Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/12/1999t ! MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 12,1999 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Tye called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Ruzicka. ROLL CALL: Present: Chairman Steve Tye, Vice Chairman Steve Nelson and Commissioners George Kuo, Joe McManus and Joe Ruzicka. j Also Present: James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager, Ann Lungu, Associate Planner, Linda Smith, Development Services Assistant; Sonya Joe, Development Services Assistant, and Stella Marquez, Administrative Secretary. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None .: APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Minutes of September 28, 1999, I C/Ruzicka moved, C/Kuo seconded, to approve the minutes of September 28, 1999, as presented. Motion carried 5-0 by Roll Call vote. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: 1. Comprehensive Sign Program No. 99-6 (pursuant to Code Section 22.36.060) is a request to install nine wall signs and replace the sign face of an existing legal non -conforming monument sign. PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1195 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Lp, PROPERTY OWNER: Jacob Khakshouri 12424 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 650 Los Angeles, CA 90025 October 12, 1999 — PC Page 2 m �IullH'w APPLICANT: Ray Bush 3940 Pyrite Street Riverside, CA 92509 DSA/Joe presented staffs report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Comprehensive Sign Program No. 99-6, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Michelle Hoffman, Coast Sign, Inc., 1345 S. Allee Street, Anaheim, CA 92805, provided) completed photographs of a completed Hollywood Video store showing the blue mountain. Per staff s request, the rays and the neon have been eliminated from this project. Therefore, it is hoped that the Planning Commission will compromise with the proposed color of the mountain. Chair/Tye asked Ms. Hoffman if Hollywood Video is satisfied with the rendering that has been presented this evening. The Chino Hills and Corona locations do not feature the blue mountain. Ms. Hoffinan responded that she has attempted to show the Commission how the mountain washes out and is lost with the lighter colors. Individual stores are neve_ r satisfied with anything other than the blue mountain because those are the organization's colors. C/McManus asked if the applicant has considered changing the color of the letters in order to obtain a contrast for visibility. IL Ms. Hoffman indicated that it would not be her position to make such a change because the logo is a patented trademark. It has never been done. C/Ruzicka said he believes a compromise is in order. DCM/DeStefano stated that staff is not recommending the color blue. The graphic showing the muted color was the applicant's representation. Staff is looking for something that is far less contrasting, but in colors that are more reflective of the palate that is already there. For example, a tan that might provide an appropriate color from the background color but is not overwhelming the street with the blue up against the beige of the building. VC/Nelson said he has no problem with the blue. This is the busiest intersection of Diamond Bar and we want people to shop and spend their money in Diamond Bar. People spend money where there is sizzle. This is a commercial establishment and the City is behind it and changed out a vacant bank to accommodate the facility. Chair/Tye said that he wants to attract attention to the highly visible intersection but he does not want it to look like a carnival. Ms. Hoffman said that with respect to Chair/rye's comment, she attempted to come to a compromise by; ormHoeliminating the rays and the neon so that it would not light up. There will be no illumination except for!- Hollywood llywood and Video. II !t October 12, 1999 — PC Page 3 Chair/Tye again referred Ms. Hoffman to the Chino Hills facility. The sign has used muted tones and kept the rays. The sign looks good. He appreciates her willingness to compromise. C/Ruzicka asked Ms. Hoffman what she thinks about the suggestion of using a darker tan color. DCM/DeStefano responded to Chair/Tye that staff's position is that there should not be neon, there should not be the painted spotlights and that the mountain should be muted. Every other aspect of the total package is acceptable to staff. Ms. Hoffman indicated to C/Ruzicka that Hollywood Video prefers their blue mountain. If they cannot get the blue mountain they must go with what they can get but it is not their, first choice. Chair/Tye opened the public hearing. There was no one present who wished to speak on this item. Chair/Tye closed the public hearing. C/McManus said he believes the applicant needs contrast for their sign and he is not opposed to the spotlights. VC/Nelson stated that the City allows inflatables on commercial buildings by permit. This discussion is about colors of a sign at Grand Avenue and Diamond Bar Boulevard. When he asked the applicant if an inflatable was a competitive advantage the applicant responded that it was. In his opinion, if this is a competitive advantage for Hollywood Video, and he has no problem with those colors, then why is the City making a distinction. C/Ruzicka said he believes staff is attempting to unify the effect of the entire building and the four corners area, which he understands. If that color is a dark color and something more in keeping with what is on the corner rather than blue, he does not see that Hollywood Video will suffer. VC/Nelson said he would prefer to give the applicant entrepreneurial freedom The Ralph's Market sign is