HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 2015-104 N.C.S. 07/06/2015Resolution No. 2015 -104 N.C.S.
of the City of Petaluma, California
UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION THAT A
RELIGIOUS FACILITY, VILLAGE BAPTIST CHURCH, IS A PERMITTED
USE AT 3835 CYPRESS DRIVE, SUITE 107 AND 108 AND DENY
THE APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE ADJACENT TENANTS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 005-300-007,005-300-008
File No. PLAP -15 -0001
WHEREAS, on December 1, 2014, Village Baptist Church submitted an application to
amend an approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP) allowing a religious facility at 3835 Cypress
Drive, in the zoning Business Park District (Application); and
WHEREAS, on January 14, 2015, public notice of the Application was provided to all
owners and occupants within 500 feet of the project site, and in the Argus- Courier on January
15, 2015; and
WHEREAS, after providing public notice and upon further review of the application, the
Director identified a potential conflict between the City's Implementing Zoning Ordinance
(IZO) and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), a federal statute
that requires cities to treat religious uses and similar secular uses on equal terms unless there is a
legitimate regulatory purpose for treating the religious use on less than equal terms (Centro
Familiar Cristiano- Buenas Nuevas v. City of Yuma (2011) 651 F.3d 1163, 1172- 1173); and
WHEREAS, with respect to the Business Park District in which a Conditional Use
Permit would be required for a religious facility, but a "Club, Lodge, Private Meeting Hall" was
allowed by right, the Director could not identify any legitimate regulatory purpose to justify
treating the two uses differently; and
WHEREAS, in light of similarities between the Application and a Club, Lodge, Private
Meeting Hall and the mandates of RLUIPA, on February 18, 2015, the Director determined that
a new Conditional Use Permit was not required and instead issued a compatible use
determination under IZO §3.030(D), finding that Application was similar to a Club; and
WHEREAS, on March 3, 2015, Sean Marciniak of Miller Starr Regalia, on behalf of
other tenants at 3835 Cypress Drive, submitted an appeal of the Planning Director's
determination; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Appeal at a duly noticed public
hearing on April 28, 2015, as required by IZO Section 24.010, and upheld the Director's
Determination; and
WHEREAS, on May 12, 2015, Michael Bozuk, a condominium owner at 3835 Cypress
Drive, on behalf of himself and other occupants at 3835 Cypress Drive, filed an appeal of the
Planning Commission's Resolution (Appeal); and
Resolution No. 2015 -104 N.C.S. Page 1
WHEREAS, the Appeal was received timely and, as required by IZO Section 24.070,
states the pertinent facts, the basis for the appeal, and the relief sought by the appellant of the
Planning Commission's Determination; and
WHEREAS, a staff report with attachments, dated July 6, 2015, was prepared in
response to the Appeal and is hereby incorporated by reference; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Appeal at a duly noticed public hearing on
July 6, 2015, as required by IZO Section 24.010.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Petaluma
as follows:
1. Findings: Based on the IZO, staff report and its attachments, presentations by staff,
public comment, and the public hearing, the City Council makes the following
findings:
a. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated by reference (see
Staff Report, Attachment 4, pp. 1 -2, 36 -37); and
b. Village Baptist Church submitted an application to use Assessor Parcel Nos. 005-
300 -007, 005- 300 -008 (Property) as a location to assemble for worship services as
its primary purpose, with proposed special event purposes, such as fundraisers,
weddings and funerals (Application)(Staff Report, Attachment 4, p. 9); and
c. The Property has a land use designation of Business Park, and is zoned Business
Park District (Staff Report, Attachment 4, pp. 1 -2); and
d. IZO identifies "Religious facility as an allowable use in Business Park Zoning
District, subject to Conditional Use Permit (IZO, Table 4.4); and
e. The IZO defines a "Religious facility" as a permanent facility operated by a
religious organization exclusively for worship, or the promotion of religious
activities, including accessory uses on the same site. Examples of these types of
facilities include churches, mosques, synagogues, and temples (IZO, Glossary);
and
f. "Club, Lodge, Private Meeting Hall" is permitted by right in the Business Park
District (IZO, Table 4.4); and
g. The IZO defines "Club, Lodge, Private Meeting Hall" as permanent,
headquarters -type and meeting facilities for organizations operating on a
membership basis for the promotion of the interests of the members, including
facilities for: business associations, civic, social, and fraternal organizations labor
unions and similar organizations, political organizations, professional
membership organizations, and other membership organizations (IZO, Glossary);
and
It. As it relates to the Business Park District, the primary distinction between
Religious facility and a Club, Lodge, Private Meeting Hall as defined in the IZO
