Loading...
PC MINS 19931214APPROVED 1/25/94 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION - ADJOURNED/REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 14, 1993 The meeting was called to order at 7:28 PM, following refreshments, by Chairman Rob Katherman at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of Allegiance followed, led by Jo Landau. PRESENT: Commissioners Mowlds and Lorenzen, Co -Vice -Chairperson Hayes and Chairman Katherman. ABSENT: Commissioners Clark and Co -Vice Chairperson Alberio (both excused) Also present were Director of Planning, Building and code Enforcement Bernard, Planning Administrator Petru, Senior Planner Rojas, Associate Planner Jerex, and Assistant Planner Klopfenstein. k COMMUNICATIONS Director Bernard reported that there were 18 letters received after the Commissioners agenda packets were assembled. For Item VC, there was one letter; Item VD, one letter; Item VIIB, 15 letters; and Item VIIC, one letter. These were distributed to the Commission. Commissioner Hayes stated that she received a letter from Mrs. Jo Landau, regarding Item VIIB, asking her to visit her home, which Commissioner Hayes did. Commissioner Mowlds also received this same letter and also received a letter from Mrs. Landau containing suggested conditions of approval for Item VIIB. Director Bernard stated the letters mentioned by Commissioners Hayes and Mowlds were included in the ones distributed by the Staff. CONSENT CALENDAR VA. Minutes of November 23, 1993. Corrections/additions from Commissioner Mowlds: On page 5 beginning "Commissioner Mowlds discussed with Mr. Davis..." . Commissioner Mowlds felt that in the event of' an appeal, the minutes did not reflect the reasons for the actions of the Planning 1k, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 1 1 Commission. He suggested that the following be added: "Mr. Davis was acting on behalf of the owner. Mr. Davis is a professional engineer. Acting as a professional engineer, he told Mr. Gantz that the plans that he was working from had not been approved. Mr. Davis told the owner that there was an extra floor added above the garage. Mr. Davis said that, after saying this to the owner, it was the owner's election to proceed". Motion to Approve, with corrections, made by Co -Vice -Chairperson Bayes and seconded by Commissioner Lorenzen. Approved (4-0) VB. Minutes of December 6, 1993. Since these minutes were not available, this item was continued to January 11, 1994. (4-0) VC. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 750 - REVISION - APPEAL; Mr. Earl Gantz, 3558 Bendigo Drive (property owners). (FF) A request was received to speak on this consent calendar item. The Planning Commission agreed. Bob Easton, 3566 Bendigo Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. His concern with the draft resolution was possible ambiguity and that it might not express the intent of the Planning Commission. Section 2 states that the applicant must revert to the plans that were approved on Variance No. 350 on March 23, 1993. Commissioner Mowlds said that the Planning Commission was very specific that night because the gable roof was to start at the plate line at the garage level. Commissioner Mowlds requested that this be put in the minutes specifically saying that the landowner must modify the structure so that it did not have a second floor over the garage. Mr. Easton was satisfied because that was his only concern. After a brief discussion, it was agreed that the Resolution is explicit enough because it references the plans. VD. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 657, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 177, GRADING PERMIT NO. 1711, MISCELLANEOUS HEARING; Mr. and Mrs. Marvin Winkler, 6100 Via Subida. (TS) Motion to approve Consent Calendar Items C and D by Commissioner Hayes, and seconded by Commissioner Mowlds and passed unanimously (4-0). Chairman Ratherman mentioned that a 15 -day appeal applied on both of these items. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 2 At this time, because of the lengthy agenda, Chairman Katherman suggested that the Commission address items which might require very little time. The following items were taken out of order from the agenda: CONTINUED BUSINESS VIB. VARIANCE NO. 367, GRADING PERMIT NO. 1714: Mr. and Mrs. Milan Veteska, 5503 Graylog Street. (FF) Chairman Katherman stated that the applicant has requested a continuance to January 11, 1994 and Staff has recommended approval. commissioner Hayes made a motion to continue the item to January 11, 1994, and it was seconded by Commissioner Mowlds. Approved (4- 0) PUBLIC HEARINGS VIIC. DEVELOPMENT CODE REVISIONS: City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Citywide. (JR) Because this is such a complex issue and impossible to complete in one meeting, Commissioner Mowlds moved that it be continued to February 8, 1994. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hayes. Approved (4-0) Director Bernard suggested that by placing this item on the agenda for February 8, the new commission would be seated and could provide direction in terms of timing of this project. The normal agenda order was continued from this point on. CONTINUED BUSINESS VIA. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 119 - REVISION "A", ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 656• Pac Tel, 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard. (DJ) Commissioner Hayes excused herself because she lives within 3001 of the project site. A discussion ensued between the remaining Commissioners and Director Bernard as to whether or not the remaining three Commissioners could hear this items, due to a lack of a quorum. It was decided, after reviewing the adopted Planning Commission Procedures, that the Commission could accept public testimony and discuss the item, but could not take an action ("conduct business") until a quorum could be established. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 3 Associate Planner Jerex read the Staff Report. This item was continued from the November 9, 1993 Planning Commission hearing, when Staff and the applicant were directed to research issues, including possible health risks, expansion of the previous evaluation of potential aesthetic impacts, and determining whether or not the entire monopole could be relocated on the City Hall site. Based on a follow-up on each of these issues, Staff is not proposing any changes from the previous recommendation, and is seeking direction on how the Commission would like to proceed with similar requests to re -locate on the monopole in the future. Chairman Katherman declared the continued public hearing open. Dean Brown, 1111 Town & Country, Orange, CA, representing The Planning Consortium (land use agent for PacTel Cellular) . Mr. Brown stated that he had carefully read the Staff Report and worked closely with Staff over the last few months. He acknowledged certain concerns related to the radio wave emissions from the facility and the desire for possible relocation of the monopole. He explained that Pac Tel was told by the City to locate specifically at this site, after looking a number of different alternatives. Mr. Brown commented that the local Radio Club had reviewed the technical data PacTel submitted and found that�it was accurate. Mr. Brown mentioned that he and Planning Commission members had met with residents on Via La Cresta and viewed the monopole from their homes. He understands their concerns related to the visual impacts. However, the proposed modifications will lessen the impact, as taller whip antennas will be removed (which will make the monopole shorter) and the new ones will not add significant mass to the structure. Mr. Commission. The first photi views from the homes on Via the Planning Commission, consultant who used a panoral the balcony of the closest hog pictures taken from across I street, using a normal 50m location. At the November visual simulation that showed viewed from about 1501 away. view from Via La Cresta which At that distance, it was very and therefore, PacTel's visua detail in order to clearly ! Mr. Brown felt that this ini minor modifications that Pact significant change in anyone, Brown provided a photo board to the i board shows a number of different :a Cresta. As directed by Staff and ?acTel hired a visual simulation is camera lens to take pictures from [se on Via La Cresta. There were also he street and a little ways up the a lens to show facility from that ), 1993 hearing, PacTel presented a a before and after of the antennas as The new visual simulation shows the is approximately 900-10001 feet away. hard to make out the antenna changes 1 consultant was asked to enlarge the -how what the antenna modifications. ormation clearly documents that the al is proposing would not represent a s view. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 4 The City also requested that the lease be renegotiated. Mr. Brown has met with Brent Mattingly, the City's Director of Finance, and have reached a tentative agreement. Mr. Brown added that he has reviewed the conditions of approval and has only a minor comment on Condition No. 4 which indicates that any change in power levels, and/or usage, shall require a separate revision to this permit. PacTel Cellular regularly tests its channels and there is a heavier volume of calls, PacTel can add radio equipment for additional capacity. In addition, during the recent Malibu, Altadena and Orange County fires, in order to respond to the need for more cellular communication in fire areas, PacTel actually brought in additional radio equipment into existing cell sites to expand call capacity on a interim basis. In case of an emergency, PacTel is requesting some staff administrative process that could allow additional channels for emergency situations. Occasionally, PacTel also removes channels from time to time which would actually reduce the power levels. The way the condition is worded, it appears that any change in power levels, even a decrease, would require returning to the Planning Commission. In order to minimize the visual impacts of the antennas changeouts, PacTel's radio frequency engineers have agreed to reduce the size of this antenna to 41 in diameter rather than 61 proposed. PacTel agrees with the remainder of the conditions of approval. Mr. Brown mentioned that Mr. Tom Councilman, a representative from PacTel, is also present tonight and available for questions. There was a lengthy discussion between Commissioner Mowlds and Mr. Brown regarding the possibility of setting a maximum, "worst case" for number of channels and power level which might ever be needed by PacTel at this site. The possibility of emergency power increase or power decrease were discussed. Mr. Brown brought out the fact that FCC, not PacTel or the City, controls the number of channels and the power level. The FCC limits all cellular carriers throughout the United