Loading...
PC MINS 20080624 Approved August 12, 0 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANING COMMIISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING JUNE 24, 2008 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Perestam at 7:12 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Knight led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Knight, Ruttenberg, Tetreault, Tomblin, Vice Chairman Lewis, and Chairman Perestam. Absent: Commissioner Gerstner was excused. Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Senior Planner Schonborn, Associate Planner Fox, Assistant Planner Kim, and Assistant Planner Harwell. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Planning Commissioners unanimously agreed to remove Agenda Item No. 1 from the Consent Calendar and hear it after Agenda Item No. 2. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas distributed 27 pieces of correspondence regarding Agenda Item No. 5 as well as a color site plan for Agenda Item No. 4. He also reported that at the June 17, 2008 City Council meet the City Council took no action on the appeal for the View Restoration Case on Rolling Ridge Road. Thus, the Planning Commission's decision is final. He also reported that the City Council approved the Planning Commission's recommended Housing Element amendment. Commissioner Tetreault and Vice Chairman Lewis reported that they had met with the applicant regarding Agenda Item No. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None CONSENT CALENDAR 2. Height Variation Permit, Site Plan Review, & Grading Permit (Case No. ZON2008-00040): 5335 Rolling Ridge Road Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to adopt the Consent Calendar thereby adopting P.C. Resolution 2008-23 for the Height Variation, Site Plan Review, and Grading Permit as presented by staff, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (6-0). CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Site Plan Review & Sign Permit (Case No. ZON2008-00256): Headland Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East Commissioner Knight stated that Sunshine had relayed a concern to him regarding the possible encroachment onto Headland Drive, and wanted to confirm the status with staff. Director Rojas explained that staff has done site visits with the Public Works staff, and based on the site visits where Public Works staff measured the public right-of-way, staff believes all of the improvements are on private property. Commissioner Tetreault stated that he does not have an issue with this as long as it does not impair traffic visibility and it does not get in the way of possible future implementation of the Conceptual Trails Plan that may go through the area. Director Rojas noted that the Public Works Department has approved the location of the project and that all of the improvements are on private property and not in the public right-of-way where the potential future trail may be placed. Vice Chairman Lewis moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2008-24 thereby approving the Site Plan Review and Sign Permit as presented by staff, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (6-0). 3. Conditional Use Permit & Grading Permit (Case No. ZON2007-00182): 31100 - 31176 Hawthorne Blvd, and 31212 — 31246 Palos Verdes Dr. South Director Rojas stated that staff was recommending the public hearing be continued to August 12, 2008, however there was a speaker for the item. Ed Shea 25 Via San Remo reiterated that the residents at Villa Capri want the wall behind the two story building to remain a solid privacy wall. He stated that the gap also allows for headlights to shine into some of the resident's windows. He also felt that Planning Commission Minutes June 24,2008 Page 2 walking dogs on the property is a health factor and allowing pedestrian access could be a safety factor. Commissioner Tetreault moved to continue the public hearing to August 1, 2008, seconded by Vice Chairman Lewis. Approved, (6-0). 4. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 68796, General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Conditional Use Permit, Gradinq Permit & Environmental Assessment (Case nos. Sub2007-00003 & ZON2007-00072): 28220 Highridge Road Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, giving a brief history of the project and explaining how the project has been modified since it was last before the Planning Commission. He stated that staff performed a view analysis from most of the ten residences on Via la Cima, and determined that the revised project still results in significant view impairment from 7 Via la Cima. He explained that the City Attorney has stated that the Planning Commission has the discretion to determine the acceptable view impairment threshold for the project; however the City Attorney also advised the Planning Commission that the applicant has the right to develop a multi-family project under the RM-22 zoning, and project modifications that might make development infeasible could be considered a taking. He stated that staff felt the project could be slightly lower, however in doing so the view from 7 Via la Cima would not be appreciably improved. Therefore, staff felt that notwithstanding the view impairment to 7 Via la Cima, all of the required findings for the approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit component of the project could be made. Further, as discussed at the previous meeting, staff felt that the appropriate findings for the other components of the application could be made. He discussed the traffic analysis and the proposed traffic mitigation discussed in the analysis. He stated that the revised traffic study will be forwarded to the City Engineer for review. He reported that the applicant has submitted a request for a density bonus, and explained the proposed request. Director Rojas added that the density bonus request came in very recently and staff has not had a chance to get a thorough analysis to the Planning Commission regarding state laws. He stated that at this point there is a difference of opinion between staff and the applicant in terms of interpretation of state law that governs the density bonus issues. Given there is a continuance recommendation for the project, staff will address this issue in more detail in the next staff report. Associate Planner Fox stated that, with the exception of the density bonus issue, staff believes the necessary findings to approve the proposed project can be made. Staff is recommending the public hearing be continued to July 22, 2008 to allow the revised Mitigated Negative Declaration to be re-circulated and to further research and form an opinion on the application of state and city density bonus law as it applies to this project. He stated that the applicant will also proceed with finalizing the revised architectural plans, revise the grading plan and Vesting Tentative Tract Map, and finalize the traffic study. Planning Commission Minutes June 24,2008 Page 3 Commissioner Knight stated that he was still troubled by the significant view impact to 7 Via la Cima. He could not remember seeing in any past cases a situation where the reduction of three view impacts to only one significant view impact justify the findings of the project, and therefore making the finding for this project was inconsistent with previous findings made by the City. Associate Planner Fox stated the City Attorney has reviewed the staff report and discussed the revised project with staff. He explained that unlike a height variation where there is a 16-foot "by-right" height limit, there is no "by-right" height limit in this case. Therefore