bright red and stands out. He does not believe the City should restrict the applicant. He likes the idea of no neon signs. Peter Wilson, on behalf of the property owner, stated he is the in-house architect. When the building was designed two years ago we knew that Hollywood Video was going to be the major tenant. From the first day the first line was drawn of how this building would look, we knew that Hollywood Video was going to be in the building. When the building was designed, he knew that Hollywood Video had a neon sign and on that sign the background of the mountain was blue. The colors that he chose for the building took into consideration that the building's major tenant was Hollywood Video. He believes the blue compliments the -R building and once the trees are there, green will be present, which will cause the building to compliment itself in the total. Chair/Tye said that if Hollywood Video is satisfied to have and to use muted tones he believes the corner would accommodate those tones and be an effective use of the color schemes that are available as evidenced by the locations in Chino Hills and Corona. October 12, 1999 — PC Page 4 Ms. Hoffman reiterated that Hollywood Video is not satisfied with the muted tone. C/Ruzicka moved, VC/Nelson seconded, moved approval of Comprehensive Sign Program'No. 99-6, Findings of Fact and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution with the color of the mountain being a color mutually agreed upon by staff and the applicant. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: PUBLIC HEARING: Kuo, McManus, Ruzicka, None None None VC/Nelson, Chair/Tye 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 95-1(1), Variance No. 99-8, Tree Permit No. 99-2 (pursuant to Code Sections 22.58, 22.54 and 22.38) is a request to revise approved Conditional Use Permit No. 95-1 to add approximately 34 parking stalls. The Variance request is to allow a reduction in the parking stall dimensions in order to be consistent with the original approval. The Tree Permit is a request to remove and replace four oak trees and replace one California peppertree. The oak trees' removal is due to the request for additional parking stalls. Chair/Tye stated he attends Evangelical Free Church. He has discussed this matter with the City Manager and staff and has an opinion from the City's attorney that there is no conflict of interest. It is his intent to hear the proposal and to objectively consider the information and render a decision accordingly. . AssocP/Lungu presented staffs report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. 95-1(1), Variance No., 99-8, and Tree Permit No. 99-2, with .the incorporation of staff alternative proposal, amendment to Negative Declaration No. 95-1, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Don Troudy, 1329 S. Holly Leaf Way, speaking on behalf of Evangelical Free Church, asked that the Conditional Use Permit be amended to allow for additional parking on the undeveloped part of the property. He stated that the church is thankful that staff is recommending approval of the proposal, and believes that the proposal is good for the community, the neighborhood and for the church. During the past two months, Pastor Mark Hopper has walked through the adjoining neighborhoods on three separate occasions in an attempt to make sure that all of the neighbors were aware in advance that the church would be submitting this request to the Planning Commission. Literature from the church was left at every house. In, addition, he spoke with a number of neighbors personally. One objection expressed by several neighbors concerned the removal of some of the trees in the undeveloped portion of the church property. The proposal may require the removal of up to four oak trees and the church realizes that these will need to be replaced on a 3:1 ratio according to City Code. We concur with this condition and regret that these trees may need to be removed.; The Commission has allowed for the removal or replacement of several hundred trees in other projectsC throughout the City because it benefitted the community as well as within the established land use. Church officials are aware that some pine trees will need to be removed and have asked a representative of the State's Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention to visit the site and provide recommendations concerning these October 12, 1999 — PC Page 5 i trees. A copy of the representative's letter is included in the Commission packets. He indicates that some of these trees are vulnerable to wind factors that could cause them to fall in windy conditions with wet soil saturation. The church has received telephone calls from neighbors expressing concern that trees near them could fall and cause damage to their property, or fall into the drainage channel and cause local flooding. In fact, the top half of a tree broke off in a rainstorm resulting in blockage of the culvert on Diamond Bar Boulevard. Just last winter a large pine tree limb fell during a windstorm that caused damage to the facility's equipment shed. One neighbor recently told Pastor Hopper that he was concerned that one day one of these trees would end up falling on his home in the middle of the night. We believe that the removal of some of the pine trees is virtually mandated by these safety concerns and we have a plan to restore and enhance the aesthetics after the removal. Another concern expressed by residents was that noise would be a problem in the event that the parking lot was expanded into the undeveloped area. A recognized acoustical expert has been consulted and he indicates that the church parking lot would not contribute to general noise in the area. His comment was that noise