Loading...
PC MINS 20081014 Approved November 11, 8 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 14, 2008 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Perestam at 7:08 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Tomblin led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Gerstner, Knight, Ruttenberg, Tetreault, Tomblin, Vice Chairman Lewis, and Chairman Perestam. Absent: None Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Senior Planner Schonborn, Associate Planner Fox, and Associate Planner Mikhail. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Planning Commission unanimously agreed to hear item No. 7 after item No. 3. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas distributed 3 items of correspondence for agenda item No. 1, 1 item of correspondence for agenda item No. 3, and 22 items of correspondence for agenda item No. 6. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Revision to Conditional Use Permit, Grading Permit, Minor Exception Permit, Sign Permit & Environmental Assessment (Case No. ZON2007- 00598): 5448 Crest Road Chairman Perestam reminded everyone that the vote for this item has already been taken and that it is before the Planning Commission to discuss the wording of the Resolution and associated Conditions of Approval, and not to discuss the merits of the case. Commissioner Tomblin was recused from the hearing and left the dais. Director Rojas explained that even though Commissioner Tetreault was absent from the meeting when this decision was made and two Commissioners cast dissenting votes, all Commissioners can participate in the discussion of the conditions of approval, and the Commissioners who cast dissenting votes may vote to adopt the Resolution if they feel the conditions satisfy their previous concerns with the project. Associate Planner Mikhail presented a brief staff report, reviewing the conditions presented in the draft Resolution. She stated that there should have been a condition added requiring 50 percent of the parking at the Daughters of Mary and Joseph property to be made available for church use on Christmas Eve and Easter and a formal agreement be prepared and recorded with Los Angeles County memorializing the shared parking. Vice Chairman Lewis asked if the language in condition No. 62 of the draft Resolution was standard indemnity language found in similar projects, or if this was a condition added just for this specific application. Director Rojas answered the language in condition No. 62 was used for the Terranea project. He explained that the language was added to address public comment about this issue regarding the St. John Fisher project. He added that the City Attorney has reviewed the language and had no issue with it. Shelly Hyndman (applicant) stated that staff has distributed a document to the Planning Commission which represents the proposed edits the church is requesting the Commission consider. She briefly read these proposed edits. Vice Chairman Lewis asked Ms. Hyndman if she could distribute any extra copies of these proposed changes to anyone in the audience who would request one. Commissioner Ruttenberg referred to the proposed revision to condition No. 3, noting the applicant felt it would give the Planning Commission carte blanche to make changes or revisions, however he felt that without that language his concern was that the Planning Commission's hands would be tied and that a little more discretion was necessary if another problem arises. He asked if there was some alternate language that could be added to satisfy the Planning Commission and the applicant. Ms. Hyndman felt a compromise could be reached in regards to this language. Planning Commission Minutes October 14,2008 Page 2 Associate Planner Mikhail noted that this has been discussed with the City Attorney, and explained that there are vesting rights for the applicant. Therefore, this condition couldn't be used to force the applicant to remove any portion of a structure already built, but rather to review the operation of the proposed uses. Commissioner Ruttenberg referred to the requested revision to condition No. 22, which is a change to the timing with regard to the illumination. He asked if the times requested are the ending times currently in place at the church. Ms. Hyndman explained that the church,is currently turning their lights off at 1:00 a.m. to accommodate certain functions, and this proposed language will allow the church to continue to operate the way they have been for the past 40 years. She stated that what is proposed would not alter the hours the lights are currently on. She added that this proposal is not in reaction to new functions affiliated with the proposed construction. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Ms. Hyndman for clarification on the requested revision for condition No. 68. Ms. Hyndman answered that the church would request condition No. 68 be removed as the applicant feels that staff has already reviewed the necessary requirement with both the L.A. County Fire Department and the Building Official. She felt the language should be removed to not allow some type of future subjective discretionary call on someone's part to be made down the road after it has been built. Commissioner Tetreault asked Ms. Hyndman to clarify the requested revision to condition No. 54. Ms. Hyndman explained that there are pauses during the bell chimes, and when that is factored in, the actual time to play the entire recording is closer to 90 seconds total, however the time the noise is actually emanating is 60 seconds. Commissioner Knight noted that condition No. 22 also includes the illumination of the sign, and asked if it was necessary to illuminate the sign until 1:00 a.m. Ms. Hyndman answered that the intent was to have the parking lot illuminated for safety reasons. She added that any type of accent lighting or sign lighting could be shown on .a lighting plan could be in zones of lights with different timings. Commissioner Gerstner referred to the landscape plans and the applicant's request that the Planning Commission approve the plan before them. He felt that the plan was inadequate to make the determination of adequate screening, as the size and spacing of the new tree is not stated. Ms. Hyndman noted, however, that there is language included that the landscape plan will have to be approved by the Director. Planning Commission Minutes October 14,2008 Page 3 Director Rojas added that a condition requiring foliage to substantially screen the sanctuary is fairly discretionary, as he has to visit the site and determine if the screening is substantial or not. He stated that if the condition can refer to the screening shown on a specific rendering or plan, it is much easier for staff to make a determination about screening adequacy. Commissioner Gerstner referred to condition No. 72. He recalled discussion at the last meeting regarding the outside speakers, and it was his understanding that the church was not aware that neighbors could hear services from their homes and indicated they would remove those speakers. He noted, however, that the condition states they will be removed at occupancy, and asked for clarification. Ms. Hyndman recalled there being two issues, one regarding the speakers and one regarding the open doors of the sanctuary. She stated that the church has agreed to remove the outdoor speakers, but is requesting they be removed after the new sanctuary is constructed. Commissioner Ruttenberg noted that in regards to the bell ringing, the church is requesting that the bells be rung six times on Saturday rather than three times per day as it is during the week. He felt this was a change from what was discussed at past meetings where Saturdays were to be treated the same as week days. Ms. Hyndman stated that adding Saturday is not inconsistent with the bell ringing schedule submitted with the plans. Joan Ortolano spoke about the restrictions on the future use of the property as proposed in conditions 20 through 30 and 73. She stated that the church has operated for 47 years without any arbitrary time limitations or use restrictions imposed by the City or any governmental agency. She also stated that there is no plan to turn the light shining onto the cross off at 11:00 p.m. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Ms. Ortolano if she was asking for more than what is currently proposed in the conditions of approval. Ms. Ortolano answered the church is not asking for more, but rather there has been a misinterpretation. She stated the church has always contemplated shining a light on the cross, which is central to the faith, and does not think that should be restricted. She explained that the suggested modification to condition No. 22 is for the parking lot lighting only and not for the lighting of the cross. Vice Chairman Lewis asked if the church intended to illuminate the cross throughout the night. Ms. Ortolano answered that illuminating the cross throughout the night is the church's intention. Planning Commission Minutes October 14,2008 Page 4 Msqr. Sork was concerned with time limits set for the church. He questioned how this would affect the youth programs, as they currently have overnight retreats, junior high sleep-ins and other activities that these time restrictions would seriously hamper. He explained that this project is designed to provide a positive alternative to hanging out at the mall. He felt the time restrictions will seriously impede the positive youth programs of the church. John McTaggart stated that in the 30 years he has served the City both on the Planning Commission and the City Council, he has never seen such an over reach presented to any church in a list of conditions. Ken Dyda stated his biggest concern was that hears over and over the statement regarding the intent of the conditions, yet the actual words do not reflect the intent. He stated that great care must be taken to reflect the intent in the actual words, and at this point he does not think it does. He stated that in condition No. 10 the substitute recommendations ask to identify what requirements have to be made. He felt this should be deleted, as recommendations should never supersede requirements. He didn't understand the need for condition No. 46, as this is not a housing project. He felt that condition No. 63 was unclear and an example of where intent is masked by what is said in words. He stated that as one of the founders of the City where the goals were to preserve the coastline, open space, and limit the residential developments to avoid overpopulation of the City, he did not see where these draconian conditions meet that task. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Mr. Dyda to clarify his position on condition No. 63. Mr. Dyda stated that the intention of condition No. 63 is to meet state and local diversion goals. He felt that should be sufficient and questioned why it was necessary to be redundant and possibly in error by listing the materials that should be diverted. Kathy Edgerton felt that the conditions of approval go a long way towards mitigating many of the concerns she and her neighbors have regarding the proposed project. She stated she supports condition No. 3, which allows a 6-month review period. She stated that she supports the parking conditions, noting that when reviewed in their totality they ensure adequate off-street parking will be provided as required by the General Plan and Development Code. She also voiced her support for condition No. 31 and condition No. 40. Al Edgerton felt that the church should provide adequate foliage for screening purposes, noting that many times this is even a condition of approval for additions on single family residences. He stated that this is a residential neighborhood and the church should not have free reign to keep lights on and have unrestricted activities at late hours. Gary Long requested that a condition be added that no existing mature trees be removed and that condition No. 48 be changed to read all of the existing mature trees located along the west street side property line of Crenshaw Boulevard and on the Planning Commission Minutes October 14,2008 Page 5 northeast corner of Crest Road and Crenshaw Boulevard. He also requested that the newly planted trees be mature within five years to provide adequate screening. He felt that stairs and ramps should be of a minimum size and used for fire and emergencies only and not on the corner of Crest Road and Crenshaw Boulevard. He stated he supports conditions 22, 53, and 73. Commissioner Tetreault noted that Mr. Long lives across the street from St. John Fisher and asked Mr. Long to briefly describe his experience regarding the current operation of the church. Mr. Long stated that currently he is able to hear everything that goes on in the church grounds, including cars, conversations, and laughter. Donna Hulbert spoke about the indemnity provisions, noting that the wording of the second indemnity provision has been used before in the City and the language was reviewed by the City Attorney. She also noted that the vast majority of the people who will be affected by having the cross lit all night are those that live in the surrounding neighborhoods, and not the members of the church. George Fink stated that when he left the last meeting he expected staff to put the appropriate language into the Resolution that was voiced and voted upon by the Planning Commission. He did not feel that is what happened, as there are approximately 30 conditions that have been added that were not discussed at the meeting, and therefore a document was produced that is substantially different than the one discussed at the public meeting. Given what has transpired, he felt that St. John Fisher has been misled, blind-sided, and denied reasonable time to react to what has occurred. Joan Berry asked why, after 40 years of parish activities, neighbors feel they have a right to regulate the types of activities and hours of operation at the church. She felt that some of the conditions are outrageous, and if imposed would amount to government control of their religious practice. Sara Bowlus did not like the idea that people she did not know have the right to tell her she cannot worship the way she is used to. She would appreciate some thoughtful consideration before all of these restrictions are imposed on the church. Douglas Butler discussed condition No. 73 and requested that additional language be added that the doors to the gymnasium will be kept shut. He noted that this will reduce the noise heard by the residents on Valley View Drive. Lenee Bilski felt that St. John Fisher has been unfairly burdened with conditions, many of which are unfair and unreasonable, and some which were never discussed at the public hearings and therefore unacceptable. She felt that the proposed conditions on the ringing of the bells improperly restricts part of the catholic worship, and imposes restrictions not applied to others, specifically conditions 53, 54, 58, and 59. Planning Commission Minutes October 14,2008 Page 6 Shelly Hyndman (in rebuttal) stated it is the church's goal to provide mature landscaping on the property, however she cautioned that her landscape architect has said that the larger the plant material that is planted initially, the growth rate can drop by as much as 30 percent. She also noted that it is not possible to retain 100 percent of the existing trees and still build the project, but noted that the grading plan has been revised to save as many existing trees as possible. In regards to lighting the cross, she explained that it is planned to have two 70-watt lights that are ground mounted pointing up to the cross. She also noted that there is a requirement that a photometric plan be submitted and there is discretionary approval of all of the site lighting already written into condition No. 23. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked staff if there are conditions or revisions suggested by the church that they are not in agreement with. Director Rojas answered that staff is in agreement with all but nine of the suggested revisions, and displayed these nine conditions on a pdf document, and reviewed the proposed revisions. He explained that the six-month review is a standard condition and is consistent with the typical six-month review language used in projects of this scope. He stated that staff agrees the word "recommendations" can be struck from condition No. 10. He discussed condition No. 22, explaining that staff recognizes there are outside uses currently occurring at the church and it was not staff's intention to restrict what is already occurring at the church. Therefore, staff does not have an issue with the language being proposed by the applicant regarding this condition. He noted that there will be a six month review and revisions can be made if needed at that time. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked staff their opinion on the comment made about condition No. 23. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that staff would recommend condition No. 23 remain, as it is a standard condition to ensure that light spillover does not occur. She explained that this condition allows staff to look at the lighting once it is installed and make any needed modifications. Continuing with the proposed revisions to the conditions of approval, Director Rojas stated that staff was agreeable to the suggestions for conditions 31 and 32 regarding parking. Director Rojas discussed condition No. 45(b) noting that the applicant is requesting phasing of the project over seven years, where staff has recommended phasing over five years. He noted that in formulating these conditions the City Attorney also agreed that five years was a reasonable amount of time. Director Rojas discussed the proposed change to condition No. 53(b), the addition of Saturday, noting that this was not originally part of the proposal and has not been Planning Commission Minutes October 14,2008 Page 7 discussed at any of the public hearings. Therefore, staff does not agree to the addition of Saturday. Director Rojas stated that staff questions what the word "cumulatively" refers to in the proposed revision to condition No. 54. Commissioner Knight suggested rewording the condition to say that the bells shall be played for no more than 90 seconds. Director Rojas agreed that wording would make the condition more clear. Director Rojas discussed condition No. 62 regarding indemnifying the City, and explained this is language used in the Terranea conditions of approval and it is up to the Planning Commission as to whether or not to remove this condition as suggested by the applicant. Regarding condition No. 72, Director Rojas stated there is a request to change the language from issuance to occupancy, and noted there is quite a time difference in the two. He explained that staff had written issuance to address some of the concerns raised