HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04012014 - D.8RECOMMENDATION(S):
1. OPEN the public hearing and accept testimony on the appeals.
2. CLOSE the public hearing.
3. FIND, on the basis of the whole record, that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
effect on the environment and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the County’s independent judgment
and analysis, and was prepared in accordance with the State and County CEQA Guidelines.
4. ADOPT the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program as adequate for
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
5. DENY the appeals filed by Mr. Palmer Madden & Mrs. Susan Paulus, and Mr. Scott Tiernan.
6. UPHOLD the decision of the County Planning Commission Commission, as contained in its Resolution No.
6-2014, approving the Land Use Permit with variances.
7. DIRECT the Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division to file a Notice of
Determination with the County Clerk.
APPROVE OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
Action of Board On: 04/01/2014 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
Clerks Notes:
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor
Candace Andersen, District II
Supervisor
Mary N. Piepho, District III
Supervisor
Karen Mitchoff, District IV
Supervisor
Federal D. Glover, District V
Supervisor
Contact: Christine Louie, (925)
674-7787
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: April 1, 2014
David Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By: June McHuen, Deputy
cc:
D.8
To:Board of Supervisors
From:
Date:April 1, 2014
Contra
Costa
County
Subject:Appeal of the County Planning Commission's Approval of Land Use Permit #LP12-2110 for a New Multi-Purpose
Recreational Building for a Church
FISCAL IMPACT:
The applicant is responsible for all costs incurred in processing the Land Use Permit application.
BACKGROUND:
History of Church Use
On May 20, 1957, a Land Use Permit (LUP) was approved for the establishment of a church and parish house on
the subject property. On October 7, 2002, a subsequent LUP was approved to allow construction of an
18,103-square-foot building (known as Wesley Hall) and to legalize the existing preschool, with variances to the
off-street parking ordinance.
Site/Area Description
The subject site is a 5.07-acre lot located within a residential neighborhood, with single-family residences
bordering on all sides and across Danville Boulevard. The residences to the east and south of the site are
separated by San Ramon Creek and a tributary, respectively. The main access to the property is along Danville
Boulevard. The property includes a number of trees located along Danville Boulevard, along the riparian areas to
the east, and along the south property line.
The property is occupied by the San Ramon United Methodist Church. The south portion of the site is developed
with multiple buildings, including the sanctuary, classrooms, meeting rooms, preschool, and administrative offices
arranged around a central courtyard. The majority of the off-street parking is located in the north half of the site
with a row of spaces located in front of the buildings facing Danville Boulevard. There is an existing creek
structure setback which is located along the east side of the property along San Ramon Creek, which was
established under a previous LUP. The zoning districts that surround the property include R-20 Single-Family
Residential District to the north and west with the Town of Danville city limits bordering the property along the
south and east. The General Plan land use designations surrounding the subject property include Single-Family
Residential Low-Density to the north and west.
Project Summary
On September 25, 2012, the applicant filed a LUP application to modify the existing church facility by adding a
7,935-square-foot multi-purpose building. The project includes reconfiguration and expansion of the existing
parking lot, replacement of existing parking lot lighting, new parking lot lighting, new parking lot landscape
planters, a new curb cut to widen the existing access, and approval of a sign program for the existing signs. The
project includes variances for a substandard parking aisle width, a building height of 37 feet 3 inches (where a
maximum of 35 feet is allowed), and a 0-foot front yard setback (where a minimum of 25 feet is required) for the
existing church and preschool signage. The project also includes removal of three code-protected trees and work
within the driplines of seven additional code-protected trees.
Zoning Administrator Hearing
The Zoning Administrator considered the LUP application at a noticed public hearing on three separate dates
beginning September 16, 2013. The Zoning Administrator initially continued the hearing to allow time to consider
the documentation and testimony received, and to review additional technical reports that had been submitted. On
October 21, 2013, the Zoning Administrator received additional testimony, closed the public hearing, and
continued the item to November 4, 2013, for a decision. On November 4, 2013, the Zoning Administrator
approved the project with modifications to the findings and conditions of approval.
