HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09222009 - D.1RECOMMENDATION(S):
1. ACCEPT report from the Department of Conservation and Development contained herein
which responds to questions raised by the Board on February 3, 2009; and,
2. ACCEPT any additional public testimony regarding this information and close the
hearing; and
3. If the Board determines that the Mitigated Negative Declaration, attached hereto, is
adequate for the purposes of Phase 1 and wishes to approve Phase 1 only, then:
a) DECLARE the Board's intent to approve the appeals, in part, and to approve the land use
permit for Phase 1 only, as proposed by the applicant (with 195 parking spaces), and with
requested variances and the removal of trees; and,
b) CONTINUE the hearing to October 20 , 2009 for the preparation of findings and
conditions; OR
4. If the Board determines that the Mitigated Negative Declaration is adequate for the
project and wishes to approve the project as recommended by the County Planning
APPROVE OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
Action of Board On: 09/22/2009 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
Clerks Notes:
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
AYE:John Gioia, District I
Supervisor
Gayle B. Uilkema, District II
Supervisor
Mary N. Piepho, District III
Supervisor
Susan A. Bonilla, District IV
Supervisor
Federal D. Glover, District V
Supervisor
Contact: John Oborne,
335-1207
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board
of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: September 22, 2009
David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By: June McHuen, Deputy
cc:
D. 1
To:Board of Supervisors
From:Catherine Kutsuris, Conservation & Development Director
Date:September 22, 2009
Contra
Costa
County
Subject:Sikh Temple; Continued hearing on Joint Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Sikh Temple
Expansion Project
Commission, then:
a) DENY, the joint appeal by Quail Hill Homeowners Association and
RECOMMENDATION(S): (CONT'D)
El Sobrante Valley Planning & Zoning Committee; and,
b) FIND that on the basis of the whole record before the County, including public
comments received, there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a
significant effect on the environment and that the proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration reflects the County’s independent judgment and analysis and ADOPT the
proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the
purposes of satisfying the requirements of the Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA); and,
c) ACCEPT the recommendation of the County Planning Commission as contained in the
resolution No. 9-2009, attached hereto; and,
d) APPROVE the project subject to the attached modified conditions approved by the
County Planning Commission, and amended by the Public Works Department; and,
e) DIRECT the Community Development Division to post a Notice of Determination
with the County Clerk.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None. The staff time and materials is borne by the Applicant.
BACKGROUND:
On February 3, 2009 the Board of Supervisors opened a public hearing on this item and
took testimony from the applicant, public and the appellants. Testimony from the
appellants included concerns about the project’s potential impacts on certain
environmental issues. At the end of the hearing the Board continued the item and
requested staff to provide them additional information on these issues before they
rendered a decision. The information they requested was in regard to the following:
• Traffic
• Parking
• Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD)
• Aesthetics
• Emergency Access
BOARD’S COMMENTS & STAFF RESPONSE
Summary of Board Comment - Traffic:
The assumption in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project was that there
would be no increase in temple members as a result of the project. The Board did not
necessarily agree with that assumption, stating that with the addition of a community
center, museum and performing arts center there is a potential to gain membership which
could result in more traffic. Therefore, the Board requested staff to provide them with
additional analysis of potential traffic impacts assuming there was an increase in
membership as a result of the project. The Board also wanted to know what the traffic
impacts would be if the members visited the site more often during the week as a result
of the project (the initial study assumed that the construction of the community center
would increase current daily traffic to the site by 20%).
Staff Response:
At the request of the Board, a supplemental traffic analysis was conducted assuming
three growth scenarios; 25% growth, 35% growth and 50% growth, and an increase in
existing travel to the site by 50%. These potential impacts were analyzed at three
intersections along San Pablo Dam Road as directed by the Board. Those three
intersection are; Hillcrest Drive, El Portal Drive and Morrow Drive.
Findings of the Traffic Analysis
The supplemental traffic analysis was conducted by the consulting firm ESA, who was
retained by the County, and it was reviewed by the County Transportation Section of the
Community Development Division as well as the Public Works Engineering Services
Department. The findings were; an increase in membership by up to 50%, or an increase
in travel to the project site by existing members of up to 50%, should not cause the study
intersections to operate unacceptably during the p.m. peak hour. Further, an increase in
daily traffic to the site as a result of the project should not cause Hillcrest Drive to
operate at or near capacity.
