Loading...
PC MINS 20080923 Approved October 3 8 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 23, 2008 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Perestam at 7:10 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Knight led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Gerstner, Knight, Ruttenberg, Tomblin, Vice Chairman Lewis, and Chairman Perestam. Absent: Commissioner Tetreault was excused Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Associate Planner Fox, Associate Planner Mikhail, and Assistant Planner Kim. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Planning Commissioner's agreed to re-order the agenda as follows: Items 5, 6, 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, and 10. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at their September 16, 2008 meeting the City Council began to consider the Planning Commission's recommendation on the proposed Highridge condo project and continued the public hearing to the October 21St meeting. Director Rojas distributed 2 items of correspondence for agenda item No. 2, 67 items of correspondence for agenda item No. 3, and 4 items of correspondence for agenda item no. 4. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. Amendment to the Master Sign Program (Case No ZON2008-00168)• 500 Silver Spur Road Assistant Planner Kim presented the staff report, explaining that location and size of the sign, and that the sign meets all requirements of the City. She added that if it were not for the master sign program, the sign could have been a Director level approval. Therefore, staff was recommending approval of the requested amendment to the master sign program. Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2008-33 thereby approving an amendment to the master sign permit, as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (6-0). 6. Tract Map Amendment, Conditional Use Permit & Grading Permit(Case No ZON2007-00061): 2902 Vista del Mar Commissioner Knight moved to continue the public hearing to October 14, 2008, as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Ruttenberg. Approved, (6- 0). CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Height Variation Permit& Grading Permit (Case No ZON2006-00643)• 16 Rockinghorse Road Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, briefly reviewing the previous concerns of the Planning Commission and staff and explaining the revised project. He noted that the applicant had not been directed to modify the silhouette, and had not done so. He explained that the revised plan has satisfied staffs concerns with size, bulk and mass, and neighborhood compatibility; however there are still concerns from the neighbors. He explained that staff was now able to make the necessary findings and was recommending approval as conditioned in the staff report. Commissioner Knight asked if staff had analyzed privacy impacts to the neighbors. Associate Planner Fox noted there was a comment of concern from the neighbor at 18 Rockinghorse regarding the previous proposal. However, the new proposal has modified the windows in the breakfast room and the neighbors are now satisfied that the modification has addressed their concerns. Donald Bruckman (architect) stated that staff has encapsulated the revisions made to the project, and very briefly described these changes. He noted that, while the square footage of the project has not changed much, most of the house is now at the lower level and the overall look of the house is much smaller than originally proposed. Planning commission Minutes September 23,2008 Page 2 Dan Pocapalia 14 Rockinghorse Road, objected to the height of the proposed structure, as he felt the roof of the structure will significantly impair his view. He felt if the roof were lowered only 24 inches, that he would have no objection to the project. David Bradley stated he objected to the project based on size, mass, and bulk. He stated that according to his calculations, the proposed project will still be 83 percent larger than the average home size in the neighborhood and 12 percent larger than the largest house in the neighborhood, which is next door to the proposed home. He showed several pictures of the view he currently enjoys, and what he is projecting his view will be once the new structure is built. He noted that the net effect of the bulk of the house will be unchanged from his vantage point. He therefore urged the Planning Commission to adopt staffs alternative No. 3 to reject the current application, as the house is too large based on size, bulk, and mass, and therefore is not compatible with the neighborhood. Donald Bruckman (in rebuttal) reiterated that more than half of the proposed structure is completely in the ground. Therefore, if you were to subtract the bulk and mass aspect of the lower level from the total square footage, the house would be approximately 4,500 square feet. Commissioner Gerstner noted that quite a bit of grading is proposed with this structure, and asked if there was any reason the pad couldn't be lowered another foot or two to lower the structure that much more. Mr. Bruckman answered that there is a problem in terms of the height of Rockinghorse Road and the limitations on the maximum driveway slope. Commissioner Knight asked staff if they were aware of the current proposed slope of the driveway. Associate Planner Fox answered it is not clear on the plans, but the code does not allow for a driveway slope of more than 20 percent. Commissioner Knight asked if it would be possible to condition the approval so that while in the plan check process the existing retaining walls are looked at and verified to be built per code. Associate Planner Fox answered that could be made a condition of approval. Commissioner Gerstner was concerned the two largest houses in the neighborhood will be so close together. He therefore would seek to do as much as possible to this second house to minimize how it impacts the neighbors. He stated there have been a few requests to try to lower the house, and if that is possible he would like to see that happen. Planning Commission Minutes September 23,2008 Page 3 Commissioner Knight asked Commissioner Gerstner if his concern was more with the bulk and mass or the square footage of the house. Commissioner Gerstner answered that it is more the appearance of the house from the immediate neighbors, and not so much the square footage. Commissioner Tomblin agreed with Commissioner Gerstner's comments, adding that he is still having trouble with the southwest corner of the house. He felt it was a massive sheer wall which only adds to the bulk and mass of the house. Chairman Perestam was concerned with the lack of articulation on the second story of the house, which adds to the bulk and mass. He felt that the architect should try to lower the house as much as possible, even if that is only by one foot. Vice Chairman Lewis felt that this is too much house for the size of the lot, and does not support the project as currently presented. Vice Chairman Lewis moved to deny the application without prejudice. The