County Planning Commission/Board of Appeals - Hearing on the Appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s
Decision
On January 14, 2014, the Commission conducted a public hearing on the appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s
decision. After accepting testimony from persons who wished to speak on the project, the Commission denied the
appeal and approved the project 6-0 with modifications to condition #8, and the addition of 10 new conditions
regarding landscaping, submittal of an acoustic report, review of schedule of non-church activities, transportation
management, and parking. The approved conditions of approval are included as an attachment to this report.
Appeal of the County Planning Commission’s Decision
Madden/Paulus Appeal
The following is a summary of the points of appeal from the letter submitted January 22, 2014, by Palmer
Madden and Susan Paulus. Staff's responses are in italics. Additional documentation was filed on March 10,
2014, and is incorporated into this report as an attachment.
Madden Appeal Point 1: The proposed community basketball gymnasium/event center is located in the heart of a
residential area specifically restricted by Policy 3-117 of the General Plan. It is irrelevant that the church is a
permitted use or that a church gym is “consistent with” residential uses. The basketball gym is not yet permitted
and permitting it violates Policy 3-117, which disallows any non-residential use, whether or not consistent with
residential uses.
Madden Response 1 : The Single-Family Residential Low-Density General Plan Land Use designation allows for
churches and other similar places of worship as a secondary use that is considered generally compatible with
low-density homes.
General Plan Land Use Element Policies 3-114 through 3-124 are specific to the Alamo-Diablo-Blackhawk area.
The Commission found the project to be consistent with these policies. Policy 3-120 (formerly 3-117) states that
land along Danville Boulevard which is designated as residential shall be restricted to residential use and that
nonresidential uses are inconsistent with the General Plan and shall be avoided. This policy is intended to deter
establishment of new nonresidential uses, not prohibit the expansion or continued operation of long-established
uses within the area. The proposed project falls under the latter category. If one accepts the appellant’s rationale,
then the Zoning Administrator’s 2002 approval of the applicant’s preschool and fellowship hall, which are both
typical uses for a church site, was inconsistent with General Plan Policy 3-120. Nobody has made this assertion.
General Plan Public Facilities/Services Element Policy 7-162 identifies churches and other religious institutions
as being consistent with residential and commercial land use designations where safe vehicular access and
effective buffering of neighboring residences can be achieved. The existing vehicular access was approved under
previous Land Use Permits. Public Works has reviewed the project and is satisfied with the proposed
modifications. The proposed building would be set back approximately 55 feet from the north (nearest) property
line, approximately 200 feet from west property line (Danville Boulevard), approximately 300 feet from the south
property line, and approximately 150 feet from the east (rear) property line. Trees and vegetation grow along the
north, east, and south sides of the property. While there is an existing fence and landscaping along the northern
property line, the project is conditioned to require additional landscape buffer along the north side of the
property. Thus, adequate buffering will be achieved and the project will be consistent with Policy 7-162.
The appellant’s conclusion that the proposed project is inconsistent with the General Plan solely because of
Policy 3-120 is simply incorrect. General Plans reflect a range of compatible and competing interests and the
County General Plan itself explains that it is “inappropriate to assess consistency of a singular policy without
reference to this framework.” Furthermore, courts have held that agencies have broad discretion to weigh and
balance their General Plan policies in the course of applying them. In making its General Plan consistency
finding, the Commission clearly considered, at a minimum, policies in the Land Use and Public Facilities/Services
elements of the General Plan as well as the land use designation for the site. The applicant has not demonstrated
that the Commission erred in its approach or abused its discretion in making its finding.
Madden Appeal Point 2: The Mitigated Negative Declaration cannot be issued because the 50-decidel (dB)
standard would double the current ambient sound of 40 dB and is a significant environmental impact. The Noise
Element of the General Plan tells us that a doubling of the perceived sound will lead to complaints, which is a
significant environmental impact that precludes a Mitigated Negative Declaration. There will be a change of
population using the parking lot that would include church members, the public at large, including teenage
basketball players and spectators that would create a significant noise impact in the parking lot.
