Loading...
PC MINS 20080722 Approved September 9, 2008 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES tr► � PLANING COMMIISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING JULY 22, 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 Tomblin led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Gerstner, Tetreault, Tomblin, Ruttenberg, Vice Chairman Lewis, and Chairman Perestam. Absent: Commissioner Knight was excused Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, City Attorney Lynch, Associate Planner Fox, and Associate Planner Mikhail. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Planning Commission agreed to re-order the Agenda as follows: Item No. 4, 1, 7, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 11. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that the City Council heard the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision on the view item involving 7 applicants on Dianora Drive at their July 15th meeting and continued the hearing to a future date. He also reported that at the next City Council meeting they will hear an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision on a recent view restoration maintenance schedule decision. Director Rojas distributed two items of correspondence for Agenda Item No. 1, twenty one items of correspondence for Agenda Item No. 2, six items of correspondence for Agenda Item No. 5, and three items of correspondence for Agenda Item No. 6. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items) None CONTINUED BUSINESS 4. Residential Development Standards Code Amendment &Zone Change (Case No. ZON2007-00377) This item was continued to an unspecified date. 1. Height Variation & Grading Permit (Case No. ZON2006-00643): 16 Rockinghorse Road Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, reviewing the scope of the project and the need for the various applications. He stated that staff felt that nearly all of the required findings can be made, however further modifications are needed in order to make all of the remaining findings. He noted two residents who objected to the project because of view impairment, and displayed photographs taken from these residences, and explained staff's findings as discussed in the staff report. Regarding neighborhood compatibility, staff felt that the residence was too large when compared to surrounding residences and was not compatible with the neighborhood character in terms of bulk and mass. Therefore, staff is recommending denial of the project without prejudice, as staff felt the project could be modified to address neighborhood compatibility issues. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked staff if they were suggesting that the two-story element of the proposed residence was incompatible with the neighborhood. Associate Planner Fox answered that staff did not think the two-story element was incompatible, as there are other two-story homes in the immediate neighborhood. Rather, it was more an issue of bulk and mass limited to one corner of the house. Chairman Perestam opened the public hearing. Donald Bruckman (architect) explained that in order to maximize the views from this lot it was necessary to move the house out a little to get the view around 18 Rockinghorse. He felt that, working with staff, the neighborhood compatibility issue can be resolved. With regards to square footage, he noted that while the house is large in its square footage, most of the house is below grade and can't be seen from the street. Dan Pocapalia, 14 Rockinghorse Road, stated he has no objection to the building of the structure next door to him, only to the elevation of the roof. He stated that the posts that deflect the roof line interfere with his view. David Bradley, 2809 Via el Miro, explained that in 2002 the property at 18 Rockinghorse was subdivided to create this property. He felt that was an arbitrary subdivision that was made as it made this lot very difficult to build a structure on. He understood the desire to gain a view around 18 Rockinghorse, however in doing so it creates a huge edifice as seen from his property. He felt the proposed residence is excessively large for the current neighborhood, as it will be much larger than anything in the Planning Commission Minutes July 22,2008 Page 2 neighborhood. He showed several photographs of the view of the lot as seen from his residence. He urged the Planning Commission to adopt staff alternative #3 to deny the height variation and grading permit with prejudice. Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. Bradley to clarify the view that would be obstructed. Mr. Bradley explained that, as staff noted, his primary view is due east. However, he has a secondary view to the northeast which this proposed structure will be blocking. Donald Bruckman (in rebuttal) explained.that the property owner feels that he needs a five bedroom home to meet his needs, which will result in a larger home than those currently in the neighborhood. However, he felt that he has hidden the apparent size of the home as viewed from the street. Chairman Perestam asked if bulk and mass is considered from not only the public right- of-way, but private property as well. Director Rojas explained that the Neighborhood Compatibility Guidelines allow flexibility to look at bulk and mass both from the street and adjoining properties. Vice Chairman Lewis moved to accept staff's recommendation to deny the applications without prejudice, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Vice Chairman Lewis felt this was too much house on too small a lot for this neighborhood. He stated that he could not support a house this big in this particular neighborhood. Commissioner Tetreault agreed, adding that this proposed house is not just a bit larger, it is a big jump from the average square footage of the homes in the neighborhood. Commissioner Ruttenberg acknowledged that the house is large, however he felt that the way it is designed helps mitigate the issue of the size. He didn't think he could vote to approve the house exactly as it is currently designed, but felt it was unfair to deny the project without allowing the applicant and architect the opportunity to redesign or make modifications to the proposal. He therefore could not support the motion and would favor a motion of continuance. Commissioner Gerstner stated that historically his objection to square footage and bulk and mass have to do more with the appearance of the home. However, this home is very much pushing the limit in terms of square footage and bulk and mass. He agreed with staff that there is a section of the house at the southwest corner that is too massive. He felt he could support the project if the bulk and mass at that area is satisfactorily addressed, even if the square footage is not reduced. Commissioner Tomblin agreed with Commissioner Gerstner's comments regarding the square footage of the project and the bulk and mass at the southwest corner. He also Planning Commission Minutes July 22,2008 Page 3 agreed with Commissioner Ruttenberg that he would rather support a motion to continue the public hearing rather than deny the project without prejudice. Chairman Perestam agreed there is a lot of house proposed on a relatively small lot. He stated that he too would favor a continuance of the public hearing over denial of the project without prejudice. He asked the applicant to address the Planning Commission regarding granting the time extension required by the Permit Streamlining Act to allow a continuance of the Public Hearing so that the applicant can address the concerns of staff and the Planning Commission. Mr. Bruckman granted the needed one-time extension so that he can work with staff to address the issues of bulk and mass at the southwest corner of the house. He questioned whether the Planning Commission was asking him to reduce the overall square footage of the home as well. Commissioner Gerstner explained that the Planning Commission was not all of the same mind. He felt that the overall concern was that the house as currently designed feels very large on the lot, which logically equates to too much square footage. He felt there are ways of being very creative to disguise mass, and it might be possible to disguise the mass without making the house significantly smaller. He added that even coming back with more than one option would be acceptable. Commissioner Tetreault agreed, noting that it comes down to the apparent size of the house in regards to bulk and mass, rather than the number of square feet of the home. Vice Chairman Lewis withdrew his previous motion to deny the project without prejudice and moved to continue the public hearing to the meeting of September 23, 2008 to allow the applicant and architect the opportunity to address the issues of bulk and mass raised by Staff and the Planning Commission, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Approved, (6-0). NEW BUSINESS 7. Possible reduction in the size of the Planning Commission Director Rojas presented a brief staff report, explaining that Management Partners has conducted a