3A Public Hearing 2008 0219 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Board of Zoning Adjustments Regular Meeting December 6, 2007 Minute No. 2007-23 Page 9 of 16 The Board asked Pastor Mortara the following questions: • Member Pearson asked if the purchase of the site occurred after the December meeting. It was purchased in January of this year. • Member Gilcrest stated that he was not a Board Member until this year, so he was not a part of the December meeting. He asked if the church needed a site with an existing building, because new construction was prohibitive. It depended upon the costs. • Member Gilcrest recalled that during his public testimony on the night the Council approved the Overlay district, he had questioned why certain publicly owned properties had been excluded, specifically the two properties on Alvarado north of Daily Chevrolet. It seemed the large, unimproved parcel that had been used for fire training, near BART and the two freeways could serve a large usage. Could that parcel be appropriate for a possible home for the church? All of the 196 parcels were looked at. One parcel might work, but there were many uncertainties. That was why the site on Catalina seemed to be the best. • Member Gilcrest was not sure if the entertainment argument was just a way to comply with the judge's order to exhaust all City remedies. He asked the speaker to respond to the fact that the Business Development Chairperson was not in favor of allowing assembly uses and the Chamber had not taken a position on the possibility of rezoning, because the church had received a negative reaction from staff throughout the fall. It seemed that the church had gone into this situation with its eyes open. The process had not happened in that manner. The church met with Interim Community Development Director Sims, Hanson Hon, and Former Planning Manager Pollart and discussed this site. He left with the understanding that the site could be rezoned, it was on the peripheral. The Assembly Overlay was an afterthought and their site was not included. They had believed in the system, but it had never moved with them. Staff knew that money had been put down on the site, but a hearing was never scheduled. He asked, "What did you want me to do? " The advantage and disadvantage of closing escrow on the site without a definitive answer from the City regarding zoning was discussed between Member Shields and Pastor Mortara. Member Gilcrest summarized the situation: Staff had asserted in the report that the fundamental flaw in this application was that the Board could not consider the specifics of this proposal because the absolute prohibition on assembly use precluded the entertainment argument, which would then allow consideration of the impacts. Denial of this application was a valid subject for discussion, because it was a hurdle the applicant had to overcome. Member Marr wanted to discuss the environmental impact analysis sometime before a decision was made. Chair Goldt called a recess at 8:30 p.m.