No surprise but unfortunate: Sufism Reoriented project approved

The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Wednesday approved Sufism Reoriented's plans to build a large, white multi-domed sanctuary in the Saranap neighborhood of unincorporated Walnut Creek, reports the Contra Costa Times. 

Four of the five supervisors cast yes votes for the worship center, to be built on 3.12 acres off Boulevard Way.. Supervisor Gayle Uilkema, whose district is near the proposed sanctuary, listened to the meeting by phone Wednesday but did not vote.

Elisabeth Nardi will be updating her story later, and Walnut Creek Patch Editor Lance Howland tweeted that the supevisors had added a list of conditions for the 66,000-square-foot project. 

The approval comes following an all-day special public hearing last Tuesday at the Lesher Center for the Arts and several hours of testimony Wednesday. 





 

Sufism Reoriented vows federal fight over disputed sanctuary plans

At Tuesday’s special Contra Costa County supervisors meeting,  more than 100 people spoke out on many things for and against a religious group’s plans to build a big white 66,000-square-foot center in the unincorporated Saranap neighborhood of Walnut Creek.

And then  someone at the hearing at Walnut Creek's downtown Lesher Center for the Arts invoked the dreaded RLUIPA. The meaning behind this gag-inducing set of initials has the potential to take this dispute to a new and very litigious  level.

(Check out other big white monuments -- to power and ego? -- that grace communities near and far: The Mormon Temple in Oakland, of which the sanctuary would be two-thirds the size; the 58,000-square-foot building at 1500 Newell Avenue; the 55,000-square-foot White House; the 57,000-square-foot "manor" of late Charlie's Angels and Dynasty producer Aaron Spelling.)

The RLUIPA threat has always surrounded this issue, hovering in the background. But now we know how far Sufism Reoriented is prepared to go to defend its multi-domed complex, much of which will be built underground. In a statement to the supervisors, Sandy Skaggs, an attorney for Sufism Reoriented said,  “We are very prepared to defend this in court,” according to the Contra Costa Times.

The mechanism for this court fight would be RLUIPA, which stands for the 2000 federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. This law bars government entities from imposing land use regulations that create a "substantial burden" on a group's right to religious assembly. 

But constitutional scholar Marci Hamilton describes it as a law that can be burdensome to neighbors who oppose a church group’s expansion plans. Hamilton wrote a book God Versus the Gavel: Religion and the Rule of Law in which she devotes a chapter to church-state disputes in land-use issues. 

Before RLUIPA, religious landowners in virtually every jurisdiction in the United States “were just landowners,” writes Hamilton in her book. She is the Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law at Benjamin Cardozo School of Law.

Once upon a time, these landowners had to abide by zoning restrictions and take into account the views of homeowners regarding the impact of their proposal, she says. “They were property owners with equal rights under the land use law with all other property owners, and they had to be a good neighbor.”

RLUIPA changed all that, shifting the balance of power in residential neighborhoods to religious landowners, at the expense of the residential quality of the neighborhood, she says.

President Bill Clinton signed RLUIPA into law. Hamilton says Clinton never met a religious cause he would not support, and Congress made no effort to determine independently whether this “special interest legislation” was good for the people, Hamilton writes.

Congressional supporters of RLUIPA just went along with it, because religious leaders wanted it, Hamilton says. Religious organizations, with their growing political clout, lobbied for the law. The U.S. Supreme Court had invalidated as unconstitutional an earlier federal law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which basically gave religious entities a loophole for skirting all local, state and federal laws, including land-use laws.

Now with RLUIPA, residential landowners who face ambitious religious building plans don’t have the same right to equal protection, Hamilton contends. RLUIPA essentially creates two classes of citizens. “The first class is s ‘religious’ and the second class envelops everyone else. It is fundamentally unfair, as any homeowner who has been in this circumstance will tell you.’

Unfortunately, city and county entities are inclined to give in to religious organizations’ demands because, in these budget-challenged times, they can’t afford costly and lengthy court fights. Neighbors opposing a church’s plans usually don’t have the resources for a legal fight, either.

As Halfway to Concord blogger Wendy Lack pointed out, Sufism Reoriented had itself changed to an IRS-approved religious organization in 2003 after operating a nonprofit corporation since the 1950s. Gearing up for the big RLUIPA fight?

Sufism Reoriented might also have the deep pockets for a court challenge, reporting annual income for three years in a row of about $2.5 million and $17 million in assets. Cheesecake Factory CEO David M. Overton is a financial supporter, Lack reported.