the issue becomes subjective and at the discretion of the Planning Commission as to what they find to be significant and acceptable in terms of impact. The City Attorney has advised the Planning Commission that they must also balance of the project's impact on views from neighboring properties with the right of the property owner to develop the property. Director Rojas added that there is no finding before the Planning Commission with this application that requires the Planning Commission to make a determination of significant view impact. The applicable finding before the Planning Commission is whether the project results in adverse affects to adjacent properties. Thus, as the City Attorney has stated, it is up to the Planning Commission to establish the threshold of what constitutes adverse affects to adjacent properties. He stated that the Planning Commission has several factors to consider, one being that the project has been reduced in height and how much lower can the project go before it's not feasible. Another factor to consider is how low the project has to go before the view is not significantly impaired from the neighboring residence. Zaffar Hassanally (applicant) stated that since the last Planning Commission this project has gone through a complete redesign to address the concerns of the Planning Commission and the neighbors. He stated that these changes have significant financial impacts on the project, as views will be lost from several units, the large 2,800 square foot unit has been eliminated, and the project has been pushed back resulting in a smaller pool area. John Waldon (architect) stated that this redesign is a drastic change from the prior design. He noted that because the entrance has been moved there is no longer a frontage road or the surface parking spaces, and although the building has come closer to the street, quite a bit more landscaping has been added along Highridge Road. Commissioner Knight stated that at the previous meeting the architect had stated that it was infeasible to lower the building more than two feet, and questioned how the building has now been lowered approximately 12 Y2 feet. Mr. Waldon explained that ten feet was chopped off of the top of the building and the other 2 Y2 feet came about because the access to the site is actually now 2 Y2 lower than it was before. Planning Commission Minutes June 24,2008 Page 4 Commissioner Tetreault asked if it would be feasible to flip things and have the pool area towards the front of the development and move the units farther back on the lot. He felt that by doing so it would decrease the view impact to the neighbors considerably. Mr. Waldon explained that the pool area creates a view corridor for the units in his project and by moving the pool it would eliminate views to even more of the proposed project's units. Commissioner Ruttenberg noted in the staff report a statement that the height may be able to be lowered a foot or so, and asked how that could be done. Mr. Waldon felt that the project is at the lowest point possible at this time. Associate Planner Fox explained that in speaking with another architect in the firm it was indicated the plate heights in the units may be able to be lowered by a foot or so, however doing so may create a problem with respect to ducting and mechanical work between the units. Mr. Waldon added that currently there are 9-foot ceilings proposed, and anything on the Peninsula now has at least a 10-foot ceiling. Therefore he felt he was currently at the minimum marketable ceiling height. Barbara Sloan Smith 5 Via la Cima read a letter from the owner of 8 Via la Cima in which she expresses concerns that this project will completely eliminate her view. She explained that in her own home the view will be blocked from key areas. She understood that something will be built at this site, however she was hoping that the City will be able to continue working with the applicant to find modifications that will lessen the loss of views from Via la Cima. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Ms. Smith for her comments regarding the changes that have been proposed as opposed to what was originally proposed. Ms. Smith felt this new proposal was more of a solid mass, as opposed to something that is more lovely and gracious as originally proposed. Shimpei Ito 4 Via la Cima stated that the first silhouette was massive and not compatible with other buildings, and completely blocked his view. The new silhouette is lower, however it is much wider and still completely blocks his view of Long Beach. Nancy Bradley stated that the new silhouette has grown in girth and there are fewer green areas than originally proposed. She felt this new proposal looks more like a downtown apartment building. Planning Commission Minutes June 24,2008 Page 5 Marlene Resing 7 Via la Cima stated that now that the building is lower it has saved some of her mountain view, however it now takes the city light views from both of her rooms. She noted that locating the pool at the front of the building as suggested earlier would preserve many views from Via la Cima, but the architect stated it would reduce the views from many of the proposed units and therefore reduce the profitability of the project. She asked if her view and property value were less important than the applicant's. John Waldon (in rebuttal) explained that it is not a simple task to move the pool to the front of the development, and that moving the project over will cause him to lose two of the larger units. He also explained that going deeper into the site will cause problems for fire department access. Chairman Perestam asked Mr. Waldon how many view and non-view units are currently proposed. Mr. Waldon answered that sixteen units currently will not have views where there previously were ten units without views. Chairman Perestam stated that there are at least three areas where the Planning Commission needs more input: 1) A better understanding of the affordable housing and density bonus, 2) An exact location for the proposed left turn pocket, and 3) The revised Mitigated Negative Declaration. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that this will be a difficult decision, as he felt the applicant has made significant improvements in regards to the design, at great sacrifice to him, while the residents on Via la Cima are not at all unreasonable in what they are seeking. He acknowledged the fact that the developer has proposed ten units without a view, which is a good compromise by the developer. He also felt that, aside from 7 Via la Cima, some residents' views will be impacted, but they will still have a magnificent view. He explained that he is not an architect, and is unsure whether or not moving the pool to the front of the development would be a viable solution. He asked that the applicant put some thought into the suggestion and explain at the next meeting why it would or would not work. He also noted that the residents on Via la Cima should be careful what they wish for, because they might get it. He noted that the City regulations treat apartment buildings differently than condos, and if the situation becomes one in which the condos are infeasible to build, the applicant may change the plan to apartments, where they can be built to 36 feet in height. Commissioner Tomblin commended the architect, stating that he felt this redesigned project is a much nicer project than the one previously submitted. He stated that if asked to vote now, he would support the project. Commissioner Knight also felt the architect has made a good effort to address the neighbors and Commissioner's concerns. He felt that there