CC Min 1995-11-06 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

David Saisi Ernest Brede Zoning Administrator November 2, 1995 Page3 10. The Project constitutes a change or expansion of a nonconforming use, for which a use permit is required (Zon. Ord. § 33.4, see, also, § 33.5). 11. Appellant (as used hereinafter, "Appellant" includes persons testifying on his behalf) urges that the construction and expanded use attendant upon the Project constitute, in essence, a "project" under the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code § 21000 et seq., "CEQA") , for which more extensive environmental review than that conducted by the Zoning Administrator is required. The Zoning Administrator determined that the Project was categorically exempt from the provisions of CEOA. 12. The Project would require construction and installation of paving, lighting fixtures, landscaping, fencing, and the box culvert above-mentioned. 13. Said construction and the installation of said improvements are similar to those classified as "small facilities or structures" under the "Class 3" categorical exemption from the requirements of CEQA (14 CCR § 15303; single- family residences, utility extensions, construction of accessory structures, etc.), minor alterations to land under the "Class 4" categorical exemption to CEQA (14 CCR § 15304; grading, landscaping, minor trenching and backfilling, etc.) and the "Class 11" categorical exemption for "accessory structures" (14 CCR § 15311; construction of small parking lots, etc.). Accordingly, the Project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEOA. 14. Appellant further urges that the construction of the Project will encourage expansion of the congregations attending meetings on the Property leading to the further intensive use of on-street parking detrimental to the value of lands in the vicinity of the Property, the creation of air pollution, visual pollution, and similar conditions detrimental to the health, safety, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing in the neighborhood and injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. 15. No evidence was submitted to substantiate the conclusion that the Project would cause expansion of the congregations and, correspondingly, more intensive use of the Property, and there is no necessary implied relationship between providing expanded off-street parking and expansion of the congregations. Said argument is, therefore, speculative. 16. The Project, as presently designed, will affect adjoining privately- owned property in an intrusive manner by extending off-street parking near the ..-.. -