HomeMy WebLinkAboutCUP 229; Christ Presbyterian Church; Conditional Use Permit (CUP)APRIL '
N SUBMITTAL DATE:
1983
STAFF REPORT
DATE: June 8, 1983
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Land Use Planning Office
SUBJECT;
I.
CUP-229 - CHRIST UNITED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH - Request
for a Conditional Use Permit for construction of a
Church and Nursery/Sunday School on property generally
located on Centella Street, west of Rancho Santa Fe Road
in the RD-M zone.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission APPROVE the
Negative Declaration issued by the Land Use Planning Manager and
ADOPT Resolution No. 2127 APPROVING CUP-229, based on the
findings and subject ot the conditions contained therein.
II.PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant requests approval of a conditional use permit to
construct a Sanctuary and Nursery/Sunday School on a 3.54 acre
site. The site gently slopes from the northeast to the
southwest and contains a steep bank on the east end of the
property, fronting Rancho Santa Fe Road. The applicant is also
requesting approval of a social hall and a 70' high church
spire.
III.ANALYSIS
Planning Issues
1.
2.
Would the proposed 70' high church spire have a
detrimental effect on the surrounding area?
Can all the findings for a conditional use permit be
made?
Discussion
The applicant proposes to construct a 70' high church spire.
This structure will be approximately one and one half times the
height of the sanctuary and will be located between the
sanctuary, social hall, school and the Centella Street cul-de-
sac. Section 21.46.020 of the Zone Code allows towers and
similar structures to exceed the 35' height limit. The
conditional use permit process, however, allows the Commission
to regulate the height of such structures to ensure that it is
in substantial harmony with the surrounding neighborhood.
As a point of background, the Commission has approved two
similar spires as part of a conditional use permit; the St.
Patrick's Church, at the northwest corner of Tamarack Avenue and
Adams Street, and the Mormon Church, at the southwest corner of
Monroe Street and Chestnut Avenue. The St. Patrick's spire is
60' in height and the Mormon spire is 58' 10" in height.
Staff believes the proposed height of 70" for the Presbyterian
Church spire is excessive and would have adverse visual impacts
on surrounding properties. Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission adopt a condition of approval reducing the height of
the spire to 60' so as to keep it consistent with both the
Mormon and St. Patrick's Church spires.
The project meets all other findings of a conditional use permit.
Staff believes, with the reduction of the Church spire height,
the Church will be in harmony with the community and surrounding
neighborhood and the site is adequate in size and shape to
accomodate the proposed use. Staff has worked with the applicant
in the layout of the buildings to insure that the design of the
Church does not adversely impact the adjoining single family
residents to the south and west.
All development standards required by the Zoning Ordinance for a
church use have been met by this project. Also, staff has found
the street system is adequate to properly handle traffic
generated by the proposed use. Staff, therefore, recommends
approval of CUP-229.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Land Use Planning Manager has determined that this project
will not have a significant impact on the environment and,
therefore, has issued a Negative Declaration, dated May 5, 1983.
ATTACHMENTS
1) Planning Commission Resolution No. 2127
2) Location Map
3) Background Data Sheet
4) Reduced Elevation and Site Plans
5) Disclosure Form
6) Environmental Documents
7) Exhibits "A" - "F", dated April 15, 1983
EVR:bw
6/1/83
-2-
LOCATION MAf
m^*m*m*JltKemam*^m*m^^m*f>mm***~m**m*i****'\ it'**i>tmm»m**m***l^amm**&*ul*B*
CLJP-229
CHRIST UNITED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: CUP-229
APPLICANT: Christ United Presbyterian Church
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Church and Nursery/Sunday School between the end of
Centella Street and Rancho Santa Fe Road.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: That portion of Lot 249 of La Costa Vale Unit I, Map No.