are still possibilities that can be explored in terms of the building becoming wider and the issues of fire department Planning Commission Minutes June 24,2008 Page 6 access. He stated that if something is truly infeasible, he would like it to be shown to be so, and not because it is less profitable or less marketable. Commissioner Tetreault stated there are a number of factors that he needs clarification on, which is why he will support a continuance. In terms of the design of the building, he was concerned with the view impact to the residents on Via la Cima, adding that there is still a significant view impairment to one resident and he was not comfortable sacrificing the view from the one unit for the rest. He stated that he would like to see as much as possible can be done to help the owner maintain as much of the view as possible from 7 Via la Cima. Vice Chairman Lewis stated that the view from 7 Via la Cima is completely blocked and he cannot support this project as long as that blockage exists. He added that if he has a choice of protecting views of long-term residents versus potential new views to help make a few extra dollars for a real estate developer, he will chose the residents' views. Chairman Perestam felt there will be some additional relief for views with the elimination or cutting of the trees to the far right and towards the back of the property. Commissioner Tetreault moved to continue the public hearing to the meeting of July 22, 2008, seconded by Vice Chairman Lewis. Approved, (6-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. Revision to Conditional use Permit, Grading Permit, Minor Exception Permit, Site Plan Review & Environmental Assessment (Case No. ZON2007- 00598): 5448 Crest Road Commissioner Tomblin disclosed that he is a member of St. John Fisher Church, and in consulting with the City Attorney on whether or not to recuse himself from this item he was told to consider whether or not he was a paid employee or consultant of the church and/or if he could hear this item without bias. He stated that he is not a paid employee or consultant of the church and assured the Planning Commission that he could hear this item without bias and could make a fair and impartial decision. Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, giving a brief overview of the proposed project and showed several photographs and renderings. She stated that staff is recommending the Planning Commission direct the applicant to modify the steeple height and continue the public hearing to a future meeting. Commissioner Knight noted asked staff what type of conditions being suggested to regulate the days and hours the bells can be rung. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that staff has suggested a number of conditions of approval in regards to the bells. She stated that these conditions include limiting the sounding of the bells to 60 seconds and during the times provided by the applicant. Planning Commission Minutes June 24,2008 Page 7 Conditions also specify that the bells can only be sounded after funerals, before weddings, and during the seven holy days, however at no time can the bells be sounded before 7:00 a.m. or after 7:00 p.m. Commissioner Knight asked if there is an integrated pest management plan associated with this project. Associate Planner Mikhail stated that there is not an integrated pest management plan. Commissioner Knight asked staff to explain the affordable housing in-lieu fee and the process the applicant would go through if they felt they were exempt from this fee. Director Rojas explained there are options available to the applicant to satisfy the City's affordable housing requirements, however these are issues that will be addressed by the City Council. Vice Chairman Lewis asked if the proposed bell use was out of step with bells being used at other churches within the City. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that Wayfarer's Chapel and St. Peter's By The Sea both currently have bells that ring. Vice Chairman Lewis asked if the applicant has agreed to the conditions of approval regarding the bells set in the staff report. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that the applicant has agreed to most of the conditions, however they do have questions regarding staff's recommended phasing aspect of the project. Chairman Perestam asked if there had been any problems or if there was anything unusual with the public notification process. Associate Planner Mikhail explained the Municipal Code requires notification of the proposed project to members of the public within a 500 foot radius of the proposed project. The applicant provided a certified list of the homeowners and staff sent public notices to these homeowners. Director Rojas added that one of the purposes of the silhouette is to serve as a type of notice to the neighborhoods, and staff received quite a few phone calls once the silhouette was erected. Chairman Perestam opened the public hearing. Shelly Hyndman (project architect) stated that she will be addressing the portion of the project that was not supported by staff, namely the steeple height. She reviewed staff's concerns with the height, noting that staff has made the presumption that compatibility Planning Commission Minutes June 24,2008 Page 8 cannot exist without contrast. She noted that Webster defines compatibility as capable of existing together in harmony. Therefore, because something is in contrast does not mean they are incompatible. She stated that the height of the steeple is proportionate to the rest of the sanctuary structure and is essential to providing spiritual, religious identity to the church campus common to institutional icons. She displayed photographs of the steeple at Wayfarers Chapel explaining that it was formational in the design of the St. John Fisher steeple shape and height. She explained that because of the relative pad height as compared to other surrounding properties, anything that is built at this site is magnified in height and visible to surrounding neighborhoods. Regarding institutional uses, she stated.that the General Plan encourages Institutional uses and recognizes the role of Institutional uses in meeting the educational, cultural, and welfare needs of the City in efficient, functionally compatible, and attractively planned institutions. She noted that this emphasizes functionally compatible, and does not suggest that an institutional use will blend in with its surroundings, and by its very nature will not look like a house. As such, it should be recognized that the steeple is a church's primary architectural distinction identifying the building as an institution, and this distinction cannot be realized if required to blend in with adjacent residences. Finally, she noted that to provide for an open area design complimentary to the coastal area environment, to increase openness, and diminish the perceived height of the church setbacks in excess of city requirements were provided abutting the new church along Crest Road and Crenshaw Blvd. She stated that the location of the site is compatible with the General Plan, as it is zoned Institutional which allows for churches with a Conditional Use Permit. Furthermore, the location and site design for this property including building a new 1,200 seat sanctuary on the proposed corner predated the City's General Plan and incorporation, therefore it cannot be in conflict with the City's General Plan. She displayed a slide showing the original 1961 master plan for the church. She stated that St. John Fisher cannot succeed in fulfilling the community's voids and General Plan goals if the new sanctuary is not approved to be built in the proposed corner location. Further, the proposed location is the only location that provides for a school campus, playground areas, and the gymnasium all to be located in a manner that does not conflict with vehicular patterns on site, creating unsafe mixing of vehicles and children, as exists on site today. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked how wide the steeple is on the portion that is above 48 feet in height. Ms. Hyndman answered that it is no more than 16 feet wide in the area above 48 feet in height. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked if the 1961 plan indicated a proposed height for a new steeple. Ms. Hyndman answered that there were no elevations included of the future church in the 1961 drawing. Planning Commission Minutes June 24,2008 Page 9 Commissioner Tetreault noted from the staff report that the church had submitted and withdrew a previous expansion plan in 1994, and asked how this proposal was different, and why the church felt that this proposal would be more accepted by the community than the former proposal. Ms. Hyndman explained that the church withdrew the 1994 application because they had a sense of urgency to have the project completed by Christmas, and had they gone through with the appeal process that would not have happened. She also explained that the bell tower suggested in the previous drawing was more of an architectural amenity that would be placed on the existing sanctuary building, while in this case the tower is proportional to the new building that is being proposed. Commissioner Knight asked if there were plans to light the bell tower and cross. Ms. Hyndman answered that the plan is to provide minimal soft, low incandescent focal lighting to the cross and pedestrian lighting to service egress to the public way. She stated the lights would most likely be on a sensor to turn off a reasonable hour, and staff has conditioned the project to have lights shield away from neighboring properties. Monsignor David Sork stated he has been the pastor at the church since 1999. He noted that St. John Fisher is the only catholic church on the Palos Verdes Peninsula, and therefore serves a large number of families and community members. He discussed the pre-school at the site, as well as the elementary school and youth program. He also discussed the various outreach programs provided by and through the church. He explained that this new construction project all came about as a need to do something more for the youth in the community and went on from there. He stated that it is not the purpose of the design to increase the membership, just to better serve the needs of the members. Commissioner Ruttenberg noted that the intent was not to increase the membership, however once this beautiful new church and other structures are built, he asked the Monsignor if he anticipated that there will be more people interested in joining the church. Monsignor Sork did not know the answer to that question, explaining that what motivated the church to propose this expansion was to meet the needs of the youth and .congregation. Vice Chairman Lewis stated that staff has suggested times and limitations on the bell sounds, and asked the Monsignor if the church was agreeable to those limitations. Monsignor Sork was agreeable and comfortable with the limitations suggested by staff. Commissioner Knight asked if the parking for weddings or funerals would be a problem. Planning Commission Minutes June 24,2008 Page 10 Monsignor Sork stated that there are far fewer people in attendance for weddings or funerals than for a Sunday mass, and that parking will not be a problem. Lisa Counts stated that she is the building committee chairperson for the church. She stated that it has always been the parish's intention to build the church on the corner as proposed in this design, however several other locations on the property were explored when designing this project. However no other location offered the safe mix of vehicles and school children. She explained that the new plan does not require additional parking to be provided, as the current lot has approximately 100 extra parking spaces. She explained that there have been many revisions and many compromises before submitting this final design to the City. She stated that St. John Fisher has been at this location since 1961 and the existing worship space was meant to be temporary and to become a community center, with a new church to be built at the corner as proposed today. She stated that the new church is meant to enhance the community and a visual gift to the intersection of Crest Road and Crenshaw Blvd. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked if the church will be meeting the minimum required number of parking spaces. Ms. Counts answered that the church will be meeting the minimum number of required parking spaces, based on concurrent and non-concurrent uses. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked if he should be concerned with parking in the future, if this new church brings more members of the community out for worship. Ms. Counts explained that the parish serves the community on the Palos Verdes Peninsula, as other communities have their own parishes. She stated that the parish is not looking to bring worshipers in from other areas, but to enhance the experience for their parishioners. Associate Planner Mikhail clarified that, based on the varying uses on the property, there are different requirements for parking for each use. Therefore, the actual required parking for the property as it exists today is 462 parking spaces versus what they currently have, which is 359 parking spaces. Additionally, with the proposed uses calculated collectively the Code would require over 600 parking spaces, however staff asked the applicant to prepare a parking analysis based on the parking needs of each use at any given time, which came out to 331 parking spaces. John Barbieri was in support of the church project. He stated that the proposed steeple is not visible to all of the neighbors in the surrounding neighborhood, nor are there services at 7 a.m. as claimed by some residents. He stated that the church is a good neighbor, and hoped that the decision made by the City is based on facts and laws with little or no distortion. Planning Commission Minutes June 24,2008 Page 11 Joan Olenick stated that her main objection is the bell tower and the ringing bells. She explained the sound comes down from the church into the valley where she lives, and in doing so the sound is intensified. David Kurt stated that he is the parish administrator at St. John Fisher, and is fully in support of the proposed project. He stated that over 95 percent of the parishioners are from the Peninsula, and they are not looking to draw from other areas. Philip Johnson stated that only half of the residents on Valley View Road received public notification of this proposed project, and felt that everyone should have received notification, and felt that staff did not send notification to everyone in the 500 foot radius. He didn't think using Wayfarer's Chapel as a comparison was an equal comparison, asking how many Homeowners Associations are within 500 feet of Wayfarer's Chapel. He noted that the building pad for St. John Fisher is 30 feet above Crest Road and 40 feet above Crenshaw Blvd. and that must be taken into account when discussing the height of this proposed building. In regards to Commissioner Tomblin, he stated that the appearance of a conflict is sufficient for one to voluntarily recuse themselves. He added that if any member of the Planning Commission or