REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS:
On November 18, 2011, Sufism Reoriented, Saranap Homeowners Organization, Sherilyn Fry, Marvin and Carol Rasmussen, Mark Redmond, Patricia Perry, Steven Siegal, Terrence Barnum, Sally Wood and I. Harold Houseley, Curtis and Deborah Trenor, and Robert Nuzum et. al. submitted letters to the Department of Conservation and Development appealing the County Planning Commission’s approval of the Sufism Reoriented 66,074 square foot Religious Sanctuary project in the (Saranap) Walnut Creek area in Contra Costa County.
A. Project Summary
The Planning Commission approved the applications of Sufism Reoriented, a non-profit religious corporation, for the following:
a. A Land Use Permit that allows construction of a new sanctuary on approximately 3.12 acres in unincorporated Walnut Creek area. The approved 66,074 square foot building includes 20,000 square feet above ground with a prayer hall, administrative offices, a library, classroom, archives, art and music program space, and related ancillary uses. Approximately 46,074 square feet of the building would be located below ground, including the administrative offices, bookstore, art studio, art storage, chorus rehearsal, video and audio production, music mixing and scoring, reception area, multi-purpose room, film/video and photo library, a music, drama, and dance studio, a coat room, women’s and men’s restrooms, and a kitchen.
The 46,074 square foot underground portion of the building includes approximately 13,800 square feet as open areas referenced as a rotunda, plaza, and east and west galleries (hallway) and a grand staircase. The project includes the excavation and removal of soil (approximately 40,000 cubic yards of soil) an estimated 3,300 truck load of soil to be exported; and demolition of three existing single family residences. The project site includes the existing parsonage with access via a private shared driveway off of Warren Road.
b. A parking reduction based on a TDM Program that includes the promotion of carpool, shuttle service, pedestrian and bicycle parking.
c. The removal of approximately 58 protected trees, which will be replaced by the planting of at least 165 new trees.
d. A minor subdivision for the merging of seven (7) lots into one (1) parcel to create approximately 3.12 acres.
The General Plan is Single-Family Residential High-Density (SH), which allows for uses such as churches and other similar places of worship. The subject property is within the (R-10) Zoning District, which allows for churches and religious institutions with the issuance of a land use permit.
The development standards for the Religious Sanctuary are the same for the residential structures for height and yard setbacks and the proposed project meets these development standards.
B. County Planning Commission Hearing
The County Planning Commission ("the Commission") opened the public hearing on the project on October 18, 2011. Numerous speaker cards (approximately 435) were submitted in which 150 gave testimony. The Commission continued the hearing to October 25th, November 1st and November 8th, 2011 so that all could be heard. The oral testimony covered various topics such as, but not limited to, the size of the sanctuary, special events, parking calculations, Americans with Disabilities Act parking, loss of homes, fire code issues, drainage issues, tree removal, maintaining the nature of the community, night-time lighting, emergency vehicle access over grasspavers, reduction of parking and traffic, mitigation measures, story poles, and changes in subsurface flows.
In addition to the oral testimony, pictures, reports, pamphlets, letters, and other graphic and written materials were submitted for inclusion into the record.
On November 8, 2011, after hearing all public testimony, allowing rebuttal from the project sponsor, and reviewing the evidence in the record, the Commission voted 4-2 to certify the Final EIR and approve the project with recommended Conditions of Approval as modified and supplemented by the Commission. (Attachment 1 – County Planning Commission Resolution #5-2012)
The County Planning Commission’s modifications and additions to the recommended conditions under Conditions of Approval #11, #14, #15, #21, #24A, #60, #66, and #67. (Attachment 2- Conditions as Modified)
APPEALS:
Following the decision of the County Planning Commission, eleven (11) separate appeals were filed by 1) Sufism Reoriented, 2) Saranap Homeowners Organization, 3) Sherilyn Fry, 4) Marvin and Carol Rasmussen, 5) Mark Redmond, 6) Patricia Perry, 7) Steven Siegal, 8) Terrence Barnum, 9) Sally Wood and I. Harold Houseley, 10) Curtis and Deborah Trenor, and 11) Robert Nuzum joined by others (including Sherilyn Fry, Marvin and Carol Rasmussen, and Patricia Perry, who also filed separate appeals). (Attachment 3- Appeal letters)
Staff has summarized the appeal points found in the appeal letters and has provided staff responses to the appeal points below.