The County Planning Commission gave the sanctuary proposal a thumbs up. Saranap residents appealed, and now it’s in the hands of supervisors who will continue their deliberations Wednesday.

In an editorial Thursday, the Contra Costa Times said Saranap residents have legitimate concerns about the project. It has more square footage than a football field and more than two-thirds that of the Mormon Temple in Oakland, which sits on 18 acres. The Sufism plan “would be jammed into three.”

In addition to size, the proposal has other serious problems, the Times said: the safety of the driveway access near a major road bend and “horribly inadequate parking.” 

The Sufis have been  playing the religious discrimination card all along, which is rather disappointing for a group is said to be forward thinking and community oriented. “Religious freedom does not give a faith community the right to run roughshod over reasonable planning guidelines and does not make those who question such a move bigots,” the Times editorial said. “The First Amendment protects not only religious expression, but speech as well. Residents are entitled to have their say -- and they should be listened to.”

For extensive coverage of Tuesday's hearing, go to Walnut Creek Patch. 

Previous Crazy in Suburbia posts:

Big, ugly “spaceship-looking” building or beautiful “sacred place?” Religious group’s sanctuary plans divide once tranquil WC/Lafayette neighborhood, March 15, 2009

Saranap neighbors protest large "spaceship-looking" Sufism sanctuary, March 17, 2009

Which would you rather have in your neighborhood? Sufism Reoriented's 66,000-square-foot sanctuary or Aaron Spelling's 57,000-square-foot "Manor?"March 28, 2009

Is Saranap's Sufism Reoriented sanctuary debate heating up again? Nov. 30, 2009

County requests EIR for controversial Sufism Reoriented sanctuary project Feb. 26, 2010

Sufism Reoriented says it, not the county, initiated the request for an EIR for its new sanctuary April 7, 2010

A Matter of Religious Freedom Nov. 1, 2011

A fundamental showdown: When a church group wants to expand its house of worship in a residential neighborhood Dec. 2, 2011

Supervisors should not cave to religious freedom arguments in the debate about the Sufism Reoriented sanctuary Feb. 19, 2012

 

 

 

 

 

Supervisors should not cave to religious freedom arguments in the debate about the Sufism Reoriented sanctuary

Call me anti-religious. But Sufism Reoriented's desire to build a big white complex in Walnut Creek's residential Saranap community shouldn't get any more consideration than any secular property owner whose grandiose construction ambitions ignite neighborhood concerns.


The three-year-old controversy is now in the hands of Contra County Board of Supervisors. They will hold a special all-day hearing at Walnut Creek's Lesher Center for the Arts Tuesday. Hundreds are expected to speak at the meeting, at which the supervisors will decide on an appeal by Saranap neighbors who disagree with the county Planning Commission's November decision to allow the 66,000-square-foot sanctuary to rise on 3.12 acres on Boulevard Way. 


All along, the 350-member organization has said that the white, multi-domed design of their proposed  sanctuary embodies "our most sacred beliefs and supports our worship."  The
Contra Costa County Interfaith Council supports the Sufi plan, with the Rev. Brian Stein-Webber, director of the council, telling the Contra Costa Times that religions, even those outside the mainstream, as Sufism Reoriented is, should have a right to build within their community. Opposition to design elements of the project are the result of unintended religious bias, one Sufism member, Pascal Kaplan, said during testimony before the Planning Commission. 


Sure, religious organizations should be able to build in their communities, but they shouldn't receive special consideration to build what they want just because they are a religious organization.


In a post in December, I quoted constitutional scholar Marci Hamilton, an expert on church-state relations, on the problems that arise when church organizations gain special privileges in land use and other disputes. A federal law, such as the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, shifts the balance of power in residential neighborhoods to religious landowners. "The residential quality of a neighborhood takes a back seat to the interests of the church group," she wrote in her book God versus the Gavel: Religion and the Rule of Law. "The untoward result is that homeowners become second-class citizens to their religious neighbors."  


Hamilton supports religious freedom, but wants reasonable limits for the good of everyone. "Religion's force can be just another iteration of the drive to power," she writes, saying that Americans should get over an unrealistic and hazardous belief "that religion is always for the good."
She says that "some religious conduct deserves freedom and some requires limitation."


It's possible that religious issues will come up in Tuesday's meeting. religious grounds.


County planning staff have recommended that the supervisors deny the appeal and allow the project to go forward. Most of their reasons for approval hinge on their opinion that Sufism Reoriented has adequately addressed parking, traffic and other environmental impacts. Essentially, staff says the single-family residential high-density zoning in that area allows for churches and religious institutions. The proposed sanctuary meets all the necessary development standards, which are the same for religious buildings as they for residential structures.

