Brentwood City Hall


Our home pageContact UsPrevious Page

Central Park Gazebo

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 15

Meeting Date: January 22, 2002

Subject: Public Hearing for an appeal of Conditional Use Permit No. 01-08 to construct a church, located at the northeast corner of Fairview Avenue and Central Boulevard.

Submitted by: Community Development Department (Oshinsky/Zilm)

Approved by: John Stevenson, City Manager

___________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION

The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council pass Resolution No. ___ upholding the Planning Commission approval by denying the appeal of Conditional Use Permit No. 01-08.

PREVIOUS ACTION

None

BACKGROUND

On November 20, 2001 the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the application by the Immaculate Heart of Mary Catholic Church. The Commission voted 5 – 0 to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 01-8 with conditions. This action was appealed by Glenn Sobolik, within the 14-day appeal period.

The attached appeal e-mail letter, dated December 4, 2001, Glenn Sobolik states the reasons he deemed that the Planning Commission was in error by approving Conditional Use Permit No. 01-08. Following is a list of the appeal points and staff’s response to each point:

1. Appeal Point:

Lack of parking for the ultimate buildout of the church facility. 

Staff’s Response:

This proposed project would be completed over several different phases. The first phase is the 13,630 sq. ft. church building. It is proposed to have seating for 550 attendees. The Zoning Ordinance says that one parking space is need for every 5 seats within the church facility. With 550 seats this facility is required to have 110 parking spaces. The applicant is providing 113 parking spaces. The Planning Commission asked that the applicant add another section to the parking lot, which would increase the overall parking for this first phase to 140 parking spaces exceeding the parking requirement by 30 spaces. When any new facility is added to the overall plan, the Planning Commission and staff will analyze the existing parking utilization and the use and square footage of the proposed building and will make sure that adequate parking is provided. 

2. Appeal Point:

Lack of continuing notification.

Staff’s Response:

This proposed project was originally noticed in the Ledger-Dispatch on August 13, 2001 and sent out to residents within 300 feet of the project on August 15, 2001 for a Planning Commission hearing date of September 4, 2001. At the Commission meeting of September 4th the item and public hearing were continued to the October 16th Commission meeting. At the October 16th meeting the applicant requested that the project be moved to the November 6th Commission meeting to allow them more time to go over the conditions of approval. The item and public hearing were once again continued to November 6th. 

On the morning of November 6th staff received a request by the applicant to continue the project to the November 20th meeting. On the afternoon of November 6th Mr. Sobolik came to the Community Development Department with questions about the church project. At this time he was informed that, at the request of the applicant, this item was going to be moved to the November 20th meeting. He discussed his questions with staff and then left the office. At the November 6th meeting the Commission continued the item and public hearing to the November 20th meeting.

At the November 20th meeting the item was heard and approved with conditions of approval by a 5 – 0 vote. While this item was continued a number of times, it was to a “date certain” on every occasion. This is the accepted protocol. 

If the City Council upholds the Planning Commission’s decision and denies the appeal, the project can be constructed as conditioned by the Planning Commission.

If the City Council overrules the Planning Commission’s decision and approves the appeal, staff will return at the next City Council meeting with a resolution and appropriate findings to deny the church’s plan.

FISCAL IMPACT: None

Attachments:

1. E-mail Letter from Glenn Sobolik.
2. City Council Resolution No. ___ upholding the Planning Commission’s decision.
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 01-63 with conditions of approval. 

“ATTACHMENT 2”

RESOLUTION NO. _____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD TO UPHOLD THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL AND DENY THE APPEAL, BY GLENN SOBOLIK, OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 01-08 TO CONSTRUCT A 13,630 SQ. FT. CHURCH FACILITY, LOCATED EAST OF FAIRVIEW AVENUE AND NORTH OF CENTRAL BOULEVARD. 

WHEREAS, on November 20, 2001, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and approved a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the construction of a 13, 630 sq. ft. church facility, by passing Resolution No. 01-63; and

WHEREAS, on December 4, 2001, Glenn Sobolik appealed the Planning Commission decision to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 01-08; and

WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and were considered as a part of the review and approval process. The Negative Declaration identified potentially significant environmental effects associated with the proposed project which can be feasibly mitigated or avoided and those project measures were included in the project conditions of approval and would reduce the impacts identified to a less than significant level; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has held a public hearing and considered Glenn Sobolik’s appeal, and all oral and written testimony presented at the January 22, 2002 Council meeting; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brentwood does hereby adopt Resolution No. ____ upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 01-08, and denying Glenn Sobolik’s appeal, by making the following findings: 

1. The location, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use as conditioned will not adversely affect abutting properties and the surrounding neighborhood because the proposed church building is located roughly 300 + feet from existing residential units so as to minimize the visual impact on the surrounding residential units and will be constructed with the same type of building materials as the adjacent residential units; and

2. The harmony, bulk, and scale of the proposed project is consistent with and compatible with existing and planned land uses around the subject site because the proposed church building is consistent with previously approved church buildings located in other residential areas within the City; and

3. The subject site, as conditioned, will have adequate public facilities and utilities and service access because these improvements will be completed as part of the project; and 

4. Pursuant to Section 15168 ( c) and 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission found that the project was within the scope of the development levels evaluated in the Program EIR for the City of Brentwood General Plan. The Initial Study has further evaluated potential specific impact to the environment. Based upon this evidence and the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Planning Commission found that the project will not have any significant environmental impacts that were not studied in the measures specified in the Program EIR to the project and imposed additional mitigation measures to supplement and strengthen the Program EIR measures. Therefore, since the mitigation measures are incorporated as conditions to the approval of the project, the Mitigated Negative Declaration as well as the Program EIR for the General Plan are adequate for all approvals relating to the project. 

PASSED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at its regular meeting on the 22nd day of January, 2002, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:

_____________________________ 
Michael A. McPoland, Sr., Mayor

ATTEST:

__________________________
Karen Diaz, City Clerk

Top of Page