7547 and Lot 182 of Santa Fe Glens Map No. 8059 filed in the County of San
Diego. APN; 212-030-16
Acres 3.57 Proposed No. of Lots/Units N/A
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation RMH
Density Allowed 10-20 du/ac Density Proposed N/A
Existing Zone RD-M Proposed Zone N/A
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use:
Zoning Land Use
Site RD-M Vacant
North C-l Vacant
South PC SFD
East PC Vacant
West PC R-l SFD
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District San Dieguito Water Leucadia Sewer Leucadia EDU's
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated Exenpt
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
X Negative Declaration, issued May 5, 1983
E.I.R. Certified, dated
Other,
CHRIST UNITED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF RANCHO LA COSTA
0 I H 10 40
MACT HENDERSON AND COLE, ARCHITECTS AAX
K WO NORTH
*jn reuse*^\>
5
Noe-TH
1 — suA/a> y SCHOOL ctsiss- veer if/a- -\
Jf ^fter the information }&u have submitted nas Deen rev
.Ouat> further information fc^required, you will be so ac
it is aecennineu
APPLICANT: Presbytery of San Diego and Christ United Presbyterian Church
Name (individual, partnership, joint venture, corporation, syndication)
1980 La Costa'Ave., Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
Business Address
753-3290 '
AGENT:
MEMBERS:
Telephone Number
Macy, Henderson &-Cole AIA (Alfonso Macy)
Name
631 5th Ave., San Diego, Ca. 92101
Business Address
234-3551 -
Telephone Number
George E. DeWeese, Pastor _
Name '(individual, partner, joint
venture, corporation, syndication)
1980 La Costa Ave., Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
2410 La Plancha Lane, Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
Home Address
Business Address
753-3290 436-8323
Telephone Number Telephone Number
Lindley L. Williamson, Ch. Bldg. Committee 7911 Roble PI. Carlsbad,CA 92008
Same , Borne Address
Business Address
436-0710
Telephone Nuiaber Telephone Number
(Attach more sheets if necessary)
I/We declare ur.der penalty of perjury that the information contained in thin dis-
closure is true and correct and that it will remain true and correct and may be'
relied upon as being true and correct until amended.
Christ; United Presbyterian Church of
Applicant <-
Rancho La Cos
^ jpr ftsf<~*t*CS^--*f'f •' -^ *^
BY L.L. Will^lmson, Chairman Bldg. Committee
DEVELOPMENTAL
SERVICES
LAND USE PLANNING OFFICE
Cttp of
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008-1989
(619)438-5591
^NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: End of Centella Court and Rancho Santa Fe
Poad.
•PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Presbyterian Church and Sunday School.
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
land Use Planning Office. .
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on
file in the Land Use Planning Office, City Hall, 1200 Elm.Avenue,
Carlsbad, CA. 92008. Comments from the public are invited. Please
submit comments in writing to the Land Use Planning Office within ten
.(10) days of date of issuance.
DATED: May 5, 1983
CASE NO: OJP-229
MICHAEL v!:- Land Use Planning Manager
APPLICANT: Christ United Presbyterian Church
PUBLISH DATE: May 11, 1983 '
ND-4
5/81
) l» O
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - Part II
(To Be Completed By The
PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO.
DATE:
I. BACKGROUND
1. APPLICANT:
2. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT:
3. DATE CHECKLIST SUBMITTED:_
II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(EXPLANATIONS OF ALL AFFIRMATIVE ANSWERS ARE TO BE WRITTEN UNDER
Section III - DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION)
Yes Maybe No
1. Earth Will the proposal have signi-
ficant results in: .
a. Unstable earth conditions or in
changes in geologic substructures?
b. Disruptions, displacements, com-
paction or overcovering of the soil?
c. Change in topography or ground
surface relief features?
d. The destruction, covering or
modification of any unique geologic i
or physical features? _____ _____ /
e. Any increase in wind or water
erosion of soils, either on or off
the site? ' " ' Y-• - - - •-. • /
f. Changes in deposition or ero-
sion of beach sands, or changes
in siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the
ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? ' ' ' ' ' ' ' /C
ND 2
f o
Yes Maybe No
Air: Will the proposal have signi-
results in:
a. Air emissions or deterioration
of ambient air quality? _ _ _ X"
b. The creation of objectionable .
odors? _ _ ft
c. Alteration of air movement,
mositure or temperature, or any
change in climate, either locally
or regionally?
3. Water: Will the proposal have sigi-
ficant results in:
•JL
a. Changes in currents, or the
course or direction of water move-
ments, in either marine or fresh
waters? '_ • /Q
b. Changes in absorption rates,
drainage patterns, or the rate and .
amount of surface water runoff? X
c. Alterations to the course or
flow of flood waters? ____ X
d. Change in the amount of sur-
face water in any water body?
e. Discharge into surface waters,
or in any alteration of surface
water quality, including but not
limited to temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity?
f. Alteration of the direction
or rate of flow of ground waters?
g. Change in the quantity of - ,
ground waters, either through
direct additions or withdrawals,
or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations?
h. Reduction in the amount of
water otherwise availa
public water supplies?
water otherwise available for \*
t o
Yes Maybe No
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal have signi-
ficant results in:
a. Change in the diversity of
species, or numbers of any species
of plants (including trees, shrubs,
grass, crops, microflora and
aquatic plants)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of
any unique, rare or endangered
species of plants?
c. Introduction of new species
of plants into an area, or in a
barrier to the normal replenish-
ment of existing species? ' '-s
d. Reduction in acreage of any >
agricultural crop? ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' X
5. Animal Life. Will the proposal have signi-
ficant results in:
a. Changes in the diversity of
species, or numbers of any species
of animals (birds, land animals
including reptiles, fish and shell-
fish, benthic organisms, insects or
microfauna)? • _____ ^
b. Reduction of the numbers of
any unique, rare or endangered
species of animals?
c. Introduction of new species
of animals into an area, or result
in a barrier to the migration or
movement of animals? ' '/</
d. Deterioration to existing
fish or wildlife habitat?
