Greg Rehmer, Senior Planner, explained the applicant wishes to demolish an existing meeting house, which was approved by the city in the 80’s and build a new Temple on the property. The conditional use permit is to allow them to demolish the meetinghouse and construct a 29,000 square foot Temple. Part of the conditional use permit is to allow for a steeple; the code allows a height up to 45 feet by right.
The site is bound by residences on three sides with a horse trail that abuts property on the west side. He provided visuals of the project edge and view of the horse trail. There is a row of large eucalyptus trees on the left side which will be protected. Many of the trees that are on the right side are on the applicant's property and may be removed and replaced with like trees to provide a buffer and screening from the residences. There is a row of street trees that line Osmond Street which will be maintained by the applicant, and they will add additional trees on that streetscape as the project moves forward. On the west side, there is a 20-foot-wide horse trail with vegetation on both sides. The vegetation on the west side belongs to the neighbor and the applicant’s vegetation is on the right side.
Staff has reviewed the site plan; architecture and the Traffic Commission has reviewed the project for traffic impacts. The Traffic Commission concluded that there would be no significant traffic impacts regarding site circulation, parking and traffic and is in support of the project with the added conditions of approval.
The proposed building height is at the purview of the Planning Commission, and it is an issue that has been raised by the residents many times. Staff is supportive of the project; they have looked at the site plan, architecture, landscaping, access, and traffic and do not find any deficiencies that would warrant a denial.
Recess: 7:56 – 8:07
Matt McKinney, representative for the church provided a visual presentation. On March 19th, a committee delivered informational flyers to all the surrounding neighbors that explained the upcoming community outreach meeting that was to be held on March 29th.
On March 29th an outreach meeting was held at the Yorba Linda Community Event Center with a good turn-out. Another hand delivered invitation was distributed on April 9th to the surrounding community to bring awareness of the upcoming meeting on April 14th. The April 14th meeting was a follow-up to some of the comments and concerns that were addressed in the first meeting on the 9th. After the Traffic Commission meeting, there was another round of flyers that were distributed to the surrounding neighbors on May 7th which directed the neighbors to the city web page which included the most current information about the project and different files that could be viewed online.
The Temple is different from the meetinghouse that was built in 1986 off of Bastanchury which was closed in November of 2021.
The Temple follows a set schedule and will be closed on Sundays and Mondays, except for a small maintenance team. and Temple facility manager. The Temple is open by appointment for various functions such as gospel instruction, baptisms, and marriages. The operating hours will be from 6:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. and based on an evaluation of peak occupancy levels for the different functions, they do not anticipate that the Temple occupancy will get near to the maximum occupancy loads.
A different site plan was originally presented to the community which showed the vehicular access point on Osmond, and a smaller entry point on Bastanchury. After concerns and feedback from the neighbors regarding Osmond, they limited the access point from Osmond so that no patrons would drive on site from Osmond and removed the man gates. Osmond will remain as an emergency vehicle access only, as required by the different emergency personnel. The sidewalk along Osmond has also been removed in an effort to deter patrons from parking or going onto the Temple site from there.
The single access point on Bastanchury has been widened to facilitate that single point of entry.
He read the following in regard to the building and spire height.
“Spires are an important iconic religious symbol for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The proposed spire will be the Temple’s most distinctive architectural feature. The spire expresses symbolically core doctrinal teachings of the church including the idea of ascension to God. It speaks devotion to God and lifts the adherence eye heavenward, has no other function purpose but to convey a religious message. The spire conveys a religious message that the church is trying to send. The spire is readily recognizable and identifies to all that the Temple is a place of worship. It is an age-old symbol of Christianity, part of a universal iconography. Moreover, there is no compelling state interest that can be advanced to justify impinging on the church’s right to religious expression. A religious symbol message, exercise in structure is protected by both state and federal constitutions. as well as other state and federal laws such as The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act otherwise known as (RLUIPA). RLUIPA subjects land use regulations to the most exacting judicial scrutiny in that it prohibits any land use regulations that substantially burdens the exercise of religion except in extraordinary circumstances where the government can demonstrate that the regulation is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest. Once a religious claimant makes prima facie under RLUIPA, the burden shifts to the government to prove that the challenged regulation is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest.”
The occupied portion of the Yorba Linda Temple complies with Yorba Linda's 35-foot building height ordinance. The original spire height was 107 feet tall, and the revised height is now 99.4 inches in response to the neighbor’s concerns.
Roger Phillips, architect, provided visuals and explained the spire is an important architectural and spiritual feature of the Temple and an important part of the building. The city asked them to provide sun shadow studies to see how the spire would affect the residences around the Temple. Basically, the spire does affect the residences on Rosebud Drive in the morning hours during the summer solstice where the sun is most northward in the sky. Some of the big shadows that are seen are from 75-foot pine trees on the east and west sides of the site. Also, there are shadows on all of the adjacent properties which are cast by large trees; therefore, it is a little misleading. The studies show times when the spire would enter a resident property and continue onto that property, so during the summer solstice approximately 5 properties on Rosebud would be affected. During the summer solstice residence number one would be affected for about 25 minutes and residence two and four for about 55 minutes. Once it moves to the equinox and the sun shifts to be equal from the north most to the south, residence five would be affected for about 30 minutes and residence three and four would be affected for approximately 55 minutes. He pointed out residences that would be affected during various stages of the equinox and solstice
Lighting is an important part of the Temple design. Side lighting is provided to enhance the environment and the safety during the Temple operations. Parking lot lights will be shielded so that the lens won't be visible beyond the property line, and they will also have motion sensors so they will be dimmed until there is activity. All exterior lighting for the Temple and the site will be turned on 1/2 hour before operations and turned off 1/2 hour after operations. He provided a night rendering from Bastanchury Road. The design is to provide an even and soft lighting for the Temple that would be calming and beautiful.
Delia Phillips, Traffic Engineer, explained six other Temples in Utah and Arizona were studied to evaluate how much traffic this Temple will generate. It was determined to be 64 trips on a morning peak hour, 74 trips on a weekday evening peak hour and just short of 199 trips on a Saturday morning peak hour, they studied 9 intersections and the one on the project driveway located on Bastanchury Road. They looked at the level of service (LOS) which is an evaluation of how well an intersection is operating and how much congestion there will be and will there be excessive delays. If you see LOS A on the table, it would be considered a higher delay, LOS A through C would be considered minimal delay.
Two intersections have been identified that would have a higher delay in accordance with the city’s traffic study guidelines. They looked at an existing 2022 year, the year when the Temple would open in 2024 and a future year of 2045. They found that two intersections would have unacceptable operations: Osmond Street/Bastanchury, as well as Rose/Imperial. Rose/Imperial which is operating unacceptably therefore, the addition of a Temple traffic would not degrade that intersection, so no improvements were found to be necessary there.
Osmond and Bastanchury are also operating unacceptably with or without the project from the existing year. Temple traffic does not significantly exacerbate the congestion or delays at that intersection; however, the church will be paying for the cost to stripe the intersection, remove the left turn arrows and convert it into a two-way left turn lane.