was a non -issue in regards to impact on the neighborhood. A church parking lot is used infrequently during the week and is not like a Costco, Home Depot, or Ralph's Grocery that has activity throughout the day seven days a week. One neighbor expressed concerns about the visual effects if the parking lot was extended into the undeveloped area. The church has hired a Landscape Architect to assist in planting attractive vegetation that will minimize visibility of the parking area from neighboring homes. In fact, the church has planted 50 Italian Cypress trees along the eastern border of its property to enhance the property and the border it shares with its neighbors. The church's desire is to add more on-site parking. To alleviate parking congestion in and around the property, we have reached parking agreements with three local businesses on the westside of the property. These agreements allow the congregation to park off-site on Sundays and reduce traffic in and around the property. We have taken steps to remind our congregation to utilize these facilities and to "Park and Walk" to church. The proposal provides for a 20 -foot buffer between the parking lot and the property line. According to City Code we could request permission to park cars right up to the property line. In an effort to continue good relationships with our neighbors, we have intentionally designed this 20 -foot setback to provide a visual and aesthetically pleasing as well as, an acoustical sound barrier for the neighbors. In fact, there is an even wider buffer along the drainage channel along the back of the property. Staff's alternative proposal reduces the amount of play yard space on the property and this is of great concern. The church operates a state licensed pre-school. As part of its licensing agreement, a minimum of 75 square feet of play yard must be provided for each attending child. The church is licensed for 36 children and'the current play yard size meets the mandated state minimum requirements. Staff's alternative proposal does not provide adequate play yard space to meet the state requirement. The church appreciates their suggestion. However, we feel that the original plan submitted to the City is the best design and use of the site. Mr. Troudy responded to C/McManus that staffs proposal is not acceptable. Chair/Tye opened the public hearing. Joann Craig, 3196 Cherrydale Drive, said she is concerned about the overflow parking from the church that occurs Monday through Friday during business hours and sometimes on Sundays and Wednesdays as well. She has limited parking space in front of her house. The vehicles parked on Diamond Bar Boulevard do not allow for leaving 100 feet free of cars from the corner of Cherrydale Drive which impedes the vision of motorists attempting to move onto Diamond Bar Boulevard. Church attendees park on Cherrydale Drive in front of homes which takes away the resident's privilege to entertain guests at their homes. Church members park in front of her mailbox which prevents the delivery of mail. She would like to know how many families October 12, 1999 - PC Page 6 are members, what is the average attendance on Wednesdays and Sundays, what is the membership growtIL-3 rate over the last two years, what is the expected growth rate over the next two years, and was there an alternative plan reviewed by the Commissioners for the church parking? If the trees are removed, how will the lighting and noise impact the residents? If a six-foot retaining wall is erected will it provide a sound barrier? Is there any other type of beautification that would help mitigate the view of the vehijcles? If the parking lot only has ingress and egress to Diamond Bar Boulevard how will that impact current congested traffic? What happens after 2000 when the temporary permit for street parking expires? Will they have enough spaces to park or will they come back to park on Cherrydale Drive. She is not opposed to the church in the community. However, she feels that this particular church has outgrown its existing site and any addition or expansion will create a hardship for the residents. Joshua Wes, 3263 Bent Twig Lane said he has attended the church all of his life. Over the years he has witnessed a real vision for expansion and reaching out to the community. Linda Villanueva, 3141 Cherrydale Drive, said she is concerned about the lighting of the parking lot. Currently, the trees act as a buffer and the area is quiet. She has lived in the area for three years and what attracted them to the street was the view with the trees and wildlife. She said she is concerned about the rapid growth of the church and the ability of the site to handle the continued growth. If the church, decides to sell the building and move on to another location, the neighborhood is left with no trees: Churchgoers park on Cherrydale Drive at this time and she does not believe that the addition of 34 stalls will mitigate the parking on her street. She suggested that the church use the parking lot at the Country Hills Towne Center and bu: people to the site. i' Albert Villanueva, 3141 Cherrydale Drive, said he is concerned about what kind of drainage system the church will have to drain the water from the top of the hill to the retaining wall. Geological surveys of all existing soils on the hillside are needed to determine if the soils will sustain seismic pressure of the homes above after the 2:1 grade slope is completed. He stated that one home has a swimming pool and Jacuzzi almost at its property line. The residents want assurance that homes will not be adversely affected by the project. Jim Grzesek, 3114 ICherrydale Drive, said that residents have several concerns with the parking as an overall issue to the