|
|
|
|
Neighborhood not behind church project |
|
|
Monday, 30 July 2007 |
 The Neighborhood Church recently got the first of several necessary city approvals to build an 11,000 square-foot multi-purpose room/gym on the lot (foreground) next to the existing church on South Street in Bishop. Photo by Jon Klusmire By Jon Klusmire
Register Staff
Although the Devil is in the details, the first, preliminary review of a proposed expansion of The Neighborhood Church did not delve deeply into the details that concerned about 30 neighbors who signed a petition opposing the expansion project.
After listening to representatives from the church and the neighborhood, the Bishop City Council last week approved the overall review of the potential environmental impacts of the church’s plans to add an 11,000 square-foot multi-purpose building/gym to its existing church building.
Many points brought up at the meeting, and one last month on the same issue, were detailed comments about the specific size, height and uses for the planned building, in addition to concerns about parking, noise and general compliance with the city’s existing land-use and zoning requirements. The Neighborhood Church is located in a residential zone at 315 E. South St.
“The Devil is in the details of the project,” said Councilmember Jeff Griffiths, and those specifics will be taken up when an official development proposal is presented to the Planning Commission. Griffiths urged the church and its neighbors to continue communicating, and sharing concerns and possible solutions as the project moves through the city approval process.
There appeared to be some good ideas for solutions to some of the concerns raised about the proposed, large addition to the existing church building, Griffiths said.
Both council members and city staff stressed before and after the public hearing that any decision did not reflect whether “this is a good or bad project,” in the words of City Attorney Peter Tracy. The only questions the council had to answer was whether the “environmental document” for the project “was adequate,” he added.
After the vote, Councilmember Susan Cullen again reminded the packed meeting room that the vote didn’t mean the council was “for or against” The Neighborhood Church expansion plans. The unanimous vote by three councilmembers approved the project’s “mitigated negative declaration,” the environmental review required by the state.
Councilmember Bruce Dishion excused himself from the meeting room because he owns property in the area. Mayor Frank Crom lives in the neighborhood, thus he also did not take part in the discussion. But Crom and his wife, Virginia, offered extensive written comments objecting to the conclusions in the environmental review and about the project in general. The couple said the council should reject the environmental document and also deny any Conditional Use Permit at a later date that would be necessary for final approval of theproject.
The council was also presented with a petition signed by about 30 residents objecting to the planned church expansion.
That plan calls for an 11,000 square-foot building that would house two small living units (to replace the two homes currently on the site), a kitchen, a stage, various meeting rooms and a large meeting space/gym that could be used for sports or large gatherings.
The church has secured a permit from the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power to use its empty lot across South Street for parking, which could accommodate up to 109 parking spaces. Another 29 parking spaces would be located on the lot holding the multi-purpose building.
Parking, noise and the height and size of the proposed new building, which is located in an R-1 residential zone district, were the key concerns voiced by residents. Several residents said the new building would obscure their views or, when combined with the existing church, completely block their views.
The mitigation measures suggested were “vague and hard to apply,” said neighbor Ernest Kelley. He added the city had to treat the church the same as any other commercial or private developer proposing to build in an R-1 residential neighborhood. He urged a delay until “more detail on the mitigation” plans could be presented.
However, Kenney Scruggs, an attorney representing the church on this matter, said that the addition, in the large scheme of things, would not create negative environmental impacts that needed mitigation, but that the church would accept the suggested mitigation measures.
A key point, Scruggs said, was that the current church building was 34.5 feet high, with the chapel being 44 feet high. The planned expansion would only be between 28 and 30 feet high. Although that’s higher than city codes allow for in that zone district, the height of the new building would be “less than the existing structure.”
In addition, the new building would help shield the current church building’s heating and cooling apparatus, she added.
As for parking, the addition of the LADWP parking lot would actually clear up the typical Sunday, on-street parking, and be more than enough parking to accommodate the users of the new building, said the church’s parking consultant, Les Card, of LSA Associates.
He said city code mandated 110 parking spaces for the 11,000 square-foot building, so the total of 138 spaces being provided “exceeds city requirements.” In addition, he said on Sunday, an average of 66 cars park on streets around the church. Events at the new building could generate the need for up to 44 parking spaces, he said. And since the church services and activities in the new building will not be going on at the same time, there should be plenty of parking, he said.
The Croms disagreed. In written comments they noted that the church was allowed to expand in the 1980s to a 1,700 square-foot building, without meeting parking requirements. Now that it is asking to expand again, it should have to provide parking for the congregation on Sunday and the users of the multipurpose room, which they estimated to be 237 spaces. The Croms also objected to the short term of the parking permit from LADWP, and noted the permit could be cancelled and that would leave no parking alternatives except on-street parking.
Scruggs pointed out that even the City of Bishop cannot secure leases or permits from LADWP for parking lots for longer than two-three years, so the church’s permit was just as good of a deal as the city had with LADWP regarding parking lots.
Numerous citizens said they were concerned about noise from inside and outside the new structure. Bill Askin, who lives behind the church, said “there will be a lot of noise … it’s a gym, not a church.”
Scruggs said the city’s noise ordinance should come into play to regulate noise.
That ordinance “is very limited,” said City Administrator Rick Pucci, and only bans “undue noise” in residential areas between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. “There is no decibel level” set out in the ordinance that would define excessive noise levels, he said.
In written comments, the Croms questioned whether the church addition was appropriate in an R-1 zone, and raised questions about noise, dust and traffic created by the larger building. They also questioned the impact and visual intrusion the large building would have on a neighborhood made up of primarily single-story homes.
When all those issues are combined and looked at as a whole, “the cumulative impact is considerable,” the Croms wrote. “We strongly object to the conclusion that this project will have less than a significant impact; it will have a significant impact” on the environment and the neighborhood, they concluded.
Clarence Martin, who lives right behind the proposed new building, provided a list of ideas and suggestions about building materials and design elements that could minimize noise and other impacts.
“It’s not a regulation gym,” Martin said of the building, noting that the primary uses seem to be meeting rooms, space for gatherings and events, so he questioned “does it need to be 30 feet” high, or could it be lowered to meet the city code and limit its visual impacts.
Martin also suggested that any approval limit the uses of the upper stories of the building, so offices or living spaces don’t creep up into the top of the building sometime in the future. That could create a problem with privacy by putting neighbors’ yards and homes in full view of those occupying the top story of the new building, he noted.
Pucci said many of the comments and suggestions about the new building were constructive, and the neighbors raised numerous valid concerns. Those residents would be able to raise those issues again, he said, when the church submits its specific building plans to the Planning Commission for review. Church representatives gave no indication when that would occur.
When the project comes in front of the Planning Commission, the church will be seeking a Conditional Use Permit that will allow for five “set asides,” or variances to existing land use or zoning codes, according to Pucci. The variances to current codes being sought by the church include being able to build a 11,000 square-foot multi-purpose building in an R-1 residential zone; parking requirements; permission to replace two existing houses with living quarters in the new building; exceeding the zone’s building height limit of 26 feet for the 32-foot-tall building; and reducing the sideyard and backyard setbacks from property lines.
|
|
Last Updated ( Monday, 10 September 2007 )
|
|
|
|