Appeal Point #1 (Filed by the Applicant- Sufism Reoriented): The added condition of approval by the County Planning Commission that limits the number of concrete and dump trucks on site to two at one time has the consequence of extending the excavation and making the concrete pour operation practically infeasible. In addition, this limitation would hinder the efficiency of having continuous concrete pours from multiple pumps and would increase the cost of the project. The appellant states no other project construction site has a limit on the number of concrete or excavation trucks on-site. The appellant cites the EIR and other conditions of approval addressed construction noise by limiting hours of construction; requires the installation of temporary sound walls; and requires noise control devices on equipment; and a noise consultant. In addition, the appellant’s construction contractor indicates the above limitation will increase the excavation and off-haul by 11-14 days and increase the concrete pour process by 4-6 months.
Staff Comment regarding Appeal Point #1: The County Planning Commission imposed additional measures to further reduce the noise impacts of construction vehicles in the neighborhood. At the November 8, 2011 hearing the County Planning Commission modified the following condition of approval:
All on-site storage of excavated soil shall be covered and watered at least once per day or if necessary twice per day. “During construction, all trucks standing for five minutes or more, except cement trucks, shall shut off their motors”.
“Dump trucks and concrete trucks shall be staged outside of the neighborhood, and no more than two such trucks shall be on site at one time. The project sponsor shall provide off-site parking for construction personnel, and shall provide a shuttle for such personnel as necessary. No construction personnel’s vehicle shall be parked on site during construction except as necessary for construction activities”.
The appellant proposed a condition to modify the County Planning Commission’s Condition of Approval, which reads as follows:
“Dump trucks and concrete trucks shall be staged outside of the neighborhood and no more than two such dump trucks or four concrete trucks per pump shall be on site at one time.
Staff Response #1: The Department of Conservation and Development concurs with the appellant that several measures have been incorporated within the Conditions of Approval that are typical construction and noise requirements of the Community Development Division. Furthermore, the proposed revised condition maintains a limit on the number of dump and concrete trucks on site and extends the duration of excavation and concrete pouring within the neighborhood.
The County Planning Commission approved the project with the condition that required off-site parking for construction personnel. However, customarily construction personnel park their vehicles at the construction site. Hence, staff is recommending a modification to condition of approval #11 as follows:
Dump trucks and concrete trucks shall be staged outside of the neighborhood, and no more than two dump trucks and four concrete trucks per pump shall be on site at one time. No construction personnel's vehicle shall be parked on site during construction except as necessary for construction activities. The project sponsor shall provide off-site parking for construction personnel or provide on-site parking subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.
Appeal Point #2: The County is not following the zoning codes in terms of setbacks and parking calculations and is not requiring enough American Disability Act parking requirements (ADA) spaces. The methodology used to calculate the parking spaces needs to encompass the square footage of the ground level or open and continuous space beyond the pillars of the prayer hall. The shuttle bus plan for Meher Schools lot does not include information about how ADA transfers will be handled.
Staff Response #2: The sanctuary parking spaces are subject to Section 82-16.018 of the Off-Street Parking Ordinance. Nevertheless, the standards under Section 82-16.018 were not used to determine the 71 parking spaces because the project sponsor applied for a parking reduction based on a transportation demand management plan under County Code Section 82-32.008.
The Commission approved a 66,074 square-foot religious sanctuary with a Transportation Demand Management Program Plan (TDMP) in accordance with Section 82-32.008 of the County Code. The Transportation Demand Management Ordinance allows for the reduction of parking spaces without a variance request. The 71 parking spaces approved by the Commission are not based on the square footage or size of the Project, but rather on the Sufism Reoriented pledges to walk, bicycle and shuttle services, and carpool arrangements, which are part of the TDM program. On the other hand, if the TDMP was not proposed Section 82-16.018 of the County Code would have been applicable. This section, 82-16.018 of the code states assembly halls without fixed seats shall provide for 1 space for each 40 square of gross floor area which the County traditionally applies without counting hallway or foyer space, since these areas are not meant for congregating.