motion failed due to the lack of a second. Commissioner Tomblin and Chairman Perestam stated their concerns with the project are the articulation of the house and the current height of the house. Vice Chairman Lewis agreed, adding that he also felt that there is too much house for the size of the lot and the square footage should be reduced. Commissioner Knight also agreed about the bulk and mass of the house, but that it may be possible to reduce this bulk and mass with articulation and by lowering the house into the lot. However, whatever is done he would still like to add a condition that a structural engineer review the integrity of the existing retaining walls. Donald Bruckman felt that it may be possible to rebuild the pad on the outside edge it may result in a lower house in the southwest corner. He also felt that he will be able to show quite a bit more articulation in the house. He didn't think he would be able to lower the house an additional two feet however, but he will lower it as far as possible. Commissioner Tomblin moved to continue the public hearing to October 14, 2008 to allow the architect the opportunity to address the Planning Commission's concerns with the project, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Approved, (5-1) with Vice Chairman Lewis dissenting. 2. Conditional Use Permit, Grading Permit, Sign Program & Environmental Assessment (Case No. ZON2002-0216): 29941 Hawthorne Blvd. Planning Commission Minutes September 23,2008 Page 4 Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, giving a brief background of the project and explaining the project as currently proposed. He explained that although the project is now below the 16 foot height limit, some public views will still be blocked by the structure, however given that the property is zoned for commercial use and the building height has been significantly reduced, staff believes that a reasonable balance has been achieved between the preservation of the public view and the applicant's right to develop the property. He explained that staff does not feel the structure will cause significant view impairment from any adjacent private residences. He showed several photographs from several properties showing the view over the subject property and the existing silhouette on the property. He stated that staff believes all of the necessary findings to approve the project can be made, and if the Commission believes the revised project design addresses the Commission's concerns, then staff recommends the Commission direct staff to bring back the appropriate Resolution and conditions for consideration at the October 14th meeting. Commissioner Tomblin asked if there had been any discussion of the exterior lighting for the building and parking area, as the lighting could have an effect to the surrounding properties and the public. Associate Planner Fox answered that the lighting was discussed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and in the biological survey. He explained that the parking lot is graded down quite a bit from the current grade and the lighting proposed is very low bollards, somewhere between 36 and 42 inches tall, and will be well below street level as viewed from Hawthorne Boulevard. Commissioner Gerstner asked if there will also be lights mounted to the building to illuminate the area. He stated that would be customary, but probably objectionable. Associate Planner Fox answered that light fixtures on the side of the building are not shown on this current plan. Charles Belak-Berger (architect) stated that he agrees with the findings made by staff in the staff report. He felt that he has done about everything he can do to mitigate the impact of the structure. He explained that he looked at several options and felt this was the best option in terms of mitigating the impacts aesthetically. Commissioner Knight asked for clarification on access to the proposed building. Mr. Belak-Berger showed an entryway and covered walkway at the perimeter of the garage that will lead to the building. Commissioner Tomblin expressed some concern about the metal roof material, as he did not think it was anything seen in the neighborhood. Mr. Belak-Berger felt that this roof will look very upscale when installed, however he was willing to look at other materials if so directed. Planning Commission Minutes September 23,2008 Page 5 Commissioner Knight asked if there were any issues with using the existing storm drains on Crest Road rather than draining down into the canyon. Mr. Belak-Berger did not think there would be any issues with draining onto Crest Road. Commissioner Gerstner asked where the mechanical equipment will be located, as he did not see a roof well on the current plans. Mr. Belak-Berger answered that they will try to put the equipment on the roof, noting there is a parapet wall proposed. Commissioner.Gerstner stated that the mechanical equipment will have to stay behind the parapet walls and he also would not object to the mechanical equipment being placed on site in the lower parking area of the lot, as long as it was properly screened. Mr. Belak-Berger stated that all mechanical equipment will be screened. Commissioner Gerstner commented that the lighting in the parking lot and any building mounted lighting should be kept down below the level of the street and the lighting should be shielded. He also felt it was important to discuss how long the lighting should be left on at night. David Bray stated there are an overwhelming number of people in the neighborhood who do not want to see this project proceed. He questioned if a separate legal opinion should be sought as to whether or not this constitutes an unconstitutional taking of the land or whether this land has been abandoned over the last 40 years and is now is the right of the public to have a view. He questioned if the existing land that is not fill dirt can support the fill dirt that will be recompacted above it. He also felt that the biological issues were very clear, not only during construction but over the next several years with the lighted parking lot. He felt the traffic issues have not been thoroughly addressed and there is a safety hazard at the corner. Regarding the lights, he asked that the Planning Commission consider what the residents who live down the canyon will be looking up at with the lights on this building. John Kendall stated that his house is the first house west of this project, and has been there for 39 years. He discussed the different accidents and mishaps with vehicles that he has witnessed in the canyon and on Crest Road. He was concerned this project will increase these types of mishaps and requested a retaining wall be built around the project similar to the one currently at Ralphs. James Kramaert stated he has three primary objections to the project. The first is the traffic, which has been discussed. The second is the impact on the public view. He felt this building impairs the sense of openness that is currently enjoyed in the area. Lastly, he felt that the proposed building does nothing for the neighborhood