Public Works Department staff recommended that a condition of approval be added that
requires the applicant to apply and obtain an encroachment permit from the County’s
Permit & Application Center. The purpose of the permit is to plan for any possible
over-flow of parking and traffic that might back-up onto Hillcrest Road during special
events. The encroachment permit will require the submittal of a traffic control plan. This
has been added as condition of approval # 15A.
Summary of Board Comment - Parking:
The Board wanted to know what the impact of the proposed buildings would be on
parking for the site and directed staff to analyze concurrent uses and provide a range of
parking needs based on the new buildings (Proposed are a 33,000-sq.ft. Community
Center, 6,000-sq.ft. Museum and a 30,500-sq.ft. Performing Arts Center and existing on
the site is a 21,000-sq.ft. Temple).
Staff Response:
Staff did an analysis (see attachment 2, Table A) and it shows that if all the uses
(proposed and existing) were added together the sum total of parking spaces required per
the county code is 638 parking spaces. The parking required by each building separately
according to the County code is as follows:
Existing Temple: 141 parking spaces,
Phase 1, Community Center: 270 parking spaces,
Phase 3, Museum: 71 parking spaces,
Phase 4, Performing Arts Center: 157 parking spaces,
Total for all Phases: 639 parking spaces
While this is substantially more than what staff recommended (staff recommended a total
of 175 parking when all the phases are constructed), it should be noted that all the
buildings will not be in full use at the same time. The following is a breakdown of
parking by each building:
Existing Temple
The main uses in the existing temple consist of the worship area, prayer rooms and
kitchen area and the busiest time is on Sundays which should remain the busiest day even
after the project is constructed. The worship area, which is currently 5600 square feet, is
not proposed to be expanded as part of the project.
Phase 1, Community Center
The busiest time at the proposed Community Center would occur around noon-time
Sunday, during and after the main worship service. Most of the secondary uses that are
proposed within the Community Center (e.g. Sunday school classrooms, Langar Hall
(Dining Hall), Assembly Area) are used by the same people attending the service in the
existing temple, therefore there should not be a need for additional parking for these
secondary uses.
During the week there would be smaller groups from the congregation who visit the
Community Center where room is provided for meetings for seniors and women. But the
parking for the Community Center during the week (with the exception of Wednesday
evening services) would be available since.
Phase 3, Museum/Information Center
According to the applicant the main purpose of the proposed Museum is to inform both
Sikhs and non-Sikhs what Sikhism is about. It will contain pictures and displays of the
teachers of Sikhism, with a small theater for educational purposes. The museum would
be open from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
on Saturday and Sunday. Although important to the project, the applicant does not
anticipate this to be a high-use building, and has therefore assigned 13 parking places for
this structure at its entrance. In staff’s opinion this is adequate given the fact that other
than Sunday and Wednesday services when parking demand is heaviest during these
hours, the remainder of parking on the site may be available for the museum.
Phase 4, Performing Arts Center
The activities in the Main Temple are the principle activities on the Sikh Center site and
the project is conditioned (Condition of Approval #14) such that the proposed Performing
Arts Center 400-seat auditorium will not be in use during temple worship services on
Sunday and Wednesday evenings.
As shown in Table A this would mean that at least 100 parking spaces required for the
Performing Arts Center would not be needed, although there may be some smaller uses
in the Performing Arts Center conducted in the music rooms or dance studios during the
main service. But, in general the main temple and the Performing Arts Center would not
be in full use at the same time.
Parking Summary: Given that the primary use of the site are the activities in the
Gurdwara (the main Temple) and during the time of primary religious services no other
activity or program is scheduled (with the exception of Sunday school, childcare and
staffing the museum) the parking should be adequate as follows and recommended by
staff:
Phase 1 parking – 151 parking spaces
Phase 2 parking - 164 parking spaces
Phase 4 parking – 175 parking spaces
Summary of Board Comment - Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD):
The Board requested staff to analyze the possibility of this project joining into the nearby
Hillcrest Heights GHAD given the landslide history of the area (see attachment 2, Figure
1 for area map); The following is that analysis:
Staff Response
First, some background information on GHADs; A GHAD is a state agency formed by
communities to provide monitoring, mitigation and maintenance to address hazardous
geologic conditions in a defined area. It is administered by the Board of Supervisors,
who, in the case of GHADs, acts as the Board of Directors.