But staff also cites Sufism religious practices as a reason for approving its size and design. Neighbors object to the 66,000 square feet -- similar in scale to downtown Walnut Creek's new library or Neiman Marcus department store. They also object to the 13 white domes, saying they are inconsistent with the character of the rest of the neighborhood.


Staff acknowledges that  "the style is unique" but they say it reflects "the central tenants of the applicant's religious beliefs." The organization has also adequately explained its spiritual needs for such a large building, staff say. "The members of Sufism worship and celebrate the founder through the arts, music, drama and dance and therefore, the display, storage and shipping of art, scoring room, prayer hall etc. are necessary."


While Sufism Reoriented says they need this particular design for their religious practices, their desire should not trump neighbors' desire to stop a massive construction project from going in near their homes. As I said, call me anti-religious. Or just say that I agree with Hamilton in the very American ideal of separation of church and state.


In a lot of ways, the Sufism plan is the equivalent of the big ugly house your grandiose neighbor wants to build -- a situation that doesn't necessarily bode well for opponents of the sanctuary project.


I'm sure the homeowners who built that big ugly house on the Alamo hill overlooking Interstate 680 were as dedicated to their views of design and aesthetics as Sufism members are to theirs.


Actually, the county has a tendency to support big ugly houses in unincorporated areas, like that Alamo house or the ones dominating the hill overlooking the Parkmead neighborhood. So, if those projects can go through, I can easily see the Sufism sanctuary project ultimately getting the green light.

Sufism Reoriented says it, not the county, initiated the request for an EIR for its new sanctuary

In a February 26 post, I wrote that the Contra Costa County Conservation and Community Development Department has asked Sufism Reoriented to prepare an environmental impact report for its controversial plans to build a 66,000-square-foot sanctuary in the Saranap neighborhood. I had received two different versions over who made the initial request for the EIR: the county or Sufism Reoriented. 

When I spoke with county senior planner LaShun Cross, she told me that the county had come to the decision to ask for the EIR. She said the county concluded that it should require maximum scrutiny of the project’s environmental impact because of the project’s size and concerns expressed by residents.

Meanwhile, Sufism Reoriented leaders say it was their idea to ask for the EIR, even though though they believed a smaller environmental study would suffice.

They talked about asking for the EIR in in their March newsletter, a copy of which was shared with me on February 13. In that newsletter, they said they hoped the county "approves our request for an EIR."

After I published the February 26 post, a Sufism Reoriented representative contacted me to say his organization did "not put a distorting spin in our newsletter about who originated the EIR. ... we did indeed initiate the request to the County."

To assure me that this is how the EIR came about, the representative, Steve Sardella, attached a letter, dated February 3. It is addressed to Cross and comes from Marie Cooper, an attorney representing Sufism Reoriented on this project. This letter is also published on Sufism Reoriented's website. Two weeks after the letter was sent, Sardella said, the request for the EIR was approved. Here is the letter: 

Dear Ms. Cross:
I am writing on behalf of Sufism Reoriented, the applicant for the new sanctuary project. We request that the County prepare an EIR for the project even if staff would otherwise prepare a proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Planning Commission’s consideration.


As you know, an EIR must be prepared only when the record contains evidence that there may be unavoidable significant impacts. A Mitigated Negative Declaration is permitted when there is no such evidence. The studies conducted by our consultants have not revealed any unavoidable significant impacts. Experience at the existing sanctuary establishes that the new sanctuary will generate few vehicle trips. Also, the new sanctuary project proposes redevelopment of a developed site in a developed neighborhood. All these factors indicate that a Mitigated Negative Declaration would most likely be appropriate for the project.


However, the new sanctuary has generated controversy among a significant minority of our neighbors, and we want to make sure that all the issues they raise are fully vetted. An EIR would also give the County decision makers more flexibility to weigh and balance evidence and arguments, allowing them to arrive more easily at the best possible decision in this matter.


We understand that preparation of an EIR would involve more time and effort than would preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Sufism Reoriented confirms its commitment to pay all reasonable processing costs, including those associated with an EIR. We also understand that the decision regarding what document to prepare lies solely in the County’s hands. We make this request to alert the County to our position, confirm our agreement to pay costs, and explain why an EIR would be appropriate.

County requests EIR for controversial Sufism Reoriented Sanctuary project

Nearly two years after Saranap residents began hearing about the sanctuary plans of a religious organization, based in their unincorporated Walnut Creek neighborhood, the Contra Costa County Conservation and Community Development Department has asked that the organization, Sufism Reoriented to prepare an environmental impact report.

