIC CHURCH PUBLISH DATE: FEBRUARY 10,1994 2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-1576 - (619) 438-1 161 ( w 0 ENvlRONMENTAL TMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. CUP 139 DATE: JANUARY 13.1: BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: ST. ELIZABETH SETON CATHOLIC CHURCH 2. APPLICANT: ST. ELIZABETH SETON CATHOLIC CHURCH 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 6628 SANTA ISABEL STREET CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA 92009 (61 9) 438-3393 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: JULY 9,1993 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: AN AMENDMENT TO AN APPROVED CUP FOR A CHURCH EXPAND THE TOTAL SOUARE FOOTAGE BY APPROXIMATELY 5,000 SOUARE FEET AND ' CHANGE THE LOCATIONS OF PROPOSED STRUCTURES. 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 environme The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. T checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed projc and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmenl Impact Report or Negative Declaration. * A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, "NO' will be check to indicate this determination. * An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of tl project may cause a simificant effect on the environment. The project may qualifv for a Negati Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deemc insignificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings 'YES-sig" and '"YES-insi respectively. 4 discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form undl >ISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussi~ nitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. 9 m PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY YES (sig) 1. Result in unstable earth conditions or increase the exposure of people or property to geologic hazards? 2. Appreciably change the topography or any unique physical features? 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 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? - - - - - - - - - - - -2- YES (insig) - - - - - - - - - - - NO X - X X - X - X - X - X - X X X - - X - w m BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES (sig) 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? - - - - €"ANENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY YES (sig) 17. Alter the present or planned land use of an area? 18. Substantially affect public utilities, schools, police, fire, emergency or other public services? - - -3- YES (insig) - - - - - YES (insig) - - NO X - X X - X - X NO X X - w 0 €“ANENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY 19. Result in the need for new or modified sewer systems, solid waste or hazardous waste control sysrems? 20. tncrease 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)? YES YES NO big) (insig) - - - - - - X X - - X - - - X - 23. Substantially alter the density of the human population of an area? 24. Affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? - - X - - X - 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? - - X - - - X - 28. Alter waterborne, rail or air traffic? - - X - 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? 52. Affect the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? - - X - - - - X - - X - - - - X 4- w 0 MANDATORY F’INDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO big) (ins ig) 33. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantidy 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.) 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 - - - - X -5- w 0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Project Description: The applicant is proposing to amend an approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a church. The total development will include five structures: an existing educational building and future social hall, rectory, sanctuary, and administration building. Total development will consist of approximately 41,000 square feet. The project is proposed as four phases. The proposed amendment would expand the proposed square footage of the total development by approximately 5,000 square feet and would change the location of the structures on the site. The project site is essentially an in-fill lot zoned for commercial uses and surrounded by multi-family residential uses. The site slopes generally downward from the northeast to the southwest. There are some slopes on the site of approximately 10-15 feet height. However, they are manufactured, not natural, slopes. The educational building is already in use. The remainder of the site has been used as a baseball field for the last several years. Physical Environment: The proposed project will not result in exposure to unstable conditions nor erosion of soils. The site is not located near a flood plain, nor in a fault area. All grading proposed will be required to comply with City regulations and standards. The proposal will not appreciably change the topography of the site. The site contains no unique physical features. Grading for the project includes 8,560 cubic yards of cut and 6,560 cubic yards of fill. A total of 6,000 cubic yards will be exported and 4,000 cubic yards will be imported. The soils report found a large amount of clayey soils which must be exported and replaced with less expansive soils during site preparation. The proposed project will not result in changes in the deposition of beach sands or modification of any water body. There are no water bodies or courses on or near the project site. It is an in-fill site surrounded by residential uses. The project will not result in adverse effects on ambient air quality or changes in air movement, odor, moisture, or temperature. The maximum height of the proposed structures is 45 feet (to the top of the proposed tower). The proposed cross atop the tower would extend up an additional eight feet. Generous walkways and open areas are provided between structures. The project will not change the course or flow of water, nor will it affect the quantity or quality of water. The project is a continuing development of an in-fill site. The area of the site is fully developed. Thus, the project is already connected to a public water supply and storm drain system. The subject site contains no natural resources and will not substantially increase depletion of any natural resources. The site is a previously graded pad containing no significant historical structures or objects. Biological Environment: The subject site is an in-fill site containing no indigenous plant resources or animals. The site contains no agricultural or farm land. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in any significant impact to the diversity of species, habitat, or numbers of plants or animals. No new animal species will be introduced to the area as a result of the development. -6- 0 W Human Environment: The project will not alter the present or planned land use of the area because the site is designated by the General Plan for neighborhood commercial uses, and the zoning of the site allows churches with approval of a CUP. The site already has an approved CUP for a church and currently contains one of the proposed church buildings (the educational center). The project will not substantially affect any public services because full public services (including sewer systems) are already provided to the area of this in-filI project. The proposed project will not significantly increase existing noise levels. The activities proposed include educational, social, and church services. These activities will occur primarily indoors. Therefore, no significant increase in noise is anticipated. No significant light or glare will be produced. Any necessary lighting will be required to be directed onto the subject site so there is no impact to neighboring uses. No hazardous substances are expected to be used on the site, and the use of the site will be subject to UBC regulations. The project will not affect population density or housing demand in the area. The proposed development will not generate substantial additional traffic (fewer than 500 vehicle trips per day). Peak use will occur on Sunday mornings, although some activities will occur during the evenings and on weekdays. All parking required for the proposed facilities (175 spaces) will be provided on site. The proposed project will not significantly impact the existing transportation system, pose a hazard to other users, nor interfere with emergency evacuation plans. It is an in-fill site surrounded by fully improved dedicated public streets. The proposed project will not obstruct any scenic vista or create an offensive public view. The architectural plans have been review by City staff and meet with their approval. The proposed project will not significantly affect the availability of recreational opportunities. The site has provided a baseball playing field for local league play on evenings and weekends for a number of years (since at least 1985). However, that provision has been of a temporary nature, as full development of the site with the proposed church facilities has been planned since 1977. -7- 0 0 ANALYSIS 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 project, and g) no project alternative. a) The project is proposed to be completed in four phases. b) The proposed amendment to the CUP has been reviewed by staff and meets with staffs approval. Staff finds no additional environmental benefits which would result from another site design. c) The scale of development proposed is consistent with that already approved for the site. No additional environmental benefits would result from a smaller scale of development. d) Alternate uses for the site would not result in environmental benefits. The site has an approved CUP for the church use and could develop according to that approved plan. In addition, one of the proposed approved church buildings already exists on the site. e) Project development is already planned to occur in the future through the phasing proposed. F) There would be no environmental benefit to an alternate site for the proposed project. The subject site is a previously graded in-fill site. It already contains one of the proposed total church buildings. g) The no project alternative would not confer any environmental benefits. The site is a previously graded in-fill site with a portion of the development already existing. Full development of the site at some time has been anticipated and approved. Since there will be no significant environmental impacts from the project as proposed, analysis alternatives is not necessary. -8- w 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 NEGATl DECLARATION will be prepared. - I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, because 1 environmental effects of the proposed project have already been considered in conjunction w previously certified environmental documents and no additional environmental review is requk Therefore, a Notice of Determination has been prepared. - I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there M 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 ENVIRONMENT, IMPACT REPORT is required. -, L.,.. , )! . // ; -i 5; -/ :y /. :, ’ [ . ./ .. * y iiL,k.; : , - - .,< Date Signature .”. zi?-&is 4- Date Planning Direcu u zi?-&is 4- Date Planning Direcu u LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) i7TACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) -9- w 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 EB:lh -1 0-