Madden Response 2 : The Noise Element of the County General Plan states that the “normally acceptable”
outdoor noise level for residential areas is 60 dB. Policy 11-6 of the Noise Element states that if an area is
currently below the maximum “normally acceptable” noise level, an increase in noise up to the maximum should
not be allowed necessarily. The applicant and appellant each hired noise consultants to review the project.
Neither indicated that the project would result in a significant impact on the environment. The measurements
recorded by Thorburn Associates in their analysis received January 14, 2014, and the analysis by Charles M.
Salter and Associates received September 27, 2013, show the ambient noise recorded within the area within a
range of 41 dB to 50 dB. Based on the noise studies and in order to maintain consistency with the General Plan,
the Commission conditioned the project to include sound dampening measures so that sound emanating from the
building would not exceed 50 dB at the property lines. In addition, the Commission added conditions of approval
for the applicant to provide a noise report demonstrating that the noise from the new building would not exceed
50 dB, and for the applicant to promote the reduction of loitering in the parking lot to minimize parking lot noise.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is concerned with significant environmental impacts. The
appellant has submitted no evidence demonstrating that the proposed project, as conditioned by the Commission,
would result in a significant noise impact or an inconsistency with the Noise Element of the General Plan. Thus,
the Mitigated Negative Declaration can be adopted as adequate for the project.
Madden Appeal Point 3: The height variance is a gift and unlawful. There are no other such variances in our area,
and it violates the requirement of the “Orinda” case.
Madden Response 3 : In order to grant a variance the County must find that the variance would not amount to a
grant of special privilege, that because of special physical circumstances about the site, strict application of the
zoning regulations would deprive the subject property of rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity, and
that the variance granted still meets the intent and purpose of the zoning district. The Zoning Administrator and
Commission independently determined that these three finding could be made and granted a variance to allow a
portion of the proposed building to exceed the 35-foot height limit by 2 feet 3 inches.
The appellant offers the opinion that approval of the variance was unlawful, but does not offer any direct rebuttal
to the findings made by the Commission. Instead the appellant relies on a court case, Orinda Association v. Board
of Supervisors. However, the appellant offers no explanation as to how the court’s decision in that case is directly
applicable to the present application. Staff notes that among other things, this case concerned approval of a
variance to allow an average building height of 50 feet, and a maximum of 64 feet, where the maximum allowed
by the zoning was 35 feet – hardly comparable in degree to the variance approved by the Zoning Administrator
and Commission.
Madden Appeal Point 4: The notice was defective because it described the project as a “multi-purpose recreation
building” instead of “community gym/event center for rent to third parties” and failed to alert neighbors of what
was coming.
Madden Response 4 : The appellant offers an opinion regarding how the project should have been described in
public notifications. The CEQA Guidelines and the California Government Code require “brief” and “general”
descriptions of the project, respectively. The public notifications exceeded these requirements. The appellant has
offered no evidence to the contrary.
Tiernan Appeal
The following is a summary of the points of appeal from the letter submitted January 24, 2014, by Scott Tiernan.
Staff’s responses are in italics.
Tiernan Appeal Point 1: Variances should not be granted for the convenience of the property owner, and the code
should be uniformly applied to their project. The circumstances do not justify the granting of variances.
Tiernan Response 1: The Commission found that the project met the requirements for granting the variances
requested. The variance for the parking aisle width is an existing condition in the area of the parking lot that is
not being reconfigured. The aisle width in front of the existing church and administrative offices is 10 feet, where
13 feet is required by the County’s Off-Street Parking Ordinance. This variance was noted because the spaces
served by the narrow aisle are part of the overall parking count, not because of a physical change in the area that
is already at variance. The church signs located at the front property line existed for over a decade prior to the
approval of Land Use Permit #LP01-2142, and the preschool sign was established at about the same location
from the road for a decade. The land dedication required by the County brought the property line closer to the
signs. The building height variance was granted due to the existing topography on-site and the special
circumstances that would make it a hardship for the applicant to construct the type of building that is proposed.
As indicated above, the Zoning Administrator and the Commission independently determined that the required
findings could be made, and granted the variances for the project.