County senior planner LaShun Cross says the county came to a decision to ask for the maximum scrutiny of the project’s environmental impact because of the project’s size and environmental impact concerns expressed by residents.

Sufism Reoriented proposes to build a white, 66,000-square-foot, multi-domed building on a 3.25-acre site wedged mostly amongst single-family homes in this older, residential neighborhood. The project has hit a raw nerve in this once tranquil neighborhood, with longtime residents complaining that such a large, white “spaceship-looking” building would not fit in the character of their semi-rural neighborhood. The address would be on Boulevard Way, and there are apartments and office buildings along one side.

A comparison to two other big white buildings might help give you an idea of the project’s size: It is larger than the White House, the new Walnut Creek library, and the eight-story, 58,000-square foot building, vacant and set-for-demolition, at the corner of Newell Avenue and South Main Street.

Sufism Reoriented leaders say the building will be used for religious, cultural and educational programs for its 350-member congregation. They add that  building, particularly the domes, was designed to blend in with the surrounding, grass covered hills. They also say it would be eco-friendly and “nestled in a glade of trees.” Visually, its impact on the surrounding neighborhood would be lessened, they say, because two-thirds of it-- 46,000 square feet—would be built underground.

That underground construction is one of many environmental concerns raised by neighbors. With 46,000-square-feet of the sanctuary underground, the excavation will need more than 3,400 dump truck loads over five months, according to estimates by Save Our Saranap, the organization opposing the project as it is currently planned. Rather than “sit lightly on the earth,” as Sufism claims, the project would crash onto the earth, “like a meteor, complete with crater,”

SOS members also question the claim about the project “nestling in a glade of trees,” To build it, SOS members say, the plan calls for the destruction of all vegetation and buildings on the site and the removal of all 42 existing trees, including six heritage oaks.

Sufism Reoriented leaders have agreed to the county’s request for an EIR, even though the study will delay the project by up to four months and cost them some money. Actually in a statement they made in their most recent newsletter, they make it sound as though they approached the county and volunteered to do the EIR, despite believing that a smaller environmental study would suffice.

That’s not how Cross described the decision-making process over the EIR. Whatever.

The Sufism leaders say: “We have engaged professional consultants who have prepared various CEQA-related studies. … Based on these studies, our consultants have concluded that any impacts from our project will be relatively light. … Of course an applicant would not normally request an EIR if it were unlikely to be required. But we have concluded that it is in our best interest for the county to proceed with an EIR at this time, rather than the smaller environmental study that they might choose to do for a project like ours with a low likelihood of environmental impact.

The leaders go on to say that cost to do the EIR now could save potentially larger costs down the line. The EIR could also give “county decision makers more flexibility to weigh and balance factual evidence to arrive at the best possible decision” and would offer reassurance to all “our neighbors.

Sufism Reoriented responds to concerns about "story poles" and the size and design of their proposed sanctuary

This is a response from Steve Sardella, a spokesman for Sufism Reoriented, regarding the post I did earlier this week on flyers, objecting to the organization's proposed sanctuary, going up around the Saranap neighborhood. As you can read, the flyers raised questions about why Sufism Reoriented won't erect "story poles," wooden structures marking the outlines of their project in order to give the public a visual sense of its height and size. The blue flyers, affixed to telephone poles, specifically said:

"According to Sufism Reoriented, the Sanctuary Building is too large and complex to put up Story Poles…TOO BIG for Story Poles?!?!?!”

Sardella actually send me a longer, thoughtfully written response to several questions I had asked about the project. I'm only publishing his specific response to the story pole issue now, but plan on publishing his response to those other questions as I raise them in future articles.

I was unhappy to read this flyer because it is another example of someone falsely attributing statements to Sufism Reoriented. We never made the statement: “…the Sanctuary Building is too large…too big… to put up Story Poles.” This latest false claim can be added to other bogus statements that some opponents have made to our neighbors, such as saying our building will be “54 feet tall,” we want to create a “national headquarters” in the Saranap, and that we are an Islamic cult.

We have indeed commented on the idea of story poles, but we have said that many architects now value using high quality computer-generated in-scale renderings to provide viewers with more accurate views of how a building will look in its setting. We’ve had these renderings created and we’ve shared them liberally with our neighbors. I’d be happy to walk the property with you and let you hold up these renderings and verify their accuracy for yourself.

