Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-12-06; City Council; 7575; Appeal of Planning Commission denail of use permitOF CARLSBAD - AGENT BILL H- ADJ1 7 •*T~ ""7 *-)ABrf f ' — ' " — MTfi 12/6/83 DPPT PLN TITLE:' ' hftf APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CHURCH. CUP-236 - .TKHOVAH'R WTTNRfifiFfi DEPT. HD. W&H CITY lTTf^f=7\ CITY MGR. r7&- H1 •H I -p q•H -H0 Ill at ncc o 1_io oo RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the City Council DENY the applicant's appeal of the Planning Commission decision to deny CUP-236 , and direct the City Attorney to prepare documents. ITEM EXPLANATION This item is an appeal of a Planning Commission decision to deny a conditional use permit for a church. The proposed location of the church is at the end of a future cul-de-sac located to the west of the northwest corner of Elm Avenue and Monroe Street in the R-1-7500 zone. The proposed church would be 3600 square feet in area and have a seating capacity of 234 people. Church services would be held approximately 3 times a week. The Planning Commision denied the applicant's request because the Commission believed that the traffic generated by this use would be disruptive to future residences on the cul-de-sac street that this church would take access from. Exhibit 'B' shows a likely single family development on this cul-de-sac street. The church traffic could impact approximately 20 future homes. The applicant owns the entire parcel on the south side of the cul-de-sac street from Monroe to Valley. The Planning Commission indicated that it could support a church on the southeast corner of Valley and the cul-de-sac since traffic would not create any adverse impacts on the future residents on this street. The applicant believes that the proposed location is suitable for a church and believes traffic will not become a problem. Many people from the congregation were present at the meeting in support of the proposal. FISCAL IMPACT Should the City Council decide to approve the appeal, the applicant would be required to provide all necessary public improvements to support the project. Also, the applicant has agreed to pay a public facilities fee to offset the cost of providing other public services to the project. EXHIBITS 1. Location Map 2. PC Resolution No. 2187 3. Staff Report, dated September 28, 1983 4. Exhibits 'A' and 'B1 L, O i<n •o6 •o oo ELM AVE X 5 1 ROPOSED CCAMLEY I^ zo Om CO OAK QT o oza. CO SITE JEHOVAH WITNESSES CUP-236 1 2 5 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 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2187 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PERMIT A CHURCH IN THE R-l-7500 ZONE ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON FUTURE McCAULEY LANE, WEST OF THE NORTHWEST INTERSECTION OF MONROE STREET AND ELM AVENUE. APPLICANT: JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES CASE NO; CUP-236 WHEREAS, a verified application has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred to the Planning Commission? and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning Commission did, on the 9th day of November, 1983, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider said application on property described as: Parcel A of Parcel Map 1210 filed January 2, 1973 and a portion of Lots 30 and 31 according to Map 565 filed September 22, 1888. WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to CUP-236. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission DENIES CUP-236, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings; 1) The proposed project will be detrimental to future residences along McCauley Lane which would be permitted in the R-l-7500 zone as discussed in the staff report. 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 2) The proposed street system serving the proposed use is not adequate to properly handle traffic generated by the proposed use because it is a cul-de-sac street serving a single family neighborhood and the proposed church would create traffic conflicts as discussed in the staff report. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 9th day of November, 1983, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairman Schlehuber, Ccmnissioners Rcnbotis, Marcus, Lyttleton. NOES: Connri-ssioner Friestedt and Rawlins. ABSENT: Ccranissioner Farrow. ABSTAIN: None. CLARENCE SCHLEHUBER, Chairman CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Land Use Planning Manager PC RESO NO. 2187 -2- STAFF REPORT DATE: September 28, 1983 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Land Use Planning Office SUBJECT: CUP-236 - JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES - Request for a conditional use permit to allow a church at the end of a future cul-de-sac located to the west of the northwest corner of Elm Avenue and Monroe Street in the R-1-7500 zone. I. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 2187, DENYING CUP-236 based on the findings contained therein. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for a church to be located on an irregularly shaped 1.29 acre parcel at the end of a future cul-de-sac, McCauley Lane. At the present time, McCauley Lane does not exist, but will be constructed as a condition for final map approval of a parcel map (MS-590). The proposed church would be located on lot 4 of this parcel map. The subject property along with almost all of the other properties within this block are presently being used for agriculture. The westerly portion of the subject property is relatively level, while the easterly portion consists of slope. The proposed church would consist of a 3600 square foot single story building, with 234 seats. A substantial portion of the site will be occupied by a 77 space parking lot. III. ANALYSIS Planning Issues 1) Can the required finding, for approval of a conditional use permit, be made? Specifically: a) That the requested use is necessary or desirable for the development of the community, is essentially in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the general plan, and is not detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the proposed use is to be located. b) That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use; c) 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 will be provided and maintained; d) That the street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic generated by the proposed use. Discussion Staff has concerns about locating a church at the end of a low density residential cul-de-sac. At the present time, this church would probably have no adverse impact since there are only agricultural uses in the immediate area. The land within this block, however, is relatively level and very buildable. Eventually, the agriculture will be replaced with single family residences. When this occurs, up to twenty homes may front on McCauley Lane as shown on Exhibit "B". Both the Engineering and Planning staff believe that traffic generated by the proposed church would adversely impact these future residences. Although other churches in the city are located in residential areas, for the most part, these churches take their access from major streets and avoid conflicts with low density residential areas. Staff does not object to the location of a church in a residential area, however, Staff believes that a church should be designed to be sensitive to the residential character and not create land use conflicts. In this case, Staff believes that the location of a church at the end of a low density residential cul- de-sac will create conflicts in a future single family neighborhood. Staff believes, therefore, that the proposed church would be detrimental to future uses specifically permitted in the R-l-7500 zone. Since staff cannot make all of the findings required to approve a conditional use permit, staff must recommend denial of CUP-236. ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2187 2. Location Map 3. Background Data Sheet 4. Disclosure Form 5. Exhibit "A" dated August 28, 1983 6. Traffic Count MH/ar -2- BACKGROUND DATA SHEET CASE NO: CUP-236 APPLICANT: JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES REQUEST AND LOCATION: Conditional Use Permit for a church to the west of the northwest corner of Elm Avenue and Monroe Avenue. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel A of Parcel Map 1210 filed January 2, 1973 and a portion of Lots 30 & 31 according to Map 565 filed Sept. 22, 1888. APN: 156-220-21 Acres 1.29 Proposed No. of Lots/Units GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Land Use Designation RLM Density Allowed 0-4 Density Proposed Existing Zone R-1-7500 Proposed Zone R-1-7500 Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: Zoning Land Use Site R-1-7500 Agriculture North R-1-7500 Agriculture South R-1-7500 SFD East P-C Vacant West R-1-7500 SFD PUBLIC FACILITIES School District Carlsbad Water Carlsbad Sewer Carlsbad EDU's — Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT Negative Declaration, issued E.I.R. Certified, dated Other, 7 If after the information you have submitted has been reviewed, it is determined -i-hat further information ' - required, you will be so a«*v'-'ed. APPLICANT: f!ar1 shad rV»ngT-ftga-Mrm nf JoVwirahla Vi Inn. AGENT: MEMBERS: Name -(individual, partnership, joint venture, corporation, syndication) 1570 Bassviood Ave.j Qarlsbad Ca.. 92008 , ; Business Address . 729-0750 . Telephone Number John M. Kratt Name 1570 Basswood Ave., Carlsbad Ca., 92008 Business Address 729-O750 - .-.-.; Telephone Number Thomas Rowe Name '(individual, partner, joint venture, corporation, syndication) Same " ' 3608 Pontlac Dr. Carlsbad, Ca. 9200ff Home Address '. ~ Business Address 434-5700 Telephone Nuaber John D. Antol Nane Same Business Address 729-1619 Same Telephone Number 4304 Sierra Moreno Carlsbad, Ca, 92008 Borne Address Same Telephone Nuaber Telephone Suraber (Attach more sheets if necessary) I/We declare under penalty of perjury that the information contained in this dis- closure is true and correct and that it will remain true and correct and nay be' relied upon as being true and correct until amended. John m. Kratt ' Applicant BY f/ Agent, Owner, Parner JEHOVAH WH BESSES CUP-236 / MS-590 EXHIBIT A MONROE ST VALLEY ST POTENTIAL FUTURE RESIDENTIAL LOTS ON McCAULEY LANE EXHIBIT B MONROE ST PROPOSED CHURCH VALLEY ST 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 Office of the City Clerk Citp of Carfebab APPEAL FORM TELEPHONE: (714)438-5535 I (We) appeal the following decision of the to the City Council Project name and number (or subject of appeal): Date of decision: Reason for appeal;Su0M/rr£O Date Signature Name (Please print) Address 72 9- OY&O Telephone Number 92.00 a CITY OF CAP )BAD 1200 ELM AVENUE • CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 (714) 438-5551 Carlsbad Journal Decreed a Legal Newspaper by the Superior Court of San Diego County 3138 ROOSEVELT ST. • P.O. BOX 248 • CARLSBAD, CA 92008 • 729-2345 Proof of Publication STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ss COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter. I am principal clerk of the printer of the Cdrlsbdd Journal a newspaper of general circulation, published twice weekly in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, and which newspaper is published for the dissemination of local news and intelligence of a general character, and which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers, and which newspaper has been established and published at regular intervals in the said City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, for a period exceeding one year next preceding the date of publication of the notice hereinafter referred to; and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in each regular and entire issue of said NOTICE OF PUBLIC newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on HEARING the following dates, to-wit: APPEAL CUP-238 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN thatthe City Council of the City'of Carls bad will hold a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 P.M. on Tuesday, December6, 1983, to consider an appeal of aPlanning Commission denial of a conditional use permit for a church on property generally, located on a future cul-de-sac to the west of the northwest intersection of Elm Ave- nue and Monroe Street and'more particularly described as: Parcel A of Parcel Map 1210, filed January 2, 1973 and a portion of Lots 30 and 31 according to Map 565 filed September 22,1888.Appellant: Jehovah's WitnessesCARLSBAD CITY COUNCILCJ W383: November 23,1983 November 23 19 . 19 19 19. 19, 2M-4/82 I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, on the 23rd _ _____ day of November 1983 / U A Clerk of the Printer NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL CUP-236 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 P.M., on Tuesday, December 6, 1983, to consider an appeal of a Planning Commission denial of a conditional use permit for a church on property generally located on a future cul-de-sac to the west of the northwest intersection of Elm Avenue and Monroe Street and more particularly described as: Parcel A of Parcel Map 1210, filed January 2, 1973 and a portion of Lots 30 and 31 according to Map 565 filed September 22, 1888. APPELLANT: Jehovah's Witnesses PUBLISH: November 23, 1983 CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL JL O £2 A .T Q S3 SiM 5VJ J\ i ELM AVE PROPOSED CCAPLEY Lljl V i--T-i-.jr vj OAK 5T III SITE JEHOVAH WITNESSES CUP-236 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California, at 7:00 P.M. on Wednesday, September 28, 1983, to consider approval of a conditional use permit for a church on property generally located on a future cul-de-sac to the west of the northwest intersection of Elm Avenue and Monroe Street and more particularly described as: Parcel A of Parcel Map 1210 filed January 2, 1973 and a portion of Lots 30 & 31 according to Map 565 filed September 22, 1888. Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. If you have any questions please call the Land Use Planning Office at 438-5591. CASE FILE: OJP-236 APPLICANT: JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES PUBLISH: SEPTEMBER 17, 1983 CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION Constantino Medina Jr. 1677 Bucna Vista Ave. Ca-cTs"5ia, CA 92008 A/P 156-200-02 Carl & Marjorie Prince 2935 Valley St. Carlsbad, CA 92003 A/P 156-200-03 John Windle et al 1907 Apple St., No. 8 Oceanside, CA 92054 A/P 156-200-04 Occupant 2945 Valley St. Carlsbad, CA 92008' A/P 156-200-04 Timothy & Melodie Bender 2955 Valley St. Carlsbad, CA 92008 A/P 156-20^-05 Robert A. Hansch 2965 Valley St. Carlsbad, CA 92008 A/P 156-200-06 Buneva C. Ginn 2969 Valley St. Carlsbad, CA 92008 A/P 156-200-07 Nora E i Yarberry• 2975 Valley St. Carlsbad, CA 92008 A/P 156-200-08 James & Frankie Runzo P.O. Box 717 Carlsbad, CA 92008 A/P. 156-200-12 Occupant 3000 Highland Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008 A/P 156-200-12 Ray & Leatrice Green 2985 Valley St. Carlsbad, CA 92008 George & Teresia Hoenig 3002 Highland Drive '-Carlsbad, CA 92008 A/P 156-200-27 Leo F. McCullough 1660 James -Drive : Carlsbad, CA 92008 ,,s A/P 156-211-18 Carl Berendt 1666 James Drive j Carlsbad, CA 92008 ! \ A/P 156-211-19 Marina Bell - 1672 James Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 A/P 156-211-20 George & Lydia Serrano 1678 James Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 A/P 156-211-21 Walter W. Lessing 1677 James Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 \ A/P 156-211-22 ; Henry & Itsuko.Yada; 5538 El Camino Real : Carlsbad, CA 92008 A/P 156-220-01 Harry "& Julie Miles "1833 Buena Vista Way '; Carlsbad, CA 92008 |:j A/P 156-220-02 l '. . " Wnu & Vivian VanSickle : 1720 Oak Ave. '•Carlsbad, CA 92008 ' j . • 'j A/P 156-220-13 •' i Beautiful Savior Evang. "| Lutheran Church •! 