or community. He felt that the City should buy the land and preserve it. Planning commission Minutes September 23,2008 Page 6 David Conlon stated his primary concern is the residential versus commercial issue. He stated this is a bedroom community and a commercial building abutting against a beautiful canyon is an abomination. Charles Belak-Berger (in rebuttal) stated this is a commercial lot and he is developing a small office building on this lot. He felt this was a better solution that to rezone the property and building condominiums as was done across the street. Commissioner Tomblin asked the owner,if the Conservancy ever contacted him about buying his property to make it part of the conservancy area. Mr. Chabbra answered that he was not contacted by the Conservancy. Director Rojas clarified that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes owns the adjoining property and the Conservancy manages the property for the City. Commissioner Tomblin asked staff if there was any discussion about buying this property at the time the other property was bought to preserve open space. Director Rojas explained the City bought the Agua Amarga Canyon for inclusion into the City's NCCP Preserve mainly because it has extensive protected habitat and there are quite a few nesting gnatcatchers in the canyon. However, the subject property adjoining the City property has minimal habitat value and no nesting gnatcatchers, and therefore the City did not actively pursue acquisition as it did not think it had any biological value. Commissioner Tomblin asked if there would ever be any consideration by the City in the future to purchase the land at the corner. Director Rojas answered that it would be up to the owner, as the City would need a willing seller and the availability of funds. Commissioner Knight was pleased with the revised plans, as he felt they addressed many of the concerns raised by the Commission at the previous meeting. However, he felt there were still quite a few aspects of the project that seem to be unsettled, such as the sign plan, the site drainage to Crest Road, a lighting plan, and mechanical equipment. Therefore, even though he felt the plans were much improved, he was not ready to approve the project until he had the missing information before him and was satisfied with these plans. Commissioner Ruttenberg felt that Commissioner Knight's comments were in line with staff's recommendation, which is to discuss and advise staff whether or not the Commission is satisfied that the revisions and whether the new modifications have met the Commission's objections with regard to view impacts, and if so have staff come back with a Resolution with the appropriate conditions. He felt that this project has met the view impact concerns. He understood the public's concerns that they would like this Planning commission Minutes September 23,2008 Page 7 area to remain open space, however he felt that the owner has a right to develop his property. He also understood the objections that this is a residential neighborhood, however he noted this property has been zoned commercial since the General Plan was approved. He felt that the applicant has met every request staff and the Planning Commission have raised in regards to view issues. He therefore was in support of the project, but agreed that there are still some outstanding issues. Commissioner Gerstner also felt the applicant had met the Commission's concerns in regards to view impacts. He also wanted to see a lighting plan and a plan for the mechanical equipment showing proper screening. In regards to traffic, he felt that the proposed curb cut is an adequate distance from the corner. He realized that people drive fast through there, however he did not think this proposal was asking for anything out of the ordinary. Vice Chairman Lewis agreed that the applicant had addressed the Commission's concerns in regards to views in proposing a fairly modest office building at the site. He also agreed that more information was needed in terms of a lighting plan and a mechanical plan. Commissioner Tomblin stated that he could not support the project at this time because of the proposed entrance on Crest Road. He was also concerned about the lighting at the site as well as the parking on the property. He was also opposed to the roof material, as he did not think it was compatible with the neighborhood. Chairman Perestam asked staff if the Planning Commission had the purview to make a recommendation that a red curb be painted along the first 150 feet of Crest Road. Director Rojas answered that decision would ultimately be made by the City Council. He stated that the Planning Commission can vote to make the recommendation and staff can take this recommendation to the City Council for review. Chairman Perestam asked the applicant if he would be willing to grant the one time extension to allow the Planning Commission to continue the item to allow the applicant to address these last concerns. Mr. Belak-Berger agreed to the 90-day extension. Commissioner Ruttenberg noted the main items of concern were the sign program, lighting, and the mechanical equipment and asked staff if these were the items of concern anticipated by staff which would be included in the conditions of approval in the prepared Resolution to be brought back to the Planning Commission. Director Rojas answered that all of these items were to be included in the conditions of approval of the Resolution that would be brought back at the next meeting. Planning commission Minutes September 23,2008 Page 8 Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to deem the proposed revisions acceptable and direct staff to prepare the appropriate Resolution and Conditions of Approval, and to continue the public hearing to the meeting of October 14, 2008 to discuss and review the draft conditions of approval, seconded by Vice Chairman Lewis. Commissioner Knight felt that as long as all of his concerns are addressed and can be discussed at the next meeting, then he was in favor of the motion. The motion was approved, (4-2) with Commissioner Tomblin and Chairman Perestam dissenting. 4. Height Variation Permit, Grading Permit& Site Plan Review (Case No ZON2007-00472: 27000 Freeport Road Vice Chairman Lewis suggested at this point in the meeting that the Planning Commission should look at whether it was going to be feasible to hear Agenda Item No. 4, or if it should be continued to the next agenda. Director Rojas noted that there are speakers for this item, and being a noticed public hearing, they do have the right to speak whether or not the hearing is continued. The speakers stated they would wait and speak at the continued public hearing. Director Rojas suggested the Planning Commission recess on this particular item to discuss Agenda Item No. 7 and identify future available meetings, and then return to this item. The Planning Commission agreed to this process. NEW BUSINESS 7. Selection of dates for possible additional Planning Commission meetings Director Rojas explained this is a request to add two additional meeting dates: one on either October 8th or 9th to have an EIR study session only where no specific items will be heard and a second additional meeting on October 30th to hear additional agenda items. Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to schedule two additional meetings, one on October 9th and one on October 30th, as suggested by staff, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Approved, (6-0). CONTINUED BUSINESS 4. Height Variation Permit, Grading Permit& Site Plan Review (Case No ZON2007-00472: 27000 Freeport Road Planning commission Minutes September 23,2008 Page 9 The Commissioners discussed the pros and cons regarding which date to reschedule this public hearing. Commissioner Knight moved to continue the public hearing to the meeting of October 9, 2008 and to be scheduled after the EIR study session, seconded by Vice Chairman Lewis. The Commission unanimously agreed. 3. Revision to Conditional Use Permit, Grading Permit, Minor Exception Permit, Site Plan Review & Environmental Assessment (Case No ZON2007- 00598): 5448 Crest Road Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report. She gave a brief overview of the project, showing the original proposal and the revisions that have been proposed. She discussed the results of the sound study and the shadow study that were conducted by the applicant. She displayed the parking table presented by the applicant that displayed the uses of the site and the number of parking spaces required for these uses. Based on the modifications made to the project to address the multiple concerns of the public and the Planning Commission, as well as the recent studies done by the applicant, staff was of the opinion that the St. John Fisher master plan as conditioned would not have any significant adverse affects on adjacent properties, and would recommend that if the Planning Commission agrees with staff's recommendation, that they review the draft conditions of approval, close the public hearing, and direct staff to prepare the appropriate resolutions to the next meeting. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that he had visited the church on Sunday at approximately 9:30 a.m. to view the parking situation, noting that the lot was not full. While there he had spoken to two congregation members who felt the 9:00 mass was the most highly attended throughout the year. Associate Planner Mikhail stated that staff was also at the site on Sunday at approximately 10:30 a.m. and noted that the parking lot was not full. Commissioner Knight asked who prepared the parking analysis. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that the applicant's consultant architect prepared the parking analysis, which was submitted, reviewed, and supported by the City's traffic engineer. Commissioner Knight asked if the parking analysis took into account outside groups using the gym for sporting events. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that was not taken into account, however the Planning Commission could add conditions that would restrict the hours or use of the gym. Planning Commission Minutes September 23,2008 Page 10 Commissioner Knight asked staff to explain how the proposed parking meets the Code requirement that parking spaces need to be within 300 feet of the structure they are serving. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that staff's interpretation of the Code is that the parking lot must be within 300 feet of the structure, not that the parking lot in its entirety must be within 300 feet. She noted that this interpretation has been applied to other larger projects in the City. Commissioner Knight asked about the overflow parking and where it would be located. Associate Planner Mikhail noted the areas of overflow parking proposed by the applicant. Shelly Hyndman (architect) discussed the new proposed revisions to the landscape buffer and grading at Crest Road and Crenshaw Blvd. She felt this revised landscaping would better shield the project from the neighboring residences. She also stated that in an effort to address parking concerns raised by several Commissioners, provisions for turf parking have been added which are consistent with the Code, and noted on the site plan the additional areas provided. Additionally, she noted there is a written agreement with the neighboring property owned by the Daughters of Mary and Joseph expressing their willingness to share their parking with the church for seasonal parking demands on an informal basis. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked for the total square footage of all of the buildings for this project. Ms. Hyndman answered that the total square footage of the buildings is 89,710 square feet. Vice Chairman Lewis asked Ms. Hyndman if she is comfortable with all of the conditions of approval recommended by staff. Ms. Hyndman answered she is comfortable with the conditions of approval. She did note, however, that the proposed time schedule for the bells is tied to the mass schedule and there has been some discussion that in the future the mass schedule may be reduced. Therefore, the church would like to add into the conditions of approval language that synchronizes the bell ringing with the mass schedule, but also states that the bells will not increase in frequency of ringing and it will never occur prior to or later than the current times specified. Anthony Wu explained how the shadow study was done and that the result of the study was that shadows will have negligible impact to the surrounding neighborhood. He stated that the only time there might be any problem will be during the winter solstice where the sun is at its lowest point. He also noted that the shadow study during the Planning commission Minutes September 23,2008 Page 11 winter solstice began at 9:00 a.m. and explained that the sun rises at approximately 7:00 a.m. during that time and before 9:00 it is usually overcast or foggy. Lisa Counts discussed the sound study that was done for the proposed bells. She showed the location of the proposed speakers and the location of the decibel meters placed on the property. She noted the decibel levels as recorded on-site and at various off-site locations, and that all noise levels are below 65 decibels. Grant Hungerford played a recording of the bells. Commissioner Knight asked how the volume of the bell recording that was played is relative to what will actually be projected at the church. Mr. Hungerford stated he has a decibel meter to measure the recording if requested. As requested by the Planning Commission, Mr. Hungerford played the recording at a level of 65 decibels, as measured by the use of his decibel meter. Associate Planner Mikhail noted that there is currently not a decibel limit in the conditions of approval. Jon Rewinsky explained that invitations were mailed to the owners of 870 homes in the neighborhood to attend a neighborhood meeting with the church. He explained that the church help three meeting sessions on a Saturday, with an attendance of 20 homeowners at the first session, 20 homeowners at the second session, and only 10 