Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPP CUP 02-07 Amend 1 at 73900 Alessandro Dr 11-14-2002 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT I. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council II. REQUEST: Consideration of an appeal to a decision of the Planning Commission approving a precise plan of design/conditional use permit including a parking lot for a 2,000 square foot church facility on the north side of Alessandro Drive between San Jose and San Jacinto Avenue, 73-900 Alessandro Drive. III. APPLICANT: Pathfinder Community of the Risen Christ Church (The Church) 73-850 Fairway, Box 12 Palm Desert, CA 92260 IV. APPELLANT: Robert King (The Kings) 44-841 San Jacinto Avenue Palm Desert, CA 92260 V. DATE: November 14, 2002 VI. CASE NO.: PP/CUP 02-07 Amendment #1 VII. CONTENTS: A. Staff Recommendation B. Discussion VIII. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft Resolution No. 02- B. Planning Commission Minutes involving Case No. PP/CUP 02-07 Amendment #1 C. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2159 D. Planning Commission Staff Report dated October 1, 2002 E. Related maps and/or exhibits 1 STAFF REPORT NOVEMBER 14, 2002 PP/CUP 02-07 AMENDMENT #1 A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council deny the appeal and affirm the Planning Commission action approving PP/CUP 02-07Amendment#1 subject to elimination of the four parking spaces adjacent to the King residence. B. DISCUSSION: 1. Background: On June 6, 2002, the church was before the Planning Commission with a request for a 2000 square foot building with eight parking spaces. That request was denied by the Planning Commission. On August 22, 2002,the applicant appealed to City Council who referred the case back to Planning Commission without prejudice to work with the applicant and the neighbors to find a resolution to their concerns. The applicant advises that he attempted on two occasions to set up meetings with the Kings to discuss the revised project but was unsuccessful. Staff also attempted to engage the Kings in discussions concerning acceptable alternative solutions. There appeared to be no acceptable combination of mitigations which would satisfy their concerns while allowing for the activities vital to the church's operation. On October 1, 2002, a revised proposal for the church was presented to Planning Commission which moved the building closer to the north property line, moved the outdoor patio area away from the residence to the north and provided (29)parking spaces on two lots to the west on which the church has acquired a long term (20 year) lease. This revised proposal was approved by Planning Commission on a 5-0 vote. On October 15, 2002, the Kings, the property owners adjacent to the north, filed this timely appeal. 2 STAFF REPORT NOVEMBER 14, 2002 PP/CUP 02-07 AMENDMENT #1 Adjacent Zoning and Land Use: North: R-1 / single family dwelling South: C-1 / rear of commercial building East: R-3 (4) / medical office building West: R-3 (4) / vacant and residential General Plan Land Use Designation: OP / High Density Residential Site Zoning: R-3 (4) C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to construct a 2,000 square foot church, an outdoor patio fellowship area and parking lot. The parking lot will be to the west of the church with access from Alessandro. The applicant presented Planning Commission with three levels of parking to be provided (0, 12 or 29 spaces). Planning Commission determined that the 29-space lot was most appropriate, but limited the use of the four spaces west of the King property to Sunday use only. The applicant indicates that mass will be celebrated Sunday mornings (10:30 a.m. to noon) and evenings (5:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.). Attendees range from 10 to 35 persons. Mass will also be celebrated Monday through Thursday in the evening 7:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. (15 persons currently). Saturday workshops, several times per year, are expected to attract up to 30 persons. In the past year, the church has held four (4) funerals and one wedding. The church building has been relocated to the west end of the lot with an eight-foot north setback. The patio area has been relocated to the south side of the church away from the residences. The areas to the east and west of the building will be enclosed with a wall and become landscaped areas of contemplation. The east 3 STAFF REPORT NOVEMBER 14, 2002 PP/CUP 02-07 AMENDMENT #1 area will always have the ability to be converted to eight parking spaces should the church ever wish to convert to a stand alone office building. This east landscape area(possible future eight parking spaces)is partially located on the west half of the San Jacinto Avenue right-of-way, which is currently not used for street purposes and therefore can be vacated to the adjacent owner. Access to this possible future parking lot will be from Alessandro. The east half of the San Jacinto right-of-way will remain as an 18-foot wide access way with a gate to provide emergency vehicle access. The single family dwellings to the north will retain their access to San Jacinto to the north. D. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Prior to and at the Planning Commission hearing of October 1, 2002, there was considerable neighborhood input. The neighbors raised an extensive list of concerns and staff prepared conditions to mitigate the concerns. Even with the extensive conditions of approval the neighbors continued to oppose the project at the public hearing. Robert King and Irene Schmidt spoke at the Planning Commission hearing. They felt that a church with evening activities would impact them more than an office project. The church use would be active during the week in the evenings and on weekends when they are home while an office use would be active during the week when they are not home. They expressed concern that overflow parking lots were too far away and that the church members would use local residential streets (i.e. San Jose). Mr. King also noted that the cul-de-sac on San Jacinto was necessary to eliminate vehicles using his driveway to turn around. September 25, 2002, Father Ned Feidy submitted a letter (copy enclosed) which indicated that the church will not provide a day care / school facility other than during church services, that all maintenance will take place during regular office hours, Monday to Friday, that the church will not operate a soup kitchen, that the church will obtain a temporary use permit for weddings, baptisms, pot luck dinners, etc..., but that funerals could not be subject to such requirements; "sensitivity to bereaved families would always take precedence." Evening uses would be limited and noiseless—"adult education classes and book studies with few exceptions beyond these." 4 STAFF REPORT NOVEMBER 14, 2002 PP/CUP 02-07 AMENDMENT #1 E. ISSUES IN KING APPEAL: The King's filed a timely appeal on October 15, 2002. The reasons for the appeal are: 1. Hours of operation. 2. 8' from living area. 3. Does not provide for agreed on cul-de-sac. F. RESPONSE: 1. The church will operate in the early evening hours. Condition #24 requires all activities to cease at 9:00 p.m. 2. The building has been relocated to 8' from the north property line. In the earlier proposal, the building was setback 20' and the patio area was on the north side of the building. The King's expressed concern with the possible noise from the patio area, therefore, it has been relocated to the area adjacent to Alessandro. This necessitated moving the building to the minimum side yard setback. 3. The proposed alteration to the south end of San Jacinto precludes the need for the cul-de-sac and will provide for emergency vehicle access, which would not be possible with the cul-de-sac. G. RELIGIOUS LAND USE AND INSTITUTIONALIZED PERSON ACT (RLUIPA): In his memo of September 26, 2002, the City Attorney advises that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person Act (RLUIPA): RLUIPA requires that land use regluations that substantially burden the exercise of religion be justified by a compelling governmental interest and be the least restrictive means of accomplishing that interest. With respect to the Pathfinder Church Project, any denial of the use, or substantial restriction of religious activities, would need to be justified by a compelling governmental interest (such as maintaining the character of the surrounding residential 5 STAFF REPORT NOVEMBER 14, 2002 PP/CUP 02-07 AMENDMENT #1 neighborhood)and by findings that there are no less restrictive means of accomplishing that objective. Any determination that denial is the only option should be fully supported by findings based on evidence in the record. The project as proposed strikes an appropriate balance between land use objectives and provisions of RLUIPA. It is located on Alessandro, a collector street bordering general commercial, offices and multifamily residential uses. The project attempts through its architectural and site plan to blend into the residential character to the greatest extent possible. Specifically, it is designed to a residential scale and meets residential setbacks. Project parking and associated noise and traffic will be dispersed along Alessandro and to the southwest corner of the project to disperse noise and traffic. There has been no compelling evidence brought to our attention that the level of activity of the proposed church use will be out of character in this location. The condition restricting the intensity of use and hours of operation reasonably address governmental interest without excessively burdening the free exercise of religion. Staff supported the 12-space plan when this matter went to Planning Commission. The 12-space lot provides adequate weekday parking. Reliance on Allesandro street parking for Sundays would have dispersed peak parking impact along a commercial street with minimal impact on residential uses. Planning Commission unanimously endorsed the project with 29 off-street parking spaces subject to the spaces west of the King's property being only used on Sunday. Staff suggests that the 29-space plan be modified to eliminate the four spaces directly adjacent to the King's property. These four spaces are difficult to access and have the greatest potential to impact the residence to the east. This area could be incorporated into the landscape area west of the church building. H. CEQA: The proposed church facility is an infill development. As such, it is a Class 32 categorical exemption for CEQA purposes. 6 STAFF REPORT NOVEMBER 14, 2002 PP/CUP 02-07 AMENDMENT #1 A full report of the original plan,which was considered by Planning Commission and the conditions to address the neighbor concerns is provided in the attached Planning Commission staff report dated October 1, 2002. Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved: ST VE SMITH PHILIP DRELL PLANNING MANAGER DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Review a Concur: Review and Concur: OMER C RL L. OR ASSISTANT C MANAGER OF /( OS I Y MANAG DEVELOPMENT SERVICES * Approved staff recommendation along with direction to include a condition that the Applicant provide a cul-de-sac on the street. (3-0 Benson, Spiegel ABSENT) CITY COUNCILTION: APPROVED DENIED RECEIVED A OTHER YETI.P es Jl�Sc-n tt l (ltlf AYES: y� NOES: AI ABSENT: )S(41. 1)t 41 ABSTAIN: VERIFIED BY: l UK t it Y\ Original on File ith City Clerk's Office 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION ' P, SUBJECT TC OCTOBER 1, 2002 " -''' tt REVISION Chairperson Finerty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. THOMAS BROGAN, 42-975 Texas Avenue, stated that presently they were living as snow birds between Washington state and California. They were trying to improve this location so they could move down here full time. He said they need the space. It was built in 1961 and was just too small. The table was inside the living room. All they were doing was extending it to move the kitchen out. He said they turned a letter into Mr. Urbina today from the owner of the property to the north. He thanked the commission. Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the project. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Finerty asked for commission comments. Commissioner Campbell thought that the addition that Mr. Brogan would be doing would be quite an improvement and she didn't think he should be penalized because of his small lot and she recommended approval. Commissioner Lopez stated that he would second that. Commissioner Tschopp concurred. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2158, approving Case No. VAR 02-01 , subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. C. Case No. PP/CUP 02-07 Amendment #1 - PATHFINDER COMMUNITY OF THE RISEN CHRIST CHURCH, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design/conditional use permit including a parking adjustment and parking lot for a 2,000 square foot church facility on the north side of Alessandro Drive between San Jose and San Jacinto Avenue, 73-900 Alessandro Drive. 21 MINUTES rT PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT TC OCTOBER 1, 2002 � 41 am REVISION Mr. Smith explained that a similar request was before the commission on June 4, 2002. At that time the commission denied the request. The matter was appealed to the Council and on August 22 the Council referred the case back to the Planning Commission without prejudice directing staff to work with the applicant and neighbors to find a resolution to the concerns that had been raised. Since the matter was before commission last, the applicant had acquired a long-term lease on the two lots immediately to the west. The acquisition of the right to use this property meant the applicant could provide significantly more parking than was previously shown when they only had control of the one lot. He also indicated that the church building was relocated to the west end of the lot with an eight-foot north setback. In the previous request on the north side of the building they had a significant setback that they wanted to use for an outdoor patio/fellowship area. Now they moved the building to the minimum setback, the eight feet on the north side yard, and the patio area had been relocated to the south side of the church away from the residences. The areas to the east and west of the building would be enclosed with a wall and would become landscaped areas. The east area on the lot would continue to have the ability to be converted to eight parking spaces should this building ever wish to stand on its own for an office use. Mr. Smith explained that the site plan on display showed a total of 29 parking spaces on the westerly two lots. In the Planning Commission packets, commission received other plans which also showed just the development of the southerly 12 spaces, so basically the applicant was proposing three options. Option one was that the City either approve the 12 or 29 space parking plan, but that parking not be created until or unless it was demonstrated that the parking was needed. The applicant noted that they have access to parking located in the dental office located at Portola and Alessandro and in the recently completed Voce parking lot to the west. In these lots there was a total of 125 parking spaces, plus there were 55 spaces available along Alessandro Drive itself. Option two was that the City approve the 12-space parking lot plan and that it be installed as part of the church construction. 