Residents on Osmond Street stated parking concerns, so the church will be making every effort to warn their patrons and other Temple workers that parking will not be permitted on Osmond. They will work with the city if issues arise in the future. There will be sufficient parking on site; 172 parking stalls will be provided on-site which is approximately 65 more spaces than required.
There will be a three special events before the commencement of typical Temple operations. The first will be a ceremonial groundbreaking in June of 2022, a month-long open house that will occur after the completion of construction and the third will be a Temple dedication. All of the events will be by invitation only; therefore, the church will be able to control the flow of people visiting the site. Visitors will be parked offsite and shuttled onto the site. A traffic management plan will be submitted to the city for review and approval beforehand.
Mr. McKinney stated the open house is two years from the point of construction and their best estimate is that between 80 to 100,000 people will attend. The duration will be approximately 4 weeks long. The open house will actually consist of 24 days, Monday through Saturday, 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., 80,000/100,000 people divided by the total amount of hours which equals 288 hours; divide that to get approximately 300 people per hour or 3,500 to 4,000 people per day. There will be no parking on the adjacent site or the local streets; a typical shuttle will hold approximately 50 people which equates to approximately 6 to 7 shuttles per hour or one every 10 minutes, which is within the parameters of the traffic study.
Ms. Phillips explain this a unique project because currently patrons are attending the existing Temple in Los Angeles or the one in Newport Beach. Many of those patrons live in north Orange County and will now be re-routed to the new Temple. They analyzed where those people live and the distance they will be traveling to the existing Temple versus the new Temple and found that almost all, except for one exception, would reduce the distance they need to travel. Therefore, as a whole, the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) would be reduced. This information was presented to the Traffic Commission last month and they requested some follow up information which has been provided.
The first was an intersection control evaluation for Bastanchury and Osmond. It was to confirm that the current two-way stop control would be the ideal control rather than a traffic signal. Analysis was performed and confirmed that it has the lowest volume capacity ratio, meaning it is the most efficient control option from a traffic perspective. The Traffic Commission also requested that the Osmond/ Bastanchury proposed two-way left turn lane addition intersection be studied. It shows that delay was reduced, and level of service was improved with the proposed striping.
The trip generation study was based on six sites in Arizona and Utah. The Traffic Commission requested that they take data at local Temples in Southern California. In April they took counts at the Newport Beach Temple and the City of Redlands Temple and compared it to the proposed trip generation estimates that were prepared for Yorba Linda. They found that for all of the peak hours, except for one, the Newport Beach Temple had lower trip generation than what was projected in Yorba Linda; they projected 74 evening peak hour trips on the weekday, there were 84 during a Friday night peak hour. The Redlands Temple had lower trips than the estimated trip generation for Yorba Linda.
In an effort to present a complete analysis, they updated the level of service with the 84 p.m. peak hour trips that were observed at the Newport Beach Temple and found that the level of service conclusions did not change with those additional 10 p.m. peak hour trips.
Mr. McKinney ask the audience to give him a show of hands if they were in support of the project. Approximately 50 people raised their hand.
A traffic simulation was presented showing projected traffic scenarios.
Chair Pro Tem Pease asked if the hours of lighting and restriping Bastanchury and Osmond are in the conditions of approval.
Mr. Rehmer stated yes, it is under Special Conditions-Traffic, as required by the Engineering Department. The hour for lighting is not an added condition; it is what was submitted by the applicant.
Chair Pro Tem Pease stated the first line in condition number 63 should read ” whether” and asked for clarification on condition 90 - is it approved by the City Council or the Planning Commission?
Mr. Rehmer responded the Planning Commission.
Chair Darnell asked the applicant if they agreed with all the conditions of approval.
Mr. McKenney stated they agreed with the conditions. However, they agree with condition 100 as stated for Osmond, but not for Rosebud. They do not believe that there is a parking concern on Rosebud since there is no direct access point to the Temple site.
Chair Darnell asked if the inclusion of Rosebud in that condition is a deal breaker, or just something they would prefer to not be in the condition.
Mr. McKinney stated they would strongly prefer not to have it in that condition. As for condition 4, he asked the Commission if there could be a consideration to limit the amount of equestrian trail fence along the south property line. It was their understanding that a portion of the fence would extend, then their decorative wrought iron fence would take the place of the equestrian trail fence.
Jamie Lai, Public Works Director/City Engineer responded that there is an existing trail connection that goes from Rosebud. It is atypical as there are not many cul-de-sacs that have that, but the trail connects at the end of the cul-de-sac from Rosebud over to the trail that is surrounding the church. As for the fencing itself, because the city maintains it, they want it from a consistency standpoint. There are no other areas in the city where it has a condition with a remove portion of the fence; from a consistency standpoint they would like to keep it as such.
Chair Darnell asked the applicant if he would be amenable to keeping condition #4 the way it is.
Mr. McKinney stated there is an existing man gate that is on the same access as the Temple that would give somebody walking into the equestrian trail a path into the Temple site. If they eliminate that man gate access to the Temple, would Commission agree to not include Rosebud in special condition 100?
Chair Darnell stated that the church said they would make their best effort to not have patrons park on adjacent neighboring streets; why would they not want to make their best effort if they are trying to be a good neighbor.
Mr. McKinney responded that they want to be good neighbors but are concerned that the access point to Rosebud is their only sticking point and they don't feel it's a real access point. They would have to monitor it and it doesn't sound like it's going to be an issue. In that condition there are items listed such as signage, striping and they feel that those are unnecessary for Rosebud.
Chair Darnell stated they can go back to it; but feels that the city's position is that Rosebud needs to stay in.
Mr Litfin stated the applicant is not required to consent; they can go through the process and work it out. As the word conditional use permit implies, there are conditions which are used to mitigate impacts to the properties.
Chair Darnell stated there are building height restrictions in the city of Yorba Linda, but there are allowances for steeples and asked what the highest steeple in the city is.
Mr. Rehmer stated staff did a survey and The Rose Drive Friends Church free standing steeple with a cross on top was approved at 70 feet tall and United Methodist Church on Ohio has a bell tower with a cross on top that is approximately 70 to 75 feet tall.
Chair Darnell stated the open house will be a rather large influx of people; she asked Director Brantley to explain the process to hold this type of event.
Director Brantley responded that event permits address large public events. The Traffic Commission actually suggested a condition related to a traffic management plan. The traffic management plan must focus on the special events; therefore, the city's process for handling larger events through an event permit is included in that plan. The way that the condition is formatted, they would have to submit the traffic management plan before the grading permits, then it would be for review and approval by the Traffic Commission.
Commissioner Bernstein asked if condition 95 protects the owls.
Mr. Rehmer stated that condition was specifically added for that reason.
Director Brantley added it is a good practice whenever development and construction activity during the February through August bird nesting season. A nesting survey is completed by a biologist for nesting birds and if they find any, there are mitigation measures set up to protect those nests and not disturb the birds. There are follow-up surveys to address the issues. Such a study is in the process right now on Bastanchury due to the street widening project.