church: No one is opposed to the church and the residents support the organization. However, we feel that some changes need to be made and the issue of parking is the sticky issue in terms of the church being good corporate citizens. He feels that the parking request is too little too late. Before Phase 3 construction began, cars were parked on the lawn and the street was still full of cars. There were more than 35 cars parked on the lawn before construction so it is apparent to him that the 35 parking spaces will not solve the parking issue. He has heard that at 10:00 a.m. the Conditional Use Permit runs out. He is also concerned about safety. Knowing that this issue was scheduled to come before the Planning Commission, he went home at noon and took photographs of the comer, which he shared with the Conunissioners. Sometimes cones are placed 50 feet from the corner, sometimes 100 feet from the comer, and sometimes drivers move the cones. He feels that this use permit needs to address the totality of this parking issue. It is a dangerous area and there have been many accidents at that location. Joseph Johnston, 3177 Castle Rock Road, stated that he has lived in his home for 38 years. Recently, a sound; wall was erected by CalTrans that has allowed them to enjoy their backyard patio on weekends. If the church_."' has its way, they will remove trees and install parking that will ruin his view. Foliage does not mitigate noise or eliminate the need for sound walls. Noise from the cars irk the parking lot will be like adding a roadway at i October 12, 1999 — PC Page.7,,. , „ the back of his house. The noise will bounce off of the building walls and flow over to the homes which increases the noise level. He said he is not speaking about Sunday services but about the many programs which expand over seven days a week and generate a lot of traffic. His neighbors and he feel that by raising a sound wall to protect the homes and property it will create better relations with the church and perhaps avoid legal action in the future. He said that almost all of neighbors object to the', change proposed by the church. He asked Chair/Tye if he would vote for or against approval of a sound wall. George Fisher, 3173 Castle Rock Road, said that in his opinion, 34 parking spaces will not solve the church's parking problems. He does not believe that the trees that are currently standing are subject to falling in the drainage ditch and in his opinion, it is a shame to destroy the trees. Richard Cunico, 22426 Falconbum Way, said that the leadership of the church has repeatedly stated that they have a commitment to be a benefit to the whole community. As a representative of Boy Scout Troop #730, the church has allowed the group to use their facility for the last three years and because of that it is the opinion of the adult leaders of Troop #730 that we have enjoyed such great success in our troop. The troop has doubled in size since it began meeting at the church. The church does not participate in the governing of Troop #730 which is a self -sponsored chartered organization. Ralph Battista, Jr., 3169 Castle Rock Road, stated his belief that 34 parking spaces will not make a. difference. He believes that the suggestion to have church goers park in the old Ralph's parking lot and use the money that they were going to use for a parking lot for a shuttle to take people to and from church. He has lived in t the area for 27 years and witnessed hawks nesting in the trees. He does notlbelieve that any trees should be cut down. Nora Jean Jung, 3163 Cherrydale Drive, asked staff if she could show the 1995 photographs of the site. She lives directly behind the grassy knoll. Since the church removed two oak trees her air conditioning bill has increased and she hears the school children during the day. She is not opposed to the church. However, she is opposed to the church taking away from the neighbors quality of life for 34 parking spaces which will not alleviate their problems. Taking down the grassy knoll will cause problems, destroy wildlife habitats, increase noise levels for adjacent neighbors and remove 5,000 cubic yards of earth. She was -asked by the Chinese people living on the street to inform the Commission that they believe in the oriental Fung Shui. Destroying the hill and causing it to now go on a downslope will cause all of the luck to run out of their -homes. She asked that the church move the cones back to the first utility pole so that the residents can see out onto Diamond Bar Boulevard. She suggested that the curbs be painted red. She Stated that on Wednesday nights when the children come out on the hill she has had her windows broken, trash thrown in the yard, children attempting to climb the fence, screaming obscenities and smoking marijuana. I She feels the neighbors quality of life will be destroyed for these few additional parking spaces. In addition to removal of four oak trees, the church is also removing additional trees, shrubs and bushes. If the Commission passes this project, the residents ask that the church provide a wall. She has foil in her windows because the church lights are turned on 24 hours a day. She is also concerned about the possibility of people using the parking lot to gain access to herproperty. She stated that she and two other residents were assured b Pastor Hopper that they never r � pP e3' intended to use the hill and that wanted to assure the residents that the were never going to take out the hill � Y � g g because he knew that it would devalue property and destroy the neighbors quality of life. Larry Fry, 3155 Cherrydale Drive, said that at no time has his neighborhood been against the church. He spoke about the expansion of Diamond Bar over the years he has been a resident of the community. He II I,15'11llV I i ll T—i 1 11 n lu 61 1 1 1 — ., _.....