6, Noise. Will the proposal signi-
ficantly increase existing noise
levels?
7, Light arid Glare. Will the pro-
posal significantly produce new K/
light or glare? _____ ____ '
8. Land Use. Will the proposal have
significant results in the alteration
of the present or planned land use of
an area?
-3-
t
Yes Maybe No
9. Natural Resources. Will the pro-
posal have significant results in:
a. Increase in the rate of use
of any natural resources?
b. Depletion of any nonrenewable v/
natural resource? ' ' '•' ' ' ' •' f\
10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal
involve a significant risk of an
explosion or the release of haz-
ardous substances (including, but
not limited to, oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation) in the
event of an accident or upset .
conditions? ' ' ' ' . ^S
11. Population. Will the proposal
significantly alter the location,
distribution, density, or growth
rate of the human population of
an area?
12. Housing. Will the proposal signi-
ficantly affect existing housing,
or create a demand for additional
housing?
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will
the proposal have significant re-
sults in:
a. Generation of additional
vehicular movement? . •
b. Effects on existing parking
facilities, or demand for new
parking? - ' ' " " ' X
c. Impact upon existing trans-
portation systems?
d. Alterations to present
patterns of circulation or move-
ment of people and/or goods?
e. Alterations to waterborne,
rail or air traffic? ' ' '/ ' _____ /<
f. Increase in traffic hazards
to motor vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians? '_'/ ' ' ' ' ' /^
-4-
t . o
Yes Maybe No
14. Public Services. Will the pro-
posal have a significant effect
upon, or have significant results
in the need for new or altered
governmental services in any of
the following areas:
a. Fire protection? . j*>
b. Police protection? ><.
c. Schools? . ><
d. Parks or other recreational
facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facili-
ties, including roads? ><
f. Other governmental services? ^><
15, Energy. Will the proposal have
Significant results in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of
fuel or energy? _____
b. Demand upon existing sources
of energy, or require the develop-
ment of new sources of energy? -__ ' ' ' ' '
16. Utilities. Will the proposal have
significant results in the need for
new systems, or alterations to the
following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas? _____ _____
bi Communications systems? ,. ' ' ' ' • ' "' ' V
c,. Water? ' '•': '"_' ' X
-r:; ' C '
d. Sewer or septic tanks? ' '•_':\_ __ '.'.'..'. ,X._.•
e,, Storm water drainage? . ''''_.. _____ X^
f, Solid waste and disposal? ' ' ^' _____ X
17, Human Health. Will the proposal
have signigicant results in the
creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard (excluding
mental health)? _____ _____ X.
-5-
t
Yes Maybe No
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal have
significant results in the obstruc-
tion of any scenic vista or view
open to the public, or will the pro-
posal result in the creation of an
aesthetically offensive site open
to public view? V
19. Recreation. Will the proposal have
significant results in the impact
upon the quality or quantity of
existing recreational opportunities? ^
20. Archeological/Historical. Will the
proposal have significant results
in the alteration of a significant
' archeological or historical site,
structure, object or building? ' X
21. ANALYZE 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 USE; g) NO
PROJECT ALTERNATIVE.
-6-
o . f' ) • o
Yes Maybe No
22. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) DOES THE PROJECT HAVE THE POTEN-
TIAL TO DEGRADE THE QUALITY OF
THE ENVIRONMENT, OR CURTAIL THE
DIVERSITY IN THE ENVIRONMENT? X
b) DOES THE PROJECT HAVE THE POTEN-
TIAL TO ACHIEVE SHORT-TERM, TO
THE DISADVANTAGE OF LONG-TERM,
ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS? (A SHORT-
TERM IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT
IS ONE WHICH OCCURS IN A RE-
LATIVELY BRIEF, DEFINITIVE
PERIOD OF TIME WILE LONG-TERM
IMPACTS WILL ENDURE WELL INTO
THE FUTURE.) X
c) DOES THE PROJECT HAVE IMPACTS
WHICH ARE INDIVIDUALLY LIMITED,
BUT CUMULATIVELY CONSIDERABLE?