Commissioner Bernstein asked if there is a condition of approval for the public being welcomed on site when the Temple is open.
Mr. Litfin stated that is not something that they can compel. They have the private property right to control access both internally to the building and the exterior of the property. That is something that they would talk about in the future as it has a religious significance, and the city cannot interfere with that.
Commission Singh, ask how many staff members will be on the property when they are closed on Sunday and Monday.
Mr. McKinney responded they anticipate 10 or less maintenance personnel.
Commissioner Singh stated initially the height of the spire was 107 feet; how did they determine the 99’ feet 4” as acceptable.
Mr. Phillips responded that they conducted several studies; there is a strong proportional relationship between the massing of the building and the spire’s height. They feel proportionately, the 99 feet is as low as they can go to keep the aesthetics of the Temple.
Commissioner Singh asked about the approximate height of the eucalyptus trees that are on the south and west side.
Mr. Rehmer stated they are approximately 60 to 70 feet tall.
Commissioner Singh stated one of the letters from the neighbors’ mentioned classes that will be held every Tuesday through Saturday from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; however, condition 91 states school uses are excluded.
Mr. Rehmer explained that “school uses” is a catch-all that refers to children such as daycare. If they ever want to include classes, they will have to come back to the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Singh inquired about the open house and staff’s plan to control the number of people. How many tickets will be given out per hour for the maximum capacity.
Mr. McKinney stated the tickets are not for sale; they will be for anyone who wants to attend. The 80 to 100,000 tickets are based on other Temples of similar size in the region. They estimated what the capacity is per hour and the number of shuttles to the site.
Chair Darnell open the public hearing and advise the speakers they will have a 5-minute time limit and asked them to state their name. She reminded them that this is not opportunity to have a conversation and understands there are some concerns with the neighbors. The Commission will take notes and comments, but they are not going to pause and have a back-and-forth dialogue. It is an opportunity for everyone to speak to the Commission and at the end they will deliberate. Once a time limit is complete, speakers are to move over and sign-in in order to have a record of the speakers. There are a lot of people, and everyone has a constitutional right to speak; no one is trying to infringe upon that. She asked if speakers agreed with word for word with the person that spoke before them, saying “I agree with the person who spoke before me” is a perfectly acceptable public comment. She assured them it would not weigh any less on the Commission than the person that spoke before.
Keith Collins, resident of Yorba Linda, reminded the Commission that staff made it very clear in its well- prepared staff report and presentation that there is nothing that will warrant denial of this project. He is a practicing land use attorney and has seen many applications like the one before the Commission tonight. This application is very well written and the efforts that the applicant has gone through to minimize the impacts on the surrounding neighbors are substantial. He stated he has never seen such a significant shadow analysis as the one that was presented tonight. Less than one hour of shadow on two properties seems like a very small price to pay, given the substantial improvement that this property will undergo if this project is approved. He invited the Commission to consider the applicant’s request not to add Rosebud to the condition that was previously mentioned. For the reasons that the applicant mentioned, the staff of the Temple would then be required to monitor that portion of the neighborhood which is not an insignificant walk from the Temple property. Also, given the overabundance of off-site, off-street parking and excess of the required minimum, it seems like parking on Rosebud would not be an issue. For those reasons he urged the Commission to approve the project.
Randy Kashu, lives on Rosebud Drive. California Title 7 Planning and Land Use, Division One, Chapter 4, Article 2, Section 65850 regulates the use of buildings, structures and land between industry, businesses and residences. As for RLUIPA, the Department of Justice website asks the question, does RLUIPA exempt religious assemblies and institutions from local zoning law? Their website says no. RLUIPA is not a blanket exemption for zoning laws, and, as a general matter, religious institutions must apply for the same permits, follow the same requirements, and go through the same land use processes as other land users. Lastly, he referred to a case that went to the Supreme Court in Boston, very similar to this, and in that case the Superior Court Judge Elizabeth Fahey ruled that a steeple isn't essential to a church, particularly when it is higher than local zoning laws allow. She went on to say, “while a steeple and spire might have inspirational value and may embody the Mormon value of the LSD value, which is not a religious doctrine and is not anyway related to the use of the Temple.” He asked to see the shadow study because his house is number 3 and during the equinox he will have 100% darkness at 7:45 a.m. 100% of his backyard will be sitting in the darkness at 7:30 in the morning. He asked for a show of hands from residents who live within 500 feet of the property who will be severely impacted. Several people raised their hands.
Mike Hunter agreed with everything the prior speaker stated with regard to the height of the Temple tower and the reading from the judges. It is important to take that into consideration. He has concerns against the Temple and the way it's built and its operation; the Commission must understand that there are homes surrounding the property on all four sides; not three sides, four sides. This is a very quiet residential neighborhood. Yorba Linda is the land of gracious living, and this is the very reason they live here, because it is a peaceful, quiet residential neighborhood. Their rural neighborhood is the complete opposite of urban living; they have space around our homes, beautiful views of the surrounding skyline, whether it be day or night. They have the horse trail that is used during the day and strolled on during the evening to unwind and enjoy. They don't like tall structures, don't believe in bright lights, added traffic, more crowds, parking crowds and noise. This type of building will bring it to the neighborhood. They will be opened Tuesday through Saturday from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., what part of that is for residents? None of that is. They'll have their heaviest activity on Fridays and Saturdays, and they'll have parking lights on from 5:30 a.m. until 11:00 p.m., or maybe it was 10:30. Home Depot and Walmart have those hours; they don't have that in their neighborhood, Commissioners can look on their phone, Home Depot and Walmart have those same hours. This is not a commercial neighborhood. The architect of this project submitted a purpose use letter that showed 50 staff members and 200 patrons in the building at a time. The prior speaker said they'll turn those patrons every 90 minutes; that is at least 100 cars every 90 minutes. He doesn’t care about the traffic study that they just went through, there is a certain impact in the neighborhood that is real, and they don't need it. Why add to a problem that they already have.
Talk about the building size; the 45-foot proposed rooftop is the height of a three-story mall. He isn’t so sure that he wants to live next to the Brea or Mall of Orange. He can't believe it; this is a neighborhood. What about the 100-foot-tall tower, it does have an effect on people’s pools, neighborhood, sunlight, their evening views, the moon the stars. This is crazy that this could get approved and not be an issue. What about the solar panels if they are going to add ADU? Everybody is supposed to build an ADU now, what about the solar effect to them? There were two other churches right on Bastanchury that have maximum tower heights of 46 and 47 feet; from the ground to the top, which is total. Why do they have to have 99? Don't those other two churches feel towered over and left out, they don't count, they don't have a voice? They feel like we have a voice and think the Commission should listen.
Parking lot lights will be on from 5:30 till 11, cars will be driving in with their new LED lights and it will be hard trying to go to bed in the evening with car lights casting down your street. It is unacceptable for a residential neighborhood. Maybe this should be built in a different neighborhood. The LDS also tells them that this site is going to serve a radius of 18 miles. That equals 73 cities within that 18-mile radius. He is not so sure that he is concerned about somebody from Baldwin Park, Artesia, Corona, Eastvale, Glendora, Norwalk, or Upland coming to the neighborhood and driving down Bastanchury. It doesn't make a lot of sense; you should build a Temple in every city if it's all about those long-distance commutes that they are trying to eliminate. Please understand that the residents live here 24/7, live there every day and that Temple will be in their face the whole time. Would the Commission like to have that built in their front yard?