----,..._. October 12, 1999 — PC Page 8 i believes that there has to be a balance between cost and benefit. When the knoll is leveled it will be apparent to the residents. There are many churches in Diamond Bar. He suggested that the church hold multiple .,. services on Sunday to mitigate the traffic. Ron Jung, 3163 Cherrydale Drive, lives directly adjacent to the knoll. Thirty of the 36 residents who live in the neighborhood are opposed to the change in their lifestyles and submitted a petition, signed, by the residents, against the proposed parking expansion. He is most directly impacted because of the location of his house. He envisions that if 5200 cubic yards of earth are removed from the location that it may adversely affect his property. The church has alternatives such as busing, parking on the opposite side of Diamondi Bar Boulevard- and oulevardand parking on Brea Canyon Boulevard. The existing sanctuary is about three times the area that the church is proposing to remove. This is a hollow building. Once the sanctuary is abandoned they intend to make it into another use. He suggested that they level the sanctuary that would provide more than ample parking. The church wants to grow and what will happen when they double their membership and have no more area. Amulti-level parking structure makes more sense to him than tearing out an historic landmark to provide a few parking spaces. Phase 1 and 2 should never have been passed by the County. Today that would not have passed. Do the homeowners have to pay for mistakes that were made in the past. Responding to C/McManus, AssocP/Lungu explained that the difference in elevation from the prior speaker's residence to the top of the finished slope is approximately 10 feet. Robert Jacob, 3168 Castle Rock Road, 'stated that the flood control channel is not a barrier betweer.• properties. His property has always enjoyed the view of trees and''shrubbery -a mini forest in the middle of the city - from his back yard. His backyard view is further enhanced by the church's land elevations, some " two stories higher than his property's elevation, allowing him to be unaware that any buildings exist on his "across the street (church)" neighbors policy: Current sanctuary construction has begun to din" the beauty of the greenbelt that acts as a backdrop for his property. He accepts the construction in the name of progress and his neighbor's right to develop their property. However, their latest !,plan to increase' their parking lot size at the back and side 'of their property will absolutely destroy' his ;property's value, appeal; and further marketability. His objections to the proposed plan is that the church will be parking some 40 cars across the channel from the back of his home. Almost all greenbelt trees and shrubs will be eliminated in favor of a blacktop parking slot with an elevation of six to 10 feet above his, property's elevation - a parking lot that is not required by their Conditional Use Permit. There are no provisions, for a noise barrier *all to help eliminate noise from cars, p;eopl'e, and ,daytime and evening activities. There are no provisions for car headlights shining into his home from the elevated parking lot or td prevent people from staring into his home from the parking lot. He is not opposed to the church's right to improve their property but he is concerned that the improvements would'be detrimental to the enjoyment and value of his property. From his perspective, two things are neededbefore a permit to develop this parking lot can be granted: 1) a 6- foot wall above the parking lot elevation to help'eliminate noise from the facility and to' hide the blacktop'parking lot and 2) at least 25 gallon trees' planted' along the outside wall to help preserve the integrityof the greenbelt area along the flood control channel. ' To date the church has offered no acceptable plan that helps meet their responsibility in developing the parking lot. He requested that the Commission deny the church a permit to build this parking 'lot until they are willing to consider the consequences and ramifications of their plan as i relates to the neighborhood in which they reside. LJ Pastor Mark Hopper, 1125 Grubstake, stated that the church's intent in proceeding with this project is to benefit the neighborhood. He presented a land scope of the proposed site. He stated that parking would be October 12, 1999 — PC Page 9,,K,. FL below the visibility of the adjacent houses. The church intends to landscape to the extent determined by the Commission to render the site attractive. The intent is to bring more vehicles onto the site in order to reduce some of the pressure off-site. C/McManus asked Pastor Hopper if the church has considered stars alternate proposal. Pastor Hopper responded that the church does not believe that stafrs proposal will adequately address the issues such as mandated preschool space. The church does not want to remove oak trees but they can be replaced. The preference is to go with the original design as proposed. Scott Holbrook, 1290 E. Center Court Drive, Covina, supports the application based upon his participation at the church giving him personal knowledge of the need for additional parking as well as, his vocation as a construction attorney assisting developers and contractors for the past 10 years. In reviewing the initial Conditional Use Permit issued by the County of Los Angeles in 1980 and extension granted by the City of Diamond Bar in 1991 he noticed that the knoll area at the rear of the property originally called for the construction of a two-story structure. He reviewed the staff report for 