homeowners at the third session. He felt that there was good discussion at input at all three meetings. Ken Dyda felt that condition No. 22 of the conditions of approval is an attempt to solve a perceived non-existing parking problem. He stated that as a member of the church attending various masses during the day he has not noted any type of problem with traffic. He stated that people don't come to church in waves, but rather it is a gradual exiting and entering. He also felt that condition No. 22, as written, is a permissive condition and only allows the uses as listed. He noted that if strictly interpreted, it actually prohibits the use of the rectory and office on Saturday and Sunday. He stated that this permissive condition is inappropriate, as the perceived problem that led to this condition need not exist and will limit religious expression and create a continuing burden to the City and church. Therefore, he felt condition No. 22 is fraught with burdensome and unnecessary unintended consequences and urged the Planning Commission to delete this condition. Commissioner Knight asked Mr. Dyda if he had a suggestion on how this condition may be reworded. Mr. Dyda felt the condition was unnecessary and attempts to solve a problem that does not exist. Planning Commission Minutes September 23,2008 Page 12 John McTaggart urged the Planning Commission to make a decision on this application so that it can eventually be heard by the City Council on appeal. He asked the Planning Commission to ease up on the requirements on the use of the bells, as he felt it is a First Amendment right to be called to prayer. He also felt that restricting the bell usage will restrict the practice of religion. Rick and Lori Daniels stated they are very much in support of the project and appreciated the work done by the architect and the church to make the building and use as pleasing as possible to the surrounding neighbors. Donna Hulbert did not think that requiring the applicant to comply with the Development Code and adhere to the policies set forth in the General Plan violates the applicant's rights under the Constitution or the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. She stated that the applicant is not entitled to special treatment, adding that whatever is done in this neighborhood is precedent to what must be allowed for any other religious denomination in any other secular institutional use. She felt that, given this project is required to have a Conditional Use Permit, the time to scrutinize the project is now. She also felt that the church should be required to prepare an EIR for this proposed project. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Ms. Hulbert how she felt allowing the applicant to play bells at less than 65 decibels was giving them a special privilege, when every other property owner in the City can do so, since the City does not have a noise ordinance. Ms. Hulbert felt that if she were playing bells or playing music or anything else that is bothering people, she is violating the constraints of the General Plan. Douglas Butler stated that cars currently park on Crenshaw Boulevard and Crest Road on occasions, which he felt means the parking lot at the church is full. He stated that the current proposal for parking is less than the required code, and the Planning Commission should deny the proposal because of a lack of parking, or require an EIR to study the parking issues. He added that if the Planning Commission intends to approve the plan, then focus should be given to Condition No. 22 which he felt needs to be strengthened. He felt that the only way to guarantee adequate parking is to limit the other concurrent uses on the property. He suggested adding language which prohibits the occupancy of the administrative offices, the school library, Barrett Hall, the gymnasium, the Parish Center, the Fireside Room, the Multi-Purpose Room, and education classes when the sanctuary is in use. He felt this prohibited occupancy should extend from one hour before to one hour after the end of the sanctuary use to allow sufficient time to exit the parking lot. Third, the sanctuary use should not be permitted between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays when the school is in session. He did not think the additional parking at the Mary and Joseph Retreat Center should be considered, as a joint use proposal has not been presented. Planning commission Minutes September 23,2008 Page 13 Al Edgerton stated that what is missing from the parking study is that there are 380 kids that are attending religious education classes during the 10:00 to 11:00 time frame. He asked why these children aren't counted in the parking study. He noted that these children come to their classes in cars and questioned why they were not included in the study. He felt the proposed overflow parking is dangerous and should be denied, as it brings traffic to the doors of the religious education classes during the peak Sunday traffic. Commissioner Knight asked Mr. Edgerton to clarify his concern with the kids, as they will be coming to the church in the same car as their parents who are attending mass. Therefore he did not see how counting the children would increase the parking requirements. Mr. Edgerton explained that if you were to apply the appropriate table, it is based on three occupants per car, which likely will not occur. Kathy Edgerton also felt that the children in religious study should be counted when doing a true parking study. She also stated that she has been to the parking lot at the church and seen cars parked illegally in the lot, indicating to her that at one time there were not enough parking spaces available. Mark Easton stated he is fully in favor of St. John Fisher having a church they can be proud of. However, he was not in favor of a church that imposes significant adverse impact on the surrounding community. He stated that the intersection of Crest and Crenshaw is currently a very busy intersection. He was concerned with on-street parking or the likelihood that on-street parking will occur. He felt this was driven by insufficient parking on the site as well as the applicant's desire to have a pedestrian entrance at this intersection. He also felt the increased use of the facility will generate increased traffic. He felt it was unreasonable to expect the expansion of these facilities is not going to result in increased traffic flow in and out of the facility. Chairman Perestam asked Mr. Easton what his solution to the pedestrian entrance would be. Mr. Easton did not think the pedestrian entrance was needed and would like to see it eliminated. Joan Olenick explained that in 1977 a Conditional Use Permit and Variance were approved for the Baptist Church, and at that time the church was told that their bells must be non-functional. She felt this set a precedent for all other churches, excluding Wayfarer's Chapel and St. Peter's By The Sea, as they already had their bells in place. She stated that St. John Fisher is surrounded by six communities, and the proposed bells will impact these six