any staff member even has a family member that attends St. John Fisher, there is a conflict. Alan Weissman stated that the design is significantly out of proportion with the neighborhoods it is surrounded by. He noted that the philosophy of the City has always been to have its construction blend in to the rural environment. He felt this project will stand out and in no way blend in with the surrounding neighborhoods. He also noted that the bells will ring everyday and will make the noise a problem with the neighborhoods. He noted that the City has no noise policy and there are no restrictions on the church in this permit process, it becomes a detrimental environmental issue to the homes. He also noted that the massive grading will cause excessive noise and dust to the surrounding neighborhoods. He felt that an objective Environmental Impact Report should be prepared to address the issues and the impact to the surrounding neighborhoods. John Counts stated that he is hearing a lot of fear from his neighbors; fear of the unknown, fear of something new, fear of what they don't understand. He discussed the bell tower and the sound of the bells. He felt that the Planning Commission should look at facts, especially as it applies to sound propagation. He stated that as sound is ,generated away from the source it decreases exponentially. He asked that the Planning Commission listen to the facts, and not the fear factor as it applies to this project. John Rewinski stated he is a member of the parish and supports the project. He stated that the parish wants to be a good neighbor, and that it is very important that the neighbors participate in discussions to let the church know their concerns and how these concerns can be mitigated. He stated that this is a church being built, and not a home, and that by nature it will stand out from the neighborhood. Planning Commission Minutes June 24,2008 Page 12 Rick Daniels also felt that this church serves a congregation of a fairly fixed size, and therefore the traffic that exists now will be basically the same as the traffic occurring after the new church is built. Lori Daniels stated that she is in support of the project. She felt that the current youth services the church offers is inadequate and welcomed the plan at the church. She felt that the proposed gymnasium will not only keep kids occupied and off the street, but will offer services to the seniors of the community. Yola Gerst stated her concern was with.the church bells, how long they will ring, and how loud they will be. She noted that the Mormon church on Crestridge has a bell tower and was concerned that if St. John Fisher were allowed to ring bells, the Mormon church would install bells to ring, as well as all of the other churches on Crestridge and Highridge. She also suggested that during construction a flag man be located on Crenshaw Blvd. near the blind curve to slow traffic down. Gary Long stated that he and his family live directly across the street from St. John Fisher, and opposes the construction. He distributed a picture taken from his property of the silhouette, and explained this photographs demonstrates what affect the proposed construction will have on his home. He stated that the building will overshadow his property and block out his morning sunlight and bring shade and shadows to his property. He also noted that people will be able to look from the church directly into his backyard, and he will lose his privacy. He stated that currently from his property he can hear the sermons, the music, and the singing from the church, and this will be amplified with the new church. He stated that traffic is an issue, as well as parking. He felt that if this project was really started for the youth, then something for the youth could be built somewhere else on the property. Rhonda Long stated that she lives directly across the street from the church but never received a notification of the project from the City. She explained that all of her bedrooms in her house are along Crenshaw Blvd. and already hears sermons and noise activities amplified from St. John Fisher. She stated that she opposes any building proposed by St. John Fisher on the corner of Crest Road and Crenshaw Blvd. as it will tower over and shade the property. She also opposed the stairs that lead down to the street. She also did not feel she should be forced to listen to bells ringing several times a day, seven days per week. She asked what merits the approval of this project when so many surrounding neighborhoods will be impacted. Harrison Long explained that he often works from home, and building a church this close to the street will greatly increase the noise and traffic problems that already exist. Anthony Wu stated that he is in favor of the project. He noted that a church is a focal building in any community. He felt this project will bring people together. He added that the parish wants to be a good neighbor. He asked that the Planning Commission look at this project objectively and use proper judgment. Planning Commission Minutes June 24,2008 Page 13 Jackie Showalter felt that what the church is trying to do is commendable, however she objected to the proposed bells. She stated that she and her husband are retired and live in their neighborhood because it is quiet, and the ringing of the bells, no matter how beautiful they may sound, is going to add to noise. Robert Haase stated that the members of the church would like to have a church that they are proud of and that the City can be proud of, and encouraged the Planning Commission to approve the project. Tommy Draffen stated that he is in support of the project. He stated that the church has been at the present site long before than the Island View development was built and that the traffic generated by the church has not significantly increased over the years. William Bryon stated that the existing church is more of an assembly hall, as there is not a proper chapel, stations of the cross, and other features that a real church would have. He stated that the congregation would like to create a real place of worship and a real church. Bryan Bergsteinsson felt that the proposed structure is much too imposing for a residential neighborhood. He added that he has no objection to the desire to build a church on the site, but this design in this location is not appropriate for the neighborhood. Richard Mahoney stated he is in favor of the project. He felt that words such as massive, towering, and noise pollution are all relative terms. He added that he does not see this church proposal as massive. Sandra Sanders stated that she is a real estate broker and that in her opinion the value of the homes in the neighborhood will stay the same and the addition of the church will not affect their property values. She felt that the proposed church will enhance the community and no devalue the homes. George Fink stated that the current church is not functional and is in support of the project. He agreed that the steeple is beautifully dramatic, uplifting, and inviting. Regarding traffic, he stated that he has more trouble getting out of Forrestal Drive onto Palos Verdes Drive South at any time of the day than he does at the peak time use at ,Crenshaw and Crest. Karol Plock y explained that the back of her property is across from the driveway at St. John Fisher. She stated that she is in favor of the project, except for the bell tower. She explained that she can see the current balloons from her driveway and when she sits in her backyard. She added that she would not like to hear the bells chiming several times a day, seven days a week. Noreen Chambers stated that she