1980 granting the initial application and the 1991 extension of that application and both of those reports allowed the construction of the two-story j structure. In 1995 staff denied construction of the two-story structure that had been approved on those previous two applications. There were no change in facts or circumstances and the denial was without merit. To be a good neighbor at that point in history the church decided not to fight the issue and instead built a larger structure on the front of the property accounting for more classrooms. In order to be a friendly neighbor they have now removed the request for the two-story structure and propose a parking lot that provides for a 20 foot buffer and a downward slope. As previously pointed out by Ross Johnson, most of the current trees are older growth trees and of poor quality. He strongly encouraged the Planning Commission to approve this request based upon the fact that it is consistent with the development standards of the community, consistent with the current use of the land and offers a measurable improvement on the area by reducing the need for off-site parking. "a Linda Vinte, 3637 Crooked Creek Road, stated that the Evangelical Free Church allowed her independent study program to use the church facility for three years without charge. _ Matt Tye, 23850 Chinook Place, age 14, stated he attends the church as often as he can. He believes that an on-site parking lot will offer more convenience than having people walk across Diamond Bar Boulevard. He believes that the 35 parking spaces will reduce the parking on Cherrydale Lane and that it will help mitigate the problem of blocking the view from that street. He believes that the church is trying to make it as convenient as possible. Larry Magee, 639 Maple, Brea, real estate developer, said he believes that the additional 34 parking spaces will serve to mitigate the street parking problems. The landscape architect is very familiar with these types of projects and works for the good of all concerned. The church currently holds multiple services. He does not understand what type of crime element 34 parking spaces would bring. The plan is to plant churches in a other communities such as Brea and Walnut and not expand the sanctuary again. The church will do everything possible to alleviate the issue of soils concerns. Troy Reese, 1120 Cleghom Drive, Unit A, said he felt compelled to speak because his vehicle was shown in one of the photographs presented to the Commission. He said he has parked and blocked the view of residents October 12, 1999 — PC Page 10 '' i and apologized for -his lack of consideration. He explained that the parking shown in the photograph i'�;'u; excessive for the church due to the current construction that eliminates some parking. When the Construction is completed, the church will again have access to those parking spaces plus an additional 34 spaces which will eliminate many vehicles from Cherrydale Lane and Diamond Bar Boulevard. Ron Clark, 20940 Ambushers Street, reiterated that the church conducts multiple services and has done so for several years. The church has reciprocal agreements for off-site parking at the Metro Center and Pepper Tree Center. The church feels that the plan to bring cars on-site versus cars remaining on Diamond Bar Boulevard for what is anticipated to be a short time, is afar superior plan Linda McCoven, 1509 High Bluff Drive, Director of Women's Ministry, Evangelical Free Church, said she is partly responsible for the Wednesday morning bible study group that meets at the church. Currently, over 100 women are registered. Between 30 and 50 women attend meetings in the evening. More than half of the women are not regular attendees at Evangelical Free Church. It is a community bible study and members of other denominations are encouraged to attend. The group has had a very positive impact within the community. Mr. Johnston returned to reiterate his belief that plants and shrubbery will not mitigate vehicle noise. Chair/Tye closed the public hearing. AssocP/Lungu responded to C/McManus that if the project moves forward as planned, the four oak trees anc the pepper tree will be replaced at a 3:1 ratio. Any requirement for additional plantings is at the discretion'-, of the Planning Conunission. C/McManus stated that when he visited the site he noticed freeway noise from the area of the residences on Castle Rock Road much more thanhe noticed street and parking lot traffic noise. He would like to see more discussion between the church members and the residents to see what can be worked to mutual satisfaction. He agrees that 34 parking spaces will alleviate the problem. However, he is not certain that it will completely cure or solve the situation. DCM/DeStefano indicated to VC/Nelson that before any grading activity is allowed to take place, there must be an updated geotechnical report to deal with this specific project. The report would indicate the soil conditions, the type of structure needed to support the parking lot, the types of walls and how they would be developed based upon the soils in the immediate area, and deal with the drainage issues. In addition, a hydrology report would be needed to look at how the water is flowing today, how thewater will be flowing as a.result of the project, where the water is going and whether there is capacity in the system to absorb all of it to insure that the water remains on the property. With respect to tree replacement, the Commission has a discretionary decision before it. The Commission has the ability to require the minimum 3:1replacement ratio 24" box trees, or to require more than that amount. The movement of 5200 cubic yards of dirt will not exceed the air quality compliance standards. The City has the ability to paint red curbs to prevent vehicles from parking in specific areas. H C/Ruzicka stated he visited the site today. There are several tall pine trees. If it is determined that these trees r, need to be removed as a result of this project, should there be a replacement plan for those trees. -- - — —- —�.