Matt Bowen lives on Rosebud Drive. He has attended all the outreach meetings at the LDS church has had, as well as the traffic Commission meeting and some of the City Council meetings. His wife recently sent an email that has been included as part of the opposition emails; he didn't want to read it but asked to count it has his vote too. He wanted to speak about the tower height with some of the other neighbors. His home is one of the six homes on Rosebud that is, based on the shadow study, will have a direct shadow from the large steeple, one hour per day during certain times of the year. He is in the planning stages of building an accessory dwelling unit in his backyard and according to California Energy Commission Title 24, all newly built, non-manufactured detached ADU’s will have to install solar panels to be compliant with the regulations. That poses a real problem for him given the fact that a shadow of this size running across his ADU will not be able to generate power for approximately one hour. The way he is planning on building the roof line he will only get sunlight 5 hours a day, therefore this eliminates 20% of the power that is being generated. He doesn't think that the state of California, in its effort to promote solar energy wants to decrease solar energy by the creation of a Temple in somebody's backyard. For this reason, he implored the Commission not to pass the conditional use permit until the size of the tower has significantly been reduced. There has also been a lot of discussion about Rosebud and its accessibility to the Temple, and he can tell the Commission for certain that it is about a 5 second walk up a small path to get there, so people will be parking on Rosebud if there is no deterrence there.
Roger Hall lives on Osmond Street. When he looks out his front door all he will see is 45 feet of Temple; when he goes into his living room and looks out the window that is what he will see, if he goes into his backyard and wants privacy, he will see a steeple. He doesn't have a problem with the 45 feet, even though he doesn't like it, but he doesn't want to look at the steeple 24 hours for the rest of his life. He is retired and he sees that as a problem. The lighting is another problem. People say the view doesn't mean too much, but he is giving up his sunsets and anything he wants to do, he's going to have a problem seeing stars, the moon, UFOs whatever. Also, he can't believe the traffic report. They should have gone to Newport Beach to do their review to see how many cars are in there every hour. He disagrees with what they are saying, it is busier in the afternoon and the morning, than it is in the evening. He has not heard anything about an environmental impact report that was supposed to be done like he was told during the first meeting. There has been no bird report and Yorba Linda is a bird sanctuary. He hasn't seen anything on birds or animals. The trees haven't been watered from November to March, they are all getting stressed out. If the ones on his street don't die this summer from the heat, they will by the end of the year and will have to be replaced. If any of the Commissioners are LDS members, they need to recuse themselves from voting because it is a conflict of interest; he can go into what a conflict of interest is, but doesn't think he needs to do that, he is against the lighting and the tower.
Mr. Litfin stated there is no conflict of interest with regard to religion; under California law it has to be a financial interest.
Bill Hanyak, 42-year resident of Yorba Linda and neighbor of the LDS for 30 years. He supports the LDS faith community but is opposed to the project due to the size and scope of the project, it is way too large for this bedroom community. The Housing Element addresses land use, circulation, housing, open space, conservation, safety, and noise. Specifically, it establishes goals, policies, and direction to ensure that a high quality of life is persevered and enhances the Yorba Linda residences. This property is zoned real estate/residential estate and he knows that churches are exempt from that. As far as he's concerned, the LDS community has already gotten one exception from the city. He read the code as follows: “Zone 18.10.040, residential estate zone is intended as an area for residential estates with a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet, with densities of 1.8 units per acre. Only those additional uses are permitted that are complementary to and can exist in harmony with the residential neighborhood.” This project does not exist in harmony with the residents. “Residential areas within the RA zone are characterized by large custom and semi-custom homes.” Ordinance 2019-1056 3 Ordinance 204884.
How can you propose a tower; he agrees with his neighbors. It was a generous offer from the church to go down from 107 feet to 99.4. There is no rational reason for that, and it was a good question from Commissioner Singh. He did his homework and studied churches around the country; the height of a proposed tower steeple is an arbitrary number for the LDS community because they vary from Temple to Temple across the country. For example, in Tucson Arizona the newest of the LSA church Temple has its own new look element and there is no steeple, no spire, no tower typical to the other Mormon Temples. But that is not news; there are other similar LDS Temple edifices in France, Canada, Hawaii, and Arizona that have built a dome to comply with their city ordinances and regulations. It could be done here. The Belmont Mass is very important because litigation is on the table. The ruling comes in a lawsuit by neighbors of the Temple who claimed that the Zoning Board exceeded its authority in allowing the church to put an 80-foot-tall steeple on top of a 58-foot building. The town zoning laws limit the height of a building, including a steeple to 72 feet. In the ruling, the judge said that while the spire might have inspirational value and may embody the Mormon values of ascension towards heaven, which is not a matter of religious doctrine, and it is no way related to the religious use of a Temple. She also said that the church has failed to prove its claim that the height restriction was unreasonable. Same holds true for Yorba Linda, there has been no good reason why they need to exceed the current laws regarding the height of the steeple and or the building. Per the city of Yorba Linda public hearing notice; he is required to list the issues that he is challenging in the event of possible litigation. There is precedence for evidence by the Belmont Massachusetts court ruling; the proposed height of the tower, steeple and finial exceed Yorba Linda zoning codes, the proposed project exceeds the spirit of Yorba Linda code 18.10.040 residential estate zoning; project will obscure the ecosystem of birds living in the area, a bird sanctuary city; incomplete traffic study, and incomplete environmental traffic report. He lives right off the horse trail on Rosebud and there are plenty of people from the church who go to baseball events and other events park near the houses there. The steeple at Rose Drive Church is 70 feet tall and that is from the ground floor, not from a 35 to 40-foot building.
Warren Atwood lives on the corner of Rosebud and Prospect and the back of his property is Bastanchury. LDS stated that they want to be good neighbors, but the design should be within the character of the neighborhood. This is a semi-rural area and a nice quiet neighborhood. There will also be added traffic. Bastanchury is like a racetrack; people go fast and there have been some serious accidents at the intersection of Prospect and Bastanchury. The Sheriff's Department has been there's several times trying to mediate the traffic, get radar out there and try to get something to slow the people down, but it is bad news. There will be light pollution from the parking lot lights; he does not want to live near a Walmart or a Home Depot with lighting from 6:30 in the morning until 10:30 at night. There seems to have a bit of a conflict with automatic controls for the lighting between 6:30 to 10:30, but the building will be open from 6 to 10 which is 1/2 hour on either side. It will be early in the morning and late at night and totally unnecessary. There is a steeple issue, a traffic issue and a lighting issue and he strongly supports a no on this proposition.