is that the Religious facility definition applies to organizations assembling for
Resolution No. 2015 -104 N.C.S. Page 2
religious purposes while Club, Lodge, Private Meeting Hall applies to
organizations that gather for non - religious, or secular purposes (IZO, Glossary,
Staff Report, Attachment 4, p.2); and
i. Within the Business Park District, such special event uses, such as fundraisers,
weddings, and funerals are ancillary with the primary uses of both the uses of
Religious Facility and a Club, Lodge, Private Meeting Hall (Staff Report,
Attachment 4, p. 5); and
j. The Application is similar to a Club, Lodge, Private Meeting Hall with respect to
type and intensity of use because: 1) both uses involve assembling groups of
members together to facilitate common interests and 2) the hours of operation and
parking are comparable to that of a club, lodge or private meeting hall (Staff
Report, Attachment 4, p. 4); and
k. The Business Park District zone is intended for business and professional office,
technology park clusters, research and development, light industrial operations,
and visitor service establishments (Staff Report, Attachment 4, p. 5); and
1. A visitor service establishment includes a Club, Lodge, Private Meeting Hall as
evidenced by the fact that it is a place where people assemble and a permitted use
in the Business Park District zone (Staff Report, Attachment 4, p. 5); and
m. The Application is consistent with the purposes of the Business Park District zone
because it serves as a visitor service establishment by serving as a venue in which
people may assemble (Staff Report, Attachment 4, p. 5); and
n. Similar to the associated BP zoning, the Business Park land use designation
provides for professional offices, technology park clusters, and research and
development (Staff Report, Attachment 4, p. 5); and
o. Therefore, the proposed religious facility is consistent with the applicable General
Plan designation of Business Park because it is an allowed use within that
designation as well as Business Park zoning district (Staff Report, Attachment 4,
p. 6); and
p. There is no applicable specific plan that applies to the property (Staff Report,
Attachment 4, p. 5); and.
q. The religious facility is compatible with other uses permitted in the Business Park
District such as office, medical services, and multiple recreation, education and
public assembly uses because there is no distinction between the impacts of a
Club, Lodge, Private Meeting Hall and a Religious facility in this zoning district
(Staff Report, Attachment 4, p. 6); and
r. A Club, Lodge, Private Meeting Hall is a permitted use by right in other zoning
districts, but a Religious facility is not a permitted use by right in any of the city's
zoning districts (IZO, Tables 4.1 -4.4); and
s. The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) (42 U.S.C.,
§ 2000cc, et seq.) requires the City to treat religious institutions similar to other,
Resolution No. 2015 -104 N.C.S. Page 3
secular assembly uses unless the City can demonstrate that treatment on less than
equal terms furthers a legitimate regulatory purpose (Centro Familiar Cristiano-
Buenas Nuevas v. City of Yuma (2011) 651 F.3d 1163, 1172 - 1173); and
t. Under RLUIPA, requiring a conditional use permit is on less than equal terms
when compared to allowing a use by right (Centro Familiar Cristiano- Buenas
Nuevas v. City of Yuma (2011) 651 F.3d 1163, 1172 - 1173); and
u. The record lacks substantial evidence to support a finding that there is compelling
government interest that necessitates treating the proposed religious use
differently from a Club, Lodge, Private Meeting Hall.
2. Based on the foregoing findings, the City Council concludes there is substantial
evidence that the Application is similar to a Club, Lodge, Private Meeting Hall.
3. Pursuant to IZO § 24.070.G.1, the City Council affirms the Planning Commission's
Determination that the Application is similar to a Club, Lodge, Private Meeting Hall,
and therefore, does not require a Conditional Use Permit,
4. To the extent that there is a conflict between this Resolution and the Planning
Commission's determination, the findings and action of this Resolution shall prevail
over the Planning Commission's resolution and Director's Determination.
5. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption by the City Council and
the City Council's adoption of this Resolution shall be deemed the final determination
by the City that the Application is to be treated as a Club, Lodge, Private Meeting
Hall.
6. Pursuant to Civil Procedure Code section 1094.6, any petition challenging this
Resolution shall be filed not later than the 90th day following the date on which the
decision becomes final.
Under the power and authority conferred upon this Council by the Charter of said City.
REFERENCE: I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted by the Approved as to
Council of the City of Petaluma at a Regular meeting on the 6`h day of July, 2015, ' `, 3form:
by the following vote:'
Assistant City Attorney
AYES: Albertson, Barrett, Mayor Glass, Healy, Kearney, King, Vice Mayor Miller
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: N e
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
Resolution No. 2015 -104 N.C.S. Page 4