opposes the bells and the sound of the bells. Planning Commission Minutes June 24,2008 Page 14 Robert Mucha read from the staff report, noting that staff stated the church may have potential impacts on the neighborhoods. He did not feel this was very strong language, and the Planning Commission should take that into consideration. Robin Rome was pleased to see a community come out to speak in favor and support of their church. She felt that building for youth and building a new church is a wonderful thing, and this church is a beautiful design. She was surprised, however, at the very modern design of the building rather than a traditional Spanish style. She was concerned, however, with the ringing bells. She also suggested the Planning Commission consider lighting at the corner of Crenshaw and Crest, as she felt it is a dangerous intersection at night. Suzanne Sobel also felt the building of a new church is a wonderful thing, however she was opposed to the modern design of the church. She stated that she would have preferred to see a design more in line with the neighborhood. She stated that she was opposed to the height of the steeple and the bells. Glenn Burr stated that his children go to St. John Fisher School and that the playground and play area is all concrete, and not very safe. He stated that this new structure will get the cars away from the children, allow for some grass to be planted, and give the children a gymnasium. He didn't think the new church will add to the noise heard by his neighbors, noting that the church and noise were there when they all moved into their homes. M.A. Bowlus stated that when he moved into his home in 1969 the nearby Lutheran Church would ring its bells, but no longer does. He was disappointed that the bells no longer ring, as he enjoyed the sound of the bells. He stated that the sound of the bells is much more pleasant and doesn't last nearly as long as the sound of the lawnmowers and leaf blowers that are heard throughout the neighborhood daily. George Walker stated that he is in support of the project and encouraged the Planning Commission to consider approving the project. Dennis Matthews stated he is in support of the project. Sean Armstrong explained that the goal of this project was not to reach out to new members, but to address the needs of the parishioners as they exist today, as these needs are not currently being met. He noted that St. John Fisher pre-dates all of the communities that have expressed concern about the project, acknowledging that the concerns are valid concerns. He explained that putting the staircase in front of the church was to make the area more accessible. Douqlas Butler stated that in 1994 a survey of nine churches in Rancho Palos Verdes was conducted, and of those nine churches only two had working bells. One of those churches was Wayfarer's Chapel, which is not near any neighborhoods. He stated that the City has a 50 decibel limitation from the property for noise. He felt that if the bells Planning Commission Minutes June 24,2008 Page 15 are allowed they should be limited to 50 decibel, there should be some type of 24 hour monitoring system in place, and there should be a system set in place for neighborhood complaints regarding the noise. Vincent Belusko stated that he is a member of St. John Fisher, but is against the bell tower. He stated that his backyard abuts Crenshaw Blvd. and the bell tower will be very much in his view. He explained that when he moved into his home the church was there, however it was not an over-imposing structure and there was no bell tower. He stated that he does not want to listen to bells everyday. He addressed the traffic, noting that the traffic report did not address traffic south of Crest Road on Crenshaw Blvd. He stated that people will be parking on Crenshaw if the stairs are allowed to be built where proposed, and this extra parking on the street will greatly narrow the lanes on Crenshaw. He suggested the area from the intersection of Crest and Crenshaw heading south to the entrance of Island View should be labeled no parking. Lynne Belusko stated that City records show her building pad is 40 feet below the proposed building pad for the sanctuary and bell tower. Therefore, from her yard the bell tower will be approximately 130 feet high and 16 feet across. She stated that she has read the proposed mitigation measures suggested by staff and, given the 40 foot difference between the pad heights, she still has serious concerns that there will be significant adverse on her property and properties close to her. She questioned if even a significant reduction in the bell tower height will mitigate the bulk, mass, and height seen from her home. She felt that even with the architectural style suggested, because this church is so close to single family, one story homes it will appear massive and out of place. She was not in favor of the bells, and again didn't think the mitigation measures suggested by staff were enough. She noted that there is no decibel level established in the Initial Study and nothing that shows a measurable distance at a certain decibel level at a certain property line, and therefore there is no control on how loud the bells will be. She was concerned with privacy, noting that the columbarium is directly across the street from her house and there is only a 42 inch wall proposed between the columbarium and Crenshaw Blvd. and therefore people will be able to look directly into her yard and house. Ronald Blond understood the church's desire to upgrade their facilities, however he could not understand why the sanctuary and bell tower had to be so massive and so modern, and so conspicuously placed. He stated that like his neighbor, the structure will tower over his property. He felt that this structure is proposed to be built at the one corner of the property that is by far the most conspicuous and audible to the greatest number of homes and the greatest number of cars. He questioned why the church can't meet the needs of the congregation by placing a new church and bell tower of lesser height located somewhere more centrally on the property. Dwight Yoder explained that he did not receive a notification for this project, as he is just outside of the 500 foot radius. He felt that when there is a project that is this large, the applicant should be given a list of surrounding homeowners associations and be required to notify all of the residents in those homeowners associations. He felt this Planning Commission Minutes June 24,2008 Page 16 would lead to better relations with the neighbors and make everyone more informed. He added that in the code of ethics for his profession one shall be independent in appearance and fact, and that is a standard of ethics that should be considered when considering whether or not to recuse oneself from this project. George Abele felt that the most important aspect of this project is the importance to the youth and the needs of the youth at the site. Maude Landon very much supported the recreation programs and the youth programs run by the church, however she questioned why the church needs to be built right at the corner of Crest Road and Crenshaw Blvd. She felt that the design is exquisite, but questioned why the church could not be placed somewhere else on the over 9 acres of land the church has at the site. She was very concerned with the proposed stairs, noting it will be much more convenient for people to park along the street to walk up to the church. She also noted that parking at the end of Crenshaw Blvd. is currently very congested on the weekends and that the added parking from the church will make for an