The purpose and intent of Chapter 82-32 is to identify measures that can reduce vehicle trips and greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality all in furtherance of the goals of the County General Plan, Measure C and J, Growth Management Program, County’s Congestion Management Program, and Bay Area Clean Air Plan. Chapter 82-32 imposes no minimum number of parking spaces. The number of parking spaces is based on the number of spaces actually used during high attendance events. Section 82-16.018 would have required 125 parking spaces for a 5,000 square foot prayer hall. Due to the fact the applicant proposed a TDMP the parking was not determined by the parking calculations under Section 82-16.018 instead under Section 82-32.008 which allows for a reduction of parking.
The congregation has a grand total of 357 members and the Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDMP) shows 224 members reside within and ¼ and ½ mile of the existing facility and 167 at minimum, have pledged to walk to the new sanctuary rain or shine and a total of 166 members are active participants within a carpool program which would result in the use of approximately 55 parking spaces. Approximately 24 members are using single-occupancy vehicles. The TDM program would result in the need for a total of 74 parking spaces.
American Disability Act (ADA): The project will exceed the ADA requirements. The County must apply and enforce ADA parking space requirements with regard to the lot that will be built in its jurisdiction. The Planning Commission modified condition of approval # 21 to require 4 handicapped spaces which is more than the 3 spaces required by the ADA and Building Code for parking lots with 51 to 75 spaces. In addition, prior to the issuance of any permits the Building Inspection Division will review the plans to ensure compliance with the California Building Codes on accessible parking spaces required.
Page 2-27 of the FEIR states that ADA parking requirements are confirmed during plan check. It was stated in the EIR that based on a review of project plans there is ample space within the proposed parking area to convert 1 additional spot to be ADA compliant.
Setbacks: The project building site complies with the R-10 setbacks as shown under Article 84-8.10 and 84-4.10 of the County Code. Articles 84-8.1202 and 84-4.1202 Off Street Parking, which are cited by the appellants, do not apply because they establish requirements for dwelling units. The only dwelling on site is the parsonage and the parking provided for the parsonage is outside of the setbacks. The proposed sanctuary is not a dwelling unit and hence, Article 84-4.1202 is not applicable. Section 82-16.012 is applicable to non-residential parking.
Section 82-16.012 (11), which applies to the parking for the sanctuary, requires a six feet high, solid fence or masonry wall of acceptable design to be provided along the edges of any public parking areas adjacent to residentially zoned property to protect these residences from interruption and nuisances of vehicles using the parking space. The project the Commission approved includes such a wall.
Appeal Point #3: Off-Street parking at the Meher Schools can not be included in parking stall count. The Parking agreement between the Meher Schools and Sufism Reoriented has not been approved by the Lafayette Unified School District. The letter of authorization included does not authorize Meher Schools Officials to enter into a third party agreement.
Staff Response #3: Condition of approval #8 specifies the project sponsor shall notify the Department of Conservation and Development, if the site becomes unavailable and provide another off-site location within two miles of the site, for the parking of no fewer of 54 vehicles.
The determination of whether the project sponsor has a binding contract is a civil matter. The appellants contend that the project sponsor can not satisfy Condition of Approval #8 because of limitations in the lease from the Lafayette Unified School District (LUSD) to the Meher Schools. The appellants’ contentions are based on their interpretation of the lease from the LUSD. The project sponsor disagrees and interprets the lease differently. The project sponsor points out that Sufism Reoriented and other neighborhood groups have used the parking lot for over 30 years.
If the appellants are correct and the Meher Schools lot is not available for any reason, the project sponsor still may satisfy the condition of approval by providing an alternative site within two miles. Compliance with this condition will be determined by the Community Development Division prior to commencement of the use authorized by the use permit. It should be noted that the overflow parking is required only during the "Annual Celebration" held over four (4) days in the entire year. No changes to the condition is warranted.