3030 Valley St. Carlsbad, CA 92008 A/P ,156-220-17 Kathryn McCauley et al '2988 Valley St. •: Carlsbad, CA 92008 a /w 1 ^rt- Cltiy Oi. Uctiitjijau eu eti , • 1200 Elm Ave. - Carlsbad, CA 92008 A/P 156-220-19' & 21 ' A/P 156-280-22 & 23 , William & Delia Gilley 1808 Oak Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008 A/P 156-220-22 Southfork 4210 Sunnyhill Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 • A/P 156-220-24 & 25 ( i James & Elizabeth Inman 2002 Ave. of the Trees Carlsbad, CA 92003 •A/P 156-280-01 Joseph & Gayle Lorenat 2004 Ave. of the Trees Carlsbad, CA 92008 A/P 156-280-02 Constance D. Karoly 2006 Ave. of the Trees Carlsbad, CA 92008 A/P 156-280-03 Glenn & Linda Swisher 2008 Ave. of the Trees Carlsbad, CA 92008 A/P 156-280-04 Jaraes & Judy Kennan c/o Data Prope-rtles 690 Elm Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008 A/P 156-280-07 Occupan-t 2014 Ave. of "the Trees Carlsbad, CA 92008 A/P 156-280-07 W. C. & Daisy Lusardi P.O. Box 35 San Marcos, CA 92069 A/P 156-280-08 Occupant 2016 Ave. of the Trees Carlsbad, CA 92008 A/P 156-220-08 Jack & Genie Green 2018 Ave. of the Trees Carlsbad, CA 92008 A/P 156-280-09 Charles & Ruth Ryder 2020 Ave.' of the Trees Carlsbad, CA 92008 A/p 156-280-10 Robert & Sue Jones 2001 Ave. of the~Trees Carlsbad, CA 92008i A/P 156-280-16 ...... Robert & Ellen Frank 2003 Ave. of the Trees Carlsbad, CA 92008 . A/P 156-280-17 Occupant 2005 Ave. of the Trees Carlsbad, CA 92003 A/P 156-280-18 • JeanetteGeorge * Joyce Covello -P.O. Box 1987 : 30o Monroe St. Rancho Santa Fe, CA 9206" : Carlsbad, CA 92008 !. A/P 167-290-14 . A/P 156-280-18 - Ronald & Janet Rasmussen 2007 Ave. of the Trees Carlsbad, CA 92008 A/P 156-230-19 Mildred K. Lawler 2009 Ave. of the Trees ! Carlsbad, CA 92008 A/P 156-280-20 . Robert C. Laying St. 2011 Ave. of the Trees Carlsbad, CA 92008 A/P 156-280-21 Marie Davies ,, 3095 Monroe St, 1 Carlsbad, CA 92008 A/P 167-290-10 +• Robert P. Mohr 3085 Monroe St. Carlsbad, CA 92008 A/P 167-290-11 Richard L. & Jacqueline Phillips 3075 Monroe St. Carlsbad, CA '92008 A/P 167-290-12 George & Grace Mason 3070 Monroe St. Carlsbad, CA 92008 A/P 167-290-13 Edmond & Sally Simpson 3090 Monroe St." Carlsbad, CA 92008 A/P 167-290-15 Original REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT of CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION on November 9, 1983 at 7:00 P.M. In Re: CUP-236 - Resolution Number 2187 JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES Request for a Conditional Use Permit at 1200 Elm Street Carlsbad, California Reported by: Elizabeth S. Gautsch CSR Number 5754 CHARLES F. RUFFING & Associates Certified Shorthand Reporters Deposition Notaries 5030 CAMINO de la SIESTA Suite 209 San Diego, CA 92108 (619) 231-6966 1 2 APPEARANCES: 3 For the Applicant, Jehovah's Witnesses: 4 DAVIES, BARWICK & KNOWLTON 5 6 7 'RESENT: 8 Committee Members: 9 Clarence H. Schlehuber, Chairman By: Kenneth A. Barwick, Esq. 3434 Grove Street Lemon Grove, California 92045 Mary Marcus Jerry Rombotis Willis Rawlins S. Elaine Lyttleton Jonathan Friestedt Staff Members: Daniel S. Hentschke, Assistant City Attorney Richard Allen, Deputy City Engineer Charles Grimm 10 11 12 13 14 15 Bill Hofman 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 26 28 November 9, 1983, Planning Commission, 7:00 P.M. MR. SCHLEHUBER: We will now go to item number one, conditional use permit request, 236, Jehovah's Witnesses. Will the staff present its report. MR. HOFMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. This item is a request for a conditional use permit to allow a church at the end of a future cul-de-sac located west of Monroe Avenue and north of Elm Avenue. The property is in the R-l-7500 zone. The item was continued from your meeting of September 28th at the request of applicant. Since that time the applicant has conducted a traffic count in the vicinity. Staff has reviewed this information, and we have found it to be inconclusive, and we believe that the original staff recommendation of denial is still applicable. I would like to go over to the overhead and just briefly eview the reasons for denial. This is the subject property, and this is Elm Avenue and Monroe Street and Valley Street, and this would be a cul-de-sac at the end of which the property is located. Now, the property does have — this area is zoned R-l, and it will have the opportunity to develop as a single family development, and a potential development would look something 24 like this (indicating). Now, the problems that we have is that churches are high traffic generators, and we feel that these future residential 27 lots would be impacted by the traffic that would be generated rom the church since there only is one way to get out. And also 1 2 3 A 5 6 we have — although we have approved churches in the R-l zone in the past, they have been on major streets or at least streets that can handle the traffic, not at the end of a single family residential cul-de-sac. So for those reasons we feel this is a poor location for a church, and we are recommending denial of the conditional use 7 permit. And that concludes my presentation. I will be happy to 8 answer any questions. 9 10 11 was prepared by the applicant was inconclusive, what was 12 inconclusive with your analysis? 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 26 27 MR. FRIESTEDT: Just one question for you, Bill. With egard to the determination by staff that the traffic count that MR. HOFMAN: Well, it was a traffic count that actually 14 Looked at the hours of, I think it was 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. t drew no conclusions. It was just simply some charts that was eviewed, and we really couldn't come up with any conclusions based on that report. It would have been a little more helpful had a traffic consultant, say, reviewed the figures or had come up with a onclusion based on those figures, but we just couldn't. MR. FRIESTEDT: I would venture to guess, and it's ertainly a guess at this time, that if a traffic consultant were etained and we did have some kind of a conclusive report, it 24 doesn't look like it would be favorable when the nature of what could happen in the report if it were drawn would not only be xisting but it would have to project future traffic with the ull development of the residential area, and that looks 28 difficult to understand. 