(A PROJECT MAY IMPACT ON TWO
OR MORE SEPARATE RESOURCES
WHERE THE IMPACT ON EACH RE-
SOURCE IS RELATIVELY SMALL,
• - BUT WHERE THE EFFECT OF THE
TOTAL OF THOSE IMPACTS ON THE
ENVIRONMENT IS SIGNIFICANT.)
d)' DOES THE PROJECT HAVE ENVIRON-
MENTAL EFFECTS WHICH WILL
CAUSE SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE
EFFECTS ON HUMAN BEINGS,
EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY?
III.- DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUTION
-7-
f'•- j w • X
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued)
t O
DETERMINATION. (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find 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 conditional negative declaration will
will be prepared.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect
on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required.
Date: . .
Signature
V. MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
-9-
'"") f 3 • O
MITIGATING MEASURES (Continued)
VI APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATIONG MEA-
SURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date:
Signature of Applicant
-10-
I
FEE: $100
RECEIPT NO:
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - Part I
(To Be Completed by APPLICANT)
CASE NO:
DATE: |4 April 1983
Applicant: CHRIST UNITED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF RANCHO LA COSTA
Address of Applicant: 1980 LA COSTA AVENUE, CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA 92008
Phone Number: ( 619 ) 753-3290 ^
Name, address and phone number of person to be contacted (if other than
Applicant): ALFONSO MACY, AIA, 631 STH AVENUE, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101
(619) 234-3551
GENERAL INFORMATION;
Description of Project: Church Building, Social Hall, Administrative Offices,
Sunday School Classrooms-Meeting Rooms, exterior play areas and parking
Project Location/Address: portion of Lot 249 La Costa Vale Unit //I
Map 7457, Lots 181 & 182 Santa Fe Glens Map 8059
233 - T70 - 34
Assessor Parcel Number: 255 - 062 - 18 & 19
Zone of Subject Property: R.D.M.
Proposed Use Of Site: Church facilities
List all other applicable applications related to this project: none
f,2. Describe the activity area, including distiguishing natural and man-
made characteristics; also provide precise slope analysis when
appropriate.
This site is graded flat and devoid of vegetation. The portion of Lot 249
slopes approximately 6% to the southwest. Lots 181 and 182 slope approximately
1% to a catch basin at the south end. Streets adjoining the site have curbs and
gutters.
3. Describe energy conservation measures incorporated into the design
and/or operation of the project.
The building shell, electrical and heating systems will conform to requirements
of Title 24.
4. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes,
range of sale prices or rents, and type of household size expected.
(not applicable)
5. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or
regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading
facilities.
(not applicable)
6. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and
loading facilities.
(not applicable)
7. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per
shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits
to be derived from the project.
The building will be a church facility with approximately 4 full time employees. The
Sanctuary will seat 366 persons in pews and the Social Hall will have an open assembly
area of approximately 4800 square feet. The purpose of the Church is to provide for
spiritual, educational and social needs of the community.
-2-
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
Answer the following questions by placing a check in the appropriate
space. (Discuss all items checked "yes". Attach additional sheets as
necessary. )
YES NO
1) Could the project significantly change present
land uses in the vicinity of the activity?
2) Could the activity affect the use of a recreational
area, or area of important aesthetic value?
3) Could the activity affect the functioning of an
established community or neighborhood?
4) Could the activity result in the displacement of
community residents?
-5) Could the activity increase the number of low and
modest cost housing units in the city?
6) Could the activity decrease the number of low and
modest cost housing units in the city?
7) Are any of the natural or man-made features in the
activity area unique, that is, not found in other
parts of the county, state or nation?
8) Could the activity significantly affect an
historical or archaeological site or its settings?
14) Could the activity change existing features of
any of the city's beaches?
15) Could the activity result in the erosion or
elimination of agricultural lands?
9) Could the activity significantly affect the
potential use, extraction, or conservation of a
scarce natural resource? x
10) Does the activity significantly affect the
potential use, extraction, or conservation of a
scarce natural resource? x
11) Could the activity significantly affect fish,
wildlife or plant life? x_
12) Are there any rare or endangered plant species
in the activity area? x
13) Could the activity change existing features of
any of the city's lagoons, bays, or tidelands? _^ x_
16) Could the activity serve to encourage development
of presently undeveloped areas or intensify develop-
ment of already developed areas? x
-3-
YES NO
17) Will the activity require a variance from
established environmental standards (air, water,
noise, etc.)? x
x
18) Will the activity require certification, authoriza-
tion or issuance of a permit by any local, state or
federal environmental control agency?