Appeal Point #4A: The assumptions for the trucking impact are grossly underestimated and impacts have been omitted in regards to the amount of truck trips stated and subsequent impact to air quality, vibration, and noise. The construction aspect of the project is omitted and underestimated such as the amount of equipment to be hauled on site.
Appeal Point #4B: Appendix R, was included in the Final EIR, indicates that the foundation design and shoring system are to be a mat foundation. However, the modeling of construction impacts was not updated in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) to reflect the suggested revisions in the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR). Excavation will extend beyond the 55 days. Construction process will have a greater impact on the neighborhood than excavation. The Final EIR fails to discuss the construction process such as where the construction workers will park and trucks idle.
Staff Response #4A and #4B: The calculations in both the Draft and Final EIRs regarding excavation and off haul route were performed after the foundation was changed to a mat foundation. The EIR discusses the impacts of excavation and off-haul as the most intensive construction period, with the greatest number of impacts. The EIR proposed mitigation measures for all phases of construction (including limitations on idling times), that the Commission made conditions of approval.
The Project is also subject to Condition of Approval # 65, which requires the applicant to obtain approval from the Public Works Department of a traffic control plan, including haul route. It is also subject to Condition of Approval #11, which requires that vehicles of construction personnel be parked off-site and a shuttle provided. Condition of Approval # 48 includes extensive requirements to limit construction noise, and preclude construction activities before 8am or after 5pm without prior authorization of the Zoning Administrator. These conditions further ensure no significant adverse disruptions to the neighborhood during any phase of the construction period.
Appeal Point #5: The Haul route specified within the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) did not take into consideration two crosswalks on the down slope and upslope that are used by students and adults.
Staff Response #5: The hauling trucks will go on Boulevard Way to access Highway 24 heading west where the off ramp at Pleasant Hill Road will be taken to turn around and head east on Highway 24. Like any vehicle exiting the Pleasant Hill Road off ramp caution must be taken to ensure no one is in the crosswalk before proceeding. The City of Lafayette has classified the road corridor as a collector street and not residential.
Appeal Point #6: California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the project alternatives be presented yet none were given. The alternatives selected are inadequate and does not meet the standard of reasonable range of alternatives. The Environmental Impact Report fails to provide alternatives beyond build/no build as required by CEQA and by precedent in recent court cases.
Staff Response #6: The alternatives were addressed in Volume II of the EIR under Master Response #2 and can be located within Section 15126.6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines (handbook). CEQA does not require that every conceivable alternative be investigated; rather, CEQA requires that an EIR examine a reasonable number of feasible alternatives that avoid or minimize significant environmental effects of the project. The County, as the lead agency, is responsible for selecting a range of alternatives for examination and publicly disclosed its reasoning. The EIR includes a thorough discussion of the County’s review of several alternatives, plus its consideration (and subsequent rejection) of other alternatives that were not fully evaluated in the EIR.
Appeal Point # 7: The conditions of approval were not released to the public until eight calendar days prior to the hearing giving the public insufficient time to review. Each speaker’s due process right was impaired because the meeting room was not conducive to showing single or multiple graphic materials and each speaker was only allotted 3 minutes to speak on all three issues.
Staff Response #7: The Contra Costa County Better Government Ordinance Section 25-2.206 (a) states “all staff material must be distributed to the policy body and be made available to the public 96 hours before a scheduled meeting or 24 hours prior to a meeting when the agenda item has been added to the agenda from a previous meeting”. The staff report, conditions of approval and Final and Draft EIR were made available on the County website more than 96 hours in advance.
Appeal Point # 8: The Emergency vehicle access (EVA) access from Warren Road is vague as to the widening of the private driveway. The parsonage residents have not used the driveway off of Warren Road for over 10 years but to bring refuge containers to the street. The easement should be considered abandoned. The successor of the current leadership may change the use of the driveway permitting mail delivery, construction crews, and commercial refuge pickup. Additionally, a sewer easement on the subject property was personal to certain members of the Nazari family and did not transfer to Sufism Reoriented when they acquired the parcel.