Tiernan Appeal Point 2: The Planning Commission failed to consider a Deferred Improvement Agreement that
was part of Land Use Permit #LP01-2142. When this agreement is triggered, it will result in a loss of a significant
number of parking spaces but provide a safer Danville Boulevard right-of-way for drivers, bicyclists, and
pedestrians, benefiting the applicant’s own operations and the safety of their own guests. The project does not
include a standard sidewalk along Danville Boulevard and crowds the right-of-way with zero setback signage and
parking spaces. There is no turning lane, deceleration lane outside of the bicycle lane, or a place for a bus to stop
outside of the bicycle lane.
Tiernan Response 2: An offer of dedication for roadway purposes was made for the right-of-way along Danville
Boulevard with LP01-2142 (DOC-2004-0269349-00); therefore, the applicant will not be required to dedicate
additional right-of-way with this Land Use Permit application. The frontage along Danville Boulevard is
improved with a curb, but does not feature a fully paved shoulder, gutter, or sidewalk. A deferred improvement
agreement was executed with LP01-2142; therefore, the applicant will not be required to construct frontage
improvements with this Land Use Permit application. The applicant will be responsible for right-of-way
improvements when the County accepts the dedication at a future undetermined date. The Public Works
Department reviewed the project and has not required construction of a turning lane, deceleration lane, or bus
stop improvements. The County has no further requirements (i.e. improvements or dedications) for the project
regarding traffic or access.
Staff has reviewed the project plans and the offer of dedication and concluded that the site plan does not appear to
reflect the entire area that was dedicated to the County. There are signs, landscaping, and a light standard that
may be located within the dedicated area. When the County accepts the offer of dedication in the future, all
improvements located within the dedicated right-of-way area must be removed or relocated, pursuant to the
recorded deferred improvement agreement and offer of dedication. Staff has verified, using the scaled site plan
and the recorded offer of dedication, that the existing parking shown along Danville Boulevard is not located
within the area that has been dedicated to the County. Therefore, the on-site parking will not be altered by the
future acceptance of the dedicated right-of-way.
Tiernan Appeal Point 3: A traffic study should be required. At this moment, we cannot say how many trips will
be made as the UMC appears to be able to manipulate traffic flows to avoid a traffic study. The UMC clearly has
the capacity and potential to generate the required traffic flows in the future with their programs.
Tiernan Response 3: It is typical for religious institutions to have several different land uses on-site, such as a
sanctuary, a school, a multi-use room, meeting rooms, etc. These uses usually do not experience peak use
simultaneously. For example, schools are typically in session during the week while sanctuaries experience their
heaviest use on weekends. Schools and sanctuaries are typically used during the day while meeting rooms are
often used in the evening or after services. Thus, while adding the new building would bring more total traffic to
the site and area, it would not necessarily be additive to the traffic that exists at peak times of use.
The existing site generates traffic during the week and weekend from the church use and preschool use. As stated
in the initial study, the project is not expected to trigger a 1988 Measure C traffic study because the proposed
building will be used predominantly during off-peak commute hours, and is intended to be used by youth and
young adults in the afternoon and evening and programs for seniors earlier in the day. Although the applicant has
indicated that the maximum capacity for the new building is 120 persons based on a building code standard for
building occupancy, the use of the building is expected to be during off-peak commute hours, and expected to be
less than the capacity of the building. Therefore, the project is not expected to exceed 100 AM or PM peak hour
trips to the site. The most intense traffic condition on site occurs on Sunday mornings during church service, and
the project is conditioned to restrict the use of the building during service hours with a few excepted holidays.