22 MINUTES SUBJECT TC PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION L I 1 - REVISION OCTOBER 1, 2002 Option three was that the City approve the 29-space parking lot plan and that it be installed as part of the church construction. When the applicant moved the building closer to the residences so that it could relocate the outside patio area, it necessitated a minor amendment to the building architecture to lower it to 18 feet. Previously it had been at 20 feet in height. Mr. Smith said the architect was aware of this and indicated that the change could be made. Mr. Smith stated that the main issue with the proposed church was the proposed parking and the intensity of the evening use. A church with 1 ,000 square feet of sanctuary area would have a code requirement for 29 parking spaces. They could provide 29 spaces. To do so would require that the parking lot encroach further into the residential area to the north and to the east. Staff supported the creation of the 12-space parking plan at this time. The advantage of the 12-space lot was that it wouldn't create too much unused parking and would keep the parking lot a greater distance from the residences to the north. If the 12 spaces were shown to be inadequate, the eight spaces on the east side of the building could be developed. Mr. Smith indicated that the church agreed in writing to not oppose conditions imposing hours of operations or restrictions which relate to the operation of a soup kitchen or day care. Condition Nos. 18 and 22 would prohibit the operation of weekday day care and a soup kitchen activity. Condition No. 24 required that evening activity cease by 9:00 p.m. and that weekday classes with more than 15 persons not commence before 5:00 p.m. He said that neighbors had also submitted letters of opposition once again. The Kings submitted two letters, both of which were included in the packet. Mrs. King phoned and requested that they look at the second letter as being the most current. Mr. Smith said there was a concern about the block walls around the church. The applicant was proposing a smooth finish stucco which would be consistent with the building architecture. Condition No. 16 addressed that. There was concern with respect to turnaround traffic. Mr. Smith said he brought this to the attention of Public Works who indicated that the south end of San Jacinto has been blocked for 11 years. Several years ago there were complaints relative to vehicles turning around. At that time a second "not a through street" sign was installed at the north end of San Jacinto. Since the 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION ;3 SUBJECT TC OCTOBER 1, 2002 REVISION second sign was installed, Public Works was unaware of further problems. The Kings questioned the walls along San Jose. The applicant intended to close the parking lot area with a four-foot wall. There was a question of notification of special events for which temporary use permits might be required. Mr. Smith said staff was committing to notify them of any TUP's that the City might issue. Condition No. 16 required that the applicant to apply for temporary use permits at least ten days in advance and that would give staff enough time to advise the Kings. The Kings questioned the evening hours of the use. The applicant indicated that on Sunday evenings mass would run from 5:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday evening use would be from 5:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. He said the applicant actually indicated 8:30 p.m., but staff conditioned it to 9:00 p.m. to allow people time to leave. He thought that seemed more enforceable. Mr. Smith said the Kings felt the volume of traffic on Alessandro would be significantly increased. Staff looked at traffic counts in February of 2001 and the traffic volume on Alessandro was approximately 2,000 cars per day. Design capacity for Alessandro was 12,000 cars per day. Peak use of the church would be on Sundays when traffic is even lighter than 2,000 cars per day. Mr. Smith said that the commission also received a petition signed by 27 residents of San Jose and San Jacinto. Issues raised in that petition involved noise, traffic, parking, activities outside of normal office hours, lack of a noise barrier, and the need for the cul-de-sac. He said those were addressed previously. Relative to the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person Act, Mr. Smith said it was a piece of federal legislation which required that land use regulations that substantially burden the exercise of religion be justified by a compelling governmental interest. Any determination that denial is the only option should be fully supported by findings based on evidence in the record. Staff felt the project as proposed would strike an appropriate balance between land use objectives and the provisions of the act. The project attempts through its architectural and site planning to blend into the residential character. Specifically, it was designed to a residential scale and would meet residential setbacks. Project parking and associated noise and traffic would be dispersed along Alessandro and to the southwest corner of the project. The condition restricting the intensity of use and the hours of operation he felt reasonably addressed governmental interest without excessively burdening the free 24 MINUTES ' PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT TC OCTOBER 1, 2002 ;;: JtiFTREVISION exercise of religion. The proposed church facility would be an infill development and as such it was a Class 32 categorical exemption. Staff recommended approval of PP/CUP 02-07 Amendment #1 including the creation of a 12-space parking lot on the corner. Mr. Smith asked for any questions. Commissioner Campbell asked if the dental office was gated in the evening. She knew they had a gate and asked if they closed it. Mr. Smith clarified that she was referring to the property immediately across San Jacinto. The property where they have access is the property on the corner at Portola. It was not gated. They weren't speaking of Dr. Rosenblum, but the other doctor. Commissioner Tschopp asked if there was an ordinance that specifies the acceptable levels of noise for commercial uses versus a residential area. Mr. Drell said yes. He said it was 65 decibels and the ordinance states that on the boundary, the commercial standard applies. He didn't think there had ever been any assertion that the likely noise coming out of this church use would in any way approximate any of those standards. Commissioner Tschopp asked for clarification that the acceptable noise level for a commercial development is 65 decibels. Mr. Drell concurred. He explained that it is 65 before 10:00 p.m. and it goes to 55 after 10:00 p.m. Residential is 55 going down to 45. He stated that our problems with church associated uses had not resulted from the worship part of the activity. The problems have resulted from the athletic activities which some churches engage in outside and there was no proposal for any of those sorts of activities at this church. Regarding Condition No. 23 that stated that the City would notify the Kings, Commissioner Tschopp asked why the City should do that and why not have the church do that and only have the City get involved if there was a problem. Mr. Drell said this was one of our anomalous situations with a lot of our over the counter approvals. Technically every approval staff gives is appealable. If no one knows about it, it is hard for them to appeal it. This way they would be hearing in advance that a certain party is interested in these sorts of decisions that we make, therefore, staff would go to the extent of notifying them of the application so we could get input from them. Whether or not there were problems with a previous event, etc. Since he/staff would be the ones issuing the permit, it might be appropriate for them to notify the Kings of the 25 MI PAILM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 � El- SUBJECT fC REVISION � application. He said they would probably advise the church to notify the Kings even previous to submitting an application. He thought that would be a better idea, but the condition would guarantee it. Commissioner Lopez asked for clarification on Condition No. 24 that says that evening activity of the church shall cease at 9:00 p.m. It said that prior to 5:00 p.m. weekday classes or activities shall not involve more than 15 persons. Mr. Drell said that was that was correct. The issue there was that they didn't want the use of the church to conflict with the commercial uses occurring during the day. Chairperson Finerty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. CHARLES MARTIN, 73-733 Highway 111 in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He said that after the last commission meeting, he listened to the people who were against the project. Mr. King, the neighbor two houses to the north who also owns the property adjacent to the north, had his concerns. He said he could respond to the concerns architecturally and in a planning way on the layout. At that point the church was negotiating or had negotiated for the property to the west and they originally had a different plan to build on the property. So what he did was turn the building around. It was backed up to the north property line. The building in the north property line, the elevations had two high windows at each end. Because of the concerns that were aired that night, he went back and looked at all the things he could do architecturally. When he came back in, there were two high windows with the sill six feet off the ground and very deep set. There was also a clerestory and he stated that clerestory was not capable of being seen out of nor could people see into it. He pointed out a solid wall along the back. He said there wouldn't be anything going on in that back area. They could do some landscaping there, but simply didn't. One of the other concerns was regarding trash and trash handling. He said that in dealing with Waste Management, they were allowing residential sized trash containers. There was concern about gating the opening into the eight parking spaces. Mr. Martin said there was no gate and it was walled off. The 26 MINUTES F44, FrIN PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT TC OCTOBER 1, 2002 ? FT- REVtStON wall was an existing wall and could be added to, but it was an existing retaining wall and if it needed to be raised up so that people couldn't visually see into the Kings lot, that would be fine, but from their side that would mean a higher wall. He said the Kings view up follows the city's envelope for a residence, so when they turned and went the other direction, they then came in under the 18-foot rule. Since they had this final requirement to park 29 cars, they were capable then of coming in with one driveway entrance and parking 29 cars, bicycles, and handicap and having a handicap walk coming in that way out of the parking lot. People could also go the other way out of the parking lot and they could enter into either end of the church. With 12 parking spaces, the wall was required to be four feet. In terms of trying to meet architecturally the neighborhood requirements or the requirements of the City to put something here that would fit, he believed that they had done that. They could see that the eight spaces on the right would always have the capability of putting eight vehicles in if it reverted to an office professional use. In terms of office professional and residential and the Religious Land Use Act, as they were reading through it, they were seeing a reference to the residential nature of the neighborhood. He said there was residential from that north line going north, yes, but there wasn't coming south. To the south was commercial. When they saw that, they looked at this piece of property and said this just as easily could be a residence going here and that residence could be pulled up closer to Alessandro and the residence could have a swimming pool in the back yard and it could have however many people that live in that residence utilizing it, using it all times of the day, late night and any time. It was the same thing for the house on the other side. He thought leaning toward residential was asking for more trouble. When they looked at office professional, which was going in along there, he said this allowed them the capability with a CUP of being able to put in a church. So then they got to a church use and what church it would be. He thought it was very important to understand that this church, the pastor of this church Father Ned, had the Newman Center, brought it into being, and had the Newman Center for 15 years with no complaints. He thought that was a track record. This is someone who has worked for 15 years in that location and they never had a complaint 27 MINUTES SUBJECT TC PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION V '� REVISION OCTOBER 1, 2002 one time. When they see that happening and come across to where they have the same pastor saying he will do this and wants to do it and he would not allow cars to park down on San Jose, then he thought they should take him pretty seriously. They would have a church and 195 feet away were 16 parking spaces at Dr. Le Blanc's. On Alessandro Mr. Smith had said there were 55 spaces and with Carl Voce's property, there were 100+ . This priest has stated that the people of this congregation will park on Alessandro or they would park in Le Blanc's or in Voce's lot. That was it. They would not be parking on San Jose. So if the people on San Jose were concerned about encroachment coming in that direction, he thought maybe they should look at the same situation they have on San Jacinto and that would be to close it off and cul-de-sac it and put in the fire lane, etc. He urged the commission to take his recommendation which was to allow the church to go in, allow it to prove it could be a good neighbor and it now had the capability of producing 37 parking spaces, both on this property and on the long-term lease property. But he asked the commission to not make them build that parking lot until they prove or they were caught or whatever, parking too many automobiles on Alessandro or starting to encroach down San Jose. They wouldn't encroach down San Jacinto because there was no way to go and San Jacinto had a gate and those gates were asked by the Kings to be moved further forward and that was absolutely fine. He said it made no difference to the church where those gates were. That was merely a function of dealing with the Fire Department so they could have access through into San Jacinto. What he would like to see was the utilization of Alessandro for parking, the utilization of Dr. Le Blanc's, and the utilization of Carl Voce's parking lot. That kept the doors from slamming, the headlights from flicking, and that kept the horns from honking when the people park their cars on these parking lots that do encroach into that area or further up to the north and to the west into that property there. He thought there was enough parking. His office was on the other side of Highway 1 1 1 , but on a Sunday if he was around he went to take a look and there was one truck parked on Alessandro last Sunday. One big enclosed truck that was probably a moving van that was simply parked there. So he hoped they could do this project and that they could do it tonight. He thanked the commission. 