Staff Response #8: The use of private easements is routinely determined by the County to be a civil matter to be sorted among the joint owners. The grant deeds for each property owner provide the terms of the easement. No legal documentation has been provided to the Department of Conservation and Development to indicate the easement has been abandoned.
The Warren Road easement will continue to be used by the residents occupying the existing parsonage. No use of the easement by construction is proposed except for the work of repaving the private driveway to meet Fire District requirements. No other construction vehicles can use Warren Road private driveway to gain entrance to the sanctuary. No increase in the use of Warren Road easement has been proposed for access to the parsonage beyond what occurs for the use of a single-family residence today.
The widening of the private driveway would be subject to the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District access roadway standards. The Fire District has approved a minimum required width of 20 feet for the portion of the driveway near Warren Road. However, should the project sponsor purchase parcel # 184-450-022, the private access roadway width shall be increased to the minimum unobstructed width of the entire easement. Similar to the private driveway, the conveyance and/or transfer of the sewer easement is a civil matter. No additional information has been submitted to determine there is no easement or non transfer for the existing sewer line.
Appeal Point #9: Size, Scale, Mass and Architecture are inconsistent and uncharacteristic with the surrounding structures and neighborhood. The proposed project is contrary to the existing neighborhood and entire Saranap area. The size, color, and style are not similar to any other buildings in the Saranap community and the sanctuary should not be considered a neighborhood church. The point of allowing churches in residential zoning districts is to allow neighborhood use of the church.
Staff response # 9: The style is unique, however the small and medium circular domes constructed around 1 larger dome reflect the spiritual value of Sufism Reoriented with the emphasis on unity and inclusion that are central tenants of the applicant’s religious beliefs, as well as spaciousness, light, openness and a sacred place of worship. There are no guidelines for architectural style nor is there any uniform style of structures within the Saranap community. The need for the size is documented in Appendix B to the EIR and is due to the need for space for activities and type of worship. The members of Sufism Reoriented worship and celebrate the founder through the arts, music, drama, and dance and therefore, the display, storage and shipping of art, scoring room, prayer hall etc. are necessary.
The project objectives note that most of the church members reside nearby, which results in a church used primarily by residents of the neighborhood. The project is located adjacent to properties zoned General Commercial, Multiple Family Residential, and Neighborhood-Business. The subject property is designated (R-10) Single Family High- Density with a minimum of 10,000 square feet parcel size. The General Plan designation of Single Family High-density (SH) allows for churches and other similar places of worship. Furthermore, the General Plan defines Semi-rural areas as generally those parts of the jurisdiction that are designated for agricultural, open space or very low density residential uses.
Appeal Point #10: The project does not meet the requirements for a Land Use Permit and Tree Removal. The project should be revised to conform. A list of conditions of approvals were identified the applicant should verify and demonstrate the project is not in conflict with the plans the applicant has submitted.
Staff Response #10: The Planning Commission found the project meets the Land Use findings in Section 26-2.2008, and the Tree Permit factors in Section 816-6.8010, as specified within the County Code.
The applicant of a project is not required to verify and demonstrate the ability to meet the conditions of approval prior to approval by the hearing body. The project sponsor must agree to all mitigation measures and conditions of approval. If the Planning Commission approval is upheld by the Board of Supervisors and the project sponsor were unable to comply with the specified conditions, the project sponsor would not be able to develop unless the project were modified, which would require a subsequent application and process.
Prior to the issuance of building or grading permits the project sponsor is required to submit a compliance report for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator and Public Works Department which addresses all conditions as approved with evidence. This process includes the complete construction drawings and building plans.
Appeal Point #11: The FEIR does not consider the risk to infants and toddlers of the three child care providers located on Warren Road. Young children who are still developing are highly vulnerable to the constant high decibel noises that will be unavoidable during the excavation and construction process. The risk to children with asthma and bronchial issues can result in irreversible damage. These standards cited are relative to adults. The lightly used road will be on the route of constant truckloads of dirt and building materials. The project will be a threat to their business, property value, and livelihoods.