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MR. SCHLEHUBER: Any other questions of staff based on the report. Mr. Rombotis. MR. ROMBOTIS: Bill, is the objection to the traffic not necessarily on Elm and Monroe but the traffic impact on the future cul-de-sac street and the future residents of the street; is that correct? MR. HOFMAN: Correct. MR. ROMBOTIS: And the traffic counts were actually taken on 9 Monroe and Elm? MR. HOFMAN: Right. MR. SCHLEHUBER: Any other questions of staff based on the report? There appears to be none. Is the applicant's 9representative present and does he wish to make a presentation? MR. BARWICK: My name is Kenneth A. Barwick. I'm an attorney at law. My office address is 3434 Grove Street, Lemon 16 Grove, California. Prior to addressing you on the substantive overview of this matter, I would like to ask the traffic engineer, who we have requested review the traffic count and analyze this matter, present his conclusions as to what he studied and what his conclusions are regarding the traffic. So at this time I'd like to ask Mr. John McAllister to address you gentlemen now. MR. MC ALLISTER: My name is John McAllister. I'm a registered traffic engineer with the State of California, and I was asked to review the denial. MR. SCHLEHUBER: Could you give your address. MR. MC ALLISTER: It's 6464 Corsica Way, San Diego. MR. SCHLEHUBER: Mr. Barwick, do you want to qualify your 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 witness a little bit? BY MR. BARWICK: Q What is your business or occupation, Mr. McAllister? A I'm a traffic engineer with the State of California, Department of Transportation. Q In that department what do you do? A I'm a traffic engineer. I'm responsible for traffic operations of some of the major freeways in this county including route 5. Q Do you have a degree in the field in which you practice? A Yes, I do. Q And what is that degree? A It's a Bachelor of Civil Engineering. Q And where did you get it? A From Brooklyn Polytech Institute, New York City. Q How long have you been actively engaged as a traffic engineer ? A A little more than 24 years. MR. BARWICK: I have no further questions. MR. SCHLEHUBER: You may proceed. MR. MC ALLISTER: I was asked to review it, and it appeared to me the denial is based on the fact that the cul-de-sac street, as staff has mentioned, it would impact it, but yet according to the plans I have a parcel map of the subdivision 590 shows a typical cross section using a 42-foot right-of-way width, which actually would be a 32 foot from the curb to the end of the improved width of the road. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 It's my understanding that the adjacent property owner at the time that they improved their property would also widen the C-treet to become the maximum as we see with the final development Ian that's up on the wall. At that time I assume the roadway width would be 40 feet or more from curb to curb. I would like to ask staff if that is correct. MR. SCHLEHUBER: For the record, staff is indicating with a nod, yes. MR. MC ALLISTER: Using the City of Carlsbad street criteria, which I have received from the City of Carlsbad — It's available here — It's common knowledge. What they say is that a local street would have a curb-to-curb distance of forty feet, rhat local street would have an estimated ultimate ADT of 500 vehicles maximum. Whereas a cul-de-sac being narrower would have an estimated ultimate ADT of 300 maximum. The number of parking spaces on the subdivision 590 shows approximately 77 spaces, if my memory is right, which means that we have in the range of 150 cars or vehicles making a trip in a day and which normally the church would normally be used twice a week. So at a 150 trips a day there's a lot more space left for 21 phis 500 that the rest of the residences, which I understand is some where in the neighborhood of 20 residences would be ultimately developed on this street. So we are not really talking a cul-de-sac configuration, tfhat we are talking about is a local street, on the end of it will be the driveway serving the church itself. It's not a case that these vehicles will be coming in and turning around in a cul-de-sac. They will be going into the church and then leaving 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 8 the church so many hours later. BY MR. BARWICK: Q Mr. McAllister, based on your analysis, you feel that the church will not adversely impact traffic along the proposed cul-de-sac street? A No. The street would be more than adequately wide at 40 foot because that would allow for one lane in each direction of at least 12 feet, plus an 8-foot parking space on each side. It's a normal city street. MR. BARWICK: I have no further questions of Mr. McAllister. MR. SCHLEHUBER: Does the commission have any questions of Mr. McAllister? MR. FRIESTEDT: Mr. Chairman. Q Sir, when you made the report to the applicant and it then came to the staff, did it make the same conclusions or was what went to the staff just the numbers? A I was not involved with the actual traffic study that was made. Q So your testimony tonight on behalf of the applicant is totally new? A Yes. MR. SCHLEHUBER: Mr. Rawlins. BY MR. RAWLINS: Q You didn't take part in the survey itself? A No, I did not. One of the things I could reflect on the survey is that it is a 5-minute count. Most traffic counts that are made by any city, the smallest increment is usually a 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 15-minute count. And a 5-minute count would be considered to be even better than a 15 minute because it gives you your peak; also it's during the major time of the day until early in the morning until quite late in the evening. So I think it's a good count as far as the count is concerned. The church would be used normally during the evening hours during the week, which would be after 6:00 or on weekends mostly Sunday. And at those times the traffic on Elm or Valley Street is quite a bit less than you find during the rest of the day. So we have a type of land use which does not generate a lot of traffic by having a store or something that you have people coming and going all the time. It's basically a twice a week use during the nonpeak hours. MR. SCHLEHUBER: Are there any other questions? Did you fill out something? MR. MC ALLISTER: Yes, I did. MR. SCHLEHUBER: Thank you. You may proceed, Mr. Barwick. MR. BARWICK: Thank you, Mr. Schlehuber. Gentlemen, I 20 would like to state as a matter of fact the congregation that 21 proposes to build on this site was asked by the City and gave to 22 the City a strip of land from Valley Street along Elm the whole 23 length of their property so as to release and give up their 24 access to Elm Street, which was a request by the City so that no 25 future property owners could exit onto Elm Street. And this was 26 L gift. 27 28 And at the time the gift was made, the City knew that they wanted to build a church. So it seems a little unfair that now 10 they have given up their access to Elm Street to all of a sudden ay the proposed access road is going to have an adverse effect 3 py the amount of traffic. 4 As a matter of fact, the engineer has pointed out that by the old criteria of the City, this street will be as wide as the average local street, and 500 trips per day can be generated and is the capacity of this street. 