States to 50 channels at 500 watts per channel although PacTel will not normally need this maximum at this site. Mr. Brown said the maximum might be 30 channels at 100 watts per channel. Chairman Katherman suggested that possibly emergency situations could be specifically excluded from Condition No. 4. The other Commissioners agreed that this was feasible. Associate Planner Jerex commented that Condition No. 4 was added to prevent the usage from being changed from telephone to television transmission, not so much for a change in the power level, although this was mentioned. The change in power level was intended for increases, rather than decreases. Director Bernard added that one reason for the condition regarding power levels is because City employees work directly below the monopole. PacTel requested 12 channels, which would emit 1/3000th of the maximum safety level; therefore this recommendation was PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 5 made. Scott Gobble, 505 Maple Avenue., Torrance, CA, representing Southern California Edison. Mr. Gobble stated that Southern California Edison is requesting installation of a 900 megahertz system on the monopole for Edison's emergency and regular business operation that communicates with Catalina Island and the west side of the Palos Verdes Peninsula. This system would include two whip antennas on the very top of the pole pointing upwards and one on the second level down pointing downward. Southern California Edison currently has a communication site on Crestridge Road and is requesting installation of the same system, as described above, on the monopole at City Hall. There will be an improved visual impact over the City Hall site, because a 551 foot high pole with anchor wires, lower down the hill behind City Hall, used solely by Edison for the last nine years, will be removed completely if this request is approved. Jeff Cameron, 30963 Via La Cresta, Rancho Palos Verdes, representing the Sunset Ridge Homeowners Association. Mr. Cameron thanked the Commissioners for their visit to his neighborhood to view the monopole. He stated that his only objection to the project is the visual blight that the monopole presents. The Homeowners Association proposed an alternative site to Mr. Brown. According to Mr. Brown, who inspected this possible relocation area, it is not feasible. If this project is approved, the Homeowners Association is requesting two things: (1) They wish to have the terms of the lease revealed to them in writing and (2) they want to be noticed of the appeal process. He mentioned that the Homeowners Association appreciates the great deal of investigation performed by the Commission and the Staff. Commissioner Mowlds asked Mr. Cameron if he realized that the pole will remain whether or not this particular project is approved. PacTel is merely asking to change for an antenna change. Mr. Cameron said that he understood, but the homeowners in the area wanted to take the opportunity to come before the Commission protest the monopole that they find objectionable. They also want to stress that as more antennas are added the visual blight worsens. He also expressed his disappointment that there appeared to be no recourse for the homeowners to have this pole removed. Chairman Katherman expressed the Commission's sympathy in this situation and asked about the alternate site. Mr. Cameron explained that he and Mr. Brown had walked up to the property above Mr. Cameron's home on the crestline right below the golf course. Apparently the problem with the site, according to Mr. Brown, is that there is no vehicular access, which would be PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 6 needed about every 4-6 weeks. Commissioner Mowlds asked if Mr. Cameron had attempted to check the records to see why the monopole was placed at its current location or if the site he is proposing would accommodate the area PacTel is trying to serve. Mr. Cameron said that he had not and that, since he is not a technician, he cannot be sure that his suggested site would work. Commissioner Lorenzen asked Mr. Cameron if painting the pole a different color would help the situation. Mr. Cameron said that the current. color (light blue) is probably the best choice. Marie Rohrbacker, 30950 Via La Cresta, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Rohrbacker stated that she had obtained a copy of the City's view ordinance and felt that this pole should be judged on the same standards. Therefore the pole should be harmonious, compatible in the neighborhood, in the neighborhood character, and should not significantly impair anyone's view. She stated that she realized that the pole is not going to come down but she too felt this was the only opportunity residents in her neighborhood have had to speak against the pole in the five years it has been there. Lois Large, 3136 Barkentine Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Larue expressed her concern about cellular telephones since so little is known about their safety and she wanted to go on record as opposed to this project. She added that, even though she does not live where she can see this pole, she does believe it is unsightly, as are the City Hall facilities. Ms. Larue also questioned whether or not there was a quorum of the Planning Commission present to hear this item. Chairman Katherman stated that the fourth member was present in the room but not voting. Ms. Larue replied that she did not think that made a