-mgr �a�u�a��� ��. �—_------------------�-----�_.. October 12, 1999 — PC Page 1,7 DCM/DeStefano stated that the City's Ordinance specifically looks at certain varieties of trees that are native to the area. The City does not protect pine trees, eucalyptus trees, palm trees and the like. However, it does not mean that those trees do not have aesthetic quality or environmental value. Again, this is a discretionary matter before the Planning Commission. From time to time, the Commission has determined that when a species is not a part of the protected realm that upon removal, such species would be compensated or replaced. In response to C/Kuo, DCM/DeStefano stated that the purpose for the Variance is to receive approval to construe some parking spaces smaller than what the City would today require. The recommendation for that portion of the application incorporates stag s belief that gaining as many parking spaces on-site as possible is an appropriate goal. If a reduction in the size of the parking spaces is necessary in order to achieve that goal, staff is recommending that the Commission take that action. The site has a number of constraints such as significant topographical relief, existing physical buildings, and physical layout. Once again, this is a discretionary action before the Planning Commission and they do not have to agree with stag. This is a unique situation and each Variance case is looked at independently. C/Kuo asked the applicant how long the additional parking spaces will provide relief to the church. Pastor Hopper indicated to C/Kuo that the intent of the request was to supplement, to provide more on-site parking spaces. There are.no plans to request additional parking spaces in the future. C/Ruzicka stated that Pastor Hopper previously indicated that stags alternative recommendation was " unacceptable to the church. How much of a stretch has the church made in order to accommodate the church to this kind of alternative and what other alternatives have you considered based upon the resident's objection to the way in which the project has been proposed. Pastor Hopper said the church feels that it is exercising a good neighbor policy by pulling the parking lot away from the property lines and providing buffers on all perimeters. To pull back even farther, would further reduce the number of parking spaces and in addition, require extensive retaining mechanisms: This puts in question. whether under these circumstances the church would have enough space to meet- the state's requirements for the children's program. C/Ruzicka stated he believes that stabs recommendation addressed the needs of the children's program and indicated that there was sufficient space. Pastor Hopper reiterated that after evaluating staff's alternate proposal, the church felt that their .plan was not the best way to approach this matter in terms of the play yard, in terms of the retaining wall and in terms of the best geographical layout following the contour of the land. C/Ruzicka stated that there are concerns about the loss of the trees. The tree stand has been in place for a long time and the neighborhood is enhanced by it. With this alternative, a good portion of that tree stand would remain. If you would not sign off on stab's alternative, what other alternative is there for trying to retain as marry of those old growth trees as is possible and would you consider building walls that would hide b �p' the parking lot from as many people as possible. October 12, 1999 – PC Page 12 Pastor Hopper responded that the church does not have a desire to scrape the land. With the church's plan1l. some trees will remain. Some are in poor health as the forestry report indicates. It may be that some of the oaks can be saved. We wanted to be prepared for the worst case and hope that perhaps we would be able to save some of trees. The church will do everything possible to minimize any visual impact on the neighbors that he believes has been indicated in the drawings provided by the applicant. Chair/Tye said he believes this is a classic case of NIMBY. Regarding a resident's concern about cars being gone from the area by noon, the report clearly states that the church is allowed to park on southbound Diamond Bar Boulevard between 100 feet south of Crooked Creek and the northerly drive approach of the church facility. Additionally, street parking is allowed on Sundays from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. He stated that it is his judgement that the issue is not parking, it is parking in that area as indicated by Mr. Jung's suggestion that the church tear down the existing facility once the new sanctuary is open and create a parking lot there. So the issue really isn't "parking" on that site, it's where the parking will take place. He explained that when he first came.to Diamond Bar in 1978 Diamond Bar Boulevard was a two lane, road. Where the Lucky Market is located there was a beautiful stand of eucalyptus trees which are now gone and Diamond Bar Boulevard is now a four lane road. He said he believes that as a result of the Transamerica development, the City now has to do the best it can do with what it has available. There were blue jays, squirrels and other wildlife where there are now homes on streets such as Cherrydale Drive and Crooked Creek Road'.. In the case of increased air conditioning billings as a result of loss of