19) Will the activity require issuance of a variance
or conditional use permit by the City? x
20) Will the activity involve the application, use, or
disposal of potentially hazardous materials? ^
21) Will the activity involve construction of
facilities in a flood plain? ^
22) Will the activity involve construction of
facilities in the area of an active fault? ^
23) Will the activity involve construction of
facilities on a slope of 25 percent or greater? _^______ ^
24) Could the activity result in the generation of
significant amounts of noise? x
25) Could the activity result in the generation of
significant amounts of dust? x
26) Will the activity involve the burning of brush,
trees, or other materials? x
27) Could the activity result in a significant change
in the quality of any portion of the region's air
or water resources? (Should note surface, ground
water, off-shore.) 5
28) Will the project substantially increase fuel
consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.)? f
29) Will there be a significant change to existing
land form? f
(a) Indicate estimated grading to be done in
cubic yards: less than 100 .
(b) Percentage of alteration to the present
land form: less than 1%
(c) Maximum height of cut or fill slopes:
none
30) Will the activity result in substantial increases
in the use of utilities, sewers, drains or streets?
31) Is the activity carried out as part of a larger
project or series of projects? x
-4-
II. STATEMENT OF NON-SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
If you have answered yes to one or more of the questions in Section
I but you think the activity will have no significant environmental
effects, indicate your reasons below:
The Church facility will be visually pleasing and its functions
will be of service to the neighborhood. Its dignified presence
will also contribute a sense of stability and well being:.».
III. COMMENTS OR ELABORATIONS TO ANY OF THE QUESTIONS IN SECTION I
(If additional space is needed for answering any questions, attach
additional sheets as needed.)
Signature
' (/ (Persoh Completing Report)
„ ALFONSO MACY, AIA
Date Signed 14 APRIL 1983
-5-
* *
(SUPPLEMENT)
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
19. A Conditional Use Permit is required for construction
of Church facilities.
24. Some noise may be generated by children playing in the
schoolyard. Sound from musical presentations in the
Social Hall may also occasionally be high volume. The
play yard is adjacent to Rancho Santa Fe Road, already
a noisy Street. Ground level at the Social Hall is
approximately 20-30 feet above adjacent residential
properties to the south and west.
25. Dust will be generated during construction despite
general palliation measures specified in the documents.
31. The initial construction phase will include 3/4 of the
Social Hall, a day care center, a classroom-meeting
room building, and 1/2 of the parking. The remaining
buildings will be constructed as justified by congre-
gational growth.
6V
APPLICATION COMPLETE DATE:
November 20. 1989
STAFF REPORT
DATE: March 7, 1990
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: CUP 229x1 - CHRIST UNITED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH - Request for
a five-year extension of Conditional Use Permit No. 229 allowing the continued
operation of a Church, Day Care Center, and Sunday School on a 3.54 acre property
located at 7807 Centella Street. The Church is located in the RDM Zone in Local
Facilities Management Zone 6.
L RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 2949 APPROVING
a five-year extension of CUP 229x1, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained
therein.
n.PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
On June 8, 1983, the Planning Commission approved CUP 229 allowing the construction and
operation of a church, day care center and Sunday school on a 3.54 acre site located at 7807
Centella Street. The Conditional Use Permit approved the construction of a church sanctuary,
social hall, 70' high church spire, three classroom buildings, a day care center, and a 115 space
parking area, (see attached Exhibit "A").
On September 8, 1984 the Planning Department approved Building Permit No. 84-247 for the
construction of only the church social hall, day care center, and two smaller parking areas, (see
attached Exhibit "B"). The church sanctuary, spire, three classroom buildings, and the remainder
of the larger parking area have not yet been constructed nor have building permits been requested.
The existing development on the site differs from the approved Conditional Use Permit in several
ways. A major portion of the 115 space parking lot remains unpaved, a portion of the day care
center's play yard encroaches into required landscaping, a sand volleyball court occupies an area
designated for a classroom building, and finally several areas of the site are barren of landscaping
or contain landscaping that is not in a healthy, thriving condition. At some point in time, after the
original building permit was issued, a curb cut along Centella Street was constructed that allows
vehicle access to the unpaved portion of the 115 space parking area.