Art Frances, a 35 resident of Yorba Linda, raised his family of eight and has attended the church on Bastanchury. He attended back in 1987 when there were four congregations of approximately 1200 each, which met from 3:00 to 6:00 on Sundays. It also necessitated weekly youth activities which would go until 10, then he and some of friends would go play basketball until late at night. The church on Bastanchury has been a church for many years.
He thanked the Commissioners and the neighbors because he has been to each of the community events and is grateful that they have a great desire to keep Yorba Linda beautiful and wonderful and he feels that same way. Yorba Linda is the city of gracious living; to have a presidential library here and an LDS Temple, which is built of the very finest materials and workmanship. He welcomed all of them to go to the open house and have a personal tour of the building.
As far as lights, The Rose Friends Church cross is lit well past 10:00 o'clock at night and all the other churches on Yorba Linda Boulevard all have parking lots that are lit until 11:00 o'clock at night; this is not different. This is a wonderful addition to the community.
The difference between a meetinghouse, which has been there for 37 years, and a Temple is that a meeting house has all different activities from morning till night; they have a youth scripture study class that begins at 6:30 in the morning every school day of the year and also stay late at night with meetings. A Temple is for the very highest portion and the average age of people who attend the Temple is approximately 35 years old. It is reverential and quiet.
He's walked the horse trail and has gone down the access road to Rosebud and if you were to park on Rosebud you would have to come up the trail, walk all the way up to the street, come to the front then the entrance of the Temple will be all the way in the back of the property. Forty-five-year-old people are not going to do that. They have gotten access from their friends at Friendship Baptist Church to allow them to use their parking lot for open house and groundbreaking. They want to be good neighbors; these are wonderful friends, and they want everyone to participate in the beautiful Temple. The benefit of this Temple is that patrons will carpool there, and it will not be just one car per patron.
The two instructional rooms have a 40-seat capacity and will go concurrently, so the most would be 80 patrons. There are two marriage rooms, one with a 40-seat capacity and one has a 20-seat capacity. They do not hold receptions or celebrations; they are sent to the Community Center or to other reception sites. They will just do the marriage ceremony and possibly take some pictures then leave the facility.
They feel they have done a good job of trying to match the architecture of the community with the Spanish style. The Temple steeple does not go 99 feet from the top of the building, it is from the ground. He asked for the Commission's consideration of a positive vote.
George Siciliani lives on Citrus Circle approximately 300 feet from the current LDS facility and asked to register his opposition of such a large structure on this site. He attended the two meetings conducted by the LDS regarding the new Temple and was taken aback when they compared the proposed Temple to an iconic building structure such as the downtown Los Angeles Union Station and the Santa Ana Transportation Facility. He doesn't feel that anybody moved to Yorba Linda to be close to those types of busy structures. After going away from both of the meetings, he doesn't feel that the LDS leadership really cares about the impact that this Temple will have on the neighborhood and living environment. Today, the only concessions he has seen is the lowering of the overall height of the steeple spire by 10 feet, which is giving it more credit than it really is, and the elimination of the vehicle entrance on Osmond Street.
He has lived in Yorba Linda for 36 years and is a very strong advocate of property owner’s rights. This project needs more public input and scrutiny. His concerns remain the same, size of the building, overall height which is double the size of two adjacent churches across the street, hours of operation, traffic, lighting of the building, parking lot lighting and color of the building.
In closing, it is his hope that the Planning Commission will consider the concerns of all the neighbors who surround the property. It is not fair for a large organization like the LDS, with unlimited resources, to row into town and circumvent the planning laws that make Yorba Linda such a great place to live.
It was offered that 80,000 people will show up the first month; if you do a quick Google search you will see that approximately 140,000 showed up at the Newport Beach Temple during the first month. On the dedication day they had 30,000 people, and that was 18 years ago. He asked that the Commission consider all of their concerns.
Morgan Collins, in 5th grade in a member of the church. The church teaches them to be good citizens and to love one another and serve their community. She feels this Temple well help them accomplish all those things. She feels it is a great way to grow their town.
Linda Shepard stated Location 8, Prospectus Avenue does not show up on Google Maps, MapQuest, or Bing maps. The only place you can find is on Yorba Linda website under the traffic impact analysis for this project.
At the April 14, 2022, meeting the LDS stated traffic light even flow, no change, no impact, continuous through the day. With all the access coming from Bastanchury, with about 200 patrons at a time plus employees, that statement cannot be true. Friday and Saturday evening, plus all other special events, will increase the already heavy traffic on Bastanchury. The LDS also stressed the outside grounds are beautiful and open to all. They want people to come and enjoy the grounds during the 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Tuesday through Saturday hours which means more traffic and more parking.
Bastanchury has a history of heavy traffic and bottleneck without all the new 128 single family residences on Bastanchury, not counting the surrounding streets east of and without considering the proposed Temple.
Greg Rehmer stated an environmental impact report is not required because it is a church for a church. This is not a Class two categorical exemption replacement or reconstruction. The Temple is a totally different use, structure, staff, and hours of operation. Newport Beach required an EIR, and Yorba Linda needs to examine the current necessity for an environmental impact report too.
There will be pollution and traffic generated from the buses to transport people. Where will the offsite parking be located for large special events? Redlands’ open house had 11,000 volunteers and more than 140,000 people attending in less than one month. Newport Beach had 34,000 in one day and in less than a month 175,000. Greg Rehmer witnessed LDS at the April 14th meeting when they were asked about what the Temple was doing for open house and all they could say was “we don't know. “
Location, location, location is the only problem with this Temple project. The lot is too small, Bastanchury east of Imperial is not at all conducive and the residential construction continues to this day. The steeple tower is too tall and lit, and the Temple buts directly up against the residents on all three sides. The only thing to do is to end this poorly located LDS Temple.
Lawrence Butler lives on Osmond Street. Does not want approval of a Temple the way it is now. He can't see why the spire height cannot be lower in order to not cast a shadow. Some Temples do not have towers at all. Reduce the size so it can conform to the Yorba Linda; it doesn't seem like it needs to be 100 feet. Most churches are half of that, and he doesn't feel like the traffic study is adequate for Osmond. It is difficult to get off that street the way it is now, and the left turn lane is not going to help because as soon as there a break in the traffic, the people from the church will fill it up with cars. During the busy time of day there are cars everywhere and you can barely get out of that street; even taking a right to go on Imperial is a problem. The hours of operation do not need to be from 6 to 10 maybe 8 to 9.
The gate on Osmond was supposed to be for the maintenance of the ball field, but they kept the lock off and people park on the street and use it anyway. They didn't follow the rules of the current conditional use permit so why will they do it now. He'd like to see signs on Rosebud and Osmond saying that there is absolutely no Temple parking or be towed away.
Telling somebody not to park there won't cut it because it will take so long to get out of the parking lot due to a bottleneck in the driveway. People leave baseball games in the eighth inning just to get out of the parking lot early. The people will all have to leave the Temple all at one time causing a traffic jam. A traffic study needs to be done and they need to go on that street and see what it is like to try to leave in the afternoon; see what it's like especially after adding 75 cars to it.