study of the City in terms of what can be done to improve how the City operates. One of the items suggested was that the City Council look at the work plans, size and frequency of meetings of the various Committees and Commissions. Therefore, the City Council placed four Committees/Commissions on hold and asked them to provide feedback to the City Council on their work plans, size and frequency of meetings. The Council then discussed the issue on July 1St, at which time they Council agreed to cut back the size of most of the Committees to five members. The Council also discussed the size of the Planning Commission but took no action until the Planning Commission had an opportunity to provide input on the matter. He stated that Planning Commission Minutes July 22,2008 Page 4 the discussion regarding the size of the Planning Commission will take place at the August 5th City Council meeting. Commissioner Tetreault stated that Management Partners was concerned about cost savings, and he noted that reducing the size of the Planning Commission from 7 to 5 would result in insignificant savings. He also stated that the thrust of the concern was the burden of all of the Committees on staff. He asked staff their opinion on whether or not reducing the Planning Commission would make a significant difference on staff resources. Director Rojas stated that two less Planning Commissioners would mean two less packets that would have to be prepared and delivered by staff, which would equate to some savings. He also stated that he heard arguments made that fewer members may mean shorter meetings, which could also result in a slight cost savings. He concluded that although there could be a slight cost savings by reducing the Planning Commission to five members, it would not be substantial. Commissioner Tetreault stated that he also serves on the PUMP Committee, which consists of 18 members, and felt that is an example of a committee that is too large and creates a significant burden on staff resources. The Planning Commission, however, is not behind in their workload and is efficient in getting their work done. He was concerned that reducing the Commission to five members would make it difficult to hear some items, noting that already there are two members that will have to recuse themselves from the upcoming Marymount project. He therefore felt that the benefits and the cost savings to the City would be minimal and would prefer to see the Commission remain at seven members. Commissioner Ruttenberg felt that the Planning Commission in the past several months has been operating on a fairly heavy schedule on a very efficient basis. In analyzing the costs of a five member Commission versus a seven member Commission, he noted there would be a savings of$100 a month in the pay received by the two additional members, there would be duplicating cost savings, and meeting times may possibly be shorter. However, the Planning Commission is made up of a very diverse group of members, which he felt is very beneficial when hearing items and making decisions. He agreed with Commissioner Tetreault that having seven members makes it easier to have a quorum, noting that while he's been on the Commission there has always been a quorum. He felt that having seven members and seven views is beneficial, and with that number and expertise he felt that if the Planning Commission can make a correct decision it will more likely satisfy the public. If the Planning Commission can satisfy the public there may tend to be fewer appeals to the City Council, which will save them a lot of time as well. Commissioner Tomblin felt that reducing the Commission to five members would most likely result in a cost savings that is minimal. He also felt that if there were Commissioners that had to recuse themselves from hearings, the chance of appeal to Planning Commission Minutes July 22,2008 Page 5 the City Council may increase. Thus, he felt that overall a seven member Planning Commission could be more cost effective than a five member Commission. Commissioner Gerstner felt that staff does the bulk of the work in researching the projects and preparing staff reports, and anything the City can do to save staff time is beneficial. As far as being a diverse group, he noted that there currently are no women on the Planning Commission, and given this community, he did not think the Planning Commission was nearly as diverse as it could be. He felt that a five member Commission would definitely be faster than a seven member Commission and that the quality of the decisions would be relatively unchanged. He did agree that having a quorum is extremely important, and there have been instances in the past where if this had been a five member Commission having a quorum would have been difficult. However, if the goal is to save the City money, he felt that reducing the size of the Planning Commission would be a cost savings. Vice Chairman Lewis disagreed with Commissioner Gerstner that five Commissioners can have a faster meeting than seven Commissioners. He felt that it is more a function of who is at the meeting rather than how many. He felt that if the City wants to save money they can encourage the Commissioners to receive their staff reports via a CD ROM rather than the large paper packets they currently receive, which have to be prepared by Staff. He stated he opposes the reduction from seven members to five and his opinions most closely align with those of Commissioner Ruttenberg. Chairman Perestam felt there were times, because there were seven Commissioners, that making a decision has been difficult. However, there have also been many times where, because there were seven members, a better decision was reached. He felt that the Planning Commission has been a very effective body, and was supportive of keeping the Commission at seven members. Commissioner Perestam added that there are a number of small things that can be done to help reduce the overall costs of the Planning Commission, such as re-ordering the meeting Agendas in certain ways to help reduce staff overtime. Vice Chairman Lewis moved to make a recommendation to the City Council that the Planning Commission remain at seven members, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Approved, (5-1) with Commissioner Gerstner dissenting. CONTINUED BUSINESS (cont) 2. Revision to Conditional Use Permit, Grading Permit, Minor Exception Permit, Site Plan Review & Environmental Assessment (Case No. ZON2007- 005 : 5448 Crest Road Commissioner Tomblin stated that to ensure there is no misconception and to remove any perception of an impartial hearing due to his affiliation with the applicant, he will recuse himself from hearing this item, and he left the dais. Planning Commission Minutes July 22,2008 Page 6 Commissioner Gerstner stated that he was absent from the last meeting this item was heard, however he has watched the video of the meeting and feels he is able to participate in this public hearing. Director Rojas noted that, given the City has received some public hearing continuance requests related to some related public records requests, staff is modifying its recommendation to continue the public hearing to the September 23, 2008 meeting. He felt that this will give those requesting the public records enough time to review the documents. Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, explaining that the Planning Commission had given the applicant direction at its previous meeting to redesign the sanctuary and reduce the height of the steeple, in addition to requesting clarification on the methodology used in the parking analysis and parking counts. She showed plans for the newly designed sanctuary and reviewed the changes made to the overall design, including the sanctuary and steeple. She discussed the detailed parking analysis as discussed in the staff report. Commissioner Ruttenberg noted the request for a new garage required a Variance, and asked if the garage was designed to help with the parking issue. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that the garage was designed to be a storage garage only. Commissioner Ruttenberg noted that the parking analysis took into account certain functions happening on certain days at certain times. He asked if the City has any control over the church changing or adding activities at the site. Director Rojas answered that it would depend on the conditions included in the Conditional Use Permit. He stated that the Conditional Use Permit can be very specific saying that only certain uses can take place at certain times on the property, and any changes would require an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked the City Attorney how far the City can go in telling the church what it can and cannot do on certain days or times. City Attorney Lynch responded that if the issue is the timing of when certain activities take place to ensure that the property is not over parked, those are legitimate land use concerns. She stated that as long as the City is not preventing the church from exercising its religious practices, but rather making sure that the staging of certain activities at the site is done in a manner to make sure the required parking is provided, she did not think that was a substantial burden on the exercising of their religious activities. Planning Commission Minutes July 22,2008 Page 7 Vice Chairman Lewis asked staff if they felt the pictures and simulations recently submitted by the applicant fairly, accurately represent how the project will look. Associate Planner Mikhail stated that staff agreed with the pictures and simulations submitted by the applicant. Shelly Hyndman (architect) explained that to reduce the visibility of the new church structure as viewed from the surrounding community, it has been pulled back from the street, increasing the setback from Crenshaw Blvd. by 42 percent. She explained that this results in setbacks in excess of the required setbacks by 131 to 364 feet over the 25 foot required setbacks, or 5 to 13 times the minimum requirement. She discussed moving the proposed church to a different location on the lot, but noted that moving the structure would not result in a fewer number of homes surrounding it. She also noted that moving it to a more central location would result in poor traffic circulation, difficulties for the Fire Department to reach the back of the church, and unfavorable soils conditions which would result in economically prohibitive foundation costs. She showed pictures of other local Catholic churches in San Pedro and other neighboring cities to show the proximity to residential neighborhoods and the height of their crosses, and also discussed the height of the crosses on churches in the local vicinity. She discussed the findings needed to approve a Height Variation and how this proposed design meets all of these findings. She concluded by stating that she has worked hard to address concerns noted by the Planning Commission and feels the revised design represents a response that will allow findings 3 and 4 to be made in support of the project. Monsignor Sork spoke briefly on the history or the church's architecture, explaining that the building must be large enough to accommodate the parishioners and they should also create a sense of transcendence. He explained that this proposed church was designed specifically because of the worship needs of St. John Fisher. The location of the church is directly connected to the worship needs, including the gathering places and areas for the children. He felt that the current design meets the concerns of the community as well as the worship needs of the church. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked the Monsignor if there was a plan to control overflow parking on special occasions. .Monsignor Sork explained that the two most crowded days are Christmas and Easter, and on those two days there are people in the parking lot directing the flow and maximizing the parking area. He explained that the church is currently offering more parking than is necessary, and that on most days the parking area will be at less than 60 percent capacity. Commissioner Tetreault noted that at any given time there could be several types of activities happening on the church grounds, such as Boy Scout meetings, or education classes, or use of the future gymnasium. He asked if, when these various activities are Planning Commission Minutes July 22,2008 Page 8 taking place, the church takes into account parking limitations so that the parking is not over extended at any one time. Monsignor Sork answered that the church currently takes the parking and use into account and makes every effort to spread out the use of the church grounds so that there are no conflicts or parking issues. Commissioner Tetreault asked the Monsignor if it is a concern of the church that the parishioners are not inconvenienced by having a lack of parking and having to find places in the neighborhood to park and walk to the property. Monsignor Sork answered that the current parking lot has more than enough room for parking, and if people chose to park somewhere else it's not because there is no space in the parking lot. Lisa Counts read several quotes from parishioners regarding the current design of the proposed church. She explained that this design is the result of years of meetings, education, and debate and that parishioners have pledged their hard earned money to see this church built. She stated that at recent hearings it has been suggested that the neighbors should have had some say in the design, however she disagreed, noting that it is not up to them to pick design options. They have not been educated about catholic religion, religious practices or traditions, nor is their hard earned money being used to build the church. To further redesign the church would place a great hardship on the parish, as it would require that this lengthy process be repeated. If it took two years to reach consensus among parishioners, opening it up to the various Homeowners Associations would make the process unwieldy in the extreme. She discussed the recent changes made, noting that these changes meet all City requirements and have satisfied City staff with all components of the project. She felt this is the best possible plan for St. John Fisher and the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Alan Weissman thanked the staff and City Attorney for granting the continuance and providing them with the needed time to review all of the documents and await the second request for documents. It also gives them time to meet with legal council and investigate environmental issues that haven't been addressed. He hoped that St. John Fisher will take the time to invite the neighbors to discuss the structure and the bells. Ted Paulson encouraged the Planning Commission to continue the public hearing on this matter as recommended by staff. He explained that the extension is necessary to establish some dialogue with the church and reduce some of the atmosphere in the neighborhood. He also stated that on two or three days a year , usually on a major holiday, the church does exceed the parking capacity of their lot. He stated that cars park three quarters of the way down his street on both sides and park on Crenshaw Blvd. almost all the way down to Del Cerro Park. He was very disappointed that the church did not choose to involve the adjacent neighborhoods when designing the church and to get their input and concerns. Planning Commission Minutes July 22,2008 Page 9 Douglas Butler stated that the required parking is 674 spaces and the church has asked to reduce that to 331 spaces, as they are not using all of the uses at the same time. He did not think this would provide adequate parking for the many uses at the church. He felt that the church's assumption that there will be no use of the Hall, no use of the multi-purpose room, no administrators, and no use of the new gym is not a reasonable assumption. He felt that 450 to 500 spaces, at a minimum, is necessary. Philip Johnson commended Commission Tomblin for recusing himself from this public hearing. He stated that he was speaking for several members of the Valley View community. He felt that the argument that the church was existing before the surrounding homes is an argument of no consequence and quoted California Civil Code 3479 regarding nuisances. He stated that a nuisance can be defined as the right thing in the wrong place. He also quoted California Civil Code 3480 regarding public nuisances. He stated that the law says the nuisance cannot significantly expand or change and still have the protection against nuisance claims. He stated that before he bought his home in 1986 he specifically asked if the church had bells, if there is a cemetery at the church, and if the school made a lot of noise, and all of the answers were no. Now the church is asking for a substantially different building and there have been no sound studies or efforts to determine the decibel levels that will be produced. He pointed out that in 1994 St. John Fisher applied to use bells and the City restricted the use to Sundays and certain designated holidays only, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. only, and the decibel level was not to exceed 50 dBs measured at the adjoining property owner's line. He noted that no such restrictions have been placed on the current proposal. He discussed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, noting that this Act does not give a religious institution the right to trample on the rights of others, and that a certain worshiping shall not infringe upon the rights of others. He felt that St. John Fisher has not been a good neighbor, in that they would have involved the local neighborhoods in their plans to expand. Richard Wizenick did not think the proposed church structure will be compatible with the area. He stated that currently there are beautiful trees on the corner of Crenshaw Blvd. and Crest Road and the neighborhood is very quiet. He did not want that to change. He felt that reducing the height of the steeple even more and eliminating the steps to the street and keep the trees as an added buffer would be helpful. Barbara Walch felt that the proposed church looks more like a commercial development in this residential neighborhood. She was concerned about the bell, adding that electronic bells are no substitute for real bells. She felt that if bells were played at very specific times and not too frequently, they might enhance the neighborhood. However, she objected to constant ringing. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Ms. Walch if she would object to bells ringing possibly once a day at a specified time. Planning Commission Minutes July 22,2008 Page 10 Ms. Walch answered that it would depend on the time of day, adding that she would still object to electronic bells over real bells. Noreen Chambers stated that she supports the Valley View and Island View residents in their objections to this project. She also objected to any type of bells, whether they are real or electronic. Robert Mucha felt that the original design submitted to the City was exceptionally well done and fully endorses the revised design. Florence McTaggart felt that the proposed church is a beautiful structure and to say that it is something that will impact this community is ludicrous. She felt very sad that there are people that are so adamantly against such a beautiful structure. Tom Coull stated that the new building at the present height will cast a shadow on the Island View properties along Crenshaw. He explained that presently these homes have a shadow cast upon them from the trees along Crenshaw Blvd, however the sun can shine through the trees. He felt that any shade caused by this structure will have an economic impact on the homes in Island View. He requested a sun angle study be conducted for a twelve month period and a shade profile be presented. Vincent Belusko stated that his home is probably the closes to the proposed bell tower. He discussed bell towers and bells, explaining that they are an aesthetic desire of parishioners. He stated that this church has existed on the present site for many years and has not had the need for ringing bells. He did not think that the argument to have or not have bells is a religious expression argument. He felt that the use of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act is a red herring argument in that all that is required is there not be discrimination against religious institutions. He stated they are subject to the same land use rules, which include no adverse land use to the adjacent properties. He stated that the proposed bell tower will have an adverse affect on his property. Bruce Butler felt it will be impossible for the Planning Commission to find there will be no adverse affect on adjacent homes. He stated that parking during construction is a serious issue that the Planning Commission will need to address. He also felt that the proposed bell tower will have a significant impact on the real estate values in the .neighborhood. Lynne Belusko appreciated the changes that have been proposed in construction, however felt that even with this changes, because there is a lack of important information and standards, there is not sufficient information in the application to support a finding of no substantial adverse affect on adjacent properties. She stated there is no evidence that lower the height of the speakers will sufficiently reduce the bell noise in the surrounding neighborhoods. She stated there is no evidence that increasing the distance of the noise source will sufficiently reduce the bell noise experienced from her property and surrounding neighborhoods. She stated there is no Planning Commission Minutes July 22,2008 Page 11 evidence that the proposed sound beams will not reflect off of the existing church structure and travel back to surround neighborhoods, nor is there evidence that a portion of the sound beam will not travel directly into the Valley View neighborhood. Therefore, given this current lack of information and standards, she did not think a finding of no substantial adverse affects cannot be made at this time. She stated that sound studies must be conducted to obtain additional information to accurately and objectively determine the affects of the proposed bell uses to the adjacent properties and surrounding neighborhoods. Commissioner Tetreault asked Mrs. Belusko if she categorically objects to the use of bells by the church, or if she was concerned about the timing and the decibel level of the bells. Mrs. Belusko answered she objects to both. Commissioner Tetreault questioned what type of sound study can be conducted that will accurately measure the sound impact until the project is actually built, as the architecture and buildings around the bells will resonate with the sound. He asked if she would be comfortable with allowing the bells with a six-month review period, at which time there will be a public hearing before the Planning Commission to determine if there are adjustments that must be made. Ms. Belusko answered that the first thing that must be determined is whether or not the bells are appropriate. If the Planning Commission feels the bells are appropriate, there must be regulations and standards established to determine a level at which they will not be adversely affecting the neighborhood properties. She was opposed to a program where the Planning Commission approves first and decides later whether or not it was a good idea. Ronald Blond stated that he and his family are supportive of a number of elements in the construction proposal. He understood the churches needs and desires, however he felt that if built with the current design and in the proposed location the structures will have a very significant adverse affect upon his property. Because the land pad of the church property is 30 to 40 feet above his, the building will dominate the view from nearly all areas of his property. He stated that catholic churches come in all shapes and sizes, depending on the community they serve. He stated that it was his understanding .that St. John Fisher considered several other less conspicuous designs before deciding on this one. He stated that he was very disappointed that St. John Fisher has made many choices throughout this process without consulting or working with the surrounding neighborhoods. He stated that the proposed design has quite a dramatic impact on the neighborhoods and their lives. Gary Long questioned why something can't be built in the middle of this very large parcel in area that will have the least impact to the neighbors. He was very concerned about the size, bulk, and mass of the proposed project in addition to the location on the property. He stated this proposed design will be visible from both inside and outside the Planning Commission Minutes July 22,2008 Page 12 homes of all nearby residences, will block out the sun, cast shadows and shade to many of the neighbors, and lower real estates values. He questioned why the church does not lower the building pad by excavating the site and lower the height of the structure. He questioned why, when single family residences all throughout the area have to comply with a 16-foot height limitation, the church is allowed to build up to 74- feet high. He felt the same building standards should apply for everyone. He showed several large pictures of the homes in his neighborhood with the silhouette behind them, and explained how this structure will impact their homes. He asked the Planning Commission to request St. John Fisher build their structures away from the corner of the property, in an area that will have minimal impact to the surrounding neighborhoods. John Slaught stated that he is thrilled that a new church will finally be built at St. John Fisher. He explained the parish has not grown much in numbers, however the number of children it serves has grown substantially, adding that most of the additional buildings in the plans will benefit the children. He acknowledged that there are a few residents who object to the plans, but pointed out that that the vast majority of houses and developments did not exist when St. John Fisher developed its master plan, noting that the plan was available to anybody who was interested in viewing it. He was anxious to see a real church at the site. John Counts stated that both sides have presented a lot of photos to the Planning Commission. He felt that photos that are not altered can still be conveyed in different manners, and perspective is a big part of that. He stated that any photo that has been blown up has been altered, and therefore the Planning Commission must look at the photos with this in mind. He discussed parking, and noted that if a parking plan meets the minimum requirements of the City, then it meets the minimum requirements and should be approved. John Rewinski stated that there was a comment earlier in the meeting that the most obtrusive design for the church was the one chosen, however actually it is the least obtrusive and smallest design that was chosen. In regards to the neighbors' complaints of a church being built at this particular location, he stated that this church was existing when every