The applicant submitted a traffic analysis prepared by Abrams Associates dated September 13, 2013, which
reviewed the traffic that the existing church facility generates and the impacts of the proposed project. According
to the Abrams report, the trip generation from the project would at most be about 60 vehicle trips per hour with
the concentration of trips during a peak 15 minutes. According to the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)
Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, the estimated number of vehicle trips that a church such as this would
generate is about 180 vehicle trips during the Sunday peak hour and 15 trips during the AM and PM weekday
peak hours. Based on a traffic count on September 8, 2013, the Abrams report determined that the trip generation
from the church would appear to be a little lower than the ITE guidelines. The report further evaluated the
proposed uses for the building, which included basketball, volleyball, and badminton activities and determined
that the project would not have a significant increase in traffic during the peak commute hours. The report
assumed that activities would generally occur from 8:30 AM to 9:30 PM during the summer and 4:00 PM to 9:30
PM during the remainder of the year, from 8:00 AM to 9:30 PM on Saturdays, and from 1:00 to 5:00 PM on
Sundays. It should be noted that the Commission limited the hours of use of the proposed building to 9:00 PM
Monday through Saturday, and 7:00 PM on Sunday. The report further concluded that the project would not
significantly alter the current traffic conditions and the project is not expected to approach the Sunday morning
level of traffic intensity due to the hours of operation of the building for recreation activities. In addition, it was
observed that there would be sufficient parking within the church parking lot because there are rarely more than
15 vehicles parked in the lot when services are not being held, and the 146 spaces required by the Commission
would be sufficient to serve the existing and new church programs and activities.
The Commission approved the project with conditions for a schedule of all activities to be provided for review and
consideration of the Community Development Division during a 12-month period to determine whether the events
and activities would exceed the maximum capacity at any time. In addition, prior to issuance of building permits,
a use plan for the building’s use for non-worship activities involving non-church members is to be reviewed and
approved by Community Development Division.
Tiernan Appeal Point 4: About 8,000 square feet of parking space will be lost to the project where the existing
facility has inadequate off-street parking and a transportation plan that has failed to improve the parking situation.
The parking numbers include the parking spaces that are within the Deferred Improvement Agreement area along
the Danville Boulevard right-of-way. Their plan allows their members and guests to continue to park along
Danville Boulevard and neighboring side streets, where there is currently insufficient off-street parking with no
solution to the problem. The Mitigated Negative Declaration uses the original UMC sanctuary capacity (about
350) to figure off-street parking instead of the Wesley Center Great Room (500 capacity according to Mr.
Alexander), which has been used as a sanctuary for the second service. The formula for parking used by the
Zoning Administrator was inappropriate as there is a prior condition of approval from an earlier land use
agreement for 146 parking spaces that is currently effective.
Tiernan Response 4: The project would occupy an area currently occupied by approximately 14 spaces and
adjacent driving aisles. However, the project includes a more efficient parking lot layout and design which allows
the applicant to propose the new building, 142 parking spaces, and the addition of landscape planters, as shown
on the submitted drawings. As explained above, there are no parking spaces located within the area that has been
dedicated to the County and is part of the deferred improvement agreement.
About two years ago, the church had used the main hall in the Wesley Building for a third service. This third
service was an informal service that was scheduled after the first two services, and the church never exceeded its
limit of 450 persons on the site. This third service had approximately 50 persons in attendance. However, the
church no longer has this as part of their program and operations. According to the church, they have not had
any services that included 500 persons in the Wesley Building.
The church is required to provide a total of 105 off-street parking spaces pursuant to the County Ordinance Code.
The Commission conditioned the project to include 146 spaces and to include the transportation demand
management conditions from Land Use Permit #LP01-2142 to manage and schedule the use of the facilities on
the church property so that the parking needs on the property may be balanced and parking would be provided on
the site. This project is further conditioned so that the proposed building may not be used on Sundays during
service hours except for a few specific holiday services listed in the conditions.
Tiernan Appeal Point 5: Why are the signs being considered in violation of the code when the signs could be
easily brought into compliance with little impact on the UMC? The signs have been recently been renewed and
enlarged with lights.
Tiernan Response 5: Currently there are two signs for the church and one two-sided sign for the preschool
located along the Danville Boulevard right-of-way, and one illustrative sign located in front of the administrative
office building. It appears that the two signs for the church have been on the property for over a decade, if not
longer, and existed on the property prior to the issuance of Land Use Permit #LP01-2142 in 2002. The preschool
sign was erected after the Land Use Permit was issued. The church signs are located 0 feet from the property line,
measured from the posts, with the preschool sign over the property line; however, it remains within the
established curb and landscape area. No new signage is proposed under this permit. The Commission’s approval
of variances for the signs eliminates the violations.
No sign program was established for the church under any of the prior permits. Inclusion of a sign program under
this application is intended to clarify the permit record by memorialize the number, size, and location of the signs
permitted for the use.