Mike Porokny resides on Osmond Street. He wholeheartedly agrees with all of the concerns that have been raised by the neighbors. The scale of the building is 30,000 square feet on a 5-acre lot. Redlands has a 17,000 square foot building on a 6 plus acre lot. Squeezing the scale of this building on this lot seems to be way out of place. As for the height of the steeple, the Baptist church driveway on Bastanchury is literally directly across the street with a maximum of 45 feet. This will be a monolith in comparison to what is across the street. It is way out of scale. If you take any house in the area and drop it onto the footprint of this building it would look like you were parked next to the astrodome. That is the scale of that building relative to any house in the neighborhood. He respectfully asked at the church go back and look at something more akin to the scale of the Temple in Redlands which is a larger footprint land with a building that has fewer square feet.
Chris Zuuebeck pointed out her home on map which is behind the LDS church. They have never had any problems until now. This process has been more of a disappointment than anything. They go to the meeting, are allowed to speak but they don't get to interact with the Commissioners. After Commission is all done they get to make their decision and not be accountable for any information that might come afterwards, which is really wrong. The thing that really bothers her the most is that she has been to every meeting except for the traffic one. She asked a question at one of the meetings and the question has not been answered, so when somebody tells her she can ask a question and they'll get back to her, she has to asked when it will be. She asked the question in March and still has not received an answer and is pretty confident she will not get one.
In the last two months, she has seen behaviors that caused her to lose faith in the community. There are people here talking about their homes where they have lived their whole life, and people who live outside of the general area see fit to provide narrative in this meeting, sighing and saying, “oh people are worried about that?” Yes people are worried about it and please don't belittle the way that they feel. The Mormon church has been great, half of her family is LDS, and she understands both sides and how important it is to have a Temple, but it is also important to be good neighbors. You don't have to room full of LDS members and make them feel bad for having concerns. Somebody mentioned the owl and when somebody sighs, it is wrong. They need to look at the community and see what it's doing and find a way so they can work something out and be neighbors. There is no doubt in her mind that this will be approved. The only question is how, and will there be any changes made so that they can all live with it. She plans on staying in that home for the rest of her life and wants to feel good about the people who live around her. She doesn't want to have to come home every day and look at this building in her backyard. Let's find a plan so that everybody can be happy. She loves the baseball field and birds in her backyard and wants to keep the trees.
Skij Neilson understands the problems with height and light of the tower. They had a chance to go and measure some of the trees; some of them are 79 feet high so when you look at the height of the current trees and the shade that is already existing on the property and the neighboring properties. She hopes they can compromise and find a way to make room for the Temple. In the discussion it was mentioned that they were going to leave the trees.
The Temple is a great source of peace, not just from within the four walls, but also on the grounds. Her parents brought her to a Temple when she was younger and even though she was not allowed to enter the Temple she still felt a sense of peace while she was on the grounds. She hopes that the powerful good to bring peace and hope to the people who attend the Temple will extend into the community and serve. She asked the Commission to approve this project and thinks that the neighbors will see the efforts that are being made to compromise.
Dustin Phillips read “Yorba Linda is recognized as one of the 100 best places to live in the United States. Yorba Linda continues to uphold its shared values of responsible growth and preservation of the existing neighborhoods.” He and his wife moved here in October because of the way it is. The stature of this building is ridiculous. It doesn't matter to him what somebody does within their four walls, but something like this does not need to be built in this neighborhood. One street over is Citrus and the parking and traffic will affect it too, although it has not been mentioned the entire time. He asked the commission to please take a look at it.
Manoa Mangisi stated he visited the Newport Beach Temple with some friends. It was a great source of peace, and he could feel it even before he walked into the door; all his worries and stress from school didn't feel as big anymore. Some people enjoy walking the horse trail and he has walked there too, and he believes that a Temple will be another wonderful place to walk and feel peace. There is a sacrifice and there will be some concerns and difficulties, but he believes if they give it a chance, people will be glad.
Seeing no other speakers, Chair Darnell closed the public hearing. She asked the city attorney to comment on comments made during the public hearing regarding procedures. She asked Mr Litfin to walk them through the remainder of the meeting as the Planning Commission is required by law, to operate in a certain way and the applicant has certain rights.
Mr. Litfin invited anyone outside the City Hall chambers to come in and speak. Staff returned and confirmed that there were no other speakers.
Mr. Litfin stated everybody is entitled to due process; to give their opinions to the body which is deciding as to the applicability of this project. It is a discretionary project; that's what a conditional use permit is and the Commission will take all the evidence and will render its discretion as to whether or not it meets the purposes of the code; in this case a conditional use permit. At this point in time the applicant we'll get a chance to rebut any of the evidence that was brought up in the public hearing process.
As for RLUPA, which several people have brought up, it is a federal law. Approximately 20 years ago, the feds were concerned that local agencies were interfering with church projects, and they wanted to ensure that churches and other religious facilities were given a fair shake at local land use proceedings. They initially passed a law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, then somebody sued and stated it was unconstitutional. They enacted the RLUIPA which mirrored what the Supreme Court precedence was at the time. In order for RLUIPA to be enforced, there has to be a substantial burden on an entity's religious exercise. After his review of the steeple height, a reduction in that height would not be a substantial burden on the churches exercise of its religion. Even though somebody mentioned a Boston court, it has no precedential value; the conclusion here is the same in that nobody has shown him that the steeple has a religious significance. That could be noted at the Planning Commission's discretion; it doesn't mean it has to be lowered, it just means that they don't have to approve it at this height.
Chair Darnell asked for confirmation that this is the first time this item has come before the Planning Commission.
Director Brantley stated yes.
Chair Darnell invited the applicant to step forward and asked if there was anything else they wanted to put into the record before they deliberate.
Mr. McKinney stated the main thing they wanted to convey is that they feel they have done a great job of reaching out to the public and responding to concerns with the concessions that have been made on Osmond and the spire height. Their purpose is to be good neighbors and have a place for not only the membership of the church, but for those who can attend the open house and enjoy the grounds. They feel it is an important project for their faith and note that it will bring an increased sense of community and faith to Yorba Linda.
Mr. Phillips agreed with Mr. McKinney and realized a lot of concerns have been brought up, but they have tried to address them. He agrees that even though there are a lot of concerns the benefits from the Temple well outweigh them.
Commissioner Singh stated he felt blessed to be in such a group of religious faith people are as young as 5th grade all the way up to come and speak about a religious facility in their city. He thanked the applicant for bringing such a great presentation and a monumental, beautiful religious structure to the city.
Yorba Linda is the land of gracious living and from his childhood he was taught to love thy neighbor. Being good neighbors is very important to the city. Every time he has driven by any Temple of any religion he bows his head because of the message of peace that it gives you; the message of divinity and greatness. When you look at a Temple, you want to respect the Temple, especially for the neighbors who are living in the community. The good news is that no one is opposing the Temple as such; but concerned about the height, lighting, and traffic.
Commissioner Singh stated staff indicated there are two churches on Rose that are 70 and 75 feet tall. He asked if there are shadowing issues like the ones in this project .