CUP 229x1
Christ United Presbyterian Church
March 7, 1990
Page 2
The property currently has 49 paved parking spaces where the original Conditional Use Permit
indicates 115 paved spaces. Current parking standards require 1 parking space per every 100 square
feet of floor area in the main assembly area of the church, one parking space per employee of a
day care center, and 1 parking space per every 10 children. The existing social hall has 3,164
square feet of main assembly area, creating the demand for 32 paved parking spaces. The day care
center currently accommodates 57 children and 11 staff members at any one time, creating a
demand for 17 paved parking spaces. The two uses taken together create a total parking demand
for the site of 49 spaces.
Staff has reviewed the original staff report and adopting resolution for CUP 229, and visited the
site and concludes that the use is still desirable for the development of the community. The site
is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use and the street system is adequate to properly
handle all traffic generated by the use. Staff feels that the applicant is in violation of the terms
of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2949, Condition No. 6 which requires that all landscaped
areas be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition. Staff also concludes that the site's existing
developed state is detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood and that landscape coverage and
screening, necessary to adjust the use with existing uses in the neighborhood is not provided and
maintained. The site is visible from housing units on the west side of Centella Street and from the
public right-of-way along Rancho Santa Fe Road. Inadequate and substandard landscaping degrades
the visual character of the surrounding neighborhood. Therefore, staff is recommending that the
permit be first extended temporarily for one year so that adequate landscaping may be installed and
be established in a thriving condition. If this is accomplished, then the permit could be
automatically extended to June 8, 1993.
In conclusion, staff is recommending approval of a five-year extension of CUP 229 based on the
condition that the applicant bring the church site into conformance with landscape conditions of
approval.
EL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Planning Director has determined that the environmental impacts of this project have already
been considered in the original issuance of a Negative Declaration dated May 5, 1983; and,
therefore, a Notice of Prior Environmental Compliance was issued on December 13, 1989.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2949
2. Location Map
3. Notice of Prior Environmental Compliance
4. Staff Report for CUP 229
5. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2127
6. Letter dated October 17, 1989
7. Exhibits "A" - "B"
JG:lh
December 4, 1989
%
3P *: Christ (presbvterikn Oturch
(II $
GEORGE E. DeWEESE
Pastor
Mr. Michael J. Holzmiller
Planning Director .
CITY QF CARLSBAD -
2075 Las Palmas Drive -
Carlsbad, CA 92009 •
Dear Sir:
j*.Apcbo
October 17, 1989
RE: CUP #229
During 1982 the Presbytery of San Diego purchased 3.57 acres of land
at the south end'of Centella Street for a new church development. The
church was to be known as Christ Presbyterian Church of Rancho La Costa.
Macy, Henderson, and, Cole, AIA were .retained as .architects ,to develop a
master plan for the church and.to process a ,conditional use' permit through
your department. Conditional Use"Permit #229 was approved by the City of
Carlsbad on June-8,>1983. ( _ ;
-. The same architects prepared plans for our first phase of'construc-
tion consisting of. ,a Fellowship Hall and a Day Nursery School/Sunday
school. Permits were issued, contracts let and work was completed and
approved by the city. The first service was held in the Fellowship Hall
in July, 1985. .Growth has been steady but slower than we expected and we
had no reason to contact your offices. .We now need to consider expansion
of our Sunday School and a"member of the church came to your office only
to find our C.U.PQ. had expired. (Macy, Henderson and Cole, AIA., who
processed our master plan, C.U.P., and first phase of construction
retired and closed their, offices in the Spring, 1986).
We understand a five year extension would be granted but the request
should be before the expiration date. By our own lack of knowledge we
failed to make such a request.
Please consider this letter as a request for' the five year extension.
We still intend to follow the original master plan that was used in our
original request for C.U.P. #229. Thank you.
Sincerely,
George E.
Pastor
eWeese
GED:sg
cc: Lane Satterstrom
Scott Wolters
Street • Carlsbad, California 92009 « (619) 753-3290
LCGATION MAS
CUP-229 x 1
CHRIST UNITED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
CHRIST UNITED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH or RAHCMO
MACT teceRscm AND COLE. ANCHTTECTS
»/\CURZ2?
CHRIST UNITED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF
UACT tfuxKsan
wo NOMTH
'&&£
P*T'
IS T l
CUP 22
APPLICATION COMPLETE DATE:
JUNE 8. 1993
STAFF PLANNER: JEFF GIBSON
STAFF REPORT
DATE: MARCH 2, 1994
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: CUP 229x2 - CHRIST UNITED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH - Request for
approval of a five-year extension of a Conditional Use Permit allowing the
continued operation of a church, day care center, and sunday school on a
3.54 acre property located at 7807 Centella Street. The church is located in
the RDM Zone in Local Facilities Management Zone 6.
I.RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3635
APPROVING CUP 229x2, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained
therein.