by the neighbors. Vice Chairman Lewis stated that Mr. Dyda had addressed the affordable housing requirements, and asked staff to comment. Director Rojas explained that staff felt the language should stay in the conditions of approval, as the applicant does trigger the need for affordable housing. He explained that the code does require that a project of this square footage qualify for affordable housing, noting however that they will most likely become exempt. Commissioner Tetreault noted in the staff report that a number of conditions have been added since the last public hearing, and asked which conditions were added since the last public hearing. Director Rojas explained that draft conditions were presented to the Planning Commission at the last meeting, and there was direction from the Planning Commission on additional changes or additions to these draft conditions, as well as testimony that raised additional issues that needed to be addressed through additional conditions. Therefore, staff added conditions to address the concerns raised. He noted that conditions can be added even at tonight's meeting so long as they address issues raised during the public hearings or through other public comments. Commissioner Tetreault explained that theoretically a project can be approved and then conditions can be imposed that so change the nature of the project that it is no longer the project that was approved. He stated that there a lot of people who have given testimony, either written or spoken, and he wanted to ensure that everyone feels they Planning Commission Minutes October 14,2008 Page 8 have an understanding of the project and that something happened that they didn't have an opportunity to address. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that there are some conditions that are provided in the draft Resolution before the Commission that were not in the draft conditions of approval presented at the last meeting. All of the conditions within the draft Resolution, with the exception of the recycling condition, were addressed through public testimony at public hearings, requested by the Planning Commission, or are standard conditions of approval added to these types of projects in the City. Chairman Perestam asked staff to identify the conditions of approval that should be discussed, as there have been modifications suggested to these conditions. Associate Planner Mikhail listed conditions of approval nos. 3, 22, 45(b), 53(b), 54, 62, 68, 72, 73, and the additional condition that will be added regarding the parking at the Daughters of Mary and Joseph. Commissioner Tetreault noted that these are conditions that staff may have issues with, however he felt there may be other conditions of approval that the Planning Commissioners may have issues with. Therefore, he did not feel the discussion should be confined to the conditions of approval listed by staff. Commissioner Knight pointed out that condition No. 1 mentions that all mitigation measures in the Mitigated Negative Declaration will be incorporated into the conditions. Therefore, all of those aspects, even though they are not listed in the conditions of approval, will be incorporated into the project. Associate Planner Mikhail stated that was correct, that these mitigation measures will be incorporated into the implementation of the project and the Resolution adopts the mitigation monitoring measures from the Mitigated Negative Declaration. In discussing condition No. 3, Commissioner Tetreault felt that the proposed language was sufficient, as it clearly states that the Planning Commission review would be in respect to the operation of the project. The Planning Commissioners agreed that the protections sought by the church are .contained in the written language of condition No. 3 as written and the language in condition No. 3 should remain as written. Commissioner Knight asked the Planning Commission if they agreed that the word "recommendation" should be taken out of condition No. 10. The Commission had no objection to removing "recommendation" from condition No. 10. Regarding condition No. 22, Commissioner Tetreault noted the applicant's desire to have the cross lit on a 24-hour basis, and this may be the appropriate condition in which to address this issue. Planning Commission Minutes October 14,2008 Page 9 Chairman Perestam asked staff if the proposed lighting schedule is what is currently happening at the church. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that, according to the applicant, the lights are currently turned off at 1:00 a.m. except for the first Friday adoration that goes through the night or other events in which people need to safely leave the parking lot late at night. Director Rojas stated that staff does not-have an issue with the proposed light schedule. Commissioner Tetreault stated that he was in agreement that greater restrictions should not be imposed upon the church than what already exists, therefore if what is proposed for the lighting is what is currently happening, he would not want to make it more restrictive. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that he had no objections to the changes suggested by the applicant for condition No. 22, and he was also hesitant to tell the church it can't light its cross. He stated that, given there is a six month review period, the proposed changes are acceptable to him, and he would not include limitations to lighting the cross. Commissioner Tetreault noted that the applicant had stated that the church intends to use uplighting for the cross with two 70-watt light sources. He stated that if that is the proposal, he would not object to such lighting as there is a six month review. Commissioner Knight was concerned that lighting the cross 24 hours would have a negative impact for the neighbors who already will have a very large structure towering over their homes and yards. Vice Chairman Lewis shared this concern, stating that he would be more in favor of allowing the cross to be lit until 1:00 a.m. rather than 24-hours. Commissioner Ruttenberg suggested continuing discussion of the other conditions of approval and saving the discussion regarding the lighting of the cross and any other conditions that the Planning Commission may not be in agreement to the end of the .discussion. The Commission agreed. Chairman Perestam discussed the need for overflow parking with the Daughters of Mary and Joseph, and suggested that language be added to the condition that this overflow parking on Christmas Eve and Easter also be used during construction. The Commission agreed. Commissioner Tetreault discussed condition of approval No. 30, stating he shares the applicant's confusion over the intent of the condition. Planning Commission Minutes October 14,2008 Page 10 Associate Planner Mikhail explained that the intent of condition No. 30 was to list all of the proposed uses on the property and the types of uses. She explained that "use"was related to the parking analysis and how the applicant came up with their parking count. With that explanation, Commissioner Gerstner agreed with the applicant that the word "following" should be stricken from the condition. Staff also agreed. Chairman Perestam asked if everyone was in agreement with condition Nos. 31 and 32. There were no objections from the Planning Commission on either condition. He then moved to condition No. 45(b). Commissioner Knight stated that he agreed with staff that five years is a reasonable amount of time. Commissioner Tetreault asked what will happen if five years down the road, because of various circumstances, phase 2 has not been completed. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that the condition reads that the planning entitlements for phase 2 are only good for five years, therefore the plans must be submitted to Building and Safety for plan check before that time. She explained that there is a series of extensions that are permitted through the Building and Safety process. Commissioner Tetreault asked staff what opinion the City Attorney had on this issue. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that the City Attorney was of the opinion that the assessments made in environmental document are good for a certain period of time, and was reasonably comfortable with a five year period, and anything outside of that should be looked at and revisited in terms of CEQA. With that, Commissioner Tetreault felt that the wording should be left at five years, and there was no opposition from the other Commissioners. The next condition of approval was condition 53(b), and Associate Planner Mikhail stated that the applicant has withdrawn the request for a revised bell schedule on Saturdays, and therefore condition No. 53(b) can remain unchanged. Regarding condition No. 54, Commissioner Tetreault was in favor of wording the condition so that the bells can play for 90 seconds, which is what the applicant has requested in order to play the entire bell sound. Commissioner Knight noted again that there will be the six month review at which time the bells can be evaluated. Chairman Perestam questioned if there is more than one melody played by the bells. Planning Commission Minutes October 14,2008 Page 11 Msgr. Sork explained that it was the Angelus Bells that was played for the Planning Commission at the last meeting, and these are the bells that would be heard during the day. He stated that there are other bells that are played for a funeral, for a wedding, and before mass and that all the melodies may have different time frame. However, he would be agreeable to a condition that allows the ringing of the bells for 90 seconds, with a review in 6 months. The Planning Commission agreed to allow the bells to ring for 90 seconds. Commissioner Knight asked the Planning Commission if anyone had a preference if the signs discussed in condition No. 60 are lit or unlit. Commissioner Gerstner stated that when he read the condition he assumed the signs would be not lit, however he would have no objection if the sign were to be illuminated during normal hours. Associate Planner Mikhail clarified that the sign will not be internally lit, but will be illuminated from below, and this would be clarified in the condition. There were no objections to this type of lighting from the Planning Commission. Regarding condition No. 61, Commissioner Tetreault did not think it was necessary to take out the language requested by the applicant, noting that it would most likely make no difference either way. Commissioner Knight asked if this is language that has been used before and the City Attorney has read and approved the language. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that the language in condition No. 61 was used in the Terranea project. Director Rojas stated that staff and the City Attorney have no issue with removing the language requested by the applicant in condition No. 61. Chairman Perestam asked if there was any objection to taking out the language requested by the applicant. There was no objection from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Tetreault discussed condition No. 62, and felt that the way it is worded would force the applicant to defend and indemnity the City if the City acted improperly with respect to this Resolution or engaged in some type of misconduct. Commissioner Knight asked staff if staff or the City Attorney had any issues with eliminating condition No 62. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that there are no legal issues involved with eliminating condition No. 62, Planning Commission Minutes October 14,2008 Page 12 Commissioner Tetreault suggested either rewording the language of the condition or taking the condition out of the Resolution. The Commissioner unanimously agreed to eliminate condition No. 62. Commissioner Tetreault stated that there was a public comment regard condition No. 64 which suggested the condition be simplified to say that the applicant shall meet all diversion goals set forth by statute. He felt that was a reasonable suggestion, unless staff had a reason the language should remain as written. Director Rojas explained that the language is from the Public Works Department, and the language is intended to be specific for the applicant and/or the contractor. He stated that staff has no objection to shortening the language. Associate Planner Mikhail suggested that to simplify the condition, only the first sentence be used. The Planning Commission agreed that the first sentence was all that was needed in the condition for clarity. Associate Planner Mikhail felt that the first sentence in condition No. 63 was all that was necessary as well, and the Planning Commission agreed. The Planning Commission discussed condition No. 68, and Chairman Perestam asked staff if this was a requirement from the Fire Department or a City code. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that the ramp is required by the California Building Code and needs to be in reasonable proximity to the sanctuary. In addition, in order to accommodate the hose lengths required by the fire department, this plan has been reviewed and approved by the fire department. She explained that the fire department needs the stairs to access the north and west sides of the sanctuary from the street, and showed the plan to illustrate the needed access. Further, the Building Official felt that if there is a ramp as well as stairs, that they should be in proximity to each other as well as in proximity to the sanctuary. Commissioner Ruttenberg suggested adding language to condition No. 68 saying "and if required shall not vary materially from the minimum specifications of size required by law." He felt this would show that the City wants the minimum required, however it does not restrict the church specifically to the minimum in terms of size or slope. There was no objection from the Planning Commission to this additional language. Commissioner Knight felt that condition No. 72 should remain as written by staff, as it better addresses the concerns of the neighboring communities. Commissioner Tetreault questioned if this requirement would result in not allowing the church to continue doing what they are currently doing while the sanctuary is being built. Planning Commission Minutes October 14,2008 Page 13 Commissioner Ruttenberg agreed, stating that the church should be allowed to be using what it is using now until such time as the new facilities are ready to be occupied. Commissioner Knight recalled a comment from a representative of the church that they did not object to removing the speakers immediately. Msgr. Sork clarified that at the last meeting the church representatives had stated that once the new church is built there will be no need for these outdoor speakers. He explained that they are currently being used outside for members of the church who have to leave the sanctuary and go outside, and they can still hear what is going on inside. Vice Chairman Lewis felt that the language suggested by the applicant is more consistent with the vote, and he would therefore support the language suggested by the applicant. There were no objections from the Planning Commission to modify the language in condition No. 72 to read "occupancy". Chairman Perestam asked staff if the times listed in condition No. 73 was the existing times currently used by the church. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that the church has stated these are the times for the existing uses at the church with the exception of the parish activity center/gymnasium, as they are not built yet. She stated that staff has no objection to the change requested by the applicant, as it is consistent with the existing uses. Commissioner Knight was concerned with the noise that could be generated from the gymnasium later at night if the doors and/or windows are open. Commissioner Tetreault asked when these proposed hours would go into effect, as Barrett Hall is an existing building. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that the proposed hours would go into effect once the project is approved for Barrett Hall and once the certificate of occupancy is issued for the parish activity center/gymnasium. Vice Chairman Lewis stated that if the changes reflected in condition No. 73 are consistent with how the church is currently using the existing building, the City should not use this application to modernize their facility as an opportunity to restrict their activities. Since the requested changes made by the applicant reflect current activities for the current buildings, he supports these proposed changes. Commissioner Gerstner agreed with the Vice Chairman as he did not think it appropriate to restrict the current use in the existing buildings. In regards to the new Planning Commission Minutes October 14,2008 Page 14 gymnasium, he stated that the control there is the six month review, and if restrictions need to be made on the gymnasium they can be reviewed at that time. Vice Chairman Lewis added that the six month review could also work in favor of the church, noting that at the six month review the church may request longer hours and there might not be any objections from the neighbors. Commissioner Tetreault was concerned about micromanaging the activities of the church, and would therefore be in favor on the requested changes to condition No. 73. There was no opposition from the Planning Commission to making the requested changes to condition No. 73. Associate Planner Mikhail stated that since the Planning Commission would like to ensure there is a six month review to include the parish activity center/gymnasium, she suggested a revision to condition No. 3 which would require a six month review after the completion of phase 1 of construction. This would ensure all components of phase 1 are included in the review. Discussion went back to the illumination of the cross, and Commissioner Ruttenberg felt that the cross should be allowed to be illuminated as requested by the church, knowing that there will be a six month review at which time it can be reevaluated. Vice Chairman Lewis stated that he was not comfortable voting to allow the cross to illuminated 24 hours a day, seven days a week. He stated he would be more comfortable voting to allow the cross to be lit during times that coincide with the other lighting on the property. Commissioner Knight agreed with the Vice Chairman. Commissioner Tetreault suggested limiting the hours of illumination of the cross to be consistent with other lighting on the site, and at the six month review if is found that the level of illumination of the cross is not intrusive to the neighbors, there can be consideration of allowing the cross to be illuminated longer. Commissioner Gerstner agreed with Commissioner Tetreault's remarks regarding the lighting of the cross and tower. Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2008-34 thereby certifying the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving the mitigation monitoring program and adopt P.C. Resolution with the conditions set forth by staff with the following changes: Condition No. 3 be changed to reference phase 1 rather than the sanctuary and the other recommendation by the applicant not be accepted; modify paragraph 10 to take out the word "recommendation"; make the proposed changes to paragraphs 1.5, 16, 22, 27, 30, 31, 32, 36, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45(a); to not make the requested changes to paragraph 45(b); make the requested Planning Commission Minutes October 14,2008 Page 15 changes to paragraphs 47 and 48; not make the requested change to paragraph 53(b); make the requested changes to paragraph 53(d); not make the requested revision to paragraph 54, but modify the time period from 60 seconds to 90 seconds; make the requested changes to paragraphs 59, 61, 62; revise paragraphs 63 and 64 so they are limited to the first sentence; add the language "and if required shall not vary materially from the minimum specifications of size required by law" to paragraph 68; make the requested changes to paragraph 72, 73, and 74; paragraph 75 be added regarding the language for the contract with the Daughters of Mary and Joseph regarding the overflow parking, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (3-2-1) with Commissioners Gerstner and Knight dissenting and Commissioner Tetreault abstaining since he was not present at the meeting when the decision was made. CONTINUED BUSINESS 2. Height Variation, Grading Permit & Conditional Use Permit (Case No. ZON2007-00593): 5 Cayuse Lane Associate Planner Fox stated that staff is recommending this item be continued to the October 30, 2008 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Tetreault moved to continue the public hearing to October 30, 2008, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Approved, (7-0). 3. Conditional Use Permit, Grading Permit, Siqn Program & Environmental Assessment (Case No. ZON2002-00216): 29941 Hawthorne Blvd. Associate Planner Fox stated that staff is recommending this item also be continued to the October 30, 2008 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Tetreault moved to continue the public hearing to October 30, 2008, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Approved, (7-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS 7. Revision to Conditional Use Permit (Case No. ZON2008-00374): 6507 Ocean Crest Drive Director Rojas presented a brief staff report, explaining the proposal to add an additional antenna and equipment to the building where there is an existing antenna and equipment. He stated that staff is recommending approval of the revision to the existing Conditional Use Permit. Chairman Perestam opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes October 14,2008 Page 16 Edwin Kim (representing AT&T Mobility) explained there are two existing antennas at the site and this proposal will be a new antenna at the site. He stated that he has read and agrees with all of the conditions of approval. Commissioner Tetreault asked if this new antenna would be replacing a decommissioned antenna somewhere else. Mr. Kim answered that this is a new antenna and it is not replacing any old antennas and is considered part of an upgrade. Chairman Perestam closed the public hearing. Commissioner Knight moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2008-36 thereby approving the revision to the Conditional Use Permit as presented by staff, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Approved, (7-0). CONTINUED BUSINESS (cont) 4. Height Variation & Grading Permit (Case No. ZON2006-00643): 16 Rockinghorse Road Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, explaining that at the last meeting for this project the Planning Commission had expressed concerns regarding the height and bulk and mass of the proposed project. He explained the revisions made to the proposed residence and that staff believes the revisions address the concerns raised by staff and the Planning Commission. He also stated that staff was now able to make the necessary neighborhood compatibility findings and was therefore recommending approval of the project as conditioned in the staff report. Don Bruckman (applicant) explained the revisions he made to the proposed residence. Dan Pocapalia, 14 Rockinghorse Road, appreciated that the ridgeline has been reduced by one foot, however he stated that the one foot was not sufficient to maintain the view quality that he has enjoyed for the past 57 years. David Bradley, 2809 Via el Miro, felt that the architect has made an admirable attempt to revise the plans to meet neighborhood concerns. However the house as designed is still too large and massive for the neighborhood. He stated that the house is still 80 percent larger than the average house in the neighborhood, is still two-stories while the other houses in the neighborhood are one-story, and is still 10 percent larger than the largest house in the neighborhood which is directly next door. He does not think this property can support a house of this proposed size and pointed out that the two largest houses in the neighborhood will now be next door to each other. He also noted that while the house may appear to be a single story home from Rockinghorse Road, from his house it is a 2 '/ story edifice directly across the canyon. He encouraged the Planning Commission Minutes October 14,2008 Page 17 Planning Commission to reject the current proposal and ask Mr. Chen to redesign the proposed residence to allow a more suitable home to be constructed on the property. Don Bruckman (in rebuttal) stated he has graded down an additional foot and made the footprint of the building smaller, and by doing this he has shortened the run of the roof. Commissioner Gerstner asked staff if they had any record back when the original house was built before the lot split, if consideration was given to the size of the lot in allowing such a large house to be built. Associate Planner Fox answered that in looking in the file and at the minutes and conditions of approval, there appears to be no discussion regarding the size of the structure on this particular lot. Commissioner Tetreault asked staff if they have done a view analysis from the Bradley and Pocapalia residences. Associate Planner Fox displayed photographs taken from the viewing area of both homes and explained that since the project does not exceed 16 feet in height from either residence it therefore does not cause a significant view impact to the two homes. He added that while there are multiple views from the Bradley residence, staff determined that the best and most important view from the residence was not significantly affected by this proposed residence. Commissioner Tetreault moved to approve the Height Variation and Grading Permit as presented by staff, seconded by Vice Chairman Lewis. Commissioner Gerstner stated that he would support the motion, however was frustrated with a piece of property with a very large house on it that is subdivided in such an oblique way to allow such a large structure to be built immediately adjacent to the existing large structure. He felt this will start to change the density of the area, but enough changes have been made to the proposal that he could support the project. Commissioner Knight stated that in comparing the lot size to others in the neighborhood and the size of the homes on these lots, this proposal is quite large for the size of the lot. He felt that the design has helped mitigate his concerns, but was uncomfortable with two such large homes being next to each other. Commissioner Tomblin agreed with the comments made by Commissioners Gerstner and Knight. He felt the current design has mitigated the concerns as much as possible. Chairman Perestam did not feel the size of this home would be precedent setting, as most of the lots in the neighborhood are quite large. He felt that the constraints of the lot have been the real issue in this case. He stated that he was in support of the project as redesigned. Planning Commission Minutes October 14,2008 Page 18 The motion to adopt P.C. Resolution 2008-37 thereby approving the Height Variation and Grading Permit as presented by staff was approved, (7-0). 