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