The establishment of a GHAD requires two documents: a Plan of Control and an
Engineers Report. The Plan of Control identifies the geologic hazards and outlines the
maintenance responsibilities and limitations of the GHAD on the site. The Engineer’s
Report addresses the financial aspects of the GHAD, including the assessment that will
Report addresses the financial aspects of the GHAD, including the assessment that will
be applied to the subject property. Generally the assessment is based on the geologic risk
and level of maintenance of the particular property. It could also be anticipated that the
county would require seed money to grow the existing reserves of the established GHAD.
The cost to the applicant would include funds to prepare the required documents, and
fund the administrative costs incurred by the GHAD manager to review the plans leading
to annexation, in addition there would be an assessment of the property that appears on
the applicant’s tax bill.
The advantages of placing the Sikh Temple property in a GHAD include the following:
• The Sikh Temple property would be visited a minimum of two to three times a year by
a geotechnical professional provided by the GHAD to inspect and maintain those
facilities (e.g. storm drains, detention basins, condition of slopes) that are identified in the
Plan of Control. There may also be visits after a heavy rain fall.
• There would be a Reserve fund established by the GHAD for repair of landslides on the
site should they occur.
Some of the challenges of being in a GHAD include:
• Initial costs of joining the GHAD, run between $15,000.00 and $25,000.00 (1). This is
for documenting, reporting and resolutions leading to annexation.
• Paying a yearly assessment fee, this for a residential parcel in Contra Costa County runs
between $115.00 to $2400.00 per year depending on the number of parcels and the scope
of service in the GHAD. This would most likely be more in the case of the Sikh Temple
property due to the size of the property.
The GHAD is precluded by law from performing work outside the GHAD boundary,
unless the work is somehow incidental to the work that is required inside the GHAD
boundary. For instance, presuming the Sikh Temple site were annexed into the GHAD, if
there were land movement on the Sikh Temple site and it extended off their property onto
the adjacent site (land that is not in the GHAD boundary) they would not be responsible
for repairing the neighbors land, but may perform some work, if given permission by the
neighbor, to perhaps improve a drainage ditch on the neighbors land so that future
problems on the Sikh Temple site may be prevented.
Summary of Board Comment – Aesthetics:
The Board requested staff to provide a depiction of how much of the proposed buildings
would be visible in both scenarios; as proposed by the applicant and as proposed by staff.
Staff Response
Attachment 2, Figure 2A & 2B are depictions of how much of the proposed Community
Attachment 2, Figure 2A & 2B are depictions of how much of the proposed Community
Center and Performing Arts Center would be visible in both scenarios. In both cases the
height of the Community Center is generally the same. The reason being, the difference
between that staff recommended option and the applicant's proposed project has to do
with what is proposed below the ground, not what is visible above ground. Staff
recommended that instead of excavating the building so deep into the hillside causing the
need for variances to the number of stories and height, the building footprint be expanded
northward so that variances are only needed for the domes and elevators. The County
Planning Commission approved the structures with the requested variances as depicted in
Figure 2B.
Summary of Board Comment - Emergency Access:
The Board requested staff to comment on the emergency access to and from the site
given the neighbor’s concern about the issue.
Staff Response
There is only one point of access to the temple and that is located at Hillcrest Road. This
has some neighbors concerned because should it become blocked during an emergency it
may prevent either emergency vehicles from going on to the site or, should an evacuation
be necessary, it may prevent people from leaving the site. Staff contacted the Fire District
and they indicated that their emergency access standards do not require more the one
entrance to this site. In addition, their access requirement would include that the entrance
and all internal roadways be a minimum of 20-feet unobstructed width so that two
vehicles traveling in opposite directions would have enough room to pass each other.
The neighbors have also expressed concern that Hillcrest Road is the only way in and out
of the immediate area and should it become necessary for the local residents or temple
members to leave or emergency vehicles to respond, the road is only two lanes and may
be too narrow. The Fire District indicated that the same access standards apply as noted
above; that the road is a minimum of 20-feet unobstructed width.
CLERK'S ADDENDUM
Aruna Bhat, Conservation and Development Department, presented the staff report.
Supervisor Uilkema asked how the number of vehicle parking spaces was calculated.