28 MINUTES .-" PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT IC OCTOBER 1, 2002 Lov rt REVISION Commissioner Tschopp noted that Mr. Martin mentioned that there would be a trash container on Alessandro and asked for clarification that he was talking about a commercial sunken bin or trash cans. Mr. Martin explained that Waste Management for commercial installations wanted to see the regular trash pick up with a truck, but when he explained to them what the use would be here, they said that was fine and that they could just do what they would see as a residential garbage can which would be hooked around inside the front gate. There were no trucks coming onto the property to pick anything up. Mr. Drell asked if there would be a little enclosure there or if they would be wheeled out like a residential trash can. He said that basically for residential service, people wheel out their trash containers at whatever time on whatever day and they pick it up. They wouldn't keep their trash container out on the street all the time. He assumed that would be what they would do here. Father Ned spoke from the audience and said the answer was yes. There were no other questions for the applicant and Chairperson Finerty asked for testimony in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. MR. ROBERT KING addressed the commission. He stated that he and his wife reside at 44-841 San Jacinto and they also own the property at 44-855 San Jacinto, which was directly north and right across the fence from the proposed project and was currently occupied by Katherine King, who was unable to be at the meeting to speak to the commission, but she had submitted correspondence indicating her opposition to this project. He said that he and his wife were also opposed for the following reasons. When the conditional use permit for the office professional/medical building on the east side of San Jacinto at Alessandro was approved, there were several conditions of approval that were mitigated. One of those conditions was that the applicant would provide for the construction of one half of a cul-de-sac on San Jacinto at Alessandro with the intent that when the property on the west side was developed, those owners would be required to provide for their half of the cul-de-sac. That was approved. The applicants were asking the City to disregard that condition of approval because their lot 29 me,.try4111 MINUTES SUBJECT TC PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REVISION OCTOBER 1, 2002 wasn't large enough for them and they might need that space to meet their parking requirements sometime in the future. The medical facility was confronted with the same dilemma in that they didn't have enough parking spaces and the City did not offer to block half of the street for parking or other uses for them. They were required to abide by the conditions of approval and they had done that and they had already constructed a portion of the fence for that cul-de-sac. Mr. King stated that they felt the applicant's proposed wall to the middle of the street which hadn't been presented to the commission yet, was not a good concept and would create an unfinished and boxed in look at the end of the street. The City has installed two "not a through street" signs at the north end of San Jacinto, but that hadn't stopped vehicles from proceeding south and using their neighborhood driveways to turn around in and that included the waste disposal trucks and an average of 16 to 18 vehicles per day. They were requesting that the agreed upon condition of approval be honored and the cul-de-sac be completed to provide an appropriate turn around area and emergency vehicle access. Another significant condition of approval for the medical facility was that the business hours be limited to 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. weekdays and Saturdays and no business or maintenance would take place on Sundays or holidays. That condition was approved so it would not unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of the property in the vicinity by the occupants and to achieve compatibility with the surrounding residential uses. This requirement was not in place in the proposed conditional use permit application. The applicants were asking for hours of operation way beyond this scope. The church facility would not operate within the general office use guidelines that were required of the medical facility across the street and as a result would be out of character with other office professional businesses along the north side of the Alessandro corridor. They felt that was compelling evidence that the activities of the proposed project would not maintain or preserve the character of the surrounding residential neighborhood and was in fact inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the Palma Village Specific Plan. In regards to the parking, there would be an increase in noise and traffic in the 30 i MINUTES . SUBJECT IC REVISION PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 neighborhood, regardless of the options that would be used. And that noise and traffic would be occurring in their neighborhood, not on regular work day hours, but weekday and Sunday evenings, Saturdays, Sundays and holidays and other special events. Those were the times they all enjoy the quietness and solitude and privacy of their homes. Eventually there would be spillover parking along the residential streets to the north. He said they respect the congregation's desire to find a site for their church, but felt this was not the appropriate location. He thanked the commission. MS. IRENE SCHMIDT, 44-794 San Jose, addressed the commission. She stated that she has lived there 46 years. She said most of the discussion related to parking, but parking was not the only issue. When they talked with the applicants outside after the last meeting, people from the church suggested the residents should come and meet them because they are nice people. She was sure they are nice people. But that to her was not the issue. The first time they were here before the commission they brought up the parking at the dentist's office. One of the commissioner's said they could tell people to park there, but asked if they would park there. Some would say no because of the big building behind it, some might be ladies coming with their children and she asked who would want to walk on that street with the conditions today. The gentleman said it only dealt with San Jacinto. With the parking area on the west side, there were three homes directly across the street from the dirt lots. If they pull in there and don't pave them, they have enough sand without more sand being raised from cars coming in and out. She said she gets up at 5:00 a.m. and goes to bed at 9:00 p.m. If they had ever gone to sleep at night and then heard cars going down and car doors closing (there was only one house between her house and that), she didn't like to be woken up once she falls asleep because she couldn't go back to sleep. She said her house wasn't even 2,000 square feet and couldn't even see her house on that piece of property. Mr. Martin said he only found one truck there on Sunday, but they weren't talking about just Sunday. From what she had heard at the last two meetings, they intend to have services or some kind of gatherings every night and during the day. Then one time it was brought up that maybe they might have a soup kitchen or they might have babysitting. Then it was brought out if it was approved and they said they were not going to have it and then they went ahead and did have 31 MINUTES SUBJECT TC PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION - REWSSUBJECT CON OCTOBER 1, 2002 it, she asked what they were going to do and how they were going to stop it once they are there. If they have to meet every night, that was fine. She didn't disagree if they needed each other for that, but for meeting every night, not just on Sundays, she thought it was not going to be good for their area even though she's on San Jose just two lots down or three lots down. When it is quiet there at night, they hear everything. The Newman Center is a nice place and she didn't know why they didn't stay there. She wasn't in favor of the project because of the reasons she stated and she has enjoyed 46 years in a quiet neighborhood. FATHER NED REIDY, 73-850 Fairway in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He said with all due respect to what they have heard from those who might not be as enthusiastic about this project as he is, some of the concerns Mrs. Schmidt just raised had already been submitted by them in the amendment. There would never ever be a soup kitchen. There would never ever be a day school or preschool. They would probably have some kind of babysitting during the service for one hour, but there would never be a soup kitchen or a preschool. He said the other thing he wanted to mention was that in some of the literature that had come to the commission, the word intensity was used several times. That there would be noise intensity, traffic intensity, there would be intensity of use and there would be an intensity of people. They all knew from their philosophy that there is a thinking that says that because this is going to be a church, it's going to have these characteristics. But he told them there was no evidence for that at all. They are a small congregation. They would be out of there at 8:30 p.m. every night. They would not be there every night, probably maybe two evenings a week they would have book studies; they have a worship service that would go from 5:30 p.m. to 6:15 p.m.; maybe two evenings a night they would be there until 8:30 p.m., so that was not his track record in the past. He said he has been at Newman Center for 15 years and they have been good neighbors in the past and they would be even better neighbors in the future. There was no evidence for the alarm that some folks were lifting up. He thanked the commission. 32 MINUTES SUBJECT TC PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSIONUri amREVISION OCTOBER 1, 2002 else wishingto speak regarding Chairperson Finerty asked if there was anyone p g g this project. Mr. Martin readdressed the commission to offer rebuttal comments on a couple of items. The reason they went out into San Jacinto was because they couldn't put the church and the eight parking places on the lot, but he said they have about five or six different plans and they were able to do it if there with a cul-de-sac there. The purchaser of the church did not know there was a cul-de-sac planned for this when it was all started. And subsequent to it in terms of just dealing with the City, dealing with Public Works, coming before Planning Commission and the City Council, and then the Fire Marshal finally got involved in it and liked the idea. So in terms of the one-way street, he said he went down and drove down into San Jacinto a few times and thought he did what everyone does. If someone misses the first sign and wasn't paying attention and they get to the second sign, the first thing they do is turn left. So that first drivewaytakes a bigbeatingright there. It's an 9 apartment house. That was the first thing that happens and he didn't know how many people get to the far end. In terms of just pointing out where Mrs. Schmidt is in terms of this site, Mrs. Nelson who owns the two pieces of property actually owns three, so they see the first lot, the second lot and the third. Then there is a house, another house and then another lot and then he believed Mrs. Schmidt was on the next lot. He then clarified that she was the second house. He said that Mrs. Schmidt was five lots away from Alessandro. On the other side of the street is a duplex that is sitting back off Alessandro and pushed a little more toward the west. Then there was a house and the property lines don't line up. Their dimensions were different. There was a house across up a little bit off the second parking lot and the third lot was a tennis court. That was how it really laid out in there scale wise. Mrs. Schmidt readdressed the commission and explained that the lots Mr. Martin was talking about before hers, two or three, are dirt. Across the street is the duplex and then there was a house which was there before her house. Then the tennis court that the council approved, but there was a mobile home there that is on the same property with the tennis court. Then the Porrises and the Keerans, etc. She said she was worried about her street when they had ten kids there when hers were little. Now they have another little generation coming up and when she 33 nreffille MINUTES SUBJECT T(. PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION ``>� REVISION OCTOBER 1, 2002 went around with the petition, people were complaining about the traffic that they have now because of San Jacinto being closed. She doesn't have babies any more and suggested to them that they go see if they could do something. She didn't want to see her street closed off, but there were people with at least 15 little ones on that street. Her main concern was the dirt and she didn't see how anyone that was going to lease a piece of property was going to pay and have it paved. Mrs. Schmidt stated that she belongs to a religious group and when they built their building, they had to scale down the building to have enough parking on that piece of property to accommodate those that were going to attend and street parking was not an option to them. Everything had to be on that piece of property. If that was for one person, she didn't see why it shouldn't be the same everywhere. If they were going to have a building, it should have the parking on that piece of property. Chairperson Finerty noted that no one else wished to speak and closed the public hearing. Chairperson Finerty asked for commission comments. Commissioner Campbell noted that this item was before the commission before at which time they turned it down. Now it was back in front of them. The applicant made some changes on the building and leased the property to the west, but she agreed that if a church was to be built there, they should have ample parking, the 29 spaces needed for their parishioners. She agreed with Mrs. Schmidt that when the City approves any building sites, they have to have adequate parking that belongs just to them and not just park any where