PC 080807 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Olson noted that the staff report emphasized that this would not be a mosque and that a number of e-mails in support of this application referred to the structure as a mosque. Ms. Wilcox confirmed that this was a church, which was how they registered with the State. She noted that mosques featured minarets and had certain architectural elements to qualify the facility as a mosque. Oscar Yousefi, applicant, noted that mosques were enclosed with no windows and functioned as a place of prayer where worship took place five prescribed times a day. He noted that this building did not have minarets and that the classes were organized into small groups. He noted that this was not a prayer center and added that mosques also had outside speakers that broadcast the call to prayer. Ms. Decker interjected that the Planning Commission had received various e-mails related to whether or not this facility was called a mosque or not. She noted that regardless of whether a facility is called a mosque, church, synagogue, or temple, for the purposes of planning, these types of proposals are considered religious facilities from a land use perspective. Mr. Yousefi discussed the site logistics of the project and noted that they had been very cognizant of the development to the east of their property. He noted that the site logistics and the main structure for the church had the neighborhood in mind. He stated that the highest point of the site is the northeastern corner, which drops 40 feet toward Dublin Canyon Road; the building levels off as it continues westward. He believed the placement of the structure in that area would minimize the effects of the excavations. He added that one of the signatures of M.T.O. structures is serene landscaping. He described the short retaining walls and noted that they planned to include gardens and fountains in the site. He displayed the proposed site layout on the overhead screen and noted that they planned to provide ample parking spaces on the site, which would exceed Code requirements. Michael Milani, Milani and Associates, applicant, stated that he was a civil engineer. He discussed the impacts of the proposed project on local traffic. He also clarified that CalTrans owned the small rectangular parcel in fee title, that it was not an easement, and that the land lay over a concrete line channel that took drainage from the I-580 improvements over which the applicant did not have access. He noted that they would be able to deal with this particular edge condition constraint and did not wish to pursue ownership. He indicated that they had held discussions regarding traffic with staff and that the staff report addressed the time differentials for the operations of the M.T.O. church facility. He explained that they were off-peak hour times in the evenings and on Sundays, and he did not believe a traffic report to address off-peak traffic movement would be necessary. He stated that they were more concerned about traffic safety issues regarding turning movements and design speeds on Dublin Canyon Road. He added that they had met with several members of the Canyon Creek development on several occasions, where they expressed concern about turning movements into their project. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 8, 2007 Page 6 of 24