unacceptable situation. Leah Crookshanks felt the youth needs more space at the site. She stated that she misses the sound of church bells, and looks forward to hearing them again. She felt this church will be good for the neighborhood and will add much to the community. Julie Nourayi stated that she is in full support of the project, and did not feel it was too massive or intrusive. Joseph McGuiness was supportive of the project, and strongly felt that the youth need a place to gather and to play at the site. He asked that the Planning Commission approve the project. Robert Trujillo did not feel that the membership of the church is going to increase because of the new church, and therefore he did not think that increased traffic would be an issue. He stated that he is in favor of the project. Ken Dyda stated that he did not realize bells were noise, he thought it was music. He felt that this proposed church design will be a landmark in the City, and noted that the other landmark in the City, Wayfarer's Chapel, has an architectural style that doesn't conform to any other on the entire Peninsula. Shelly Hyndman (in rebuttal) began by explaining that much of the mature landscaping will remain along Crenshaw Blvd and Crest Road. She addressed the issue of the stairs, and noted that people will not be congregating near the stairs, as the entrance to the church is on the other side of the building and there will be no area to congregate. Regarding some of the noise, she explained that currently there are doors that are often left open during mass, and with the new church that will no longer happen. She also explained that many sites on the property were looked at for the new church, however the placement of the parking lot was a constant issue. She explained that the currently Planning Commission Minutes June 24,2008 Page 17 proposed location of the parking lot was the only area where people will not have to cross through the parking lot to get to different areas of the site, such as the school. She discussed privacy and the concern with the 42 inch wall, and explained that there will also be heavy landscaping in the area to increase the privacy needs of the residents. Commissioner Knight asked if the congregation would be open to removing the proposed stairs to the sidewalk. Ms. Hyndman answered that could be taken into consideration. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked, hypothetically, if given the choice, would the preference be to keep the bell tower in its current location at a lower height, or moved more towards the center of the property and allowed to stay at the current proposed height. Ms. Hyndman answered that the preference would be to keep it at the present location at a slightly lower height. She stated that it is clearly not practical to have the bell tower in the center of the property. In addition, there are added geotechnical challenges in that location. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Ms. Hyndman how she would feel about a chapel 20 feet lower with no bells, but in the exact location currently being requested. Ms. Hyndman cautioned that there is a point where the height will be lowered to the point that it will no longer even be considered a tower. Regarding the bells, she questioned the Municipal Code language that would back up a decision to not allow bells. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked how low would be too low for the bell tower. Ms. Hyndman explained that using Wayfarer's Chapel as the precedent of 74 feet high to the top of the cross, that would still look good on this church. She noted that is 14 feet lower than the current proposal. She felt that anything lower would not work aesthetically. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked if there was any amount of width that could be reduced on the portion above 48 feet. Ms. Hyndman stated that it would be easier to take the height down by 14 feet than reduce the width without compromising the function. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked staff if there is any type of noise ordinance in place when discussing the decibel level of the proposed bells. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that the City does not have a noise ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes June 24,2008 Page 18 Commissioner Ruttenberg asked if the City had any leeway in conditioning the bells. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that staff has included a number of conditions, including that there be a six month review after the bells are installed where staff can determine a reasonable level that the bells can ring. However, she was not aware of the limitations regarding the extent of regulation for the proposed bells. Commissioner Ruttenberg requested that staff consult the City Attorney as to whether or not the City can prevent the church from playing bells as part of their religious ceremonies. Vice Chairman Lewis asked if construction of Wayfarer's Chapel and St. Peter's by the Sea predates City incorporation. Director Rojas answered that construction predates the City's incorporation. Vice Chairman Lewis asked if the Planning Commission can condition the approval so that the church would have to pay or contribute towards a traffic signal at the intersection of Crest Road and Crenshaw Blvd. Director Rojas explained that to do that, there needs to be a nexus between the proposed project and any increase in traffic that would warrant a traffic signal. Commissioner Knight asked if there is any type of current condition or City restriction that the church cannot play any recorded music through the P.A. system used for the sound of the bells. Associate Planner Mikhail answered no and explained that the current conditions only restrict the times and occasions the bells can be played. She also noted that the applicant has indicated that they will be playing a bell sound, and nothing else. Commissioner Knight referred to the staff report and asked the City's traffic consultant what the "threshold limits required by the City" that were referred to are. Joanne Itagaki, the City's consulting Traffic Engineer, noted that the City uses the County of Los Angeles traffic impact analysis guidelines, and explained how the information was used in the analysis. Commissioner Knight referred to the staircase on the plans, noting that people may want to park on the street to utilize the stairs. He asked if an analysis was done of the impact to parking because of these stairs and if parking would be impacted on the street. Planning Commission Minutes June 24,2008 Page 19 Ms. Itagaki was not able to say if parking would be impacted or not, as it would be a matter of whether or not the church members are going to think it's a more convenient place to park, and she could not predict this one way or the other. Chairman Perestam stated that he would like to better understand the methodology on how the numbers used in the traffic study for the parking analysis were obtained. Ms. Hyndman stated that the traffic engineer did not do the parking tables. She explained that her office did the parking tables based on the operational access at the property and this was reviewed and approved by the City's Traffic Engineer. Commissioner Tetreault did not have an objection to the architectural style of the proposed church, and felt the City should try to stay away from trying to achieve a particular look for a church. He agreed with Commissioner Ruttenberg that the City Attorney should be consulted in regards to restricting the use of the bells, as it is part of the religious practice and expression and he did not know if the City