Staff Response #11: CEQA requires analysis of physical impacts and impacts of the project on the environment. The subject In-home day care is approximately 3 blocks (approx.1000 feet) away from the subject site. Temporary construction projects in residential neighborhoods are not uncommon.
The Final EIR did not exclude children from its analysis. Generally, senior facilities, children, residential and recreational areas, and hospitals are referred to as “sensitive receptors” and sensitive receptors under air quality were addressed under Chapter 4.2 Air Quality within Volume I of the Final EIR. Sensitive receptors under noise were addressed within the Conditions of Approval and have been included to limit the construction work hours and require installation of a sound barrier. Mitigation measures related to noise were also imposed. The conditions are in compliance with the Noise Element and policies set forth in sections 11.9 and 11.10. The County used the standards as set forth in the 2011 Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines to determine if construction of the project could have any adverse effects.
No construction vehicles or haul trucks will use the portion of Warren Road where the appellant’s day care business is located. The only construction vehicles on Warren Road will be those used to repave the private driveway, which will enter from Boulevard Way. As stipulated within the EIR the haul route is from the front of the property, on Boulevard Way to Highway 24 and does not include any segment of Warren Road.
Appeal Point # 12: Drainage: The 10-year storm design is not adequate for the subject site.
Staff Response #12: Drainage facilities that serve a watershed size less than 1 square mile (640 acres) are considered minor drainage facilities and require design for a 10-year frequency average recurrence interval (Co. Ord. 914-2.010). The cumulative watershed size for the three "sub-watershed" areas that contribute to the watershed for the project area is just over 30 acres, including the project site itself. The project site is approximately 3 acres. The 10-year storm design at this site is appropriate and is the standard by which all designs for this type of application are reviewed.
Appeal point #13: Project should be required to upgrade existing drainage facilities known to have problems with handling storm flows.
Staff Response #13: The project proposes to keep the post-project runoff flow rates below or equal to pre-project levels. In other words, the project sponsor will reduce the amount of impervious surfaces at the project site and therefore reduce the amount of storm water runoff.
Drainage calculations submitted to Public Works Department demonstrate that the project will not increase the amount of runoff to any of the three sub-drainage areas within the project area. Therefore, based on this analysis this project will not create a negative impact on downstream properties that would require mitigation. Because there is no negative impact, the project could not have been conditioned to improve existing facilities. Also, the approved current conditions of approval provide that the project would have to comply with the standard collect and convey requirements and mitigate any impacts should the need arise. When improvement plans are submitted for review, staff will verify that the post-project flows do not exceed the pre-project flows.
The existing storm drain system at southeast corner of Boulevard Way and Warren Road is located on private property where a minor subdivision was approved and conditioned to upgrade the system and install a new outfall to Las Trampas Creek. This privately maintained drainage system has experienced problems in the past and those problems have been isolated to the property on which the storm drain is located.
The project will upgrade a culvert within public right-of-way of Warren Road located near Island Court as conditioned by COA#75.
Appeal point #14: Sight Distance: The sight distance around the curve and at the driveway is not adequate per Caltrans design standards. The main access location and permitted left turn is unsuitable and poses a significant danger to pedestrians and vehicular traffic on Boulevard Way.
Staff Response #14: By widening the road shoulder, providing a sidewalk, and setting the wall back the project will result in the greatly improved sight distance around the curve through the intersection. Per the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Chapter 200, the required sight distance is met for 35 MPH design speed using the stopping sight distance criteria.
Caltrans also provides guidance on corner sight distance for two types of driveways – rural and urban. For rural driveways the stopping sight distance is used, which is 250 feet for the design speed of 35 MPH. However, there is no such requirement for urban driveways. The driveway at the project location is considered “urban” by County definition. In either case, stopping sight distance and corner sight distance, the driveway location proposed by the applicant meets the required distance for the 35 MPH design speed.
Figure 3-8 of EIR includes an inset map that clearly shows how and where the wall would be relocated. Sight distance is discussed within the EIR text as well as in the accompanying traffic study appendix.