one of the neighbors bought their homes and that the church already had in place approval to construct a new sanctuary on this exact location. With regards to parking, he questioned if the requirements of the City are being met, and the regulations should not be changed at this time. In regards to the design of the church, he explained that the exterior design flows from the interior requirements imposed upon them by the Catholic Church, and explained some of those requirements. Therefore, he felt that it would be inappropriate for people without a lot of background in the Catholic Church to give comments on the design of the church. Sean Armstrong stated that supporters of the church take this project very seriously, and hoped the Planning Commissioners could separate the hyperbole from the facts when making their decision. In discussing parking, he noted that currently there are six services on the weekends with an attendance of approximately 250 to 400 people in attendance per mass, with a seating capacity of approximately 600. The new church Planning Commission Minutes July 22,2008 Page 13 will have a capacity of 870, which means they will be meeting the minimum in parking requirements for more than double the average service attendance. He acknowledged that on Christmas and Easter there are overflow crowds, just as at any other religious institution. He noted, however, that it is up to the City to regulate the parking on the public streets and not the Church. He explained that the church will practice being a good neighbor and encourage all the parishioners to park in the church parking lots and not on the neighborhood streets. Desmond Armstrong stated that he is looking at this as a human being who has raised children and now has grandchildren that-are being raised and attend St. John Fisher Church. He stated that the church has always been open in communicating with the residents on what they have had planned for the site. He asked that the Planning Commission approve the request to build the new church. Joe McGuinness stated that he has had two children graduate from St. John Fisher school and currently has one more child in the school. He felt that the proposed additions at St. John Fisher are desperately needed, as the children are playing on a very limited play area during school and playing on asphalt. This project would give the children a gym to play in, the area would be substantially increased, and the quality of the play facilities would be greatly enhanced. With regards to the steeple, bells, and design he asked that the Planning Commission give discretion, noting that these things truly are an expression of religion. With respect to the opposition, he felt that to a large part the opposition is fear driven. He noted that the present plan has resulted in quite a bit of compromise in that respect. He stated that currently during the school day there is the use of bells and load speakers, and there have been no complaints. He felt that bells, like stained glass windows, are traditional recognized symbols of religious expression. In terms of parking, he felt that the Planning Commission should look at parking and determine if it is adequate, as he felt confident that it is more than adequate. Donna Hulbert stated her main concerns are parking of construction equipment during construction and delivery of construction materials. She felt that parking construction equipment on the street will constitute a danger and that it should not be allowed. She stated that there are a lot of people who have invested their hard earned money into their homes, and a lot of consideration should be given to property values that are being affected. Finally, she suggested that the bell ringing be limited to the times that the .parishioners are at the church and can enjoy the bells. The bells do not need to ring seven days a week. Lori Daniels stated he is 100 percent in favor of the design and that the architect has done a good job with the revised plan and taking the concerns of the neighbors into consideration. Rhonda Long commented that the St. John Fisher parishioners have been planning this project for several years without ever having the intention of having a dialogue with the surrounding neighborhoods. She pointed out that parishioners who do not live in the Planning Commission Minutes July 22,2008 Page 14 neighborhood will not have to hear the ringing of the bells seven days of the week. Further parishioners will not have to listen to the traffic noises along Crenshaw Blvd. that will be associated with this new church. She asked that the church not use the children as a reason to build such a tall, imposing structure at the corner of Crest Road and Crenshaw Blvd. She asked the parishes to take into consideration what the neighbors will have to live with 365 days a year, and asked that a sanctuary without a bell tower be built further towards the middle of the property, and to eliminate the stairs down to Crenshaw Blvd. Lenee Bilski was very disappointed to find many false statements in letters submitted to the Planning Commission as well as the local newspapers from critics regarding the proposed project. She noted that this church has been in existence since the early 1960s at there have been plans to build a permanent church since that time. She also noted that a bell tower was approved in the 1990s but was never built due to lack of adequate funding. She stated that the proposed bell tower will produce occasional musical chimes, stressing that it will be music and not noise. She encouraged the Planning Commission to allow the church to develop their property. George Abele stated his support of the project and felt that the church has addressed the issues raised at previous meetings from the Planning Commission and the neighbors. Shelly Hyndman (in rebuttal) stated that the condition regarding the hours the bells can be rung was not requested by the applicant, but was a condition that was placed by staff. She stated a columbarium is not a mausoleum and therefore not a cemetery use, and therefore not restricted. Regarding parking, she explained that she has been designing churches for 25 years and has never provided parking for more than 1 space for every 3 seats in the sanctuary. She stated that she would happy to bring forward other examples citing precedence in the state of California on this subject. Commissioner Tetreault asked what a columbarium is. Ms. Hyndman explained it is a place where ashes are enshrined after one is cremated. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked, hypothetically, if the project were ready to be approved but the Commission felt a little more parking were necessary, what could be done. Ms. Hyndman explained that after the meetings with the Fire Department and adjustments that have been made to meet their requirements, there is really no more room on the property for more parking. Commissioner Tetreault asked if the seating in the church will be pew style seating. Ms. Hyndman answered that it will be pew seating, and added that the seating count takes into account the choir and the priests. Planning Commission Minutes July 22,2008 Page 15 Chairman Perestam noted in a report submitted there is a statement that historical parking counts have been done for years at the site. He asked if that data could be made available to the Planning Commission. Ms. Hyndman explained that the church administrator has been doing parking counts and could put a presentation together. Chairman Perestam asked if education classes were being held on the Sunday's these counts were done. Ms. Hyndman explained that there is data that goes back years, however it is possible for the most current three week period there were no education classes being held. Chairman Perestam stated that he would like Ms. Hyndman to explore the possibility of using the Mary and Joseph Retreat next to the church for possible overflow parking. Commissioner Tetreault asked staff if the Planning Commission can base its decision on the possible loss of sun and light caused by the project. City Attorney Lynch explained that there is no easement for light and air in California, however the Planning Commission can consider in the Conditional Use Permit findings adverse impacts on adjacent properties. Commissioner Tetreault asked staff if the Planning Commission can base its decision on the potential negative impact this project might have on neighboring property values. City Attorney Lynch answered that property values cannot be considered. She explained that the Planning Commission should focus on the public health and safety issues. Commissioner Tetreault asked staff if it is has been a past practice by the City to take the required number of parking spaces and begin reducing those numbers based on the percentage of use or time of use. Director Rojas explained that the practice of assessing shared parking versus total .required parking is very typical for non-residential projects that have different components that operate at different days and times. He noted that this is common in shopping centers, where there are different uses at different times. He stated this has also been done at Terranea and Golden Cove. He explained that staff asks traffic consultants to come up with a parking formula for different days and times based on certain assumptions of use and operation, which is then given to the City traffic consultant which reviews these assumptions. Commissioner Tetreault then asked if, based on the information that the applicant's traffic consultants as well as the City's consultant have determined that there is Planning Commission Minutes July 22,2008 Page 16 adequate parking, the Planning Commission condition the project to provide more parking spaces. Director Rojas explained that the study is based on certain assumptions, and if there is evidence that has been introduced into the record that puts doubt on those assumptions, the Planning Commission can add additional parking requirements. He noted that there is then the problem of where that additional parking will be located. Commissioner Tetreault asked staff to clarify the use of the columbarium. Director Rojas answered that the Code does not have a definition of"cemetery", noting that a columbarium is an area where ashes are kept. He stated that even if the Planning Commission felt that this use qualifies as a cemetery, a cemetery is allowed in an Institutional zone. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked if there are certain considerations that are limited to adjacent properties, as many of the speakers do not have property that is adjacent to the subject property. City Attorney Lynch answered the Code states adjacent properties, which it defines as parcels that are abutting or separated by a street or alley. With regard to parking, Commissioner Ruttenberg noted that statements were made during the public hearing that the project is compliant with the Code. He asked if it would only be code compliant if 657 spaces were provided, and anything less is up to the applicant to convince the Planning Commission they need fewer spaces, and it will be at the Planning Commission's discretion to determine if that is adequate. City Attorney Lynch agreed. Commissioner Tetreault felt that when it comes to religious organizations and their plans for their sanctuaries, a certain level of discretion should be granted in their decision to do so, as it is a religious organization practicing their religious expression. He asked the City Attorney if that is a reasonable position to take, or should he treat the church as any other secular institution. City Attorney Lynch explained that under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, cities cannot impose a substantial burden on the exercise of religious rights. She felt that the Planning Commission would have more latitude over governing the design of a pharmacy or supermarket than the design of a church. However, there is still the issue of whether it is substantially burdening. As an example, she stated that requiring a redesign on a part of the property is probably not a substantial burden, however to completely eliminate certain components that might disable the church from doing certain types of services, that might be a substantial burden. She felt the Commission needs to look at church uses and religious uses more carefully. Planning Commission Minutes July 22,2008 Page 17 Commissioner Tetreault stated that one of the major design elements being proposed is a bell tower and steeple, noting that there is not a bell tower or steeple currently at the site nor has there been one in the past. He asked if the City can tell the church that they cannot have a bell tower or steeple. City Attorney Lynch answered that if the church can exercise their religion without a bell tower and steeple today, then the City can probably tell them they cannot have the bell tower or steeple. She felt a safer decision would be to do what has already been suggested, which is to regulate the height. She felt the bells pose an interesting question, in that the church has not had bells in the past and they have been able to conduct religious services without having any bells. Therefore, she felt that not allowing the bells would not pose a substantial burden on the ability to provide the religious aspect of their worship. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that it has been suggested that the church look at building the structure more towards the middle of the property, however it has also been noted that to do so would be much more expensive for the church. He asked if that would become a substantial burden if the church were to say they cannot financially afford to build the church at an alternate location on the property. City Attorney Lynch explained that if the Planning Commission were to say you cannot build a church on the property, that would be a substantial burden. She stated that usually the substantial burden type of analysis happens when projects are being denied outright, and not when the City asks that a project is redesigned. Chairman Perestam asked if a private written agreement with a neighboring property to accommodate additional parking would be adequate when addressing the City's parking concerns. City Attorney Lynch answered that if the church came in with a private agreement demonstrating that they can use another facility for over-flow parking, that would be sufficient. Director Rojas added that other churches in the City have a condition of approval that relate to private parking agreements with adjoining properties. Chairman Perestam questioned what restrictions can be put on the church if there is overflow at the church for a particular use or uses at the church. City Attorney Lynch answered that a condition can be added that if the church will be using additional rooms during a specific time of day that they have to show the City that there is additional parking available for this use. Associate Planner Mikhail added that the parking analysis that was prepared accounted for the assembly use of the sanctuary at full capacity on Sundays. Overflow into any of the other uses, such as Barrett Hall or the gymnasium, or other assembly uses were not Planning Commission Minutes July 22,2008 Page 18 included in the analysis and the Planning Commission could restrict those uses at those times. In looking at the plans Commissioner Gerstner understood how the church developed the plan they did, however he felt there are other locations on the property for the sanctuary. He felt that the proposed sanctuary in the proposed location speaks to the neighbors and those driving by, however from a land use point of view it is not the highest and best location for that function. He felt that in looking at the plan, it lacks a bit of structure in connection of spaces with each other. He felt that a lot of the spaces seem disjointed uses and more as a remodel rather than a great opportunity to overlay a grander master plan and create something that really divides the uses and provides some structure between the sanctuary and the school and the parking. He stated that he can see in the plans where the architect started problem solving and where the Fire Department had a very definite influence. With that being said, he felt that there are other places on the property that are equally as good or possibly better for the sanctuary. Regarding parking, he suggested that the study be expanded to show the Planning Commissioners which spaces were counted during which peak hours so that the Commissioners can better understand the methodology used. He did not think that parking could be designed for Easter or Christmas. He felt that solar ramifications to adjacent properties is important to consider, as it can be tied into setbacks. He would like to see a sun study done. Regarding the bells, he noted that most people who attend service at the church drive to the church and the only time during the day that they will hear the bells is during the service they are attending. The neighbors will hear the bells after every service during the day. He stated that the church is set in a residential neighborhood, and felt it was asking too much of the neighbors to have the bells. However, he would agree that the bells might be rung on special occasions, such as after the Sunday noon services or on certain holidays. Commissioner Tetreault stated that it is very difficult for him to sit at this meeting and say the church is not providing enough parking, as he really has no idea what is needed. However, there is currently more parking now than there will be when the project is complete and the facility will be larger than it is currently. With that alone, it makes him uncomfortable to say there will be adequate parking. Regarding the bells, he noted that this is a church and churches have steeples, crosses, and bells. He explained that we live in a community, and the church is part of the community. He also stated that there are noises and sounds associated with a neighborhood; such as lawnmowers, leaf blowers, and children playing. This could also include the bells of the local church. He stated that there has to be some give and take with everyone involved in this situation, and suggested looking into more limitations on the number of times the bells can be rung. He felt it is appropriate for a church to have bells, a steeple, and a cross, and it is appropriate for the building to look like a church that can be seen by the community. However, this is a difficult situation as the church has rights as well as the neighbors have rights, and he has not yet made a decision on this application. Commissioner Ruttenberg felt that Commissioner Tetreault summed things up very well, and was looking forward to hearing more information at the next public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes July 22,2008 Page 19 Vice Chairman Lewis stated that he is still undecided in this case, however he too agreed with Commissioner Tetreault's comments. He added that just because the church has the rights to do certain things, doesn't mean that they should. He strongly suggested that the neighborhood groups and the church representatives meet and work together towards a compromise. Regarding the bells, he suggested that at the next meeting the church representatives play for the Planning Commission a recording of what these proposed bells will sound like so that everyone has an idea of what is being discussed. Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to continue the public hearing to September 23, 2008, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Approved, (6-0). 3. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 68796, General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Conditional Use Permit, Grading Permit, Density Bonus & Environmental Assessment (Case Nos. SUB2007-00003 & ZON2007-00072): 28220 Highridge Road Commissioner Gerstner stated that since he was absent from the meeting when this item was last heard, he had reviewed the tape of the meeting and felt that he was able to participate and vote on this project. Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, giving a brief history of the project and explaining the modifications made to the project since the last hearing. He explained the density bonus being requested by the applicant, and that the City Attorney and staff believe the density bonus, under State law, applies after a developer has already satisfied the City's five-percent set-aside requirement. Therefore, staff and the City Attorney feel that in order to qualify for a density bonus the applicant will need to provide three units, or ten percent, to be set aside for very-low-income households. He explained that the developer believes the State law rules, and only requires five percent to be set aside. He explained that the City has offered to accept the proposed two units for very-low-income housing with the payment of an in-lieu fee for the third unit. Staff felt that this a reasonable position, as it would uphold staff's position that three units are required but does not obligate the applicant to provide the third unit and the design and scope of the project would not have to be modified. Therefore, staff is recommending the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the City approve the density bonus and accept the dedication of two units for very-low-income housing with the in-lieu fee for the third. Staff was also recommending that public testimony be heard and if the Planning Commission feels all concerns have been adequately addressed that the public hearing be closed and the item continued to August 12th to adopt the appropriate Resolutions. Commissioner Ruttenberg noted that the applicant has requested deferral of payment of the in-lieu fee until after the twenty-fifth unit is sold, and questioned what would happen if the applicant decides to lease a portion of the units rather than sell them. Planning Commission Minutes July 22,2008 Page 20 Associate Planner Fox answered that would have to be factored into any condition of approval that is written for the project. Commissioner Tetreault referred to the staff report discussion of the density bonus and how state law applies. He asked if the applicant so desired, if he could actually build a project up to 33 units with three units set aside for very low income households. He noted that the height of the project would have to be increased to accommodate those three units, possibly resulting in something higher than the 36 foot height limit, and because the state's program supersedes the local laws, the project could be built, even if it blocked the views of the homeowners across the street. Associate Planner Fox answered that was correct. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked if the 33 units would be allowed with a density bonus, even though the property is zoned for fewer units. Associate Planner Fox answered that was correct. Bill Finer (speaking on behalf of the owner) felt that the project before the Planning Commission takes into consideration the concerns expressed by staff, the Planning Commission, and the neighbors, and felt everything possible has been done to help preserve the neighbors' views. He hoped the Planning Commission would approve the project as presented. Dan Withee (architect) stated that the project has been lowered by 12 Y2 feet and he looked at putting the pool in the south west corner, however it could not feasibly be done. He felt that every opportunity has been explored and that they have done quite a bit to minimize any view impairment from the neighboring homes. Karen Hagenburger, 6 Via la Cima, felt that the owner has definitely made concessions when compared to his original submittal. She noted that Unit K completely blocks 7 Via La Cima's view, and if Unit K goes away everyone will be happy. She felt that the project is still very large and bulky. Barry Smith, 5 Via La Cima, stated that the proposed median cut on Highridge for entry into the condos will require the removal of two mature Pepper trees owned by the City. He felt that taking those two particular trees out will present an open view from La Cima homeowners directly into the property during the construction phase and after construction is completed. He asked if there was an alternative to work around that cut to save the two trees, noting that the cut can be made approximately five feet to the east to save the trees. Secondly, he noted that the staff report only refers to view impairment from 7 Via La Cima, however units 5, 6, 8, and 9 are also impacted by the structure. He also agreed that eliminating Unit K would greatly improve the view from these homes. He was still concerned with the increased traffic on Highridge, especially with the children walking to and from school. He felt that the applicant and homeowners were much closer to an agreement, however they weren't quite there. Planning Commission Minutes July 22,2008 Page 21 Marlene Resinq, 7 Via la Cima, stated that the modifications made by the applicant have done nothing to restore her lost view. She was disappointed that Commissioner Knight was not present, as he seemed to understand her concern with the entrance driveway configuration which has not been modified. She acknowledged that the top floor has been removed from the proposal, however the footprint also changed. She felt that if the footprint had remained in the same location there would not have been a problem, as it would have opened up views for everyone. Instead, the footprint was moved and spread out and more of the land is now being used. She too felt that if Unit K were eliminated that she would get some of her view back. She supported Mr. Smith's request to not remove the two Pepper trees, as they screen the view of a lot of hardscape. Mery Resinq stated that he would be reading a statement from Nancy Bradley at 2 Via La Cima written to the Planning Commission. The statement said that the latest revision to the proposed building does not protect her views. He stated that he has still lost his view because of the proposed structure and no portion of that view has been restored. He would like the Planning Commission to consider not approving the turnout, as it will be extremely dangerous. He noted that it is too close to the Peacock Ridge turnout and too close to the Peacock Ridge left turn lane. Further, the church is also involved with the turnout, which adds to the traffic. He noted there are two bike lanes on Highridge and the turnout will conflict with the bike lanes. He asked that the Planning Commission not approve the low-income bonus units, as he felt the size and mass of the project is much too large for the lot. Shimpei Ito, 4 Via la Cima stated the latest design change does not help his view, or the views of his neighbors. He requested that more effort be made to improve these views. Dan Withee (in rebuttal) acknowledged that 7 Via la Cima has an impacted view. He explained that when he took the three units off of the third floor, and in order to gain those three units back he had to cover more of the lot. He stated he has lowered the structure 12 Y2 feet and did not know what else to do, as he has worked hard to balance the concerns of the neighbors with the needs of the project and the land constraints. In regards to the left turn pocket, he stated he could not address this, as he is not a traffic engineer. Vice Chairman Lewis asked if any consideration has been given to eliminating the swimming pool. Mr. Withee answered that eliminating the swimming pool has not been considered. Commissioner Gerstner asked if there would be any objection if a left turn pocket could be done in such as way that the trees are not removed. Mr. Withee answered he would have no objection. Planning Commission Minutes July 22,2008 Page 22 Commissioner Tomblin questioned if the City could waive the payment of the in-lieu fee in exchange for the elimination of Unit K. Associate Planner Fox explained that waiving the in-lieu fee is not within staff's or the Planning Commission's purview, but rather the City Council's. He also explained that the City Council has made if quite clear in the last few years that they really don't want to accept in-lieu fees and would prefer to have developers provide the units. He also pointed out that when discussing modifications to Unit K, there are actually two stacked flats involved, one above the other. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Mr. Finer if he had any doubt that he could work with staff to craft appropriate language that would cover the payment of the in-lieu fee in the event that some of the units are leased. Mr. Finer did not see any problem, noting that the goal is to sell the units. Chairman Perestam asked how many units under the current design are without views. Mr. Withee estimated that there are approximately twelve units that will have views. Commissioner Tomblin asked staff if there will be a landscape plan submitted that staff will review, and will staff require the applicant to landscape the median. Associate Planner Fox answered that staff will require a more detailed landscape plan from the applicant prior to building permit issuance. Director Rojas added that regarding the median landscaping, if the trees are eliminated staff can require some mitigation in terms of landscaping, and can include this in the conditions of approval. Commissioner Tetreault was concerned with the way state law deals with the density bonus, and the options available to the applicant. He stated that the applicant can seek a 20 percent density bonus and build up to or beyond 36 feet in height, which eliminates all of the height restrictions put in place by the City and taking away the ability to try to protect the views of adjacent property owners. He stated that the Planning Commission can take a position and try to press for the elimination of the K Units to try to open up view corridors, however by doing so there it may be risking the agreement with the property owner to build this structure in a certain way which follows the Development Code. He noted that it is really the applicant's option, and they really don't have to follow the Development Code, in which case the City loses all control. He was very unhappy that the State is able to trump all of the City's carefully crafted Ordinances designed to protect the citizens. Commissioner Ruttenberg pointed out that the applicant can choose to build an apartment building, which our own regulations allow to go up to 36 feet in height. He stated that he has great sympathy for the residents on Via La Cima, however in this Planning Commission Minutes July 22,2008 Page 23 situation the applicant started the project with the understanding he could build up to 36 feet in height. It was not until later in the process that the determination was made that the City could require the project be lowered, and the applicant responded by cutting off the entire third floor. He felt that the applicant has tried, to the extent he feels he can, to be a good neighbor as he could exercise his rights and build something that might be more profitable for him and less palatable to the neighbors. He stated that he still doesn't like the left turn pocket, but that might be a separate issue to deal with through conditions of approval. As far as the building is concerned, under all of the circumstances, he will vote in favor of it. Vice Chairman Lewis did not agree with Commissioners Tetreault and Ruttenberg in terms of considering the options available to the applicant. He stated that there is an application before the Planning Commission with specific findings that have to be made. He noted that at past meetings it was agreed that there was significant view impact to some of the neighbors, and he saw no evidence tonight that this view impact has been eliminated. Therefore, he cannot support this project as currently proposed. He stated that he would like to see the upper Unit K eliminated, consideration of the elimination of the swimming pool, and exploring the possibility of moving Unit Es to the area the pool is currently located and moving Unit Ks to where Unit Es are currently. Commissioner Ruttenberg did not recall that at the last meeting the majority of the Commissioners felt that there was significant view impact. He explained that he is not applying the typical residential standard of 16 feet in height to this project. Chairman Perestam felt that the Planning Commission has taken this project as far as it can go, and it should move on to the City Council to make the decision as to whether or not the density bonus is viable. He also felt that if this project is appealed to the City Council, the neighbors will have the opportunity to present their views regarding further modifications to the City Council. He stated that he is not in support of the median cut, as it is not safe. Other than that issue, he stated he can support the project. Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to approve the proposed project with the exception of the proposed left turn pocket, and to modify the proposed payment of the in-lieu fee to be done at either sale or occupancy of the twenty-fourth unit, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. In regards to the proposed left turn pocket, Commissioner Tetreault asked staff if the traffic engineer considered the merits and the pluses and minuses of having this proposed left turn lane. He asked if these recommendations considered the traffic flow in the area, safety issues, line of sight issues, etc. Associate Planner Fox explained that the consultant's traffic engineer recommended modifications to the median to accommodate the left turn pocket into this project as well as the left turn pocket onto Peacock Ridge, and these modifications were accepted by the City's Traffic Engineer. He referred to the staff report where the traffic study is discussed and what considerations were taken into account. Planning Commission Minutes July 22,2008 Page 24 Given that, Commissioner Tetreault asked Chairman Perestam where he felt the conclusions of the traffic consultant and the City's Traffic Engineer were insufficient or incorrect. Chairman Perestam explained that his concerns stem first from observation. He felt it was a problem to have a median cut so close to the existing left turn lane, especially with the volume of cars that would be using this area to go in and out of the development. He felt it was safer to exit to the right, get into the existing left turn lane at Peacock Ridge, and proceed from there.. He felt that the current proposal creates a traffic hazard because of the need to cross lanes. He explained that from an engineering standpoint this proposal may be acceptable, but from a practical standpoint it is not. Director Rojas clarified that inherent in the motion staff will come back with the appropriate Resolutions at the next meeting on the Consent Calendar for adoption. He also noted that this is not an appealable decision, as the Planning Commission is solely making a recommendation to the City Council. Chairman Perestam closed the public hearing. The motion to recommend approval of the proposed project, with the exception of the proposed left turn pocket and the modification of the language regarding the payment of the in-lieu fee was approved, (5-1) with Vice Chairman Lewis dissenting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. Height Variation, Grading Permit, & Conditional Use Permit (Case No. ZON2007-00695): 5 Cayuse Lane Continued the public hearing to the August 12, 2008 Planning Commission meeting. 6. Height Variation Permit, Grading Permit & Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2007-00472): 27000 Freeport Road Continued the public hearing to the August 12, 2008 Planning Commission meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 8. Minutes of May 27, 2008 Continued to August 12, 2008 9. Minutes of June 10, 2008 Planning Commission Minutes July 22,2008 Page 25 Continued to August 12, 2008 10. Minutes of June 24, 2008 Continued to August 12, 2008 ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 11. Pre-Agenda for the meeting of August 12, 2008 No action taken. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:03 a.m. Planning Commission Minutes July 22,2008 Page 26