communities. She questioned why one church should be favored over another, and all churches should be treated equally. She also noted that she can already hear the services from her home. Planning commission Minutes September 23,2008 Page 14 Ronnie Long stated that she too can hear the services from her home and also objected to the increase in noise the bells will bring to the neighborhood. She commented that many members of her family work until very late at night, and the ringing of bells early in the morning will be an unwanted annoyance. Regarding the proposed landscaping, she felt that the applicant fails to comply with the landscape Development Code according to the documents provided on line. Phil Johnson felt it should be clear by now that an Environmental Impact Report should be prepared for this proposed project. He did not think the Mitigated Negative Declaration was sufficient, as it is simply,a statement describing how the proposed project is not exempt from CEQA and how the proposed project may result in potential significant impact on the environment. He explained that the courts have adopted the Fair Argument Test to determine whether an EIR should have been prepared. He discussed cases which have used this test and the results. He did not feel the St. John Fisher project has been sufficiently scrutinized and an EIR must be prepared. Maude Landon discussed the many times during the week that the church is requesting they be allowed to ring the bells. She acknowledged that the City does not have a noise ordinance, however she did not think that should mean the City cannot or should not regulate and limit noise. She felt that in the absence of any Ordinance one must look at the General Plan to review the acceptability of allowing bells to be rung. She pointed out that the General Plan devotes an entire section to controlling and minimizing noise and sound levels in the City, adding that it begins by saying that the goal of the City is to provide a quiet and serene residential community through proper land use planning and regulation. Bruce Butler explained that residents of Island View have been complaining about the bulk and mass of the proposed building towering over their homes. In order to demonstrate the magnitude of the problem, the residents hired an architect to construct a 3-D model of the structure. He showed several plans showing the heights of the homes he felt are most affected by the proposed project and how the church will affect these homes. Doris Sung stated she is the architect for the community and explained how she generated her models and views of the proposed project. She showed several pictures depicting the proposed church and how it will look from the Island View neighborhood. Sabina Lira showed pictures of the 3-D model created of the proposed project and how the project will look from the Island View neighborhood. Ron Blond discussed how this project will affect his family's quality of life. He discussed the privacy and serenity of his backyard and how this will be affected. He was also concerned with the construction process, and the sanctuary will be very close to his home. He was worried about the impact of the air quality and construction noise to his family. Planning Commission Minutes September 23,2008 Page 15 Gary Long had concerns with the shadow study that was conducted, and felt it should be redone to show the true affect during the early morning hours. He showed a picture of what the proposed building will look like from his property, and felt the proposed project created a significant adverse impact to his and his neighbors' properties. He stated that the applicant has over nine acres to work with, and that with some creativity the location of the sanctuary could be moved away from the street so as not to be as intrusive to the neighborhood. He showed alternate plans that another architect had developed with the sanctuary near the middle of the property. Lynne Belusko stated that with the revised design the bell tower squarely faces her home. She discussed the proposed lighting, stating that currently there is insufficient evidence in the application to support the required finding of no significant adverse affect on the adjunct properties. She stated that there is no evidence that glare from the two flood lights on the tower will not illuminate her home and the surrounding neighborhood. She stated that there is no evidence that the glare or spill-over from all of the light sources on the property will not significantly illuminate adjacent homes and the surrounding neighborhood. She felt that because the light source on the elevated building pad would still be higher than the surrounding neighborhoods, even footed and shielded lighting will impose significant glare and spill-over into the neighborhoods. She also noted that there are no time restrictions on the lighting. George Fink stated he is strongly in favor of the St. John Fisher request in its entirety. Regarding street parking, he stated that he has observed street parking only on Easter Sunday and on other very rare occasions. Regarding traffic congestions, he stated he has never experienced a traffic jam or traffic slow-down at the Crenshaw and Crest intersection caused by arrival or departure of the church members at Sunday mass. Bill Stein strongly urged the Planning Commission to approve the currently proposed project. He pointed out that the project has been greatly modified since its original submittal in response to concerns from the neighborhoods, staff, and the Planning Commission. Lenee Bilski stated she was finishing John McTaggart's statement when stating that in constraining the bell ringing the Planning Commission would be legislating an ordinance for this one single property, which he felt was very unfair. Mr. McTaggart challenged the Planning Commission to find a single property in the entire City where there are daytime noise restrictions. Ms. Bilski discussed the ambient zone noise levels in residential zones in Rolling Hills and the vehicle noise level on Crest Road and Crenshaw Blvd. She felt that approving this project with bells will not set precedence, as St. Peter's By the Sea and Wayfarer's Chapel have bells that ring daily. Also, in 1993 the Planning Commission approved the use of real bells at St. John Fisher. Finally, there is a Rancho Palos Verdes Institutional Code allowing an excess of 65 decibels from 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Joan Ortolano congratulated the Planning Commission on what she felt has been a very long and very fair hearing process. She did not think that continuing the public hearing Planning Commission Minutes September 23,2008 Page 16 would bring any new arguments, pro or con, onto the table and urged the Planning Commission to close the public hearing and deliberate the topic. She referred to Condition No. 22, saying that on the face it looks to be a very reasonable condition. However, she felt that the way it is worded would unreasonably prohibit some of the uses of the church. She hoped that staff and the City Attorney