Mr. Rehmer responded that he didn't think there were any shadow studies done on those churches at the time they were built. Those structures are freestanding; one is the bell tower on Ohio with residences across the street. There are no residences on north side and residences in the rear are quite far away from that tower. On Rose there are residences across the street, but he doesn't think those residences are impacted by shadows.
Commissioner Singh asked how far the residences are as compared to this specific project.
Mr. Rehmer stated it is probably the same as this project because the tower is in the middle of the property, whereas the towers on Rose and Ohio are at the edge of the street.
Commissioner Singh stated there are 70-foot trees which already have some shadow issues. He would like to see justification for why having a 99-foot spire would increase the participation of the Temple. He heard that if the Temple is not approved, it will become a homeless shelter or multi residential. There needs to be more community outreach and effort with the neighbors in order to come to compromise regarding the height and the lighting.
Chair Pro Tem Pease Stated the City Attorney is very diligent about making sure the Commissioners follow the Brown Act. He disclosed that he met with four community members; Atwood, Sicilani, Kashoa and Cunningham on April 18th; on May 4th he met with Randy Kashoa at his home and went in the backyard and the horse trail.
He echoed the comments made by Commissioner Singh and said that it is a pleasure to see everyone here. Government only works by the testation of its residents. He thanked everyone for their comments, as it is all important and the Commission seriously considers their comments, and he appreciates the viewpoints of everyone on this project.
This is a beautiful building and Mormon Temples are gorgeous structures. he has passed the one in La Jolla numerous times on his way to San Diego and it is an impressive building and an architectural landmark. He agrees that this would be a regional draw and bring people into Yorba Linda and enhance the community. he also appreciates the concerns of the neighbors. He agrees with the City Traffic engineer with respect to Rosebud; it is a direct access. With respect to the height and the mass of the building, he is concerned that it is really not in harmony with the surrounding land uses; it is a big building, and the top of the spire and steeple are huge.
As for the traffic, he will defer to the Traffic Commission. he recognizes the frustrations of the neighbors because he did try to make a left out of that neighborhood onto Bastanchury.
There are points on both sides and he has concerns with respect to the overall structure and its compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood.
Commissioner Bernstein stated he agreed with his colleagues; it is a monumental, beautiful building which is undeniable. The community struggles with monumental, as it did with the Town Center. He's supportive of a Temple, but the tower and the lighting are an issue for him. They have compared the tower to the one at Rose Drive Friends and the Methodist Church; this one is a massive tower. The two that they are comparing it to are much shorter and are open filigree metal and are not edifice towers. This one is apples to oranges and this is a big apple and he is not supportive of approving this tonight.
Commissioner Masterson asked staff if there was a light at the top of the tower.
Mr. Rehmer said yes.
Commissioner Masterson state it is a beautiful and great design and understands the traffic concerns on Rosebud and Osmond Street as well as the surrounding neighbors. However, the traffic Commission which is the governing body has approved it. The additional analysis on the traffic proved to have minor impacts. He's not seeing major issue with the lighting in the parking lot as there are many areas in the city that have lighting such as basketball courts in backyards with lighting up until 10:00 o'clock at night. He feels that it looks like a work of art at night with the lighting.
Due to all the letters that were received, he walked all the properties and from his perspective he doesn't think there are that many houses that will be affected by the 99-foot tower. He also walked Aspen Glow and La Paz Circle where he grew up. He feels there may be some impacts on Osmond and Rosebud.
He opined that the Temple is like a work of art, and he would be supportive of the project.
Chair Darnell asked staff to comment on the EIR that was mentioned in the public comment.
Mr. Rehmer stated they made three findings that this property is exempt. They used Class 2 – replacement or reconstruction, Class 32 – infill development and a commonsense exemption in the CAL ??? Regulation. It is an existing site, and the original church went through a Neg Dec, it does not need a new environmental review.
Chair Darnell stated it’s been established that there are 70-foot trees around this site and there were comments about the trees not getting proper water and potentially dying. Are all the trees staying and are there provisions within the conditions of approval, which should the trees die or be impacted by construction, that they be replaced with like trees?
Mr. Rehmer responded that the tall trees that people commented on are Eucalyptus on the South side of the horse trail. The applicant cannot touch them, and they will be maintained. There are a number of trees on site that will be removed and there is a survey that shows exactly which trees will be removed and which ones will remain. Approximately 70% of the trees on the perimeter of the applicant’s site will remain. The watering issue seems to be an issue with the trees on the south side.
Chair Darnell asked if all of the trees that are creating the shadows, and also providing shading for barriers, are within the scope of this project?
Mr. Rehmer stated some are on the applicant’s property and some are on the neighboring property.
Chair Darnell stated she also has some issues with the height, but also understands the benefit. She stated she doesn't know if she agrees with the statement that the benefits outweigh the negative when it comes to being the highest structure in the city. Seventy feet is the highest religious structure in the city and it's also the height of some of the trees that's around the property.
She asked the Commission how they would feel about approval of the project with a condition that the height of the steeple not exceed 70 feet. She really likes the idea of a dome if that is an option. She confirmed with the City Attorney that a dome would be treated the same as a steeple, so it wouldn't necessarily be subject to the 45 feet; it would give them some leeway and they could build the spire to 70 feet or build a dome.
Commissioner Bernstein asked if it was appropriate for them act on that motion if they don't know if the applicant will accept it.
Chair Darnell stated they could ask them.
Commissioner Masterson added it would be helpful to see some type of renderings and view line from Osmond Street and the other homes; visuals of what it would look like. Due to some of the trees, there is less of a view impact.
Mr. Litfin stated the Planning Commission does not need the applicant's consent to approve a project that's been modified with additional conditions.
Chair Pro Tem Pease stated he likes Chair Darnell’s compromise except for the fact that it would not have the design review in front of the Commission because that is part of today's approval.
As for Commissioner Masterson’s comment, he was in the backyard of one of the houses and having looked at the trees, it is still 30 feet above the trees. It is big, it is obstructive, and it is noticeable.
Chair Darnell asked the City Attorney if they could approve the conditional use permit with the height restriction and then require the design review to return to the Commission.
Mr. Litfin stated yes they could, but he deferred the question to the Community Development Director as to whether it is a best planning practice.
Director Brantley stated it is the prerogative of the Commission. Either way it's fine and they could condition the design review to return and demonstrate what the alternate design of the 70-foot tower or dome would look like. They could approve the CUP or require that both of them return to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Rehmer added that there is a condition that states that the Commission has to approve one or both, or the other one becomes void. They could approve the conditional use permit tonight, but if they deny the design review in the future then the conditional use permit will be voided.
Chair Darnell state it allows the project to move forward I couldn’t tell what she was saying.
Mr. Litfin stated this could be appeal to the City Council; therefore, if you split the conditional use permit from the design review there maybe two appeals thus it might be easier to keep it as one.
Mr. Brantley stated they could still decide to continue or require both items to return to the Planning Commission with a different design.
Commissioner Singh stated he would rather have the applicant come back with whatever fits the design, whether it is a dome or a spire. He would rather give the applicant an opportunity to return at a later meeting.