8 I would like to have entered into the record a copy of document which I am sure your engineering staff has because at 10 (the bottom of this document it states that the City of Carlsbad 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 is a member agency of the report document. It's entitled "The San Diego Association of Governments" and the caption of the document is "brief guide of vehicular traffic generation rates for the San Diego region, November 1981." And I will file this with the commission. Under the designation "land use church," estimated weekday vehicular trips is 30 trips per thousand square feet. This 18 proposed building is 30 trips per thousand square feet or 60 per 19 acre. 20 21 I have used the square foot because we know the square foot size of the building. The acreage is deceptive because some of 22 the land is down a gully or a canyon by reason of the topography 23 24 25 26 27 28 and will not be useable. This will generate 100 trips on a weekday by this chart. The capacity of that street is 500 trips a day. The same chart on the reverse side says for single family detached residences the average is 10 trips per dwelling unit. With a maximum — and fl got 20 maximum potential future houses if every lot is at the 11 ninimum city standard. That would be 200 trips a day for the rest of the street. With a maximum of 500, that leaves church use of 300 per day. They will only be meeting basically two days a week, a 5 two-hour meeting probably Sunday evening but maybe during the 6 daytime, and a weekday meeting, Tuesday or Wednesday, and those neetings are generally held no earlier than 7 o'clock in the 8 10 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 evening to commence probably no later than 7:30, and they last ;wo hours. So they will have two basic meetings a week with a maximum 11 af 78 cars, which means you have got 160 or less trips on that 12 neeting day. That is the maximum capacity anticipated at this 13 time for that church building. Now, going to the staff report — MR. FRIESTEDT: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, I have a question, sir, was all this information presented to the staff in the application process or is this new information tonight? MR. BARWICK: Well, I just got those charts the other day from the one that has already been referred to, the circulation aatterns. I got that from your city engineer, so I figure your zity has it. This particular chart I got two days ago showing the average 23 bse, and that's a regular statistic that every city engineer is 24 familiar with. And I didn't check with your city engineer to see 25 if he got the same one I got, because you're a member agency, and 26 I would assume your engineer has a similar chart. 27 28 MR. FRIESTEDT: My question more specifically is had you discussed these things with staff before tonight or is this the 5 6 8 10 11 16 17 18 19 26 27 28 12 first time the information is being discussed with staff regarding the application? MR. BARWICK: This is the first time it is being discussed with staff. MR. SCHLEHUBER: You may proceed, Mr. Barwick. MR. BARWICK: Now, in the staff report it says one of the conditions for a use permit is — and this is item D on page two of the staff report — that the street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic generated )y the proposed use. It is my position based on the evidence available to you at 12 this moment that street is plenty adequate, and staff has not 13 said, in my opinion, in their report anywhere that the street is 14 not adequate. Here's what they have said. They have said in 15 their discussion, "at the present time the subject property appears to be suitable; however, staff believes this is an opportunity to prevent future traffic conflicts between the church and future residences on McCauley Lane." By that criteria no church could build in any residential 20 area because there would be a conflict between the church and the 21 (residences. The criteria by your ordinance is will the street 22 handle it, not would the residents be happier if nobody built on 23 the property. 24 Now, the first two residences next to the church are owned 25 by church members and are lived in by church members. So there's already a buffer of church members between the church and the available future developed property. Next, anybody buying a lot in the future, if they are 8 10 11 12 13 16 17 18 19 20 21 13 developed, is going to realize there's a church there already, ind they have a choice to buy or not to buy. They will know the useage or can find it out very easily because the church will be existing . To my knowledge there is no letter been received by your commission opposing the granting of this application, which after 25 years of attending similar hearings for churches is a rather rare thing because usually neighbors don't want a church in their leighborhood, although they would like it down the street in another neighborhood. As far as I know there's no opposition. Furthermore, right across the street is a church with a parking lot one car larger :han the applicant's parking lot, and there appears to be no 14 problem with traffic from the church across the street at the 15 intersection of Elm and Valley getting their cars on to the main thoroughfare. Now, their situation is different in that their exit from the church parking lot to the street goes entirely through their )wn property. But their generation of their 78 cars into the main Valley and Elm creates no traffic problem. So, gentlemen, we have a rather moderate impact trafficwise 22 by this church in this area. And I do not believe staff at this 23 time has presented any facts to support the conclusion that this 24 street is inadequate. They have only speculated that there might 25 be conflicts between the church and future residences, which I 26 almost would stipulate there's always a conflict between any 27 further use than what already exists. 28 In staff's impact report all of the matters have been 1 designated no except three. The three matters which have been 2 designated other than no impact are, maybe an impact, and it's on 3 page four of the environmental report, and this is item 13B: 4 tfill the proposal have significant results in, (A) generation of 5 additional vehicular movement? Maybe. 6 Well, it will. It will have have some cars leaving the 7 church parking lot. 8 Will the proposal have significant resultant effects on 9 existing parking facilities or demand for new parking? Maybe, 10 put not in front of anybody's house. Because there's been 11 12 13 14 15 adequate parking provided on the church parking lot so there's no impact on the parking in the area. And the last answer other than no, is will the proposal have significant results in increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? They do not answer yes, 16 they say "maybe." That is not a basis for denying a church use 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 in this proposed area, particularly after the church donated the land to the City knowing they were going to put in a church there amd their parcel map has been approved with this configuration. At this time it would be really unjust to turn this applicant down. Thank you, gentlemen. If you have any questions I will be >lad to answer them or have a representative answer them. MR. SCHLEHUBER: Any questions? Commissioner Rombotis. MR. ROMBOTIS: Obviously the city is using a different :ount, 77 parking spaces provided. MR. BARWICK: Correct. MR. ROMBOTIS: That would generate in my mind about 150 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 15 trips not 100 that we are alluding to. So what do we have, two different standards that we are applying? MR. BARWICK: No. The city is an average daily standard. MR. ROMBOTIS: And we have 234 seats in the church. MR. BARWICK: Right. And they average their 78 parking spots, and I guess they figure about two persons per car on an average, MR. ROMBOTIS: One more, if I may. MR. SCHLEHUBER: Sure. MR. ROMBOTIS: How was the access waived on Elm? You waived pour access: MR. BARWICK: We donated, as I understand it from the church representative who is here, approximately a ten-foot strip of land. MR. ROMBOTIS: For the widening on Elm? « MR. BARWICK: I'm not sure. Let me ask Mr. Kratt, the church representative. MR. KRATT: Would you repeat that statement. MR. ROMBOTIS: I want to know how you gave the access rights up to Elm Street. Mr. Barwick alluded that it was a gift of some type. MR. KRATT: The basis of this was to prevent any traffic lazard from being created from an ingress/egress road from the existing property onto Elm Street, so we donated that strip of land that runs approximately from Monroe westerly to Valley Street. MR. ROMBOTIS: So did they ask you for it? MR. KRATT: Yes, they asked us for it. 8 10 11 12 14 16 MR. HOFMAN: If I may, that was a condition of the parcel nap. MR. SCHLEHUBER: For the record, you're Mr. John Kratt of L570 Basswood; is that correct? MR. KRATT: Mr. John Kratt of 1570 Basswood Avenue, Carlsbad. MR. SCHLEHUBER: Commissioner Friestedt, do you have something or not? MR. FRIESTEDT: Just a comment certainly for the audience and certainly for the gentlemen representing the applicant. This Ls a representation of the city. It's important that the applicant provide all the necessary information in the 13 application so the city can analyze it, and what I see we have lappening this evening is the city analyzed the information that 15 was given and drew no specific conclusion. 