on the street. As far as the church activities, they said they would keep to those hours and days of worship. As brought up by Commissioner Lopez, there was a condition that if there were more than 15 people, it would have to be after 5:00 p.m., but asked how they would know how many people would actually be there in any of the classes of worship, etc. She knew they had the Religious Act that they had to abide by, but she would only be in favor of this project if the 29 parking spaces were built with the building. Commissioner Tschopp agreed. They have seen problems in the city with other houses of worship where they have approved them or they already existed and there wasn't sufficient parking. One of the big concerns in the neighborhood, and one that the city has had, is having adequate parking for churches. He 34 MINUTES I4 SUBJECT it PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION - REVtSION OCTOBER 1 2002 r believed that the required 29 spaces was required for a valid reason and thought the church should have to have adequate parking on their property. Regarding noise, if the church is held to commercial standards and would agree to live by the commercial code, they would not create any noise that would exceed what could be built there in the future from a commercial office building. Comments were made about the increased traffic. Alessandro has the capacity to carry 12,000 cars per day. It was carrying approximately 2,000, so there was adequate access to the site to handle the traffic. Relative to the cul-de-sac, the applicant was not requesting any change in the current cul-de- sac. It has been there for 11 years and there had not been a cul-de-sac developed there because the City has not wanted to, so it wasn't the applicant's problem. With the changes the architect and church have made in good faith, he was in favor of approving the project. Commissioner Jonathan asked which option he was in favor of. Commissioner Tschopp said he would want the 29 parking spaces. Commissioner Lopez noted that when this item came to the commission previously, he was opposed for two reasons. Those reasons involved parking as well as the location of the outdoor area as it pertained to exposure to the residents in that particular area. In his mind those two items had been I mitigated in that the church has done everything they could to be go od neighbors and switched the building itself in an alternative direction so that any outdoor activity would be on the Alessandro side. In addition, they came before the commission with several options of which the option he would like to have seen included was the 29 parking places in a paved parking area so that those areas are available for the church attendees and they do not need to park on Alessandro or spill over into the residential area. He felt the proper landscaping and walling around those particular areas would be a nice addition to what is currently vacant dirt lots. He said he would approve the conditional use permit before the commission with the inclusion of the parking at 29 spaces. Commissioner Jonathan concurred. He thought the parking for the proposed use was a concern with up to 35 people, and hopefully more, attending services. He thought that 29 spaces should take care of the need. He was trying to see if there was some way that 12 spaces would adequate because then they could keep some of the traffic even further away from residential, but he really felt they needed the full lot, so he was in concurrence with that 35 MINUTES '; FT SUBJECT TC PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION '! - REVISION OCTOBER 1, 2002 issue. He was also concerned about the trash. When he has both kids home, he could barely manage with their trash cans and he felt the church was going to need the full commercial bin and the parking lot would accommodate that somewhere. So that should work out nicely because he was concerned about that issue. He stated that he had a problem with Condition No. 23. It placed a restriction on the applicant, a requirement that special events would go through a temporary use permit. The problem he had with that was those special events to him were part and parcel of a church's activity. He thought those were normal activities. They were talking about weddings, baptisms, etc. He didn't think that condition was necessary. This is a conditional use permit. If operating as a church was what they were going to allow, they should just allow it. If it turns out that the use creates problems, then the complainant should come to the commission and they would deal with it accordingly. He was in favor of striking Condition No. 23. It was unnecessary. Mr. Drell informed commission that any condition they didn't identify at this time they couldn't impose in the future. He said he was sure about that. Commissioner Jonathan respectfully disagreed. He wasn't saying he could prevent them from having weddings. That wasn't what he was talking about. He was saying that if they have activity that is too loud and asked if Mr. Drell was saying that if they took out Condition 23, they couldn't tell them to quiet down. Mr. Drell said they could, but only if they exceed the commercial noise ordinance and they probably wouldn't. Commissioner Jonathan said that was what he was saying. As long as they weren't creating a problem, no matter what the use is, and the uses staff was describing weren't rock concerts, his point was that they are part of what a church does. If what the church does results in excessive noise, as he understood it the commission had the ability to ultimately withdraw the conditional use permit. Mr. Drell said no, we would just enforce the noise ordinance and they would send the Sheriff over. For example, just because someone was living in a house and someone disobeyed the noise ordinance, we don't throw people out of their houses. Chairperson Finerty noted that the commission was always concerned about adequate parking at every location for every project and if the parking code said 29 spaces, then she thought they should be consistent and require 29 spaces in a paved parking area. She concurred with her fellow commissioners that the church has taken their previous concerns and moved forward and 36 MINUTES . v1 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT FC OCTOBER 1, 2002 REVISION dealt with them and she appreciated their hard work in that respect. She asked for a motion. Mr. Drell said that if the commission was going to endorse the full parking lot, he felt they needed a six-foot wall along the north side, not the four-foot wall shown. A management suggestion he thought might help with the residents to the east was that the far eastern part of the parking lot, which would probably only be necessary on Sunday when everyone was there, that that portion of the parking lot not be used in the evenings during the week since the 24 or 25 should be adequate. That would at least keep those cars away from that back wall of that residence in the evening. He thought that would at least provide some setback for those folks in the residences for most of the night parking. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he would move for approval with those recommendations, the six-foot wall, and he would expand the comment about parking and just encourage or require the applicant to utilize a parking management plan that would minimize the impact on the surrounding neighborhood. In other words, cone off the sensitive areas or tape them off when not necessary. Also as part of his motion, he suggested the removal of Condition No. 23. Chairperson Finerty asked if there was a second. Commissioner Lopez seconded the motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2159, approving Case No. PP/CUP 02-07 Amendment #1 , including the creation of a 29-space parking lot and subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 5-0. D. Case No. TT 30738 - GHA PALOMA GROUP, LLC, Applicant Request for approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and tentative tract map to subdivide 29.01 acres into 94 single-family lots (9,000 square foot minimum lot size) located at the southeast corner of Portola Avenue and Hovley Lane East. 37 ,SI#p-26-2D'L2 11:26am From- T-695 P.004/005 F-240 belief, (2)when a person is required to choose between following the precepts of her religion and forfeiting benefits, on the one hand, and abandoning the precepts of the religion on the other hand, and (3) where governmental action prevents him or her from engaging in a conduct or having a religious experience that is central to the religious doctrine (Cottonwood at pp 51-52.) The burden must be more than an inconvenience, but the court's scrutiny extends only to whether a claimant sincerely holds a particular belief and whether the belief is religious in nature. (Cottonwood at p. 52 ) In Cottonwood the Court had no problem finding that "preventing a church from building a worship site fundamentally inhibits its ability to practice its religion_ Churches arc central to the religious exercise of most religious.". (Cottonwood at p. 53.) 3. Cgmpelling Governmental Interect RLUIPA does not define "compelling governmental interest" The courts have found that the maintenance of the integrity of the zoning scheme, in particular protection of residential neighborhoods, are a "strong interest". (See Christian Gospel Cjjurch v. City and County of San Francisco, 896 F.2d 1221 ) The Cottonwood court found that, under the circumstances, Cypress' interest in eliminating blight and enhancing city revenues did not constitute a compelling governmental interest (Cottonwood at pp. 57-58 ) 4 Least Restrictive Means RLUIPA does not define "least restrictive means". In existing case law, the least restrictive means test is very fact-based, the more reasonable the restrictions, the more likely they will to be sustained. R. PATHFINDER COMMUNITY OF THE RISEN CHRIST CHURCH. The City's denial of a CUP for the Pathfinder Church would likely be found to be a substantial burden on the church's religious activities In its previous action, the planning commission determined that the lack of onsite parking and the overall intensity of the evening and weekend activities were incompatible with the adjacent residential use. As noted above, the preservation of the residential character of the neighborhood would likely be found to be a compelling governmental interest. RAVUBW4f205374 - 3 - Received Sap-26-2002 11:36am From- To-PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Page 004 ep-26-20t2 11:37am From- T-695 P.006/005 F-240 Consequently, the central RLUIPA issue with respect to the Pathfinder application is whether there are conditions short of denial that can be imposed on the project that substantially preserve the residential character of the surrounding neighborhood, without substantially compromising Pathfinder's use of the property for its religious activities. Any determination that denial is the only option should be fully supported by findings based on evidence in the record RWH dm RAVIJk3\3tWI-1\205374 - 4 - Received Sep-26-2002 11:36am From- To-PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Page 005 r y CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: October 1 , 2002 CASE NO: PP/CUP 02-07 Amendment #1 REQUEST: Approval of a precise plan of design/conditional use permit including a parking adjustment and parking lot for a 2,000 square foot church facility on the north side of Alessandro Drive between San Jose and San Jacinto Avenue, 73-900 Alessandro Drive. APPLICANT: Pathfinder Community of the Risen Christ Church 73-850 Fairway, Box 12 Palm Desert, CA 92260 BACKGROUND: A similar request was before commission at its June 4, 2002 meeting when it was denied (see minutes attached). The applicant appealed to City Council and on August 22, 2002 the City Council referred the case back to Planning Commission without prejudice with staff to work with the applicant and the neighbors to find a resolution to the concerns raised. Since the matter was before commission last, the applicant has acquired a long term lease on the two lots adjacent to the west which allows for creation of additional parking. A. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: North: R-1 / single family dwelling South: C-1 / rear of commercial building East: R-3 (4) / medical office building West: R-3 (4) / vacant and residential B. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: OP / High Density Residential. C. SITE ZONING: R-3 (4) STAFF REPORT PP/CUP 02-07 AMENDMENT #1 OCTOBER 1, 2002 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to construct a 2,000 square foot church, an outdoor patio fellowship area and parking lot. The parking lot will be to the west of the church with access from Alessandro. This parking will provide from 12 to 29 spaces depending on the level of improvements which the City requires the applicant to provide. The applicant indicates that mass will be celebrated Sunday mornings (10:30 a.m. to noon) and evenings (5:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.). Attendees range from 10 to 35 persons. Mass will also be celebrated Monday through Thursday evening 5:30 to 6:30 p.m. (2-6 persons). Classes will be held Monday through Thursday in the evening 7:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. (15 persons currently). Saturday workshops, several times per year, are expected to attract up to 30 persons. In the past year the church has held four (4) funerals and one wedding. The church building has been relocated to the west end of the lot with an eight-foot north setback. The patio area has been relocated to the south side of the church away from the residences. The areas to the east and west of the building will be enclosed with a wall and become landscaped areas of contemplation. The east area will always have the ability to be converted to eight parking spaces should the church ever wish to convert to a stand alone office building. This east landscape area (possible future eight parking spaces) is partially located on the west half of the San Jacinto Avenue right-of-way which is currently not used for street purposes and therefore can be vacated to the adjacent owner. Access to this possible future parking lot will be from Alessandro. The east half of the San Jacinto right-of-way will remain as an 18-foot wide access way with a gate to provide emergency vehicle access. The single family dwellings to the north will retain their access to San Jacinto to the north. With respect to the new west parking lot, the applicant has provided two plans. One shows 29 parking spaces which occupy the two lots while the other shows 12 spaces generally located on the southerly lot adjacent to Alessandro. Both plans take access from Alessandro. The applicant then is proposing three options: 2 STAFF REPORT PP/CUP 02-07 AMENDMENT #1 OCTOBER 1, 2002 OPTION 1 : That the City approve either the 12-space or 29-space parking plan, but that the parking not be created until or unless it is demonstrated that the parking is needed. The applicant notes that they have access to