Appeal point #15: Undergrounding of Utilities: The project should be conditioned to underground the existing utility poles.
Staff Response #15: The area in the vicinity of the project features extensive occurrence of overhead utilities. Considering that undergrounding of utilities is typically performed for aesthetic reasons, the project has no significant adverse aesthetic impacts and therefore the project was not conditioned to install existing facilities underground. The potential benefit of undergrounding a small number of existing utility poles within this relatively short span of frontage along Boulevard Way did not deem it necessary to make undergrounding of existing poles a condition of approval.
The project is, however, required to underground any new utility distribution facilities and relocate the existing utility poles to accommodate the frontage improvements.
Appeal point 16: Easement rights: The project site does not have sufficient easement rights for access and drainage between the site and Warren Road.
Staff Response16: Generally, the County can not require project sponsors to acquire easement rights during the application review phase before the project is approved. The standard condition language (COA #68) adequately addresses the project’s requirement to submit proof of easement rights to the Public Works Department.
However, to address the concerns of property owners adjacent to the project site and those who feel the existing easement rights may be overburdened with the merger of seven parcels, the project may be conditioned to restrict the use of the driveway from Warren Road to the Parsonage tenants only. A new condition of approval could be added to state:
“Access to the Parsonage structure from Warren Road over the existing private access easement shall be used for access to the sanctuary and shall be used only for access by the Parsonage residents and their guests, and those providing services at the parsonage. The general members of the church shall not use the private access easement.”
Appeal Point #17: Grasspave 2 will be used for Emergency Vehicle Access and is not an acceptable ground material pursuant to the Fire District.
Staff Response #17: The project sponsor shall comply with all Fire District requirements for the proposed project. The construction drawings will be required to obtain the Fire District stamp of approval prior to the issuance of any permits. In other words, the project sponsor will have to use a surface that is approved by the Fire District. The applicant intends to use pervious pavers or pervious concrete rather than Grasspave2.
The purpose of using the Grass Pave 2 or other pervious materials for EVA is to reduce the stormwater runoff for the proposed project. The intent is to keep the post project flows equal to or less than the pre project flows. The change from Grasspave2 to pervious pavers and/or concrete does not affect the drainage calculations.
When improvement plans are submitted for review (with Fire District approved EVA access ground material), staff will verify that post project flows do not exceed pre project flows.
Appeal Point #18: Worst Case Scenario Traffic developed for FEIR is inaccurate and insufficient and does not reflect the past practice of Sufism Reoriented of inviting the public to events where no pre-registration is required. The parking impacts of the Halloween Party on the neighborhood should be evaluated along with Meher graduation dinner parties.
Staff Response #18: The applicant has indicated that the Annual Celebration is conducted four days in March of each year and is the only time that the overflow parking would be required at the Meher Schools. This Annual Celebration happens on Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and Monday at 8pm to 10pm, except for 2pm to 5pm on Sunday. Therefore, the Meher Schools site would be occupied in the evenings and on Sunday during off peak hours and when the school is closed.
The applicant submitted a letter on October 21, 2011 indicating that the church has no plans to invite the public to any activities at the site. Conditions of approval #19 and #20 address the facility can not be leased or rented out and require the project sponsor to obtain a use permit under the Temporary Events Ordinance. The project sponsor has used the Meher Schools site for over 30 years for overflow parking. Sufism Reoriented is not prohibited from having “temporary events” within Contra Costa County as long as compliance with the Temporary Event Ordinance Chapter 82-44 of the County Code is met. The County can not prohibit the project sponsor from holding events in another jurisdiction, if in compliance with the jurisdictions codes.
Regarding the worst-case scenario of traffic, it is pertinent to state that the project actually falls beneath the threshold for a quantified traffic study – County standard is that no quantitative study is required in circumstances where a project would result in the addition of fewer than 100 peak hour trips. The applicant provided a study as part of its application package stipulating precisely this conclusion. While the County did not dispute the findings of this study, it nevertheless directed preparation of a quantitative study in anticipation of strong public/neighborhood interest in the project.