II.PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
This application is for an extension of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for an existing
church, day care center, and Sunday school located at 7807 Centella Street. The project
(CUP 229) was originally approved in June, 1983, and in March, 1990 the Planning
Commission approved an extension for the CUP to June, 1993.
CUP 229 approved the construction of a church sanctuary, social hall, 70 foot high spire,
three classroom buildings, a day care center, and a 115 space parking area, (See attached
Exhibit "A"). To this date only the church social hall, day care center, and two smaller
parking areas have been constructed.
HI. ANALYSIS
Can the following four findings required for a Conditional Use Permit still be made?
1. That the requested use is still necessary or desirable for the development of the
community, is still essentially in harmony with the various elements and objectives
of the General Plan, and is still not detrimental to existing uses or to uses
specifically permitted in the zone in which the proposed use is to be located;
CUP 229x2 ™
CHRIST UNITED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
MARCH 2, 1994
PAGE 2
2. That the site for the intended use is still adequate in size and shape to accommodate
the use;
3. That all of the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features
necessary to adjust the requested use to existing or permitted future uses in the
neighborhood have been, and will continue to be, provided and maintained; and,
4. That the street system serving the proposed use is still adequate to properly handle
all traffic generated by the proposed use.
DISCUSSION
1. The requested use is still necessary or desirable for the development of the
community, is still essentially in harmony with the various elements and objectives
of the General Plan, and is still not detrimental to existing uses or to uses
specifically permitted in the zone in which the proposed use is located. The church
and day care center provides a valuable support service for the surrounding
residential neighborhoods. Staff has visited the site and no complaints concerning
the church land use have been received over the past 10 years.
2. The site for the use is still adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use. The
church site plan is still only partially completed, however, there is adequate onsite
parking to accommodate the church and day care uses.
3. All of the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features necessary
to adjust the requested use to existing or permitted future uses in the neighborhood
have been, and will continue to be, provided and maintained. Fencing is provided
along the southern and western property lines to separate the site from the
residential property and heavy landscaping, including tree and shrubs, are provided
along Rancho Santa Fe Road, to visually screen the site from the public right-of-
way. The project5s landscaping is in a healthy and thriving state.
4. The street system serving the proposed use is still adequate to properly handle all
traffic generated by the proposed use. The currently approved streets and aisles are
adequate to accommodate the church and day care use. Centella Street is a paved
public street with sidewalks on both sides.
In conclusion, staff is recommending approval of a five-year extension of CUP 229x2 based
on the findings of this staff report.
CUP 229x2
CHRIST UNITED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
MARCH 2, 1994
PAGE 3
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Planning Director has determined that the environmental impacts of this project have
already been considered in conjunction with the Negative Declaration prepared for CUP
229, dated May 5, 1983, therefore, no additional environmental review is required.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3635
2. Location Map
3. Disclosure Statement
4. Reduced Site Plan and Elevations.
JG:lh
FEBRUARY 8, 1994
City of Carlsbad
CHRIST UNITED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH CUP 229x2
*City of Cfarlsbad
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
APPUCANTS STATEMENT QF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS
WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL OR ANY APPOINTED
BOARD. COMMISSION OR COMMfTTEE.
(Please Print)
The following information must be disclosed:
1. Applicant
List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application.
Christ Presbyterian Church of
Rnncho La Costa '. '.
2. Owner
List the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
Presbytery of San Diego
Synod of South California & Hawaii
Presbyterian Church U.S.A.
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names a.-
addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partners;-
interest in the partnership.
N/A
4. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names ar
addresses of any person serving as officer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or benefica
of the trust.
Under Applicant:
T-ir, u-i in gmgnn _ Pri»B*dpnf Gene Roman, Chair-Property & Finance
TnyH Wright: - Vjre President (board ot Trustees)
Virginia Hallner - Treasurer ' . •
Earline Bane - Secretary
(Over)
Disclosure Statement Page 2
5. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Scar:
Commissions. Committees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes No X If yes, please indicate person(s) , ,
Person is defined as: 'Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal
organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and county, city
municipality, district or other political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit.'
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.)
Signature of Owner/date Signture of applicant/date
-(0^. i2oiMfriO Lindley Williamson, President
Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant
CHRIST UNrTHJ PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH v KAWCHO LA COST*
A r i i D 9 "7 CT
ine City of Carlsbad Planning Department
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No.