16 The information you have given us tonight is far more 17 conclusive and therefore better able for the commission and the 18 staff to make recommendations for approval or denial. 19 But I must stress that if the information that you gave 20 tonight was given to the staff prior to this evening, you may 21 have had a different staff report and a different recommendation 22 from staff. 23 MR. BARWICK: I understand, and I appreciate that. It was 24 partly my fault. I came up last week to look at a file and to 25 see what the problem was. I had talked to the engineer who had 26 lone the survey and made the report, and, low and behold, I 27 arrived on the day when staff had their meeting, so I was unable 28 to get to see any of them. 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 17 So I just realized that they are reacting to information that had not been presented to them, so I realize that hiatus in the communication. MR. FRIESTEDT: I think also for the interest of the audience, when there isn't sufficient information, the staff doesn't have conclusive answer as to yes they are not going to approve something. So if you look at four or five findings, points and the conclusiveness of each point isn't clear, they :an't say yes on each one. MR. BARWICK: I appreciate that. I hope that the Commission will not let my inability to get to staff on time, of :ourse, influence them in any way in making a decision based on the facts that are available to you that were not available to staff. MR. SCHLEHUBER: Commissioner Lyttleton. MS. LYTTLETON: Does the applicant own that whole piece of >roperty from the proposed church all the way down to Valley Street? MR. BARWICK: Yes. They own the proposal and everything >etween Elm and the proposal, so it's about ten lots there, nine. MS. LYTTLETON: Why has the applicant chosen to put the church at the end of the cul-de-sac instead of perhaps at the corner of Valley and Elm where it would have direct access to a more major street? MR. BARWICK: Well, for this reason: The land at the other end is partially down a canyon, so it gives a buffer zone between the church and any neighbors. There will be no sound, no car Lights, people going in the parking lot will not disturb anyone 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 18 because you have a big canyon back there, and, of course, this is one of the problems when you put a church in a residential area. Cven though you are very careful and try to be good neighbors, you do have people coming and going, 8:00, 9 o'clock at night, car lights. So they felt that putting it at that end of the lot with a canyon that would be a buffer. The first two houses are church 8 nembers, that's a buffer, and the street on the other side is a 9 puffer. And on the other side right now you have an agricultural ase. That neighbor is here tonight and there is no opposition to the granting of the permit. So we felt it was an ideal spot. The lots get so narrow up at the front end it really is not good planning use to take the amount of land you would need to build a parking lot and church and put it on that narrow strip of land. MR. SCHLEHUBER: All right. Are there any other questions of this gentleman? Commission Rawlins. MR. RAWLINS: Has the applicant any desire to develop the rest of this and, if so, when? MR. BARWICK: It would hope that someday it might sell off some of those lots. MR. RAWLINS: Someday? MR. BARWICK: Yes. If somebody wants to buy one. MR. RAWLINS: I believe right now there's four lots. MR. BARWICK: I believe that is not completely accurate. I 26 believe a tentative parcel map has been approved. 27 28 MR. RAWLINS: There it is, right there. You have parcel 1. [ can't read those numbers. 19 MR. BARWICK: Parcel one, two, three and four. That's all that has been presented at the present time, and that's all that they currently have plans for, but I would not lead you to jelieve that eventually they would hope that after the church is In and they finished their project, that they would further do something with parcel one and divide it up into buildable lots if people want them. MR. RAWLINS: If the applicant sold the rest of those lots to the congregation, then he wouldn't have any problem. 10 MR. BARWICK: I don't believe he has a problem any how, 11 12 although I appreciate your comment because anybody who buys a lot 15 in the future knows what he's getting into. And he's not going 13 Lo have to go by a lot of church cars; they are going to go by 14 lira. It isn't like he can't get to his house, they are parking in 16 lis driveway. They are way at the other end. We felt that was 17 :he best place to put this. It's isolated out of the way, and 18 19 It's a very small church. MR. ROMBOTIS: I don't mean to be argumentative, but there 20 are 11 lots across the street that the church doesn't control and 21 that's where the conflict comes in. That you can't speak to. 22 23 Kou have the potential of 11 lots across there. MR. BARWICK: I have addressed that in that they are not 24 there yet. The man that's there now has no objection, and if he 25 ;ver does develop that land the people that are going to buy it 26 ire going to know what's there. 27 They are going to have a 60-foot right-of-way, a 40-foot 28 street and this is as much or more street surface area to use as 1 2 3 4 5 20 any other church in your city with that number of cars going by. There's as much street there as there will be or is now for any other church of comparable size that we were able to find out about in the City of Carlsbad. MR. ROMBOTIS: I have no problem with the plan. I have a 6 problem with the land use with potential residences across the 7 8 street. I'm sure you can control the balance of your lots to where they will know what's there, but the potential of the 11 9 Lots across the street is what bothers me. 10 11 we are going to have 11 future residences across the street that 12 are going to have to look at -- I look at 150 trips a day — You 13 lave another number — because you have 77 parking spaces and if 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 26 28 You can't control that nor can the church control that, and you fill them all that's 154 trips a day going through a residential area. I think you have a land use conflict. I don't think you 17 lave a traffic problem. The street is obviously adequate to landle that amount of cars. What we have is a land use conflict. taff was alluding to a land use conflict, and perhaps they didn't articulate it correctly. MR. BARWICK: Well, they haven't said, and, of course, hurches have traditionally since the founding of this country 23 been in residential areas. So by that criteria, Mr. Rombotis, you have a land use conflict every time you build a