I think the people who put up these flyers on telephone poles would be less concerned with how our church will look if they could understand that after the landscaping matures in 5-6 years, they will hardly be able to see it from any perspective. Two thirds of the building’s space will be unseen underground and the church building on the surface will be practically invisible inside a glade of trees.

I would like people to know that we have tried very hard to have our new church blend into the neighborhood. Some who oppose this new church building have particularly focused on the domes in our design. And yet, these domes have nothing to do with our choosing an architectural style we thought would be interesting. Instead, they have everything to do with our beliefs and creating the exalted quality of interior space beneath those domes in which we can practice our faith. They are not elective to us.

Churches of different faiths are located in residential neighborhoods all over Contra Costa County. Many have tall steeples, spires, crosses, and bell towers that are symbolic of their faith, which can be seen from a great distance and from many angles. Many are also located directly on the street, rather than being set back. Urban planners in America recognize the fact that churches, by their very nature, are houses of worship, not residences. The naturalness of congregations designing their churches to reflect their central principles and beliefs is generally accepted. Ours has been designed to reflect our own beliefs.

Many of our neighbors like the design of our new church as evidenced by the large number of signatures they have registered in support at the County. Many have told us they look forward to having the new church here and enjoying the lovely open gardens. These beautiful gardens are intended to convey a sense of peace, refreshment, and inspiration, and we invite your readers to enjoy them as well.

Is Saranap's Sufism Reoriented sanctuary debate heating up again?

Over the past few weeks, I’ve noticed these blue flyers affixed to telephone polls and other signs along Boulevard Way in the Saranap neighborhood. These flyers once again raise questions about the size of the proposed sanctuary to be built by Sufism Reoriented, a Saranap-based religious organization.

“Too big for story poles?!?!?!” ask the flyers, one of which is pictured here.

“According to Sufism Reoriented, the sanctuary building is too large and too complex to put up story poles.”

Okay, what are story poles, what project am I talking about, and who is behind the flyers?

Sufism Reoriented proposes to construct a white, 66,000-square-foot, multi-domed “sanctuary” on a 3.25-acre site wedged mostly amongst single-family homes in this older, residential neighborhood in unincorporated Walnut Creek.

The project has hit a raw nerve in this neighborhood, with longtime residents complaining that such a large, white “spaceship-looking” building (bigger than the White House) would not fit in the character of their semi-rural neighborhood. The address would be on Boulevard Way, and there are apartments and office buildings along one side.

Sufism Reoriented leaders say the building, particularly the domes, was designed to blend in with the surrounding, grass covered hills. They also say it would be eco-friendly, “nestled in a glade of trees,” and, with two-thirds of it tucked underground, it would not be visible to most neighbors.

Opponents claim it would be highly obtrusive and have asked the 350-member religious organization to erect what are called “story poles.” If you’re not in construction, story poles are wooden structures, often built of 2X4s that are erected on the site of a proposed development to give builders, neighbors, government officials a visual indication of its size and visual impact.

Sanctuary opponents say Sufism is refusing to erect the story poles because they don’t want the neighbors and county planners, who are reviewing the plans, to see how massive the sanctuary truly will be. Apparently, a representative of Sufism reoriented said earlier this year that it would be very costly to erect the story poles and that they are an old-fashioned, inefficient way to really judge a project’s size and visual impact.

Sanctuary opponents, leaders of an organization called Save Our Saranap, deny posting the flyers. It’s also possible that the flyers have been up there a while. However, although I don’t live in the Saranap, I still drive, walk, or run through that area on an almost daily basis, and it wasn’t until a couple weeks ago that I noticed these flyers.

I’ve e-mailed a representative of Sufism Reoriented to see if the organization has any comment on the flyers and the story pole issue, but haven’t heard back from him yet. If I do, I’ll pass along what he has to say.

As I reported back in March, many Sufism Reoriented members have made the Saranap neighborhood their home, and have apparently co-existed peacefully with their non-Sufism neighbors for decades. But things started to become tense in the neighborhood, when Sufism Reoriented went public with its sanctuary plans. Friends who live in the neighborhood were telling me stories about being bombarded with aggressive door-to-door visits by Sufism members and pro-sanctuary press releases and expensive newsletters.

Sufism Reoriented says it wants to build a beautiful house of worship for its members, where they can also participate in the organization’s many religious, civic, and arts activities.

It’s not clear whether the appearance of these flyers represent some new rise in tensions over this controversial issue. But I’m told that county planners are finishing up their review of the project, and possibly, by the beginning of the new year, it will go back to the neighbors for further discussion and debate.