would carefully look at the wording of any proposed conditions and whether the condition would result in any unintended restrictions to the church in regards to the way the church would be able to manage its affairs. She felt that if the street parking is truly a problem, she suggested no parking signs or temporary no parking sign be installed by the City. She felt that there are more effective ways to solve traffic and parking issues than denying the application or conditioning it so heavily that it interferes with the operation of the church. Barbara Walch felt that a detailed independent analysis of parking be prepared through the preparation of a full EIR along with a traffic analysis that takes into account a realistic parking plan. Kim Van Biene stated she is very concerned about the noise and the bells at the church. Bryan Bergsteinsson was still concerned with the size of the proposed sanctuary, as well as the traffic and noise. Carolyn Moebius stated that she was opposed to the project for all of the reasons brought up this evening, especially with the issue of the bells. Shelly H ndman (in rebuttal) stated she has some suggested rewording of Condition No. 21 in combination of No. 22. She suggested the Planning Commission look at the 1985 condition that already exists on the property, and that wording can be updated. She stated that exceeding 16 feet in height for a church is not a special right or privilege nor is requesting parking that is based on non-concurrent uses. She explained the flood-lit theatre lights on the tower are two 70-watt lights. She questioned where there was substantial evidence for the need for an EIR and what codes were clearly being violated. She explained the proposed pedestrian entrance is a California Building Code requirement for assembly spaces. She stated that neighbors currently hearing the services do so because there are speakers placed outside, as the church does not have any provisions for parents who have to leave the church with crying children. She explained the new church will have a glassed in interior narthex which will solve the problem and speakers will not be needed outside. She stated that the 3-D computer architectural renderings presented earlier could not be accurate, as neither the City nor the public did not currently possess the revised church elevations of any view of the new sanctuary other than the Crenshaw/Crest corner view. Commissioner Gerstner noted that the issue has been raised regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and asked staff how confident they are that there is not a need for an EIR. Planning Commission Minutes September 23,2008 Page 17 Director Rojas explained that the project is subject to CEQA and staff prepared the required Initial Study. He stated that from staffs perspective the project does have a potential to result in significant impacts, however staff believes that all the potential impacts can be mitigated to a level of insignificance, as described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Therefore, staff does not feel an EIR is necessary for this project. Commissioner Gerstner asked if this was also true of the potential traffic. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that the traffic analysis concluded that the traffic levels would not rise to the threshold that would mandate any changes to traffic patterns or the need to add any further mitigation measures, such as a traffic signal. She stated that this analysis was reviewed and approved by the City's traffic engineer. Commissioner Gerstner asked staff how confident they were with City's traffic engineer's analysis of parking and joint use with regards to the parking counts. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that staff is very confident in the traffic engineer's analysis of the parking for the project. Commissioner Gerstner asked staff if they took into account in the parking analysis the children in the religious education classes that coincide with the mass schedule. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that staff did not think this made any significant impact on the parking, as the children would arrive in the same car as their parents and the parents would either drop them off and leave or stay and attend the mass. Commissioner Gerstner asked staff what they could tell the Planning Commission about other churches in the City and their approval for or use of bells. Associate Planner Mikhail stated that she has not reviewed the conditions of approval for all of the churches in the City, however she is aware that there are two existing churches that have bells and she is aware that the St. John Fisher property at one time had Planning Commission approval for bells but the request was eventually withdrawn. Commissioner Gerstner stated that the church has moved into the realm of electronic bells whose sound can be more closely regulated. He asked if there has been any discussion on having the bell sound only inside the sanctuary and if there was a reason why the ringing inside isn't adequate and if it was important to have the bells wrung outside of the church. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that there have not been discussions of this sort between the applicant and staff. Commissioner Knight stated that several speakers indicated they were able to hear the Sunday sermons because of speakers set up outside. He asked staff if they were aware that there are speakers broadcasting outside. Planning commission Minutes September 23,2008 Page 18 Associate Planner Mikhail answered that it was her understanding that currently there are speakers to broadcast outside, however it is her understanding that through the church's public outreach, the applicant has agreed to remove the speakers. She noted that a condition of approval could be added requiring that the existing speakers be removed. Chairman Perestam asked staff to clarify their intention in writing condition of approval No. 22. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that staffs intention was to not allow uses on the property at the same time the sanctuary was in use on Saturdays or Sundays, as additional uses are not addressed in the parking analysis. She stated that if this project is approved, the parking analysis is also being approved, and the parking analysis indicates three uses in play during the highest peak time; specifically the rectory, the sanctuary, and religious education classrooms. Director Rojas added that condition No. 22 may need refinement, however the reason for the condition is to address the concerns of the residents in regards to the use and parking at the site. He also stated that there will be times, such as Christmas and Easter, where parking may be at a premium, however the intention of staff is not to address the extremes but rather the norm. Commissioner Gerstner was still unsure that adequate parking will be available, but would trust the recommendations of the city's traffic engineer. Regarding the bells, he would like to see the bells controlled in such a way that the neighbors do