church in a esidential area. MR. ROMBOTIS: I don't want to be argumentative. That's 27 why we require conditional use permits for churches in a esidential zone, and they certainly are compatible with 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 21 residence neighborhoods. I'd jump up and down if it were down on the corner of Elm and Valley. I know why you put it up there because it better utilizes the site you have because of its configuration. The church really belongs on the corner of Elm and Valley, and there would be no conflict. MR. SCHLEHUBER: Commissioner Friestedt. MR. FRIESTEDT: I have no problem with the information that's presented, and if there's no other discussion — MR. SCHLEHUBER: There's going to be a lot of testimony, . Friestedt. ?Did you have some more questions? MR. FRIESTEDT: No, I didn't. MR. SCHLEHUBER: At this point there appears to be no further questions of you, and we will accept testimony from the audience either for or against. Does anyone here wish to make any further testimony on this item? 9Are you for or against this project? MR. MAC GURN: I'm for the project. MR. SCHLEHUBER: You will have some new information? MR. MAC GURN: The reason I would like to speak is that I am a neighbor in this area. MR. SCHLEHUBER: Why don't you state your name. MR. MAC GURN: My name is Richard MacGurn, and I live at 2800 Wilson Street, which is approximately a block from this project. I have had an opportunity — I am not a traffic engineer, so 8 22 I can't really address that matter. What I would like to say is I think that basically this is the type of development that I would like to see in the area. At the present time that entire parcel to the left of that subject property is undeveloped. It's agricultural. And what strikes me unusual about the objections is that they may never come about. The development of that property to the left, I think, could be set up in such a way that we would avoid all the 9 traffic problems that they are talking about on McCauley Lane. 10 11 The one thing I am concerned about is I use Valley Street quite a bit because I live on Wilson, which, as I say, is only 12 about a block away. And at the present time there is a small 13 street just to the — I guess, that's to the north of Elm. And I 14 know that street, that's the access to the parcel two and three 15 where there are presently residences. And that street creates a 16 (serious traffic problem, which I would like to see alleviated. 17 Making left turns onto Valley you almost hit children coming 18 put of that street because you cannot see them. There's growth, 19 push, all kinds of things up on the embankment there right on Elm 20 [Street, and this would alleviate that problem. 21 22 23 24 25 26 And basically what I want to say is this property one day is >oing to be developed. There is no question about that in my nind. And as a neighbor and someone who plans on living in this :ommunity for some time, this is the type of development I would like to see. MR. SCHLEHUBER: Very good. Any questions? There appear 27 fco be none. 28 MR. HACKER: My name is John Hacker, 4501 East Sunny Dunes 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 23 ?oad, Palm Springs, California. I'm a registered civil engineer. '. have been involved in the last twenty years helping the congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses to establish churches to neet in. As a matter of fact, I helped prepare the documentation for Vista, where we received a fine staff report for their new congregation. These are small compact buildings. They look very nuch like the residences as you'll note by our elevations. Now, three weeks ago in Riverside County, in Indio, we had a irery similar situation where concern was brought out by staff as egarding the traffic and the compatibility of the Kingdom Hall r the church with the residences. At that time the finding was made, for example, by the county engineer's office the traffic problem wasn't being :reated, and they permitted the construction of it. We just recently had another one in a residential area. I ittended that one in Cathedral City. I designed it and worked the staff. And once again, it is compatible with the 19 residential area, because one of the comments that they have made Lt doesn't have a high steeple. I could read you the staff eport that I received from Vista close by, which is going to be considering it, and would find it very interesting. Because of the design of the building it is compatible with the residential nature and that was a finding they made. Thank you very much. MR. SCHLEHUBER: Any one else wish to speak for or against? There appears to be no one. We will close the public testimony ind open it up for commission discussion. 1 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 24 I have a question of staff. I realize that 77 or 78 2 barking spaces, whatever it happens to be, fits the ordinance as 3 such, and I assume that the ordinance has been changed for each time, but every church that I see seems to go beyond our requirements for parking. And obviously with 234 seats at the present capacity, and it was pointed out presently there is room if some people should not 8 drive together. There are a certain amount of people that drive singly. 10 Does the staff have any comment or am I just imagining something that doesn't exist. MR. HOFMAN: Our parking ratio is one space for three seats, but a church use is a difficult use to try and determine the exact amount of parking because, like you say, some people >ring their entire families, other people, especially when you drive a long distance, will come separate. So it's a difficult Issue. But in our experience for this city we know that churches do create quite a bit of traffic, and I think that ratio probably lolds fairly well as far as the number of spaces that you need, )ut it can vary given one week to the next. But generally speaking I think that figure is pretty close to being accurate as to the amount of traffic that is generated. MR. SCHLEHUBER: I appreciate that. But I'm concerned — I'm noticing churches around with what I call overflow, but supposedly meet our ordinance, but end up overflow parking. And overflow especially in a cul-de-sac, in my mind is more undesirable than if it's on a through street. Cul-de-sac parking 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 22 23 25 26 25 Ls a problem for us in all parts of the city, and I'm not trying o create a problem if there is no problem, but I just happen to lotice with my own eyes with other churches around this particular problem. It has nothing to do with this church. MR. ALLEN: I have one additional fact that's been left out which probably will help you in making your decision. MR. SCHLEHUBER: For the audience, if you want to identify yourself, Mr. Allen, and your position. MR. ALLEN: Richard Allen, the acting City Engineer. The ipplicant stated quite correctly that Sandag's criteria, which, of course, is just to be used for estimate is approximately a lundred trips. That's for a weekday, which he also stated. He neglected to read the next line down, which says for a unday you should triple those figures. So that means for a ypical Sunday traffic generation for a church of this size you 16 night expect 324 trips. And since they meet twice a week, I 17 would assume on the evening weekday night, there would be a 18 pimilar amount. 