parking located in the dental office at Portola and Alessandro and in the recently completed Voce parking lot to the west. More than 125 spaces are available in these lots plus 55 spaces on Alessandro. OPTION 2: That the City approve the 12-space parking lot plan and that it be installed as part of the church construction. OPTION 3: That the City approve the 29-space parking lot plan and that it be installed as part of the church construction. NOTE: A. Regardless which option is selected, the eight spaces at the east end of the church building could always be installed if the lease expired or the church was converted to an office building. B. Any parking lot construction will comply with current City provisions relating to screening and landscape shade provisions. CODE PROVISIONS IN CHART FORM Code Provided Setbacks: Front 15 feet 40 feet Rear 10 feet 10 feet Sides 20 feet combined 8 feet & 23 feet 8 feet minimum ** Street: 1 :1 ratio 20 feet 23 feet minimum 2:1 ratio (corner) 40 feet 63 feet Height 18 feet 20 feet*** 3 STAFF REPORT PP/CUP 02-07 AMENDMENT #1 OCTOBER 1, 2002 Code Provided Parking: Church Use 29 spaces 12-29 spaces* (1 ,000 sq.ft. sanctuary) Office Use 8 spaces 12 spaces 8 available on site * Church parking is one space for every three seats or one space for every 35 square feet in the main auditorium. If the City determines 12 spaces are adequate, an adjustment can be approved based on available street parking. See aerial photo delineating 55 available street parking spaces. ** Street setback is based on building height, 1 :1 along street and 2:1 for corner of lot. *** With the reduced setback to the north, the building height is limited to a maximum of 18 feet. The architect indicates this change can be made. ARCHITECTURE: The building architecture received preliminary Architectural Review Commission approval at its April 27, 2002 meeting. The building was described by one ARC member as a "wonderfully gentle piece of desert architecture." The building is 20 feet in height at its peak with a corrugated metal roof with smooth metal going back to a clerestorywithglass goingall the wayaround the building. The windows on the 9 north side are small and high. On the south side a series of sliding glass doors open onto the patio area. III. ANALYSIS: The applicant proposes to construct and operate a small church facility on a small residential lot on the north side of Alessandro. The lot is approximately 7,000 square feet in area. The applicant has secured a 20-year least for the two lots adjacent to the west. The R-3 zoning allows churches, parking lots and offices subject to issuance of a conditional use permit. The main issue with the proposed church is parkingand the intensityof evening P activity. A church of this size (2,000 square feet with a 1 ,000 square foot sanctuary) would have a code parking requirement of 29 spaces. Given the small property size, 4 STAFF REPORT PP/CUP 02-07 AMENDMENT #1 OCTOBER 1, 2002 the 29 spaces cannot be achieved on-site, hence the need for leased property to the west. In the previous application staff agreed that the project could exist with only eight parking spaces because during weekdays between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. the church administrative operation would have two to three employees. On Sunday there is adequate street parking available on Alessandro Drive. There are 55 street spaces within 300 feet of the property in either direction (see attached street plan). If the church were to outgrow this facility, then it could be converted to a general office and meet code provisions (i.e., four spaces per 1 ,000 square feet). The acquisition of the long-term lease for use of the two lots to the west gives the applicant more flexibility in the site layout. Hence the applicant has provided options relating to the amount of parking to be provided. The applicant prefers to not create any parking at this time. Staff supports the 12-space plan at this time. The advantage of the 12-space lot is that it doesn't create too much unused parking and keeps the parking lot a greater distance from the residences to the north. If the 12 spaces are shown to be inadequate, the eight spaces east of the building could be developed. When the medical office building to the east was proposed a few years back the proponent was conditioned to design and fund the improvement of the east half of the future cul-de-sac on San Jacinto. The design was prepared and the proponent has deposited money for the future improvements. This current proposal would mean that the cul-de-sac improvements would not need to be implemented. The church will be conditioned to complete the street improvements (i.e., the new west side curb and gutter and the new gate system to the satisfaction of the Fire Department). The section of the street connecting Alessandro to San Jacinto to the north will be 17 feet in width curb to curb. The Fire Department indicates that this is an acceptable access for emergency purposes. The east side of the parking area is shown with a six-foot high block wall. When these improvements are in place, we will be able to return Dr. Rosenblum's deposit. The church has agreed in writing to not oppose conditions imposing hours of operation restrictions or which relate to operation of a soup kitchen and day care. Condition Nos. 18 and 22 prohibit operation of weekday day care and a soup kitchen. 5 STAFF REPORT PP/CUP 02-07 AMENDMENT #1 OCTOBER 1, 2002 Condition No. 24 requires that evening activities cease by 9:00 p.m. and that on weekdays classes with more than 15 persons not commence before 5:00 p.m. h� y IV. CONCERNS: ! PCa ` 1 � L , h ik% b Ci The neighbors to the north, the Kings, met with staff and indicated they still oppose the project based on the same concerns as the previous request: A. The church is an inappropriate use in this close proximity to the residential community considering the extent of weekend and evening use of the site. They would prefer a general office use on the site. If the project were approved, then the Kings made the following request specific to the project: 1 . That the block walls be split face block. Response: The applicant proposes a smooth stucco finish on the walls consistent with the building. Condition No. 16 addresses this. 2. The Kings expressed concern with vehicles attempting to proceed south on San Jacinto to Alessandro turning around in their driveway and suggested that the cul-de-sac required as part of the Rosenblum project be implemented. Response: The south end of San Jacinto has been blocked for 11 years. Public Works Department advises that severalyears ago there were complaints P 9 P relative to vehicles turning around in driveways. At that time a second "Not A Thru Street" sign was installed at the north end of San Jacinto. Since the second sign was installed Public Works is unaware of further problems. 3. The Kings questioned the walls along San Jose. Response: The applicant proposes to wall the immediate church area and then wall in the parking lot depending upon the size of parking lot created. If the 6 STAFF REPORT PP/CUP 02-07 AMENDMENT #1 OCTOBER 1, 2002 12-space lot were required it would be enclosed and improved. The unused lot to the north would be left in its current condition. 4. The Kings requested notification of special events for which temporary use permits are required. Response: Staff will commit to notify the Kings of such events. Condition No. 16 requires that the applicant apply for TUP's at least ten days in advance of the event. 5. The Kings questioned the evening hours of the use. Response: The applicant indicates that on Sunday evenings mass will run from 5:30 p.m. until 7:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday evening use will be from 5:30 p.m. until 9:00 p.m. Condition No. 24 addresses this matter. 6. The volume of traffic on Alessandro would be increased significantly. Response: In February 2001 the traffic volume on Alessandro was approximately 2,000 cars per day. The capacity on Alessandro is 12,000 cars per day. In addition, peak use by the church is on Sundays when traffic on Alessandro is lightest. B. September 26, 2002 the Kings submitted a letter (copy enclosed) outlining their concerns. Also on September 26, 2002 we received a letter from Katherine King (copy enclosed) and a letter of opposition signed by 27 residents of San Jose and San Jacinto Avenue. The issues raised were: 1 . Noise 2. Traffic and parking 3. Activities outside of normal office hours 4. Lack of noise barrier 7 STAFF REPORT • PP/CUP 02-07 AMENDMENT #1 OCTOBER 1, 2002 5. Need for the cul-de-sac V. CONCLUSION: The City Attorney advises that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person Act (RLUIPA): "RLUIPA requires that land use regulations that substantially burden the exercise of religion be justified by a compelling governmental interest and be the least restrictive means of accomplishing that interest. With respect to the Pathfinder Church Project, any denial of the use, or substantial restriction of religious activities, would need to be justified by a compelling governmental interest (such as maintaining the character of the surrounding residential neighborhood) and by findings that there are no less restrictive means of accomplishing that objective." "Any determination that denial is the only option should be fully supported by findings based on evidence in the record." Staff feels that the project as proposed strikes an appropriate balance between land use objectives and provisions of RLUIPA. The project attempts through its architectural and site plan to blend into the residential character to the greatest extent possible. Specifically it is designed to a residential scale and meets residential setbacks. Project parking and associated noise and traffic will be dispersed along Alessandro and to the southwest corner of the project to disperse noise and traffic. There has been no compelling evidence brought to our attention that the level of activity of the proposed church use will be out of character in this location. Alessandro is a collector street bordering general commercial, offices and multifamily residential uses. The condition restricting the intensity of use and hours of operation reasonably address governmental interest without excessively burdening the free exercise of religion. VI. CEQA: The proposed church facility is an infill development. As such, it is a Class 32 categorical exemption for CEQA purposes. 8 STAFF REPORT PP/CUP 02-07 AMENDMENT #1 OCTOBER 1, 2002 VII. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve Case No. PP/CUP 02-07 Amendment #1 including the creation of a 12-space parking lot, subject to conditions. VIII. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft resolution B. Legal notice C. Comments from city departments and other agencies D. Plans and exhibits Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved by: - ,( • Steve Smith Phil Drell Planning Manager Director of Community Development /tm 9 • PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2159 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A 2,000 SQUARE FOOT CHURCH FACILITY ON THE NORTH SIDE OF ALESSANDRO DRIVE BETWEEN SAN JOSE AND SAN JACINTO AVENUE, 73-900 ALESSANDRO. CASE NO. PP/CUP 02-07 AMENDMENT #1 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 1st day of October, 2002, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of Pathfinder Community of the Risen Christ Church for the above noted precise plan/conditional use permit; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No_ 02-60," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project is a Class 32 categorical exemption for purposes of CEQA and no further documentation is necessary; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify granting approval of said precise plan/conditional use permit: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: 1 . The proposed church use is a permitted conditional use in the R-3 zone district. 2. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it will be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, except for a parking adjustment which will be approved as part of this request. 4. There is street parking available to augment on-site parking during peak use of the church. e PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2159 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF A PRECISE PLAN: 1 . The design of the precise plan will not substantially depreciate property values, nor be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 2. The precise plan will not unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes. 3. The precise plan will not endanger the public peace, health, safety or general welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case. 2. That approval of Precise Plan/Conditional Use Permit 02-07 Amendment #1 providing 29 parking spaces, subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 1st day of October, 2002, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: CAMPBELL, JONATHAN, LOPEZ, TSCHOPP, FINERTY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ' CIN Y FINERT , Chairperson ATTEST: PHILIP DRELL, ecretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2159 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. PP/CUP 02-07 AMENDMENT #1 Department of Community Development: 1 . The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the department of community development/planning, as modified by the following conditions. 2. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Architectural Commission City Fire Marshal Public Works Department Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the department of building and safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 5. Applicant shall participate in a commercial recycling program as determined by the City and applicable Waste Disposal Company. Access to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking area. Said placement shall be approved by applicable trash company and Department of Community Development. 3 J PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2159 6. All future occupants of the buildings shall comply with parking requirements in Section 25.58 of the Zoning Ordinance except as otherwise altered by this resolution. 7. A detailed parking lot and building lighting plan shall be submitted to staff for approval, subject to applicable lighting standards, plan to be prepared by a qualified lighting engineer. 8. Final landscape plans shall comply with the Parking Lot Tree Planting Master Plan and must be approved by the City's Architectural Review Commission. 9. Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to these conditions. Applicant will enter into an agreement to maintain said landscaping for the life of the project, which agreement shall be notarized and which agreement shall be recorded. It is the specific intent of the parties that this condition and agreement run with the land and bind successors and assigns. The final landscape plan shall include a long-term maintenance program specifying among other matters appropriate watering times, fertilization and pruning for various times of the year for the specific materials to be planted, as well as periodic replacement of materials. All to be consistent with the Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ordinance No. 801 ) and the approved landscape plan. 10. The project shall be subject to all applicable fees at time of issuance of permits including, but not limited to, Art in Public Places, Fringe-Toed Lizard, TUMF, school mitigation and housing mitigation fees. 11. All roof-mounted and ground-mounted equipment must be screened from adjacent properties and from the public right-of-way. 12. The building shall be limited to a maximum of 2,000 square feet. 13. As part of the City agreeing to vacate the west half of San Jacinto Avenue right-of-way adjacent to the applicant, the applicant agrees to design and implement the improvements to the east half of the right-of-way to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal, Director of Public Works and Director of Community Development, including provision of gates. 14. That the parking adjustment approval to use this property for a church applies only to churches or other such religious facilities whose primary day of operation is Saturday or Sunday. Any use of this property by a subsequent user 4 fr PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2159 shall require an amendment to this conditional use permit unless it is determined that said new user will have Saturday or Sunday as its primary day of use. 15. That subsequent use of the project for a general office use may be approved by the Director of Community Development upon reviewing a floor plan to determine intensity of office use and the provisions of a minimum of eight parking spaces on the lot. 16. That the wall along the north property line shall be a minimum of six feet in height measured from the pad height and shall be installed at the beginning of the project construction. All site walls shall be finished with smooth stucco to match the building finish. 17. That the trash enclosure be located to a location adjacent to Alessandro. 18. That the church facility shall not provide a day care / school facility other than during church services on Saturday or Sunday. 19. That the gate system on the access way on San Jacinto be relocated to an area closer to Alessandro, subject to the location being acceptable to Public Works and the Fire Department. 20. That the applicant shall provide a minimum of 29 parking spaces generally located at the northeast corner of San Jose and Alessandro. 21 . That all church maintenance indoors and outdoors shall be conducted during regular office hours Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. 22. That the church facility shall not operate a soup kitchen without amendment to the conditional use permit. 23. That the wall on the north side of the parking lot shall be six feet in height and the wall along the east side of San Jose shall be four feet in height. 24. That evening activities at the church shall cease at 9:00 p.m. Prior to 5:00 p.m. weekdays classes or other activities shall not involve more than 15 persons. 25. That the building height shall not exceed 18 feet. 5 11 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2159 26. Applicant agrees to restrict parking in the six spaces along the east side of the northerly lot to Sunday services only. Department of Public Works: 1 . Appropriate fees shall be paid prior to issuance of permits, including the following: • Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be paid prior to issuance of a grading permit. • Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution No. 79-17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to issuance of a grading permit. • Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of any building permits associated with this project. 2. Full public improvements, as required by Section 26.44 and 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards. Subject improvements shall include, but not be limited to: • Installation of a 24 foot wide drive approach on Alessandro Drive. • Installation of a minimum six foot wide sidewalk on the project frontages. • Installation of water efficient landscaping on project frontages, including on abandoned portion of roadway in front of 44855 San Jacinto Avenue (APN 627 182 012). • Modification San Jacinto Avenue to a width of 18'. The developer shall prepare and execute appropriate documents for abandonment of the westerly one-half of San Jacinto Avenue. Design of San Jacinto Avenue shall be subject to the review and approval of the Fire Marshall and the Director of Public Works. The abandonment proceedings shall be completed prior to issuance of any permits associated with this project. • Offsite improvement plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works and a surety posted to guarantee the installation of all required offsite improvements prior to issuance of a grading permit. "As-built" plans shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Director of Public Works prior to the acceptance of the improvements by the City. 6 • 110 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2159 • Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans by the Director of Public Works and the issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works. 3. All private driveways and parking lots shall be inspected by the engineering department and a standard inspection fee paid prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 4. In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 27, complete grading plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project. Landscaping plans shall be submitted for review concurrently with grading plans. Landscaping shall water efficient, conforming to Chapter 24.04 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 5. Proposed building pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with Title 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 6. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 7. Landscaping maintenance on all property frontages shall be the responsibility of the property owner. The developer shall make arrangements for maintenance P P Y P 9 of landscaping on abandoned portion of roadway in front of 44855 San Jacinto Avenue (APN 627-182-012). 8. The project shall comply with the provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive Dust (PM10) Control. Riverside County Fire Department: 1 . With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced project, the fire department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal Code, NFPA, UFC, and UBC, or any recognized Fire Protection Standards: The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all buildings per UFC article 87. 7 I PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2159 2. A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a one hour duration at 20 psi residual pressure must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 3. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of providing a gpm flow of: 3000 gpm for commercial buildings. 4. The required fire flow shall be available from a set barrel Super Hydrant(s) 4" x 2-1/2" x 2-1/2" located not less than 25 feet nor more than: 150 feet from any portion of a commercial building measured via vehicular travelway. 5. All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 1 50 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first storey. The roadway shall not be less than 24 feet of unobstructed width, and 13 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance. Where parallel parking is required on both sides of the street, the roadway must be 36 feet wide and 32 feet wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150 feet shall be provided with a minimum of 45 feet radius turn-around, 55 feet in industrial developments. 6. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers or other means, provisions shall be made to install a "Knox Box" key over-ride system to allow for emergency vehicle access. Minimum gate width shall be 16 feet with a minimum vertical clearance of 13 feet, 6 inches. 7. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or when building permits are not obtained within 12 months. OTHER: Will require a Knox Lock or Electric Knox Override. 8 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 22, 2002 XVII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL TO A DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, DENYING A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING ADJUSTMENT FOR A 2,000 SQUARE FOOT CHURCH FACILITY AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF ALESSANDRO DRIVE AND SAN JACINTO AVENUE (73-900 ALESSANDRO DRIVE) Case No. PP/CUP 02-07 (Pathfinder Community of the Risen Christ Church, Applicant/Appellant). Planning Manager Steve Smith reviewed the staff report, noting that the Planning Commission had considered and denied a request for approval of a 2,000 square foot church facility at Alessandro Drive and San Jacinto Avenue. The project also included an outdoor patio fellowship area and eight parking spaces, some of which were to be constructed in the existing right-of-way of San Jacinto. He stated that prior to and at the Planning Commission hearing of June 4, 2002, there was considerable neighborhood input, and the neighbors submitted an extensive list of concerns. Staff prepared conditions to mitigate these concerns; however, even with the extensive conditions of approval, the neighbors continued to oppose the project at the hearing. He said one of the major concerns was that the evening activities at the church could impact them more than if it were developed with an office project, which would be consistent in the area. Representatives of the church described in detail the low-key type of services they offer, and they felt the conditions of approval would prevent the church from performing as a church. The Planning Commission determined that the lack of adequate on-site parking and the overall intensity of evening and weekend activities would be incompatible with the adjacent residential uses and inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the Palma Village Specific Plan. Therefore, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution denying the project at its meeting of June 18, 2002, and the Applicant filed an appeal. A revised site plan was subsequently received that addressed some of the concerns, including moving the church building away from Alessandro and closer to the residential structure to the north, with the courtyard/patio area moved away from the residence to the north and adjacent to Alessandro. The Applicant also subsequently submitted a preliminary parking lot layout showing 29 spaces on the lots to the west, and a letter from that property owner was received to indicate there was an agreement for the long term lease of that property (20 years) for parking purposes. Father Ned Reidy also submitted a letter, indicating that the church could live with many of the conditions included in the draft Planning Commission resolution. Specifically, he noted that the church would not provide a day care/school facility other than during church services, all maintenance would take place during regular office hours, Monday through Friday, the church would not operate a soup 23 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 22, 2002 kitchen, it would obtain temporary use permits for weddings, baptisms, pot luck dinners, etc., but that funerals could not be subject to such requirements. Mr. Smith said that when it went to the Planning Commission, staffs position was to support the application subject to conditions. With the revised site plan and the ability to include an additional 29 parking spaces on the lots to the west, Council could, if it wished, deny the appeal without prejudice and refer the matter back to Planning Commission. An alternative action was for the Council to affirm the appeal and approve the application subject to the conditions listed in the draft resolution; or the Council could deny the appeal outright and, in effect, affirm the action of the Planning Commission. Staff's recommendation was that the appeal be affirmed and the project approved without the additional parking, subject to the conditions contained in the draft resolution. He suggested addition of condition #26 to read: "The church shall actively encourage that members not park in nearby residential streets." Upon question by Councilman Spiegel, Mr. Smith responded that 29 parking spaces were required based on the size of the church, and they were made available because of the 20-year lease given to the church by the property owner to the west. Upon further question by Councilman Spiegel, Mr. Smith responded that if the Council so directed, the church would surface the land to make it a regular parking facility. Councilman Ferguson expressed concern with Conditions#22,#23,and#24. He said per the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of June 4, 2002, Mr. Drell informed the Commission that under the Religious Freedom Act, the City was prevented from dealing with churches any differently than it would with a non-church secular use or adding conditions it would not impose on a conventional use. He said those three conditions dealt with the operation of the soup kitchen, when and where the church can do weddings, baptisms, pot luck dinners, and what types of services they can have and when. He said that, to him, this was treating it differently than the City would a secular use. He said he would like the City Attorney to review the conditions for compliance with the Religious Freedom Act. Mr. Smith noted that there was a letter from Father Reidy that indicated concurrence specifically with condition numbers 22 and 23. Councilman Crites asked if all the neighbors had an opportunity to see the plan revision that came in on August 9t . Mr. Smith responded that he did not believe the neighbors had come in to see it; however, he had spoken to at least one of the neighbors regarding the revised plan, but he believed many 24 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 22, 2002 of them opposed to the plan at Planning Commission were unfamiliar with the new revisions. Councilman Crites asked if the same thing was true of the lease of land for a parking lot, and Mr. Smith agreed. In response to Councilman Crites'question whether the conditional use permit ran with this occupant or with any occupant, Mr. Smith affirmed that it would run with the land. He noted that condition #14 addressed the issue partially, but as long as the use fell within the general parameters, it would accrue to the next tenant, as long as they operated on Saturday or Sunday. Councilman Ferguson stated that the Planning Commission typically offers an applicant a continuance to do exactly what this Applicant is doing so they can come back and look at the mitigation measures and then make a final recommendation to the Council. He asked why it was not done in this case. Mr. Smith responded that at that point in time, the line seemed to be "drawn in the sand"that the conditions were needed in order to mitigate the concerns of the neighbors. The people representing the church at that point in time felt the conditions would have been so restrictive as to prevent them from acting at the level at which they wanted to act as a church. Mayor Kelly said that with all the changes, he felt the City Council could not take any action on this request at this time aside from disallowing it completely. He felt the Council would most likely refer the matter back to Planning Commission, and he expressed concern with the Council going through the entire process if it could not really do anything with the project. Councilman Ferguson addressed the church representatives and asked if it would interfere with the church=s timing in its development of the property if the Council were to send this matter back to the Planning Commission as revised for a renewed consideration and the City Attorney's review of the legality of conditions #22, #23, and #24. FATHER NED REIDY, 73-850 Fairway Drive, Mail Box 12, Palm Desert, spoke as the representative of Church of the Risen Christ and said he felt the neighbors and the City would find them very cooperative, even ending up being proud of this facility if it is approved. With regard to the time frame, he said there would be no problem if it was for a month or so. Councilman Ferguson stated that if the matter is referred back to the Planning Commission and the Commission likes what has been done and approves the project, the application is complete unless the decision is appealed by the neighbors or the City Council. Mayor Kelly declared the public hearing open and invited testimony in FAVOR of or in OPPOSITION to this request. 