5. Tract map Amendment, Conditional Use Permit Revision & Grading Permit (Case No. ZON2007-00061): 2902 Vista del Mar Senior Planner Schonborn presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the various applications. He acknowledged that this will be the largest structure in the neighborhood, however because it will be tucked into the hillside and not apparent, staff felt that the size was acceptable. He also noted that there is a basement which adds 3,600 square feet to the size of the residence. He also noted that the subject lot is the largest lot in the neighborhood. He stated that staff did a view analysis from the property next door at 2912 Vista Del Mar, and determined that there was not a significant view impairment caused by the proposed new residence. He stated that staff was recommending approval of the proposed project as conditioned in the staff report. Commissioner Knight asked staff if any of the other homes in the neighborhood have a basement. Senior Planner Schonborn answered that the house recently approved by the Planning Commission has an underground area for the garage. Commissioner Knight asked if there was any consideration given to the possibility of additional fuel modification on the downhill slope to address the new structure. Senior Planner Schonborn stated that situation was looked at by staff and is addressed in the biological report. He also noted that the Fire Department had no issue with the 33 foot clearance. Chairman Perestam opened the public hearing. Domenic DiDomenicantonio (applicant) stated he was available for any questions. Commissioner Knight asked if there was really a need to change the restricted area for the proposed driveway. Mr. DiDomenicantonio answered that there was no need to change the restricted area. He noted that there is no structure proposed in the restricted area. Chairman Perestam closed the public hearing. Commissioner Knight asked staff if it would be possible to limit the change to the restricted area to what is needed for the driveway only. Planning Commission Minutes October 14,2008 Page 19 Senior Planner Schonborn answered that the Planning Commission can change the condition so that the only change to the restricted area is the area needed for the proposed driveway. Director Rojas stated that to address Commissioner Knight's concern regarding the fuel modification, a condition can be added which states no fuel modification is allowed in the preserve, however if there is ever a need for the fuel modification in the preserve the applicant will be responsible for that work and any mitigation to impacts that may be caused by that work. He noted, however that the biology report indicates there should be no impacts in the area under discussion. Commissioner Gerstner was uncomfortable with the design of the house. He felt that everything about the house is big and questioned how it will look from Palos Verdes Drive South. Commissioner Tomblin agreed, stating that he cannot support the current design. He felt it was much too big, bulky, and massive and not compatible with the neighborhood. Vice Chairman Lewis agreed that this is too much house for the neighborhood and is in no way compatible with the neighborhood. Commissioner Ruttenberg agreed that the house is large, however it is being proposed on a very large lot. He therefore was able to support the project. Commissioner Tetreault agreed that the house is massive and bulky, however the neighborhood draws attention to itself with its large, massive homes. However, he felt this house goes one step beyond the others. He also felt that this is a very visible location and the house will be seen from Palos Verdes Drive South and Palos Verdes Drive East. Chairman Perestam agreed that this is a very large lot and the house designs on the street are not consistent with each other. He was concerned with the massive look of the house and the view obstruction to the neighbor. He felt that given the size of the lot more effort can be made to minimize this view obstruction. He also questioned why the house is placed so close to the neighbor's side yard. Commissioner Ruttenberg noted that the Planning Commission just approved a large residence on a lot mainly because most of the structure will be buried into the hillside. He questioned why this one is different. He thought the objection might be more the design of the house, and he did not think that is a reason to oppose the project. Commissioner Gerstner noted that there are design guidelines for the City that would lead one to design a house that generally does not call excessive attention to itself, as this one does. He stated that he is not commenting on the choice of the design, but rather the characteristics that the City tends to steer away from, such as extremely large vertical elements around entrances which draws a lot of attention to the home. Planning Commission Minutes October 14,2008 Page 20 Chairman Perestam re-opened the public hearing. Chairman Perestam asked the applicant if he is receptive to extending the action deadline and, after hearing the concerns of the Planning Commission, if he is receptive to a redesign of the project. Mr. DiDomenicantonio explained that if the basement on the house were to be removed the house would be the same size as the other homes in the neighborhood. He stated that he is open to redesign of the house., but did not think the redesign would change the size of the house. He also noted that because of where he has placed the house, it will not be seen by any of the neighbors. He also stated that he will grant the needed extension. Vice Chairman Lewis moved to continue the public hearing to the meeting of November 26, 2008 to allow the applicant the opportunity to redesign the project to address the Planning Commission's concerns, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (7-0). 6. General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Variance, Conditional Use Permit, Grading, and Environmental Assessment (Case No. ZON2008-00091): 28103 Hawthorne Blvd. Senior Planner Schonborn presented a brief staff report, giving a history of the project and explaining the current project. He stated that staff's recommendation is that the Planning Commission accept additional public testimony and discuss the merits of the project, close the public hearing, and formulate a recommendation to the City Council on the application package and adopt the appropriate resolution. Commissioner Knight asked staff to explain the convenience store development standards. Senior Planner Schonborn explained the convenience store standards as described in the Code. Steve Kuykendall (representing the applicant) stated that this site has been developed as a neighborhood serving commercial use for approximately 40 years, which pre-dates the incorporation of the City. He felt that as the age of the residents in the community has increased, so has the need for health care. He also felt that the need for the gas station has decreased as the price of fuel has risen, cars have become more fuel efficient, and the older population in the community uses their cars less and less. He explained the history of the project and the different revisions that have taken place. He felt that changing the use of the property from a gas station to a pharmacy would only improve the area in many ways and would bring the corner into conformity with the adjacent property across the street and in conformity with the current use of the property. Planning Commission Minutes October 14,2008 Page 21 Michael Gonzales (representing the owner) stated that good planning is based on adequate information and data to support the request and not based on emotional opposition. He reiterated that this property has been a commercial use for 40 years and has never been anything different. He stated that the property across the street requested and was granted a zone change and general plan amendment in 1988 and they are simply asking for the same treatment. He stated that the record is full of data supporting the applicant's request for a zone change and general plan amendment. Chad Hagle (representing the owner) stated he was available for any questions from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Mr. Hagle if CVS is committed to developing this property whether or not they acquire Longs Drugs. Mr. Hagle answered that an evaluation of the area was done by CVS and CVS is fully committed to developing, constructing, and operating at this location. Commissioner Ruttenberg discussed the value of the property as residential as presented by the applicant, and asked Mr. Hagle to clarify how the property would be worth $2 million as residential, as he felt the value of a piece of property is more in what can be done with it than what money can be made with it. Mr. Hagle explained that in looking at the value of the land, the history of the land has to be taken into account, as the use history creates the value history. A discussion followed on the residential and commercial property values. Ken Dyda explained the history of the zoning when the City was formed in 1973. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked if the automotive overlay was put in place for just this property or if it more general. Mr. Dyda answered that the City did not do the overlay on the gas station at this site, however chose to leave it as a non-conforming use. Commissioner Knight asked why the zoning was RS-4, wondering if it was the hope that some time in the future this property would become residential. Mr. Dyda explained that at the time the City was fighting a lot of high density residential development, and a lot of zoning was done to be low-density residential, allowing whatever activity was on the property at the time to be grandfathered in. Stuart Friedland felt it was ironic that Mr. Dyda was recalling four decades of intent when the General Plan specifies words of a different nature. He stated that according to the General Plan, nine lots were set aside in the gas station overlay. He stated that Planning Commission Minutes October 14,2008 Page 22 courts have found that the General Plan is the "Constitution" of each City and before there can be changes to the document or infringements to the rights granted by the document, specific findings must be of a compelling nature. He felt the property should remain as the City intended when forming the General Plan, as a residential property, unless the City can be shown some type of compelling necessity that would require the City to make the zone change. Joan Davidson stated that CVS will generate its own traffic, as it does compete with mega-stores. She noted that by definition, CVS is not a pharmacy store but rather a convenience store with a pharmacy. She did not think the project meets the RPV codes, goals, or policies. Elizabeth Chen stated that there are already four to five pharmacies in the immediate area, and another pharmacy is not needed. Eileen Waters stated that Los Verdes does not want the pharmacy, convenience store, mini-clinic or zoning change. Helen Fung objected to the number of speakers from other cities that are in support of the CVS, as it will not affect where they live. She was concerned about the traffic it will generate and the large parking lot in front of the store. She did not think another drug store was needed in the area. Mel Steinberg stated he is completely against the CVS store, especially since CVS is buying out the Longs Drugs, which is only a few miles away. He stated he is very much against the rezoning. Kathy Tyndell stated that the legal tax rolls show that in 2005 the owners paid $1.277 million for the property. She also noted two instances where land was down-zoned from gas stations to residential. She showed a compilation of everyone she was aware of who had commented on the CVS proposal, showing how many were for the project and how many were against the project. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Ms. Tyndell if she had seen the escrow statement for the sale of the station in 2005. Ms. Tyndell answered that she looked at the public records. Commissioner Ruttenberg noted that the owners also assumed a $1.4 million dollar loan, making the price approximately $2.75 million. Lindley Ruddick stated that the founding fathers strived to keep the new City residential and semi-rural where possible. He did not think the proposed general plan amendment conforms to the principles set forth in the General Plan. Therefore, he asked the Planning Commission recommend denial of the proposal. He stated that he was able to Planning Commission Minutes October 14,2008 Page 23 look on the CVS surplus property internet and found several parcels that are presently for sale or lease by CVS. Jan Kelly stated that when Rancho Palos Verdes first became a City it was the intention of the City Council to maintain a low density City profile, open space, and a rural atmosphere. She noted that the subject property was zoned residential at that time, and she felt very strongly that the property should remain residential. She did not think a large commercial building would fit into the rural neighborhood, and would not enhance the property values of the surrounding residential properties. John Freeman pointed out what he felt were flaws and inconsistencies in the traffic analysis submitted by the applicant. He discussed the results of a traffic analysis that he conducted himself during several different days of the week and how his results differed from those of the applicant's results. Michael Majid stated he is a licensed real estate agent working in the area. He stated he is vehemently opposed to the proposed zone change, as his property will be directly impacted. He felt it was important to consider economic viability when considering this project, noting that net vacancy rates for commercial retail and office is 17.5 percent. Further, he stated that residents of Palos Verdes Estates who border Granvia Altamira are also very much opposed to the project. He did not think the community needs another convenience store and there is no need for a pharmacy or CVS in the neighborhood. Diana Feinberg stated that as a member of the Board of Director of the Ridgegate East HOA she is very much opposed to the project. She noted that the community already has a traffic problem with the existing Vallero station and 7-11 Store, and converting this to a CVS will only make the traffic problems worse. He asked for the Planning Commission's support in denying the proposed project. Joy Ciniero did not feel any compelling reasons have been brought forth for the proposed zone change. She stated that people live in this City for the residential quality and the Planning Commission and City Council are entrusted with that quality of life. She stated that the only ones benefiting from the zone change will be the property, Tri- Corp, and CVS, and not the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes. Brian Tyndall stated that he and 800 others that have signed the petitions oppose the CVS pharmacy proposal. Leslie Hayakawa stated that residents of the City chose to live in a rural community where the sacrifices of convenience are understood trade-offs for living in a community as beautiful as this. She stated this is why she is against the zone change request. She asked the Planning Commission consider the long term negative affects the zone change can bring. Planning Commission Minutes October 14,2008 Page 24 Pascauale DiAngelo did not see the need for another pharmacy in the neighborhood and was opposed to the project. Fred Lavi felt that the way to determine the value of a property is to determine what will be built on the property, calculate the cost of construction, and deduct the selling price. Whatever remains is the value of the land. Because of the location, he did not think that residential homes would sell and therefore the value of the land would be worthless. He was therefore in favor of the CVS pharmacy, as it would create the smallest footprint on the property, shortest building, and will not obscure any views. Tania Bucur asked that the Planning Commission deny the proposed project. She did not think the Planning staff had done their full research as far as how the proposed project will affect the adjacent residents. She noted the code section which states there must be a minimum 20 foot landscape setback from common property line and a minimum 100 foot setback from the building, and the project does not comply with these setbacks. She felt this is unacceptable. She discussed the tremendous amount of noise the Vallero station already creates and felt the CVS store will only increase this noise and traffic. She felt that staff was asking the residents to give up certain rights to benefit the applicant and their desire to build a commercial building on their property. William Semos felt a lot of misinformation has been put out about this proposed project. He discussed a flyer that talks about the contaminated soil on the site, noting that the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works has no open files for soil contamination at that site. He felt the lot was not big enough for a convenience store and parking lot. He in no way thought that the lot was not suitable for residential and that there would be no way that the lot would sit vacant if zoned residential. Connie Semos stated she is concerned about the accidents that occur at the corner of Granvia Altamira and Hawthorne Boulevard. She felt that increased commercial activity at the corner will only lead to more traffic congestion and accidents. She stated that she received the accident records from Public Works that ago back to 2000. She felt there are serious flaws in the June 10, 2008 staff accident report for the CVS proposal. She stated that the numbers in the report do not match up with the numbers in the accident records received from Public Works. She stated that this is not a safe intersection and that further commercialization of the intersection will make the problem worse. She felt this was a compelling reason to not change the zoning in the General Plan. Magda Kispa stated she is in support of the CVS Pharmacy being built on the site, as it will provide a need to the neighborhood. Paul Marcelino stated he opposes the CVS Pharmacy, mainly because he felt the gas station is still needed at the site. With all of the other convenience stores and pharmacies in the area, he did not think there would be enough people to support the proposed CVS. Planning Commission Minutes October 14,2008 Page 25 Nancy Hyman stated that the corner of Granvia Altamira and Hawthorne Boulevard is a very busy corner, and her concern is for the safety of the children. She felt that the corner should be residential and was therefore not in favor of the proposed zone change. Nick Gavini did not think the gas station is a viable use for the corner at this time. He also noted that putting a CVS on the corner will complement the zoning of the 7-11 property. Bruce Azad stated that he supports the ,proposal, as he too did not think the gas station was a viable use for the property. He felt that the property was much better suited as commercial rather than residential. He compared this intersection to that at Crest Road and Hawthorne Boulevard, where there is a commercial lot at the corner bordering residential neighborhoods. Sherry Hope stated she is in support of the proposed project. Victoria.Thurlow stated she is fairly new to the City and one of the reasons she moved to the City was rural, residential feel of the City, which includes the lack of little strip malls throughout the City. She pointed out that the owners of the property knew it was zoned residential when they purchased the property, and now that they feel the gas station is not a viable business, they are asking the residents to have their quality of life affected because they have not made sound business decisions. She was also concerned that if the property is zoned commercial, the CVS may leave and a much less desirable business may move in. Marvin Lufsky felt that with the current economic conditions throughout the country, this is not the right time to get involved in a new business. He was worried that this property might become a vacant building that is unattended. Chad Hagle (in rebuttal) indicated that he has not given up on this project, and has taken the comments from the Planning Commission and residents to design a project that meets the desires of the Commission and Rancho Palos Verdes as a whole. He stated that, according to the General Plan, the vote tonight has much less to do with traffic studies, neighborhood positions, architectural renderings, and economic feasibility studies and rests more on the implications of the General Plan of the City. In considering the regional environmental factors as directed by the General Plan, he asked if it was socially responsible for the Planning Commission to continue the explicit promotion of the sale and consumption of fossil fuels through the City's zoning ordinance. He felt that now is the time for the Planning Commission to guide the City Council in taking reasonable steps to complete the corrective action initiated in 1993 and match the corrective action taken to the sister property in 1988, and encouraged the Planning Commission to recommend approval of the requested actions. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked if the clean-up of the property is required by law, no matter if a commercial building or a residential building is placed on the site. Planning Commission Minutes October 14,2008 Page 26 Mr. Hagle answered that the property will have to be remediated, and the party owning the lot will have to be capable of doing so. He added that his environmental engineer prepared a statement which said that there are currently 5 underground storage tanks on the property. The report also states that several consultants have provided cost estimates to remove the dispensers, associated pipes, and tanks at well over $80,000. Further, it is likely that petroleum hydrocarbons have been released underground which will most likely require an environmental site assessment, further testings, and further remediation. Commissioner Knight noted that the economic projections submitted by the applicant were done several months ago and asked Mr. Hagle if, with the current economy, he feels these economic projections need to be revised. Mr. Hagle did not think there was anything he could accurately or concisely suggest that he would modify in specific detail at this time. Commissioner Tomblin asked how long.of a lease CVS has entered into with the property owners, and if the lease specifies that this property must always be a CVS, or if there is any back-up plan if CVS leaves the site. Mr. Hagle answered that the lease is a 75 year lease. He stated that he does not know all of the details of the lease agreement, but it is his understanding that there are clauses giving CVS sub-lease rights, and there are certain restrictions on the sub-lease options. Chairman Perestam asked Mr. Kuykendall to explain the intent of the overlay district placed on this property. Mr. Kuykendall explained that there was a period where there was a very significant reduction in the amount of gas stations on the Peninsula and the City Council felt that it was necessary to place an overlay on the existing sites to allow for these gas stations and any other automotive use to remain in the City as a conformed use. Director Rojas added that there were eight gas stations identified at the time, four were zoned commercial, one zoned multi-family, two zoned single family, and one zoned institutional. Chairman Perestam asked why the City Council didn't just change the zoning for the properties at that time. Mr. Kuykendall explained that this involved eight properties and to change the zoning on all eight properties would have been quite a substantial undertaking. Commissioner Knight asked staff if the Code requires commercial buildings to have at least a 100 foot setback from residential properties. Planning Commission Minutes October 14,2008 Page 27 Senior Planner Schonborn answered that the convenience store standards in the Code state that a convenience store building must be at least 100 feet from a residential building, not a residential property. He stated that this project complies with this requirement. Commissioner Ruttenberg felt he could make a strong argument for both sides of this issue. He felt a strong case can be made to allow the site to be zoned commercial, as it has been operating as a commercial site since before City incorporation. He further felt that if the zone change is made, the owner should be allowed to decide what commercial use to make with the City deciding if that use is permittable under city requirements, rather than trying to dictate what type of commercial use would be allowed. He stated that he found it hard to believe that a CVS is not viable at this site, as it is one of the largest corporations in the country. On the other hand, he felt there was a strong argument made as to why the property should not be rezoned. He stated that the property is zoned residential and therefore the discussion should be as to whether or not this property is viable as a residential site, as he was not sure whether or not this is a viable residential site. Vice Chairman Lewis stated that if this were not a zone change before the Planning Commission but just a request to build a CVS store at the site he would support the project. However, the property is zoned residential, and he felt that there is not a need to add another commercially zoned property in this area. He believed that changing the zoning to commercial will increase the traffic at the intersection and that there is not a need to change the zoning to add another pharmacy to the City. Commissioner Knight agreed that the zone change presents the biggest problem. He stated that there have been reports submitted that suggest that the use of the property as a gas station is no longer viable and the station may have to close. However, there are also questions as to whether or not the use of the property as residential is a viable option. He felt that there are a lot of issues that will have to be addressed in order to allow single family residences to be built on the property. He was concerned that the property would end up vacant with a chain link fence surrounding the property. Commissioner Tomblin stated that the applicant bought the gas station knowing the return they would receive on the sales. He felt that the current use generates less use and less traffic than the proposed CVS store. He was also concerned with the 75 year lease and what would happen if CVS left the site. He did not feel that this proposal was the right thing for the City at this time and therefore could not support the zone change. Commissioner Gerstner stated that this is clearly a land use issue. He felt that the land is viable for residential use, however he did not know if residential use would be profitable. He felt that the traffic studies are understated and he was concerned about adding traffic to that intersection. He did not think the zone change would benefit the community as far as having more commercial, and as a rule on the Peninsula there are too many commercial properties. He noted the high turnover of stores on the Planning Commission Minutes October 14,2008 Page 28 Peninsula. He therefore did not think the zone change is appropriate and would vote not to support the proposal. Commissioner Tetreault did not think this community needs any strip malls or any more convenience stores. He did not see an overall community need for what the applicant is proposing to sell at the site and that anything being sold can be purchased at other sources within a mile or so from the location. However, he also felt that it will be very difficult to build and sell single family residences on this lot. He felt that it was rather easy to visualize this property as a commercial property, as it has been commercial for over forty years. However, he could not recommend to the City Council an approval of a General Plan Amendment for this particular project. Chairman Perestam stated that the current economic state of the country is very unsettled at this point and that makes it very difficult to say whether or not this is a viable project. However, he noted that CVS has made a major acquisition when buying Longs and it made him question whether or not CVS will be committed to this particular project. He stated that he was comfortable with the property being zoned for residential use. He didn't think that anyone has taken the time to fully explore the options available for single family homes on the site and with all of this uncertainty he was unable to support the zone change at this time. Vice Chairman Lewis moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2008-38 thereby denying the request for a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Variance, Conditional Use Permit, Grading Permit, and Environmental Assessment, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Approved, (6-1) with Commissioner Ruttenberg dissenting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 8. Minutes of September 9, 2008 Automatically continued to meeting of October 30, 2008. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 9. Pre-Agenda for the meeting of October 28, 2008 No action taken. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 3:10 a.m. Planning Commission Minutes October 14,2008 Page 29