19 MR. SCHLEHUBER: Very good. Incidentally, you want to file 20 fchat if you would, please, maybe we could all benefit. Possibly 21 jne of your members can assist you in bringing that up to us. MR. RAWLINS: Mr. Allen, there are 234 fixed seats in this hurch here, and you're talking about 300 cars? Who is going to 24 drive those other cars up there? MR. ALLEN: First of all, when it says 300, that's one car n and the same car going out is two trips. And, as I say, it's 27 in approximation, and it's based on square footage, not the 28 lumber of seats. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 26 27 28 26 So there's lots of room for error. It's only an approximation. MR. RAWLINS: Is it one car for three seats? Is that acceptable to you? MR. ALLEN: That's the criteria the code uses for coming up the parking spaces. Again, I don't know precisely. That -omes out with a number of about 150 trips so quite a bit lower than Sandag's estimate. So somewhere in that range is probably «?hat you would expect the traffic to be. MR. SCHLEHUBER: Any other questions? MR. ROMBOTIS: I have one, Mr. Chairman. I'm negligent in lot asking the applicant this. MR. SCHLEHUBER: I will open it up so the applicant can answer it. MR. ROMBOTIS: Do you rent the space out for other groups or uses.' MR. BARWICK: No. I would add to that there is no social or recreational activities permitted in the church building. The jnly meetings are held are Bible educational meetings. Now, there is one event which they do have which you could :onsider both religious or nonreligious or civil and that's they allow weddings at the church occasionally when a member gets 23 narried. You can imagine with a congregation of probably 150 aeople, you might have ten teenagers; if you have one married a pear — MR. ROMBOTIS: That wasn't what I had in mind. You know I had in mind was the renting of the church hall to outside 11 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 27 MR. BARWICK: No, absolutely not. It's forbidden by church Law. They won't rent it to anyone. They only use it for the actual religious meetings. One other thing that I think is helpful. They are very 5 family-oriented so they always come in family groups, and you'll very rarely find a teenage driver driving a car to the church neeting because he comes with his parents. If he is driving, his lad is sitting beside him. So you won't have youthful drivers »oing up and down that cul-de-sac by and large. 10 MR. SCHLEHUBER: Is there any other discussion? MS. LYTTLETON: One question I want to ask Mr. Hofman. Do 12 I understand that you don't really have a compatibility problem 13 tfith the church in this neighborhood per se? There's a church right across the street in a residential neighborhood. MR. HOFMAN: Well, the concept of having a church in a residential area, we're not opposed to that. We feel in this :ase there is a compatibility problem created given the situation of where the church is in relation to the single family residences created by the traffic. MS. LYTTLETON: Because it's a cul-de-sac? MR. HOFMAN: Correct. MS. LYTTLETON: You don't have a problem with the traffic »eneration at Valley and Elm; you only have a problem with the jotential traffic generation in the cul-de-sac itself? MR. HOFMAN: Yes. MR. RAWLINS: Do you have a problem with the church across he street? Is there a traffic problem? I mean the one on the outh side of Elm, is there a traffic problem there or not? 1 2 3 4 5 iiscussion? MR. FRIESTEDT: Mr. Chairman, if there's no further Iiscussion I would present a motion recommending approval of a 6 iew resolution approving the CUP-236 and request the staff go 7 back and draft a resolution of the new number. 8 9 10 discussion? If not, please cast your votes. Motion fails. It's 11 12 13 to 3. We'll go back and try something else. MS. LYTTLETON: I'll make a new motion. I'd like to move that we adopt resolution number 2187 denying CUP-236 based on 15 16 18 26 27 28 28 MR. HOFMAN: Not to my knowledge. MR. SCHLEHUBER: Any other questions? Any other MR. RAWLINS: I will second that. MR. SCHLEHUBER: Motion made and seconded. Any further 14 staff's findings. MS. MARCUS: I'll second that. MR. SCHLEHUBER: Motion made and seconded. Any further 17 iiscussion? If not, please cast your votes. MR. ROMBOTIS: May I question the motion? Would that be 19 without prejudice? 20 MR. SCHLEHUBER: Without prejudice, sure, that they could 21 Jring it back if they come up with something different. Without 22 prejudice, which means that you have a right to bring it back; 23 otherwise, you would be held up for six months at least 24 Motion made and seconded. Any further discussion? Motion 25 parries. Am I wrong on that prejudice? They have a right to appeal his automatically, but if they don't appeal and wanted to bring he same project back in some other form or even in the same 29 1 torm, they couldn't. But they have a right to appeal and staff 2 tfill assist them in the appeal. MR. ROMBOTIS: I think we should give them some guidance as Long as we have turned it down. I think that the guidance would 5 )e it was not that we didn't like the church in the neighborhood, jut we didn't like the church in the context of the land use. MR. SCHLEHUBER: I think it's quite clear that if they were 8 bo come to the Valley in a different site, that this commission 9 fould look at it differently; that's what I hear anyway. 10 MR. BARWICK: My I ask a question. If I read you right 11 12 13 14 Ln a substantial matter, as far as you're concerned? 15 19 ou' re saying put it at the other end of the property? MR. SCHLEHUBER: Parcel one. MR. BARWICK: One, and that resolves the traffic conflict MR. SCHLEHUBER: I think parcel one with proper access. 16 Jntil we saw the site plan it becomes no problem, but I'm sure 17 staff could work a site plan which would be agreeable with parcel 18 jne. MR. BARWICK: We would have to have McCauley Lane created 20 to get to parcel one. 21 MR. SCHLEHUBER: I understand that, but the point is 22 there's a big difference as to where entrances are even on 23 McCauley Lane, and parcel one, staff, I am sure, could direct and 24 juide you to a point it would appear to me that you would get a 25 favorable staff report and probably a favorable commission. I 26 27 just guessing. m MR. FRIESTEDT: If the site plan came in with something on 28 parcel one, would you not be adverse to it, if it was done 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 30 properly and met your criteria? MR. HOFMAN: It would eliminate the concern of the traffic compatibility in our minds. MR. FRIESTEDT: And then the question of traffic compatibility and land use basically go away together? MR. HOFMAN: RIGHT. MR. FRIESTEDT: Okay, thank you. I think that's the best direction we can give you, sir. MR. RAWLINS: That was their only concern, wasn't it, the traffic? MR. SCHLEHUBER: I think the record stands. We can't lammer out something tonight that's going to be binding for the future. MR. BARWICK: Thank you, gentlemen. [Whereupon at 8:00 p.m. the hearing on Resolution Number 2187 was adjourned.) 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 31 TATE OF CALIFORNIA) •• IOUNTY OF SAN DIEGO) ss. I, Elizabeth S. Gautsch, a Certified Shorthand eporter, CSR No. 5754, and Notary Public in and for the Bounty of San Diego, State of California, do hereby certify: That on the 9th day of November, 1983, I reported stenographically the proceedings of the City of Carlsbad •"lanning Commission for Resolution Number 2187, which later was transcribed into typewriting under my direction and the oregoing 30 pages contain a true record of the proceedings it said time and place. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and iffixed my notarial seal this 23rd day of November, 1983. OFFICIAL SEAL ELIZABETH S. GAUTSCH NOiARV P<.J6UC CALIFORNIA •'RIIV.;i?'Ai. OFFICE IIS SAN DIEGO COUNTY MyCommissiOn Expires JulyS, 1985