Tiernan Appeal Point 6: Where is the plan for the new lighting? They leave their signs lit up all night long along
with 30 lights on their campus which light up the neighborhood. Some of these lights are on poles over twice the
height permissible by code for borderline fences (6 feet) and positioned on the property lines.
Tiernan Response 6: The plans for the parking lot lighting are included in the submitted drawings. Parking lot
lights are a requirement of the County’s Off-Street Parking Ordinance. The Commission approved the project with
conditions that restrict the color of lights, height, and hours of use to be no longer than reasonably required to
safely and securely illuminate the parking area, or as required by the County Sheriff’s Office. The lighting plan
calls for replacement of the existing perimeter light poles in the same location, number, and height, and
relocation of the light poles located in the middle of the existing parking lot area, as the parking lot will be
reconfigured to accommodate the proposed building and landscape planters.
The two church signs are directly illuminated by lights that are on a photo sensor control. There are currently no
conditions which restrict the illumination of signs within this area, however, the plans also do not show the
lighting for the signage. Staff is recommending that the Board approve the sign program as proposed, with the
existing direct illumination.
Tiernan Appeal Point 7: The proposed building will reflect sound from Danville Boulevard, intensify sound from
the UMC parking lot, and reflect noise from the parking area located behind the proposed building across San
Ramon Creek without mitigations.
Tiernan Response 7: The appellant’s statements are not substantiated by any reports or supporting
documentation. The proposed building is approximately 200 feet from Danville Boulevard, whereas the appellant
resides directly adjacent to Danville Boulevard. That sound from Danville Boulevard or the parking lot will
reflect off of the new building and be intensified has not been demonstrated. The project as conditioned by the
Commission includes sufficient measures to address any potential noise that may be generated. The Commission
approved the project with multiple conditions relating to sound attenuation, including limiting the hours of use for
the new building, restricting use of the parking lot located east of the building and adjacent to San Ramon Creek,
limiting access from the rear of the building, requiring the applicant to take active measures to prevent loitering in
the parking lot, requiring the acoustical design of the building and rooftop equipment to limit the sound to 50 dB
at all property lines, and requiring submittal of an acoustic report prepared by an acoustic engineer. As indicated
above, no evidence has been submitted demonstrating that the proposed project, as conditioned by the
Commission, would result in a significant noise impact or an inconsistency with the Noise Element of the General
Plan.
Conclusion
The main topics of concern include General Plan compliance, granting of variances, noise, lighting, traffic,
dedication of right-of-way, parking calculations, and signage. The appeal points are similar to the points presented
to the Commission and do not provide support for overturning the Commission’s approval of the project. The
project is consistent with the General Plan and zoning, and as indicated in the Initial Study, all impacts can be
mitigated to less-than-significant levels and additional conditions were imposed by the Commission to ensure the
project’s compatibility with the neighborhood. Based on the foregoing, Staff recommends that the Board of
Supervisors deny the appeals of Palmer Madden/Susan Paulus and Scott Tiernan, and approve the project.
CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION:
If the Board accepts the appeals of the Commission’s decision and denies the project, then the proposed building
will not be constructed.
CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT:
N/A.
CLERK'S ADDENDUM
Speakers: Thomas N. Lippe, APC, counsel on behalf of Palmer Madden/Susan Paulus (Appellant); Palmer
Madden, (Appellant); Scott Tiernan (Appellant); Kathleen McShane, pastor, on behalf of Quentin Alexander
(Applicant); Galen Grant, Architect, on behalf of Quentin Alexander (Applicant); David Blake, Chair, Alamo
Municipal Advisory Commission; Marjorie Ammon, resident of Alamo; David Barclay, Alamo Municipal
Advisory Council; Anne Blake, resident of Danville; Thomas Blake, resident of Danville; Holly Childhouse,
resident of Danville; Tania Hanson-DeYoung, resident of Alamo; Roger Smith, Alamo Improvement
Association; Michael Gibson, Alamo Improvement Association; Steve Thorburn, Thorburn Associates; David
Coombs, San Ramon Valley UMC; William Nelson, resident of Alamo; The following person did not wish to
speak, but provided written comments for the Board's consideration: Gary Stevens, resident of Danville.