P.C. AGENDA OF: February 4, 2004
Application complete date: October 29, 2003
Project Planner: Chris Sexton
Project Engineer: John Maashoff
SUBJECT: CUP 229x3 - CHRIST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH - Request for an approval
of a ten-year retroactive extension (from June 8, 2003 to June 7, 2013) of a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) allowing the continued operation of a church, day
care center, and Sunday school on a 3.54 acre property located at 7807 Centella
Street in Local Facility Management Zone 6.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 5541
APPROVING a retroactive extension of CUP 229x2 based upon the findings and subject to the
conditions contained therein.
II. INTRODUCTION
This proposed ten-year retroactive extension of CUP 229x2 will allow the continued operation of
a church, day care center, and Sunday school located at 7807 Centella Street from June 8, 2003
through June 7, 2013.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
In 1983, the Planning Commission approved CUP 229 to permit the operation of a worship
facility located at 7807 Centella Street. On March 7, 1990 and March 2, 1994 respectively, the
Planning Commission approved CUP 229x1 and CUP 229x2, the first and second extensions of
CUP 229, to allow the continued operation of a church, day care center, and Sunday school
within church facilities located at 7807 Centella Street. CUP 229x2 expired on June 8, 2003.
Condition No. 2 of the approving CUP Resolution No. 3635 specifies that CUP 229x2 is granted
for a period of 10 years but may be extended upon written application of the permittee (Christ
Presbyterian Church). The applicant, Christ Presbyterian Church, is requesting a 10-year
retroactive extension of CUP 229x2 to allow the continued operation of a worship facility at
7807 Centella Street. The applicant applied for the CUP extension on April 29, 2003 prior to its
expiration date and within the required time frame.
IV. ANALYSIS
A. The worship facility continues to be consistent with applicable plans, policies, and
regulations described below:
1. Carlsbad General Plan;
2. Local Facilities Management Zone 6; and
CUP 229X3 - CHRIST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
February 4, 2004
Page 2
3. Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
B. The adopted project findings for CUP 229x2, which are contained in Planning
Commission Resolution No. 3635, still apply to this project (CUP 229x3).
C. The adopted project conditions for CUP 229x2, which are contained in Planning
Commission Resolution No. 3635 still apply to this project (CUP 229x3) with the
exception of Condition No. 1 which has been satisfied, and Condition No. 2 which is
amended by Condition No. 4 on Planning Commission Resolution No. 5541 to extend
CUP 229x3 retroactively for 10 years from June 8, 2003 through June 7, 2013.
D. No formal written complaints regarding CUP 229x2 have been submitted to the City.
E. Annual reviews have been conducted for CUP 229x2 and the project is in compliance
with all conditions of approval.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Planning Director has determined that this project is exempt from the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15301, Existing Facilities, of the
State CEQA Guidelines and will not have any adverse significant impact on the environment.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5541 (CUP)
2. Location Map
3. Disclosure Statement
4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3635, dated March 2,1994
5. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2949, dated March 7, 1990
6. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2127, dated June 8, 1983
CS:bd
SITE
CHRIST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
CUP 229x3
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Applicant's statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require
discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board, Commission or Committee.
The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your project cannot be
reviewed until this information is completed. Please print.
Note:
Person is defined as "Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization,
corporation^estate, trust, receiver, syndicate.'in this'and any other county, city and county, city municipality,District or
other political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit."
Agents may sign this- document; however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and property owner must be
provided below.
1. APPLICANT (Not the applicant's agent) .
Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having a financial interest
in the application. If the applicant includes a corporation or partnership, include the names, title,
addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE
THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE
BELOW If a publicly-owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate
officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.)
Lo^J A* Wrlalrt Corp/Part C.kr\$t~ Pre-sby-t&r^auPerson
Title f y_
Corp/Part_
Title"--
Address ~2-$2- Sierra frnre Address 7 Cea"6e(/^
2. OWNER (Not the owner's agent)
Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having any ownership
interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership (i.e, partnership,
tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a corporation or
partnership, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the.
shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE
NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publicly-owned corporation, include the
names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if
necessary.)
Person / TVu<r£g£.Corp/Part
Title--I--T r
<yf
Address 27*7 Address? 70 7
feu? &j
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
3. NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION OR TRUST
If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a nonprofit organization or a trust, list
the names and addresses of ANY person serving as an officer or director of the non-profit
organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the.
Non Profit/Trust Christ fres^yte^r'a* Church Non Profit/Trust/
Title Title
Address Se.e. A-'tfca ch &~d Address
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff,
Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months?
[D Yes 0-No If yes, please indicate person(s):
NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary.
I certify that all the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
v
Signature of owner/date Signature iffapplicant/dats
Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant
Signature of owner/applicanfs agent if applfcable/date
Print or type name of owner/appiica'nt's agent