had the right to restrict that. He agreed with staff's condition that there be a review period in regards to the bells. After reviewing photographs submitted by neighbors, he was concerned about how imposing the church may appear from the neighboring homes. He noted, however, that there is a difference when standing at a site looking at something and looking at a photograph of something, explaining that there is a different perspective because of the way the camera lens works. He stated that he has not made a decision on how he will vote for this project. Commissioner Knight agreed that the design presented is quite beautiful, however he had a concern with the tower. He stated that he was very impressed with some of the evidence presented tonight at the meeting in regards to the impact of the tower to neighboring homes, and would like to see the tower lowered in height. He noted that St. Peter's by the Sea is a large church however the pad level is below the street, and in the case of Wayfarer's Chapel the church can only been seen when driving in one direction along Palos Verdes Drive South. He discussed the lighting design, noting that lighting designs are usually done with the lighting facing down to keep the illumination on site. He noted that when the proposed lights face down, they shine on to properties at lower pad elevations below the church. Therefore, he requested the lights have shields so the lighting does not spill out onto the neighboring properties. He agreed with staff's recommendation regarding five year entitlements, and felt that ten years was too long. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that the church existed before the surrounding neighborhoods, and that is a valid consideration. He felt that the church has a right to build a new church in the style they desire. He was concerned, however, with the way the structure looms over the neighboring homes. He stated that he went to the church on Sunday to view the parking and traffic situations. He noted that there was very little on street parking and most of the parking lot was being used for parking. However, he was unsure if street parking would be utilized once the stairs are built. He stated that he has not yet made up his mind of many on the issues. Planning Commission Minutes June 24,2008 Page 20 Vice Chairman Lewis also had not made any conclusive decisions. In regards to the design, he agreed that the City should be deferential, as this is not a house being built. However, he does feel that the proposed church tower is too large. He explained that while he could most likely agree with the location of the church, the design of the church, the bells, the traffic, and the parking, he was unsure of the height of the bell tower, and had not made up his mind on this issue. Chairman Perestam stated that he had no feel for the need of the future church in regards to parking. He felt that the new.church will have a major impact on attendance and recommitment to the church. He was also concerned with significant presence of the church, specifically the height. However, he felt there was room for balance. Commissioner Tomblin explained that, while a member of the church, as a Planning Commissioner he can look at the facts and make a fair and impartial decision. He felt that his participation may also add some insight to the decision, as he is at the site on various Sundays and holidays. He stated that if his participation becomes an issue, or if he feels there is any conflict of interest at any point, or if the Planning Commissioners are uncomfortable with his participation he will recuse himself. Commissioner Knight moved to continue the public hearing to the meeting of July 22, 2008, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Commissioner Tetreault was concerned that the bell tower design is very much integrated with the proportions in the design of the church, and to start chopping down the size of the bell tower might compromise the design. He noted, however, that the architect has indicated there is a little leeway in the height and that the bell tower could be reduced to a size comparable to Wayfarer's Chapel. He also stated that churches are built to be the focal point in a community and therefore it is appropriate for the building to have height and be a building that can be seen. He felt that the Planning Commission should do something tonight to give the architect some indication of how they feel about the height of the church and the bell tower. Chairman Perestam felt that there was enough information that the Planning Commission should be able to give input on the height of the structure and the steps leading up to the church from the street. However, he didn't think the Planning Commission could go much further on traffic issues without more information. Commissioner Knight felt that the tower is too large, noting that he was very impressed with the photographic evidence presented by the neighbors which showed how they would be impacted by the tower. He stated that he has seen examples of modern churches which have a more modest design. He did not think it was mutually exclusive to reduce the height of the bell tower and still have a good design on the project. Vice Chairman Lewis stated that the height of the structure is a problem, and he was not sure he agreed that Wayfarer's Chapel or St. Peters by the Sea are appropriate Planning Commission Minutes June 24,2008 Page 21 benchmarks given their pads and relative locations. He stated that he was comfortable with the proposed stairs leading to the street. Commissioner Ruttenberg suggested taking a straw vote on the issue of the height in order to give the applicant an idea of where the Planning Commission stands on the issue. Commissioner Tetreault offered a substitute motion to conduct a straw vote as to the approval of the proposal of the height of the sanctuary building at 88 feet, seconded by Vice Chairman Lewis. . Commissioner Knight withdrew his original motion. The straw vote to approve the proposed height of the sanctuary building at 88 feet failed, (1-4-1) with Commissioners Knight, Tetreault, Vice Chairman Lewis, and Chairman Perestam dissenting and Commissioner Tomblin abstaining. Commissioner Tomblin asked the architect if there has been any discussion on lowering the building pad to bring the height of the building down a little lower. Ms. Hyndman noted that the current design already incorporates lowering the existing grade by two to four feet, She stated that after reading the staff report in which staff was not supporting the height of the bell tower, she has already prepared revised drawings in which the elevation of the church has been lowered by 14 feet and the building has been pulled away from the corner to provide more setbacks to the street. The revision also reduces the footprint of the proposed administration building and sanctuary to facilitate pulling the building away from the corner. Chairman Perestam felt that viewing the revision would be more appropriate for the next public hearing. Commissioner Tetreault moved to continue the public hearing to July 22, 2008, seconded by Vice Chairman Lewis. Approved, (6-0). APPROVAL OF MINUTES 6. Minutes of May 27, 2008 Commissioner Tetreault moved to continue the approval of the minutes to July 22, 2008, seconded by Commissioner Ruttenberg. Approved, (6-0). ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 7. Pre-Agenda for the meeting of July 8, 2008 Planning Commission Minutes June 24,2008 Page 22 No discussion occurred on this item. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 1:40 a.m. f Planning commission Minutes June 24,2008 Page 23