CLOSED the hearing; FOUND that on the basis of the whole record, that there is no substantial evidence that
the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration
reflects the County’s independent judgment and analysis, and was prepared in accordance with the State and
County CEQA Guidelines; ADOPTED the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring Program as adequate for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA);
DENIED the appeal of Mr. Palmer Madden & Ms. Susan Paulus, and Mr. Scott Tiernan; UPHELD the
decision of the County Planning Commission, as contained in its Resolution Number 6-2014, approving the
Land Use Permit with variances; DIRECTED the Department of Conservation and Development, Community
Development Division to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk; MODIFIED the following
Conditions of Approval:
Under Condition of Approval #10: “The multi-purpose building may be used during the hours of 7:00
A.M. to 9:30 P.M., Monday through Friday, 8:00 A.M. to 9:30 P.M. on Saturday, and 9:00 A.M. to 7:00
P.M. on Sunday except on Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, Palm Sunday, and Easter Sunday.” Under
Condition of Approval #40: “The applicant shall provide 142 off-street parking spaces in the parking
lot.”
ATTACHMENTS
Powerpoint Presentation
Color Maps
County Planning Commission Resolution
County Planning Commission Findings and Conditions of Approval
Appeal of the County Planning Commission by Palmer Madden and Susan Paulus
Appeal of the County Planning Commission by Scott Tiernan
Appeal of the County Planning Commission by Scott Tiernan
Board of Appeals County Planning Commission Staff Report
Appeal of the Zoning Administrator by Palmer Madden and Susan Paulus
Zoning Administrator Staff Reports
Correspondence in Opposition
Correspondence in Support
Initial Study and Mitigation Monitoring Program
Correspondence Received During CEQA Comment Period
Special Reports
Project Plans
Agency Comments
Notification List
Board of Supervisors
Tuesday, April 1, 2014
1:30 PM
1
Appeal of the County Planning
Commission’s Decision to Approve a
Land Use Permit with Variances in the
Alamo Area
File No. LP12-2110
2
General Plan Map and Zoning Map
3
Aerial Map
4
5
6
7
8
9
Madden/Paulus Appeal
Project is inconsistent with General Plan
Policy 3-120 (formerly 3-117)
An EIR should have been required due to the
significant noise impacts
Height variance is unlawful
Notice was defective
10
Tiernan Appeal
Variances should not be granted for convenience
County failed to consider Deferred Improvement
Agreement along Danville Boulevard
Traffic study should be required
Project results in insufficient off-street parking with
no solution
Signs are in violation of code
New lighting plan should be submitted
New building will reflect and intensify sound
11
General Plan Consistency
Chapter 1, Introduction, Section 1.7: The policies
expressed in the General Plan are intended to be part
of an integrated document encompassing concerns,
which are both compatible and competing, and it is
inappropriate to assess consistency of a singular policy
without reference to this framework.
Chapter 3, Land Use Element, Single-Family
Residential Low-Density (SL): Secondary uses
generally considered to be compatible with low density
homes may be allowed, including….churches and other
similar places of worship….
12
General Plan Consistency
Chapter 3, Land Use Element, Policy 3-120: The lands
shown as residential on the Land Use Map adjacent to
the portion of Danville Boulevard between Del Amigo
Road and Rudgear Road shall be restricted to residential
uses. Nonresidential uses under land use permits are
inconsistent with this Plan and shall be avoided.
Chapter 7, Public Facilities/Services Element, Policy 7-
162: Churches and other religious institutions shall be
considered consistent with residential and commercial
land use designations where safe vehicular access and
effective buffering of neighboring residences can be
achieved. 13
County Planning Commission
Approval
Church is an existing approved land use
Project is consistent with the General Plan
Project is consistent with other religious facilities in
the county and is appropriate for the area
Variance findings were considered appropriate for
the project
Conditions were imposed to limit noise at the
property lines to 50 decibels
14
Recommendation
Uphold the County Planning Commission’s
decision to approve the land use permit
subject to the conditions of approval
Deny the two appeals filed
15