Chair Darnell asked the applicant, given the consensus that 99 feet is too high, would their preference be to continue the item to work on an alternate design?
Mr. McKinney stated he respects the comments that were made but feels they have already made an adjustment and want to stick to it.
Chair Pro Tem Pease stated in respecting the applicant's position and the comments made by the City Attorney he proceeded to make the motion.
Chair Pro Tem Pease moved that the Planning Commission deny conditional use permit 2021-46 and deny design review number 2021-17.
Chair Darnell offered a substitute motion and moved that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving conditional use permit 2021-46 with conditions and design review 2021-17 with conditions with an added condition that the total height of the spire does not exceed 70 feet.
Commissioner Masterson moved the second.
Chair Pro Tem Pease confirmed that they are voting on the total height of the building, and that the spire shall not exceed 70 feet.
Commissioner Bernstein stated he will not be supporting it because he can’t understand why they would pass the item knowing that the applicant is not in favor of it.
Commissioners Singh asked the same question and asked the Attorney what it means if the applicant is saying that they are not amenable to the proposal and how does the vote play in that role.
Mr. Litfin responded that the project would be approved with that height condition and if they don’t agree, the applicant can appeal to the City Council to see if they can get their initial iteration approved or they can just go with it, and they would have an approval of the project with the 70-foot height.
Chair Darnell stated she could explain her rationale if the Commissioners would like. She has concerns with an outright denial for legal reasons; a denial is more problematic than them making a statement that they would welcome this in their community but would need design within the parameters and the spirit of the community.
Chair Pro Tem Pease stated he appreciated that and was wondering if they could lower it. His concern is that they would be approving something when they don't know what the design will be.
Commissioner Darnell said that is fine if her motion fails, there can be another.
Commissioner Singh asked if the motion goes for denial, what are the next steps.
Mr. Litfin explained that the church has a right to appeal it to the City Council, then the City Council would hear the matter DeNoble. The City Council can do whatever they want to do with the project at a subsequent public hearing.
Commissioner Singh clarified that if the project is denied and they appeal to the City Council, the City Council can go with 60, 50 or 80 feet up to 100 feet?
Mr. Litfin provided an example from the 90’s explain that Friends Church made a huge expansion, it was denied by the Planning Commission, went to the City Council, and was approved. That could happen, the City Council has ultimate authority to agree with Planning Commission or not.
Commissioner Masterson stated that staff made a recommendation to approve this, wouldn’t it make sense for the Commission to really understand why staff believes that the 99 feet is acceptable? Even though he supports 70 feet or 99 feet, doesn’t the Commission need to understand why staff supported that height based on their feedback and review.
Chair Darnell responded that staff is in support of the project but on the last slide of the presentation stated the height of the steeple was completely within the Planning Commission's discretion.
Mr. Rehmer responded that is correct and that staff supports the project as a whole and believes that the traffic, site planning, architecture and everything meets their standards and would support it wholly. The height is what they deferred to the Planning Commission to decide. Staff feels all the other aspects of it is fine; the height is what the Planning Commission is deliberating and how they want to adjudicate that right now, whether or not approving it at a lower height would make sense or not.
Commissioner Singh asked if the Commission were to ask for the feedback of the staff on the height, what would be their response.
Mr. Rehmer responded that a lot of comments were made by the neighbors and context is important; if this would have come in at a lower height, there would have been a stronger recommendation for approval from the staff.
Commissioner Bernstein added that the Planning Commission is appointed to represent the residents; they serve as volunteers to represent the residents, so it is fair to put that question to staff?
Chair Pro Tem Pease asked a question of operation; if the motion is approved at 70 feet, how would the design review be handled?
Chair Darnell stated it would be at the discretion of staff.
Mr. Litfin added it is hard for him to conceptualize approving a design review when they don't know the ultimate design. It could be that the design review goes back to the Commission for future approval, even though the motion was worded that both are approved. The Chair can amend the motion as long as the second goes along with the amendment.
Chair Darnell stated the second would go along with the amendment if she made it so that the design review would come back.
Mr. Litfin stated yes.
Chair Masterson asked if they could add it so that there was substantial conformance and narrow it down? If it was lowered 29 feet, it would still look good, and he agrees it would be odd if they came in with something completely different.
Commissioner Singh stated he also heard comments and concerns about the height of the building at 45 feet.
Mr. Rehmer responded that the building itself is 35 feet high; the spire is above the 35 feet. There is no second-floor area.
Commissioner Bernstein opined that they're all getting out of their depth. The rendering shows the front of the building is 35 feet and the top of the Spire is 99 feet. Where it looks like it is twice as tall as the front of the building, it is actually three times as tall as the front of the building. He thinks they're making decisions on things that are premature.
Chair Darnell amended her motion and moved that the condition use permit 2021-46 be approved with the added condition of a 70-foot height limit and that design review 2021-17 will return to the Commission at a later date once the design has been revised.
Commissioner Masterson moved for a second.
A member of the audience asked for an opportunity to make comment on that.
Commissioner Darnell stated they had the opportunity at the public hearing.
Arlene Laviera stated motion passed with 5 yes votes.
Simonne Fannin, Recording Secretary asked if the original motion should be retracted, and make new motion to be less complicated.
Chair Darnell responded that hers was a substitute motion; therefore, if hers failed they would go back to Chair Pro Tem Pease’s motion.
Commission Singh asked for the motion to be repeated.
Chair Darnell responded that she is moving that the conditional use permit be approved this evening with a 70-foot height restriction and the design review shall come back at a later date once they reworked the design
Chair Pro Tem Pease asked if the 70 feet includes the spire?
Chair Darnell responded it absolutely includes the spire.
Chair Pro Tem Pease said fair enough.
Commissioner Singh ask what rights the Planning Commission will have to approve when the design review comes back before them.
Chair Darnell responded it would be the same as if it hasn't development can be for them for approval.
Commissioner Singh inquired that if there was something wrong with the design would the Commission still have the right to deny it or ask for a redesign?
Mr. Litfin responded yes, and he asked the Commission to continue the design review to a date certain.
Chair Darnell asked staff to advise on an appropriate amount of time.
Director Brantley referred to the applicant to give him an indication as to whether or not a two week turn around for an architectural revision is adequate or what would he prefer. He asked Mr. Rehmer for the date of the next meeting.
Chair Darnell stated the next meetings are May 25 and June 15.
Chair Pro Tem Pease advised he will be absent on June 15th.
Chair Darnell added to her motion that they will continue the item to date certain of June 29th.
Chair Commission Masterson moved the second
Mr. Litfin asked to clear the vote and revote.
Arlene Laviera announced the motion carried 4-1 with Commissioner Bernstein voting no.
Director Brantley advised this action by the Planning Commission this evening is final unless it is appealed to the City Council within 15 days through the City Clerk's office. The design review will automatically come back on the June 29th regular Planning Commission meeting. The CUP has been approved this evening and is subject to appeal if that is the prerogative of the applicant.
Mr. Litfin added anybody, on any side, can appeal on what has just been decided.