25 • MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 22, 2002 MR. CHARLES MARTIN, 73-733 Highway 111, Palm Desert, said he felt the City Council could complete the application process at this meeting by overturning the decision of the Planning Commission and allowing the project to go forward. He said representatives of the church had agreed with referral of the project back to the Planning Commission. MS. IRENE SCHMIT, 44-794 San Jose Avenue, Palm Desert, spoke in opposition to the project. She said there was only one house between her property and the dirt lot for this project, and there was no access for vehicles. She was opposed to vehicles parking on the dirt, which she felt would do nothing but cause more problems with dust. She said she did not see where putting the building at the back of the lot and the courtyard in the front would make that much difference because the lot is not large. She also expressed concern with the increased parking, traffic, and noise. MR. ROBERT KING, 44-841 San Jacinto, Palm Desert, said he also owned the property at 44-855 San Jacinto, which was directly north of the proposed facility. He spoke in opposition to the project, especially the evening and special event uses of the church. He said he and his wife were opposed to the project in any configuration. They were also opposed to the increased noise, parking, and traffic and felt this was not the appropriate location for such this facility. REVEREND KATHY McCARTHY, 82-061 Hanson Drive, Indio, Co-Pastor at Church of the Risen Christ, said that with their small congregation, this piece of property was affordable to the church considering all of the construction costs, and it was ideal for them to be in the heart of the City of Palm Desert. She said she felt it was possible for the church,the City, and the neighbors to work out the problems so their facility could be built. FATHER REIDY said he had served at The Newman Center at the adjacent corner from 1985 until 1999, and not once was there any complaint about the activities, which was larger than what this new church is. He said if at any time anything came up about a particular activity, neighbors and nei hbors would come to the church and say they felt that activity was unreasonable, he would probably agree and curtail that activity. He supported concerns raised about people parking in front of their homes, and he said he would personally impound any vehicle from the church that is parked anywhere not designated. He said this facility would beautify the neighborhood and enhance property values. With no further testimony offered, Mayor Kelly declared the public hearing closed. Councilman Ferguson moved to, by Minute Motion, refer this case back to the Planning Commission, without prejudice, with staff to work with the Applicant and its 26 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 22, 2002 neighbors in order to find a resolution to the concerns raised. Motion was seconded by Crites and carried by a 4-0 vote, with Mayor Pro-Tern Benson ABSENT. With Council concurrence, Mayor Kelly called a short recess at 4:51 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 4:55 p.m., continuing with Section XII, Resolutions. B. CONSIDERATION OF THE ABANDONMENT OF A PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT LOCATED OVER LOTS 1-5 AND 10-14 OF THE DESERT PARADISE TRACT SUBDIVISION (Robert R. McLachlan, DDS, do Timothy R. Bartlett, Applicant). Mr. Ortega noted the staff report and recommendation in the packets. Mayor Kelly declared the public hearing open and invited testimony in FAVOR of or in OPPOSITION to this matter. No testimony was offered, and he declared the public hearing closed. Councilman Spiegel moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 02-104, abandoning a public service easement affecting Lots 1-5 and Lots 10-14, described as Public Utility Easement, as shown on the Desert Paradise Tract Subdivision Map in the City of Palm Desert under provisions of Part 3, Division 9, of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California. Motion was seconded by Crites and carried by a 3-0 vote, with Mayor Pro-Tern Benson and Councilman Ferguson ABSENT. XVIII. REPORTS AND REMARKS A. CITY MANAGER None B. CITY ATTORNEY None C. CITY CLERK Mrs. Klassen reminded the Council/Redevelopment Agency Board to adjourn today's meetings to Wednesday, September 4, 2002, at 9:00 a.m. for a Joint Study Session regarding the Entrada Del Paseo project. 27 • t,. �,�, i r- .� { L ,. 7 . • y :F r y are ° , 41 • •, r. j iy a I P y 41 . .. • , . .. x': a r _I , ..: '* , III' i 1 'II • ,, q. A r y wro.. .: * r ,, 1.... , , i .....1 1 ' . •.r • . • imam emu 7t L'ii , "' ALESSANDRO DR kfi� 1 I ►.. 1�..1 I r 1 1 1 ,„, 1 1 I !. !N ... t�Lr.1t..�.J Ihra• ' ue it. ,• • - • •. • w � nu0 ,'. �* �aY ;Z'' y,,.. , a a *n ax a W-", !a � ; i• , u> . i t 1 a 11 Mk la' p t s .`. $: _ .n: .r+}.nArc ,t ' 3 : ,; C/ lib 1 • • s ' ', w.'- , if imi till itilliamhowa„, ' I" . I HI '- . k ;: � .: a QItio.....af. PALM. .44245„. 0, DESERT DR N • ' C.. . L. a..0- !b• bet is - ea M II. »! • r:iaa• �.wM .m. tr k)f " ' � ... ... •try e • II • `•�,:. .:.:.,Ji1gM+ -�,p .—.• wG4 , ;;�.,.K;r • , ,v :.r, ':rmw• ''' ' ^ ., , ,r .,vy ,z 4, aa 'r { • PATHFINDEIk COMMUNITY OF THE RI.' CHRIST z385o Fairway Mail Box #12 Palm Desert, California 9226o (T60) 346-4z03 73850 Fairway, Mail Box #12 Palm Desert, California 92260 September 30, 2002 City of Palm Desert RE CP Iv 73 710 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 SE:; 20 62 The City Council COMMUNITY DE;ELC)?MEST u= 4RT E. Dear Council Members: CITY OF PAL' .1 5 E1' I would like to offer our precise intentions regarding the operations of the Community of the Risen Christ Church, hopefully to function on the corner of San Jacinto and Alessandro in Palm Desert. I realize there are always potential concerns related to noise, intensity of use, parking, and the total environment surrounding that corner. I will speak in our own interests that in the approximately fifteen years I served at the Newman Center, across from City Hall, not one complaint from my neighbors was ever registered. One neighbor lived immediately west of the garden area; both facilities sharing a common wall. Humbly, our Church community is neighbor friendly along with being neighborhood friendly, as well. We are willing to bend over backwards in reasonableness so that the whole neighborhood prospers with the addition of the church building. Let me state as clearly as I can: The church facility will not provide a day care/ school facility other than during church services on Saturday or Sunday. All church maintenance will be conducted during regular office hours, Monday through Friday. The church facility will not operate a soup kitchen at any time. Weddings, Baptisms, pot luck dinners would normally take place on weekends; if necessary, I would joyfully obtain a temporary use permit for any given situation. To be pastorally responsible to our congregation, funerals must take place on any day: sensitivity to bereaved families would always take precedence. Evening uses for the church would be limited and noiseless. This would be adult education classes and book studies with few exceptions beyond these. Given the above commitment, the Church would have no objection to the City imposing conditions to that effect. The grounding principle of our community, and mine, as well, is to be genteel, courteous, cooperative, reasonable, affable, neighborly and sensitive to the needs of each and everyone. We have demonstrated these qualities in the past; let us demonstrate these qualities again. Graciously, Father Ned Reidy �. i,u2 UQVI L.\:T\ DE'.EL:U?ti iEM ilEr,yCT}i: CITY OF PALM DESERT CURRENT SCHEDULE OF EVENTS AT PATHFINDER COMMUNITY OF THE RISEN CHRIST EUCHARISTIC SERVICES ARE EVERY SUNDAY AT 10:30 AM and at 5:30 PM. These Masses last one hour to one hour and a quarter. At the morning service, there are twenty-five parishioners and at the evening service there are three to six attending. Week-day Masses are at 5:30 PM Monday through Thursday and the service lasts forty-five minutes to one hour. Most often there are two to six people attending. For the last two and three-quarter years the Community has had four sessions—one at each season--- with six classes in each session and these are held between 7 PM and 8:30 PM. Right now we have fifteen people attending, at the most. These are book studies. Two times a year the Pathfinder Team meets to prepare for the week-end retreat which is given in Garner Valley. There are eighteen to twenty who meet between 7 PM and 8 PM on two Thursdays prior to the retreat. Twice a year on the following Thursday, a group would meet from 7 PM until 8:30 PM—those of the retreat who could return for that one night. To date, we have had four funerals. To date, we have had one wedding at our location. Sep-26r02 09:OSA WESLEY W ITT, CPA 7607764325 TT P_01 • gcebeetA. Er R. wyvvK,si ' 44-8/1 1 San Jacirll.<) Palm resort.. CA 92260 760.346.2663 Date: September 26, 2002 - Number of Pages: 7 TO: Mr. Stephen Smith Planning Manager Cily of Palm Desert Fax No. 34l-7098 FROM: Robert A. & R. W_ynema King Phone No. 346-2563 RE: City of Palm Desert Case No CUP 02-07 73-900 Alessandro Drive Pathfinder Community of the Risen Christ Church The neighbors objections and concerns regarding this proposed facility. Mr. & Mrs. Robert A. King Received Sep-26-200Z 08:40am From-76077643Z5 ++ To-PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Pare 001 Sep-2E;-O2 09=0BA WESLEY WITT, CPA 7607764325 TT P_02 September 26, 2002 Mr. Stephen Smith Planning Manager City of Palm Desert RE: City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring [)rive Case No. CUP 02-07 Palm Desert. CA 92260 73-900 Alessandro Drive FAX (760)341-709S Dear Mr. Smith: This correspondence is in regards to the proposed church facility to be located on the Northwest corner of Alessandro Drive and San Jacinto Avenue. We own the property and home at 44-855 San Jacinto (lot I I) which is located to the immediate north of the proposed facility and which is occupied by Ms. Kathcrinc King. We also own and reside at thc property and home at 44-841 San Jacinto (lot 10) which is also nosh of the proposed facility We arc opposed to the construction of this project in any configuration for the following reasons: Cul-dc-sac: A year and a half ago when the medical facility on the east side of San Jacinto was approved. the city provided and had designed provision approving to provide a radius cul-de-sac at the end of San Jacinto. The property owners on the east and west sides of San Jacinto would provide for the installation of the cul-de-sac. Now the applicants want to change that and build a wall across half of San Jacinto to expand the lot lOr parking, and other uses, because their property is not big enough fhr what they want to build. Wall: The wall is not a good concept and would look unfinished and box in half of thc end of our neighborhood street. As it is now. vehicles are using residential driveways as a turn around. We request that the cul-de-sac that was previously agreed upon, be completed. Traffic and parking: Would cause an increase in traffic and parking which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic and parking load capacity of Alessandro Drive. It would result in substantial noise and increase in thc number of vehicles and congestion at the Tortola Ave. San Jose Ave and DeAnza intersections as would parking lots on Alessandro Drive and San Jose Ave. Noise: That construction-working times be strictly entbrced as outlined in the Palm Desert City Municipal Code Enforcement guidelines; no construction to begin before 7:00am. That all maintenance activities be accomplished between Sam to 5pm Monday Received Sep-26-2002 09:40am From-7607764325 ++ To-PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Page 002 Sle p-2 6-O 2 0 9 s O8A W E S L E Y W I TT, CPA 7607764325 TT P .03 through Friday, Y September 26, 2002 Page 2 Butler: There is no existing noise barrier or butlers between the proposed facility and the residential properties. A concrete block wall would not provide an adequate buffer he Times of operations: Most of the family owners of our residential neighborhood work during the regular busincss work week, Monday Through Friday and generally from 8:00am to 5'00 pm. We all enjoy the quiet, solitude and privacy of our neighborhood and homes after normal working hours. Sincerely, Robert and Wynema King Received Sap-26-2002 06:40am From—T607764325 ++ To—PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Page 003 Sep-26-02 09: 09A WESLEY wiTT, CPA 760776432E rr P _ 04 September 25, 2002 Mr. Stephen Smith Planning Manager City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 RE: Case No. CUP 02-07 73900 Alessandro Dear Mr. Smith: My name is Katherine King and I am writing in regards to the proposed church facility which would be built right next door to me. I have lived in Palm Desert for the last thirty years and just recently moved and now reside at 44855 San Jacinto Avenue. One of the reasons I moved here is because of the nice, quiet neighborhood. I am almost 91 years old and retire to bed very early. I am very concerned that if the church facility is approved, it will cause a tremendous amount of extra traffic, noise, pollution