Ms. Bhat clarified that the number projected was in direct relation to the uses and
scheduled activities of each building and noted that the Condition of Approval No. 14
definitively states that there is no concurrent scheduling of events allowed. Supervisor
Uilkema asked about vehicle parking on the side of the road leading to the site. John
Oborne, Conservation and Development Department, clarified that in discussion with
the local fire district, there would be no parking curbside, the curbs would be painted
red (no parking zone), and that the fire district would not give its approval for the
construction to begin without that condition being met. Mr. Oborne further clarified
that additional building space did not correlate to greater numbers of people because
those already on the site for worship would be filtering into the other spaces, utilizing
more space for activities that were already occurring on the site, rather than additional
persons (additional vehicles) arriving. Supervisor Piepho noted concern about wildlife
being injured on fencing with points on the top. Mr. Oborne said that issue has been
addressed; there will be a piece of material affixed on top of the fencing to cover the
sharp points and create a flatter and safer surface to prevent injury to deer. Chair
Bonilla called for comment. The following people spoke in favor of approval of the
proposed construction: Randall Henderson, Quail Hill Homeowners Association
(appellent); Gurbachan Singh, resident of El Sobrante; SurinderJeet S. Bajwa,
resident of Pleasant Hill; Mohinder S. Datta, resident of Moraga; J.P. Singh, resident
of Richmond; Harpreet Singh, resident of El Sobrante; Tanisha Sandhu, Marcello,
resident of El Sobrante; Ravinder S. Batth, resident of Oakley; Amrik Singh Pannu,
resident of Hercules; Ravinder Singh Randhawq, resident of Rodeo; Dr. Jaideep
Singh, resident of Oakland; Kavneet Singh, SALDEF; Maria C. Mauri, resident of El
Sobrante; Ken Jamison, resident of El Sobrante. J. David Dacus, R.A. did not wish to
speak but left written comments. Ruby Molinari, El Sobrante Planning & Zoning
Advisory Committee; Barbara Pendergrass, El Sobrante Planning & Zoning Advisory
Committee. Gloria J. Sandoval, resident of Richmond, did not wish to speak but left
written comments. Chair Bonilla returned the matter to the Board. Darwin Myers,
County geologist, addressed concerns about the history of landslides in the area, noting
that many of the older developments that had experienced problems were constructed in
a time when there was much less attention paid to land conditions. He said that in this
case, there was a substantial amount of information on the geology of the site
confirmed by subsurface exploration and the data gathered indicated the projects were
feasible. In addition, there would be further exploration and engineering evaluation
and the work would be done under grading permits and building permits. Chair
Bonilla inquired about how the vehicle trip calculation was derived. Monish Sen,
Public Works Engineering Services, clarified that a vehicle trip is a calculation of the
number of vehicles that expected to enter the site at peak hours. Ms. Bhat noted that
conditions of approval were included to control the number of events per year and
numbers of days in length (one) for activities, noise concerns, as well as traffic and
parking plans for events that would attract more than the usual number of visitors.
Supervisor Uilkema inquired about the possibility of renting of meeting space to
outside organizations. The applicant stated that it is not their policy now or in the
future to lease or loan space for any type of meeting not connected to the Center’s
congregation. Supervisor Gioia said he did not feel a focused environmental impact
report would provide additional meaningful information to make a decision. In regard
to the parking situation the actual experience of the visitor flow at the site was
accommodated by the currently existing 115 spaces and the 70% increase slated in
Phase I to bring the total number to 195 was sufficient. He observed that the childcare
center, which is limited to occupancy of 24 children, would not increase the number of
vehicles on Sunday as the children would be arriving with their families the same as
before. He said that the childcare slots provided during the week would assist with the
problem of a lack of child care in the County and should be encouraged. The
Condition of Approvals contain a restriction against the operation of a private school.
Supervisor Gioia expressed a desire for a mechanism of review (check in process)
after Phase I of the construction for review of whether calculations made in regard to
such factors as parking capacity and traffic were still plausible and to gather input
from the community. He further requested that staff provide a condition to address
concerns of liability should a landslide occur impacting the downhill neighbors of the
property. Catherine Kutsuris, Director of Conservation and Development Department,
agreed that a Condition of Approval should be added to clearly specify that the roadway
remain unobstructed and properly designated in accordance with the fire district’s
guidelines. She said the Condition of Approval regarding the fencing could be amended
to include the perimeter sections and specify a time frame for completion. Supervisor
Gioia requested staff review the condition regarding notification to the neighboring
area of special events to be held at the Center and ensure that notification included the
local advisory council. The Board of Supervisors took the following actions:
ATTACHMENTS
Attach. #1-CPC Resolution No. 9-2009
Attach. #2- Figures & Table
Attach. #3 - COAs
Attach. #4 - Appeal letter
Attach. #5- Correspondence Rec'd since 2/3/09 Board Hearing
Attach. #6- CEQA Determination/ Initial Study/Mit. Neg. Dec.
Attach. #7- Notification List