shade trees from adjacent properdesjIe does not believe it is an adjacent, property owner's responsibility to provide anyone with shade. Movement of earth is a part of living in southern California and he does not believe that this project will cause earthquakes nor will not going forward with this project prevent earthquakes. VC/Nelson stated that he was contacted by Mr. Johnston and Mr. Jung. He spoke with Mrs. Jung about the project. In both cases, the questions were relevant to what the project consisted of and they wanted to make sure that he understood that there was opposition to the project which he acknowledged. None of the parties lobbied him one way or the other. He further stated that he met with Pastor Hopper and two of the church's elders so that he could understand the project with plans in hand. There was no attempt on their part to lobby him one way or the other. He indicated to all parties that he would remain open-minded and objective and weigh this case on its own merits. He said he believes that as a Commission, the group needs to set aside the fact that it is a church. The growth of a church is a good thing because it makes this community and country a better place to be. He recommended that the Commission look upon this project as a retail center with a daycare center. He commended AssocP/Lungu for her tremendously creative thinking in coming up with an alternative to this project. She gained two parking spaces. What he does not agree with in the staff alternative is the fact that it takes an already very limited playground area for children and makes it smaller. And he cannot endorse trading the welfare of children for trees. With respect to trees, they have aesthetic value. These trees do not have habitat value. The remaining issues involve the affects on the neighbors as a result of lights and noise. A 5:1 ratio for occupants per vehicle translates to accommodating 170 plus people which is a significant improvement over the current situation. The more vehicles the City can get off of Diamond Bar Boulevard the better. If it does not completely alleviate the problem, it is still an improvement and he is for that. In order to alleviate 5 decibels of noise you need 100 meters of heavily wooded forest. The noise issue related to the vegetation on this site is non-existent. With respect to lighting, the source is reduced 371 to 4 times by the time it hits the edge of the parking lot. He said he will assume that with a properlyE landscaped buffer that the lighting will be able to be mitigated. He encouraged the applicant to come up with— a landscape plan that includes evergreen trees as opposed to deciduous. In terms of noise, the consultants in his office stated that a six-foot high wall, five foot space and a drop down of 10 feet to a parking lot is the October 12, 1999 — PC Page 13 ;. maximum attenuation' available for noise for a parking lot. He cannot speak to the loss of aesthetics to the area. Diamond Bar has become more progressive in recent years and it is no longer a small community. Therefore, we have to behave in a manner befitting the community that we are. People complain about economic development and how the City can be self-sustaining. These types of projects are ways in which we become self-sustaining. He said he believes that the project, as proposed, with the addition of an adequate landscaping plan is about the best the City can do and he is for it. C/Ruzicka stated that if possible, he feels that the City should attempt to fulfill some of the needs and desires of the neighbors. Chair/Tye commented on a speaker who said that there would be no trees. Pastor Hopper made the point that this location will not be stripped of trees. Secondly, the oak trees and the pepper tree will be replaced on-site at a minimum of 3:1 ratio. This translates to 4 trees gone, and a minimum of 15 trees will replace those 4 trees. VC/Nelson moved, C/McManus seconded, to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 95-1(1), Variance No. 99-8, and Tree Permit No. 99-2, as proposed by the applicant, with the Findings of Fact, and conditions as listed within the resolution, subject to the applicant submitting a landscape plan subject to review and approval by the City's staff that would provide adequate screening for the adjacent neighbors for light that would include species of multi -tiered trees and shrubs that are evergreen similar to those that are currently on- site. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, McManus, Ruzicka, VC/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Tye ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS: None INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 1. Video Presentation on Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Continued to a future meeting. 2. Public Hearing dated for future projects: DCM/DeStefano stated that there is a project tentatively scheduled for the Planning Commission meeting of November 23. It is likely that there will also be a City Council meeting that night using this auditorium. If the Planning Commission meeting holds for that night it will be held in the Hearing Board Room. Two upcoming programs for Planning Commissioners regarding planning issues as well as, traffic issues are scheduled. Interested Commissioners may contact staff for reservations. 'i October 12, 1999 — PC Page 14 SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:;;';!'? As listed in the agenda. ADJOURNMENT: C/Ruzicka moved, Chaknye seconded, to adjourn the meeting. There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Chair/Tye adjourned the meeting at 10:00 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, James DeStefano Deputy City Manager Attest: Steve Tye Chairman