and inconvience and that would happen on weekday evenings, Saturdays. Sundays and even on holidays. The closeness of the building and the parking lot which would butt up to my backyard fence would be very disruptive and negatively change the peaceful nature of my neighborhood, so I am opposed to this project. Sincerely, � /� (/ Katherine King Received Sep-26-2002 09!d0am From-7607764326 ++ To—PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Page 00A Sep-26-02 09.09A WESLEY wtTT, CPA 7607764325 rT P.05 September 18, 2002 Mr. Stephen Smith Planning Manager City of Palm Desert RE: City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Case No. CUP 02-07 Palm Desert. CA 92260 73-900 Alessandro FAX (760)341-709R Dear Mr. Smith: THE UNDERSIGNED property owners and permanent residents hereby are corresponding to voice our opposition regarding[he proposed church facility at the northwest corner of Alessandro Drive and San Jacinto Avenue, 73-900 Alessandro Drive. We all reside in the adjacent residential properties, north of the proposed church facility. Our objections to this project are: NOISE: The operations of the church facility would increase ambient noise levels due to traffic. parking. week-day and evening meetings_ Satur: av and Sunday meetings, bo!idav mcctui_z and special events. This would definitely create an annoyance to the adjacent residential neighbors. TRAFFIC & PARKING: Would cause an increase in traffic and parking which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic and parking load capacity of Alessandro Drive. It would result in substantial noise and increase in the number of vehicles and congestion at the Portola Ave, San Jose Ave and DeAn7a intersections as would parking lots on Alessandro Drive and San Jose Ave. BUSINESS HOURS: The normal business of an OP building_ Liam to 5pm, five days a week would coincide with the existing business in our neighborhood; however any alter hour, weekly, weekend, special events, rental of facility and holiday activities would directly affect the entire neighborhood. BUFFER; There is no existing noise barrier or buffers between the proposed facility and the residential properties. A concrete block wall would not provide an adequate buffer. CUI. DE SAC: We request that the cul de we that was previously agreed upon, be completed at the south end of San Jacinto Avenue. Even with the declaration of one half of San Jacinto the Facility is still overbuilt tier that particular piece of property. We may not be available to personally voice these comments at the October I, 2002 Public hearing so please consider this written correspondence as our sincere concerns regarding the proposed facility. Sincerely, Received Sep-26-2002 09:40am From-7607764325 ++ To-PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Page 005 Sp-26:-02 09:09A WESLEY WITT, CPA 7607764325 -1.--r- P .06 Case No. CUP 02-07 PaMc 2 DATE PRIN'l 14.1) NAME ADDRESS id14 SIGr)IATURE e -ek pe. ;r./572ed- g4-7Cf 1‘4421/7 7- y, ....\ y\f-s .."1:i,5Lnz,, • -vt" L-- --- 1 -/ira)/ A,4,„, A./..y.pe/ 4_Ali( q ZO/J Z. /WIC 41 Ee 7/e-k 5 -/J- / '7-0-P Or. Pv7 L;iu,t.P00-(2-4n( 44/-5.2k .__5 fti- -4_ , Tool-de2. .cu2ceA., i - .60 i--k-k--1.? -s_ .'.)cc-"\ :. c:_----. , 9 3.-1_7, k,t ,v- 12 Li 4-1—17 :S- 3ck 7,) L. an (14- .5-- - Jo 5c -ik-1 63EiimilANk.v4 14 A 47_S Ni ;1074- .7 //it/ 7 -- C1 (-6 i' '6e- - 1 ‘. lif9(X Of .9" rgi.#17//2 4 '+ - --7° z.:7,,, t.,;_ii\,(I. i . • .7fr7c__),_Lit (:_i tLY-- '7 , -7d.C21: 110.Y.7Z_SC .., / -7-- --- c--4 J ae )(rti(ii lii 70 i c52 r' C164f va.,,,,, (7/0 4. . ...,A) / 1„2 ?.•(;?V ),0el_- --1- iziZga c) ,.. . t) i 1.(2.C.: )(: ' Received Sep-26-2002 09:40am From-7607764326 ++ To-PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Page 006 Sep-26-02 09 s O9A WESLEY wtTT, CPA 7607764325 -T-- P.07 Mr. Stephen Smith Case No. CUP 02-07 Page 3 DATE. PRINTED NAME ADDRESS SIG ' -URF" LtAiR `'1/ —J t N t�c1�2 `'���_ �tl -'71! Sa r . . P/N CU►.1R -Os 1M!-tOTO ".td q/2.4 11) 11- 14 b5714642---. -7/1 6bu..JAc yips..... a .� �S�c. 4 -7-2 N��I. .. t A E (Pri a-,fvd- ��rter� �a � -ry-7 d r" 01_ .14frnG d -c- L:'7A 2PJ" - ( ->• -- 1u'l �'1,N . � 1f� /. .:�.s jar .bin l> �tftf • ‘ i.. r 1 k(\5 •3`•-•• n1 LLIA) . 12s T.dp d-t'(1C' �� 44A,e-{l S1r joc _ _.. _ </y f (ID rn C1 IC 1�1J�, _ � 4 le P 1 nil l?_ Received Sep-26-2002 00:40am From-7607764325 ++ To-PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Page 007 RECEI VED SEP 262002 September 26 2002 CO.IMCSITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT Mr. Stephen Smith Planning Manager City of Palm Desert RE: City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Case No. CUP 02-07 Palm Desert, CA 92260 73-900 Alessandro Drive FAX (760)341-7098 Dear Mr. Smith: This correspondence is in regards to the proposed church facility to be located on the Northwest corner of Alessandro Drive and San Jacinto Avenue. We own the property and home at 44-855 San Jacinto (lot 11) which is located directly north of the proposed facility and which is occupied by Ms. Katherine King. We also own and reside at the property and home at 44-841 San Jacinto (lot 10)which is also north of the proposed facility. We are opposed to the construction of this project in any configuration for the following reasons: Cul-de-sac: A year and a half ago when the medical facility on the east side of San Jacinto was approved, the city provided and had designed provision approving to provide a radius cul-de-sac at the end of San Jacinto. The property owners on the east and west sides of San Jacinto would provide for the installation of the cul-de-sac. Now the applicants want to change that and build a wall across half of San Jacinto to expand the lot for parking, and other uses, because their property is not big enough for what they want to build. Wall: The wall is not a good concept and would look unfinished and box in half of the end of our neighborhood street. As it is now, vehicles are using residential driveways as a turn around. We request that the cul-de-sac that was previously agreed upon, be completed. Traffic and parking: Would cause an increase in traffic and parking which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic and parking load capacity of Alessandro Drive. It would result in substantial noise and increase in the number of vehicles and congestion at the Portola Ave, San Jose Ave and DeAnza intersections as would parking lots on Alessandro Drive and San Jose Ave. September 26, 2002 Page 2 Noise: The operations of the church facility would increase ambient noise levels due to traffic, parking, week-day and evening meetings, Saturday and Sunday meetings, holidays meetings and special events. This would definitely create an annoyance to the adjacent residential neighbors. Buffer: There is no existing noise barrier or buffers between the proposed facility and • the residential properties. A concrete block wall would not provide an adequate buffer. Times of operations: Most of the family owners of our residential neighborhood work during the regular business work week, Monday through Friday and generally from 8:00am to 5:00 pm. We all enjoy the quiet, solitude and privacy of our neighborhood and homes after normal working hours. As of now we are not affected by the existing office professional business in the Palma Village Specific Plan, that are allowed because their business hours are from 8:00am to 5pm on weekdays, Monday through Friday and are closed on Sundays and holidays. Our opposition to this proposed project is that the church facility would not operate within these regular general office use hour guidelines and would significantly negatively impact us more than if it were developed with an office project, which would be consistent in the area. Because of the after business hours the church facility would operate, and the traffic and parking problems it would generate, the overall intensity of evening, weekend and holiday activities, it would be incompatible with the adjacent residential uses and inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the Palma Village Specific Plan. S}ncerel , Robert King � fT�Wynema King Sep-26-2002 11:25am From- T-605 P.002/005 F-240 RECEIVED MEMORANDUM SEP 2 6 2002 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT TO: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development CITY OF PALM DESERT FROM: Robert W. Hargreaves, Deputy City Attorney DATE: September 26, 2002 RE: Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person Act /Pathfinder Community of the Risen Christ Church QUESTION PRESENTED: How does the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person Act ("RLUIPA") affect the consideration of land use entitlements for churches in general, and specifically, the Pathfinder Community of the Risen Christ Church ("Pathfinder") application for a conditional use permit? SHORT ANSWER: RLUIPA requires that land use regulations that substantially burden the exercise of religion be justified by a compelling governmental interest and be the least restrictive means of accomplishing that interest With respect to the Pathfinder Church Project, any denial of the use, or substantial restriction of religious activities, would need to be justified by a compelling governmental interest (such as maintaining the character of the surrounding residential neighborhood) and by findings that there are no less restrictive means of accomplishing that objective DISCUSSION: A. RL.UIPA in 2000, the United States Congress enacted RLLIPA to provide greater protection for religious activities from governmental regulations that might interfere with those activities Under the "free exercise of religion" clause of the First Amendment, local land use regulations are upheld as long as they do not single out religious uses for distinctively different treatment ItLUIPA strengthens that protection by requiring local governments to justify any regulations that impact religious activities, even if those regulations treat similar, non-religious activities in the same manner. RMPUB\R WriN205374 Received Sep-28-2002 11:88am From- To-PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Page 002 .Sep-26-2002 11:36am From— T-695 P.003/005 F-240 RLUIPA provides, in pertinent part "No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious assembly or institution, unless the government demonstrates that the imposition of that burden on that person, assembly or institution (a) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (13) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest ". (42 U.S.C. §20(30cc(b).) As RLUIPA is relatively new, there is little judicial interpretation of such key phrases as "religious exercise", "substantial burden", "compelling governmental interest" and "least restrictive means" The courts will likely look to existing interpretations of those phrases in similar contexts to flesh out the definitions provided by RLUIPA. I have attached for your information a recent case - Cottonwood Christian Center v Cypress Redevelopment Agency(August 5, 2002) 2002 U.S. Dist Lexis 14379 - in which the court applied RLUIPA to overturn the City of Cypress' denial of a CUP for the construction of a church on land that the City wanted to condemn for use as a Costco. The court found that the City's denial of the CUP imposed a substantial burden on Cottonwood's religious exercise (i e , the use of the property for church services) that was not justified by the City's desire to eradicate blight and enhance city revenues by redeveloping the property as a Costco. 1. Religious Exercise RLUIPA provides that: ". any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system or religious belief', and a"use, building or conversion of real property for religious purposes" are both protected. (42 U S.C. 2000cc(4) ) The extent to which "religious exercise" extends beyond church services and religious teaching has not been clearly resolved by the court. The factors often considered include. (1) the link between defined spiritual tenants and the activity in question, (2) the type of structure to be used; and (3) whether the activity is generally related to the purpose of the religious institution The Cottonwood court had no difficulty in finding that Cottonwood's construction of a church for religious services and teaching was a covered religious activity. (Cottonwood Christian Center at p 53 ) 2. Substantial Burden RLUIPA does not define"substantial burden". Courts have defined "substantial burden" in the context of religious freedom in various ways: "substantial burden" exists (I) where the government puts substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his IWIFUDRK1i'H\205374 - 2 - Received Sep-26-2002 11 :36am From— To—PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Page 003 (p3- CO_1 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE PALM DESERT, CA 7007 NOV -7 AM 9: 19 PROOF OF PUBLICATION This is space for County Clerk's Filing Stamp (2015.5.C.C.P) STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Riverside I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of Proof of Publication of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years,and not a party to or interested in the No.2886 OF PALM above-entitled matter.I am the principal clerk of a CIT LEGAL NOTICE DESERT printer of the,DESERT SUN PUBLISHING CASE NO.: CUP 02-07 AMENDMENT#1 COMPANY a newspaper of general circulation, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing printed and published in the city of Palm Springs, will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider an appeal to a decision by the Plan- County of Riverside,and which newspaper has been ning Commission to approve a request by PATH- FINDER COMMUNITY OF THE RISEN CHRIST adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the CHURCH for approval of a 2,000 square foot Superior Court of the County of Riverside,State of church facility at the northwest corner of Alessan- dro Drive and San Jacinto Avenue, 73-900 Ales- California under the date of March 24,1988.Case sandro Drive. Number 191236;that the notice,of which the SAID public hearing will be held at 4:00 p.m. on Thursda Council annexed is a printed copy(set in type not smaller Chambers no the Palmvember 1De 2002 trtCity Hat, 73-510 than non ariel has beenpublished in each regular Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at P g which time and place all interested persons are and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any invited to attend and be heard.Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hear- supplement thereof on the following dates,to wit: ing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for November 1st review in the Department of Community Develop- ment at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspon- All in the year 2002 dence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or rior to,the public hearing. I certify(or declare)under penalty of perjury that the Rachet Klassen, City Clerk foregoing is true and correct. City of Palm Desert 1rt PUB: November 1, 2002 Dated at Palm Springs,California this day November of ,2002 Signature