not have to listen to them on such a regular basis. He stated that he would still prefer the sanctuary be moved more towards the middle of the property, but understood the applicant's reasoning for the current placement. He was satisfied that the Mitigated Negative Declaration was appropriate and confident that the City fulfilled all of the requirements. He also would like to see the proposed pedestrian entrance on the corner moved or eliminated. He felt this would be a good issue for compromise. He questioned if this pedestrian entrance was required by the Building Code or Fire Code in this location or if there was an alternate solution available. Commissioner Knight was concerned about the impact of the sanctuary to the neighboring residences. He noted that as resident who is an architect presented an alternative plan showing the sanctuary on the east side of the property, and stated he would like to know if that is a viable alternative. He too was concerned that the pedestrian entrance would encourage people to park on the street rather than use the parking lot. Vice Chairman Lewis stated that he was generally in favor of the project as it is currently proposed, including the stairs. He felt that with a six month review period, if there are problems caused by these stairs, there are things that staff and the Planning Commission can do to mitigate the problems at that time. For the same reason, he was Planning commission Minutes September 23,2008 Page 19 not too concerned about the bells. He also felt that the sound study provided by the applicant showed that the bells will not be as loud as many people thought. He did not think it was unreasonable to allow a church to have a steeple tall enough to be visible to the residents living across the street. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that this property has been zoned for a church and it should be no surprise that a larger church is being proposed. He acknowledged that the proposed sanctuary is tall, however it is comparable in height to several sanctuaries on the Peninsula. He also noted that this property is one of the largest of the church properties, being on 9 acres. He did not think the proposed height of the sanctuary was unreasonable. He did not think the question of whether or not the church was compatible with the neighborhood applies, as it is a church and is not supposed to be compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood. With regards to the bells, he did not think there is any property in the city that is restricted in noise to 50 decibels for 3 minutes a day, and he did not think this property could be singled out. He noted there is no noise ordinance in the City, and one property should not be singled out in this regards. Regarding traffic, he stated he went to the property on a Sunday and found that there was no traffic to speak of and he felt there would have to be a lot more traffic for there to be a problem. In regards to parking, again he was at the site during a 9:00 mass and found 115 empty parking spaces. Therefore, he felt he could support the project as currently proposed. Chairman Perestam stated he has concerns with the pedestrian access at Crest Road and Crenshaw Boulevard, and would like to hear if that is a mandated access. He was concerned that there is still an outstanding question as to what the impact to attendance will be once this church is built, and how this will impact the traffic and parking issues. However, he stated he is generally in favor of the project as currently proposed, including the bells. Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to adopt staff's recommendations with the exception that the proposed curb cut be eliminated unless it is required by law, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Chairman Perestam requested that language be added to the Resolution that is specific in regards to an agreement with the neighboring party regarding overflow parking on holidays. Vice Chairman Lewis stated that he was inclined to agree with the motion, adding that there is a condition of a two-month review regarding the bells, but there is no other review. He stated he would prefer a condition that the two month review include other issues that may need addressing at that time. Associate Planner Mikhail noted that in the Mitigated Negative Declaration there is a six-month review period for the lighting plan, and that a six month period might be more appropriate to look at all of the uses on the property. Planning Commission Minutes September 23,2008 Page 20 Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to amend the motion to include a six month review period for the property, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Commissioner Knight stated he would be in support of the motion if the alternative plan to move the sanctuary towards the center of the property is considered, and if it is not possible, to explain why. He would also like to see a privacy analysis done for the residence at 15 Santa Barbara Drive. He also wanted to see a construction traffic flow plan, proper signage on the gates controlling access to the school yard, a condition that existing trees are to remain, and a discussion on the existing equestrian trails on the property. Associate Planner Mikhail noted that the equestrian trails were moved from the south side of Crest Road to the north side. She also noted that there are mitigation measures in the Mitigated Negative Declaration that refer to required traffic congestion plans as well as haul routes and restricted hauling times. Commissioner Knight asked if the Mitigated Negative Declaration addresses modulars for temporary use at the facility. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that it does not address modulars at the site. She explained that because this project is phased and there does not appear to be a need for modulars at the site. Commissioner Knight felt that a condition should be added that states no modulars will be allowed. He felt a condition should be added that addresses the decibel level allowed at the site, a condition discussing the use of the site by outside organizations, and a condition addressing specifically when a Special Use Permit will be needed. The motion to conceptually approve the project as conditioned was approved, (3- 2) with Commissioners Knight and Gerstner dissenting. Chairman Perestam closed the public hearing. Director Rojas explained that a Resolution will be brought to the Planning Commission reflecting the decision and that any discussion will be limited to the language and content of the Resolution. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 8. Minutes of August 12, 2008 Automatically continued to the October 9, 2008 meeting. 9. Minutes of August 26, 2008 Automatically continued to the October 9, 2008 meeting. Planning commission Minutes September 23,2008 Page 21 10. Pre-Agenda for the meeting of October 14, 2008 No discussion on the pre-agenda. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 1:53 a.m. Planning commission Minutes September 23,2008 Page 22