Roadway segment analysis appropriate for consideration of this question; the project itself has relatively few peak hour trips (see Traffic Study, table 10, among others) and would not result in any significant traffic impacts at any of the studied intersections.
Roadway segment analysis provides a “sensitivity” analysis – answering the question of how many more trips would be required on a roadway before the LOS could be expected to change from existing levels.
Traffic study noted that all roadways in the vicinity of the project were operating at LOS A in terms of average daily traffic (ADT). See Tables 3 and 4 of Traffic Study. Roadways potentially affected by the project are either two lane collectors (Boulevard Way) or two-lane arterial (Kinney Drive). Current ADT on these streets ranged from a low of 1,800 trips per day (Kinney Drive at Boulevard) to the mid-4000s (various portions of Boulevard Way). The traffic study noted that to change from LOS A to B (a level of service still considered acceptable), ADT on a two lane collector would need to increase to more than 6,000 (currently under 2000). For a two lane collector (Boulevard Way) ADT would likely need to increase to more than 9,000 (currently ADT is less than half of that).
While traffic study appropriately examined the program of events included in the TDM plan, it is clear that in order for area traffic to see a change in LOS, the added number of trips would have to be far in excess of the scale of events that have been held by the applicant. Moreover, the timing of such events would also need to be different – shifting to more peak-hour periods. Applicant’s “special events” in the past have been on weekends – well outside of weekday peak periods.
Traffic study for the project – though not even required based on fundamentals of the project – is accurate for describing potential project effects. As demonstrated above, the study provides guidance for the contemplation of speculative events. As shown above, the level of traffic associated with such speculative events would need to generate traffic more or less equivalent to the entire ADT for the streets in question before any change in LOS would be expected.
Appeal Point # 19: Pre and Post -construction inspections regarding condition of roadway and other infrastructure must be independently conducted and not by the applicant.
Staff Response # 19: The County typically requires the project sponsor, at its expense to hire certified and/or licensed experts in the relative field to perform inspections. The project sponsor will not be able to inspect private property without the approval of the owners. The property owners, if necessary, may conduct their own surveys of their properties before and after construction.
Appeal Point #20: The conditional use permit erroneously approved to run with the land rather than applicant.
Staff Response #20: All discretionary permits approved run with the land and not the applicant. If a new operator were to purchase the site, they are subject to the conditions as approved unless an application is filed to amend the conditions. This would include all of the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) conditions.
CONCLUSION:
The Department of Development and Conservation, Community Development Division has evaluated the appeals, and recommends that the appeal by Sufism Reoriented be granted and the appeals by Saranap Homeowners Organization, Sherilyn Fry, Marvin and Carol Rasmussen, Mark Redmond, Patricia Perry, Steven Siegal, Terrance Barnum, Sally Wood and I. Harold Houseley, Curtis and Deborah Trenor, and Robert Nuzum et. al. be denied on the basis of no merit and sustain the County Planning Commission’s decision to certify the Final EIR as an adequate document, and approve Land Use Permit # LP08-2034 with tree removal and Transportation Demand Management Plan and Minor Subdivision # MS09-0008 with the attached findings and modified conditions of approval.
Attachments
Attachment 1 County Planning Commission Resolution #5-2012
Attachment 2 Conditions of Approval as Modified at the Planning Commission hearing
Attachment 3 Environmental Review Timeline
Attachment 4 Appeal Letters
Attachment 5 Transportation Demand Management Program
Attachment 6 Mitigation Monitoring Program
Attachment 7 October 18, 2011 Staff Report and Recommendations to the Planning Commission
Attachment 8 Supplemental Staff Report -1
Attachment 9 Supplemental Staff Report -2
Attachment 10 General Plan, Zoning, & Aerial Maps
Attachment 11 Sanctuary Project Plans
Attachment 12 Notification List
Attachment 13 Letters to the County Planning Commission
Attachment 14 Environmental Impact Report, Correspondences to the Board, and General Support/Opposition letters and petition located on the weblink at www.cccounty.us/DocumentCenterii.aspx?FID=621
Attachment 15 Additional letters to the Board of Supervisors