quorum. Additionally, Ms. Larue commented that, since the people of the City voted in a view ordinance, the people on Via La Cresta and Sunset Ridge should be entitled to have their views protected by the City. Because two speakers have brought up the View Restoration ordinance, Planning Administrator Petru clarified, for the benefit of the audience and the Commission, that the View Restoration ordinance applies only to single family residential structures. There is different criteria in the Code for evaluating conditional PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 7 Use Permit applications. One aspect of that criteria is whether or not the project will cause adverse effects to surrounding property, and views could certainly be put in that category, but the speakers are citing an incorrect portion of the Code when related to this application. Mr. Brown returned to the podium and said that he did look at Mr. Cameron's proposed relocation site, but there is no way to provide vehicular access to that site. Mr. Brown contacted the golf course and they were not interested in providing access. It is his opinion that installing the monopole in this location would probably impact views of the residents located behind the golf course. Chairman Katherman agreed that, unfortunately, wherever the pole was located, it is going to interfere with someone's view. Chairman Katherman commented that Ms. Larue has raised an interesting point that had already been discussed. The Planning Commission has rules of procedure for maintaining a quorum. Because one of the Commissioners has excused herself, in order to be safe and fully comply with the rules of procedures, he suggested that the public hearing should be closed and continue this matter to the next meeting on January 11, 1994. Director Bernard said that if the hearing is closed, the Commission cannot hear further testimony. Planning Administrator Petru added that a new public notice would be required in order to allow further testimony at a later date. Chairman Katherman wondered if further testimony is necessary; his feeling was that the Commissioners who were absent this evening could listen to the tape in order to qualify themselves to vote. Planning Administrator Petru suggested that leaving the hearing open would give the Commission the most flexibility. Commissioner Lorenzen made a motion to leave the public hearing open and continue this matter to January 11, 1994, and it was seconded by Commissioner Mowlds. Approved (3-0) with Commissioner Hayes abstaining as she had excused herself from the discusion because of the proximity of her home to the site. Commissioner Lorenzen mentioned that he was under the impression from the November 9 meeting that Staff was going to provide a drawing illustrating the maximum number of antennas that could be placed on the pole. Chairman Katherman agreed and recalled that antennas for L.A. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 8 Cellular and NexTel were going to be added to see the cumulative effect. Director Bernard commented that this can be done, but it may not represent the absolute maximum. Southern California Edison is requesting installation of antennas and there might be additional requests. Future interest cannot be anticipated. Chairman Katherman replied that, even so, it might be possible to look at reasonable expectations. He asked if Staff wished to discuss Southern California Edison's request or if these comments would appear in the January 11, 1994 Staff Report. Associate Planner Jerex explained that Staff had received the information from Southern California Edison only this morning and has not had a opportunity to analyze it. Commissioner Mowlds agreed that there was to be more information provided and he was curious to see what the buildout might be. He suggest that Staff could just draw in the anticipated antennas on the photograph. Mr. Brown indicated that there was a blow-up which shows the proposed PacTel antenna change as well as L.A. Cellular's and NexTells current configurations. Those were all of the antennas known at the time and Southern California Edison, of course, had not made its request yet. Commissioner Mowlds commented that this is not what was requested because it does not indicate anticipated antenna changes by L. A. Cellular and NexTel. Associate Planner Jerex said that the Staff Report did include information from L.A. Cellular and NexTel as to what type of antennas the would like to add in the next three to five years. Mr. Gobble returned to the podium to say that Edison has learned in working with PacTel that there are 14 cubic inches of space available in the middle of the pole and 13 inches are occupied with antennas. Their engineers have indicated that Edison would be the last to have space on the top of the pole, as there is room for only one more antenna. He did not know the capacity of the lower sections of the pole. Chairman Katherman clarified that the pole is divided into thirds and Edison's antennas would be placed on the top third. Mr. Gobble also expressed his concern about postponing this decision until January 11, 1994 and asked if Staff could be allowed to approve minor modifications so that Edison could proceed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 9 Chairman Katherman said that he appreciated Mr. Gobble's position, but that any direction the commission would give that evening would be non-binding with only three votes. Associate Planner Jerex asked if the additional antennas should be drawn on the photographs taken from a distance or the closer ones. Chairman Katherman answered that the photographs taken from the closer position should be better used to depict the proposed antennas. PUBLIC HEARING VIIA. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96 - REVISION "B" AND MISCELLANEOUS HEARING• St. John Fisher Catholic Church, 5448 Crest Road. (KK) Assistant Planner Klopfenstein read the Staff Report. Saint John Fisher Church is proposing to add 1,004 sq. ft. to the sanctuary, to construct a two-story elevator, and to build a freestanding 70, bell tower with three bells and a 151 galvanized steel cross atop the tower (a total of 851 high). Staff has surveyed churches on the peninsula to determine height of bell towers and frequency of bell ringing. A detailed summary of the survey findings were distributed to the Commissioners. The towers range in height from 101 to 731 and four out of the 15 churches surveyed have bells that are rung on a regular basis. Staff provided the following options to the Planning Commission for modification to the proposed bell tower: (1) Reduce the height of the tower to 501, with a 151 cross for a total height of 651. (2) Require a time limitation for the use of the bells. Staff recommended that, if allowed, they be used on Sundays and special occasions only and that the hours be restricted to 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM. (3) Any illumination of the bell tower shall require a Site Plan Review and shall be subject to review and approval by the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement. Staff recommended, if allowed, that the lights should be turned off by 10:00 PM except for special occasions. Commissioner Mowlds asked the height of the bell tower at the Morman (LDS) church on Crestridge Road. Assistant Planner Klopfenstein stated that Staff was unable to contact that particular church. Additionally, the plans were not PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 10 available at City Hall because the church was constructed prior to incorporation. However, after consulting the photo board, her opinion was that the bell tower at the Morman Church is probably about 50-601, based on the fact that the adjacent Peninsula Baptist Church's steeple is 681. Commissioner Mowlds asked if St. Lawrence Church in Redondo Beach and Holy Trinity Church in San Pedro were contacted in order to make a comparison with other Catholic churches. Assistant Planner Klopf enstein replied that only churches on the peninsula were included in the survey. Commissioner Mowlds questioned restricting ringing of the bells from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM. He spoke to Monsignor Gill, the pastor at St. John Fisher and, apparently, there is significant attendance at a 6:00 PM Sunday service. commissioner Mowlds asked if the bell schedule could be altered to include this service. Director Bernard clarified that this time period was just one the options felt that after 5:00 PM, adjacent residents might be trying to settle down for the evening. Commissioner Mowlds asked if the cross at the height of 851 would be visible from the corner of Crenshaw Boulevard and Crest Road and, if so, how much would it have to be to be lowered in order to be unseen from this location? Assistant Planner Klopfenstein answered that, in her opinion, placing the cross any higher than 36-401 would make it visible from this corner. However, there are mature trees on the site which would partially screen it. Director Bernard added that Staff felt a height of 60-651 would be more appropriate than the requested 851 because it would be more consistent with other churches on the peninsula, particularly those in Rancho Palos Verdes. At this point, Chairman Katherman indicated that he has, in the past, worked for the Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles performing land use planning,and that, even though he has not worked for St. John Fisher parish, he feels he should excuse himself from this matter since the property is owned by the archdiocese. He asked Co -Vice -Chairperson Hayes to take over the proceedings and then he left the dais. Co -Vice -Chairperson Hayes opened the public hearing. Daniel Young, 118 S. Catalina, Redondo Beach, architect representing St. John Fisher. He stated that he was available for technical questions and that the pastor, Monsignor Gill, was PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 11 present also. He began to discuss the project as a whole but Commissioner Mowlds requested that Mr. Young address the tower and the bells, as there appeared to be no controversy regarding the other aspects of the proposal. He stated that they have read the Staff conditions and agree for the most part. It is possible that a carillon might be installed rather than bells. He passed around a visual simulation showing the 85' height of the bell tower as it would be seen from the corner of Crest Road and Crenshaw Boulevard. He felt that, because of the large grove of mature trees at the perimeter, the bell tower will not be highly visible from that perspective. Therefore, Mr. Young disagreed with Staff's proposed reduction in the height of the bell tower. A discussion ensued regarding the height of the tower. Mr. Young indicated that the height was selected purely for aesthetic reasons. Commissioner Lorenzen said that he believes the bell tower might be out of scale to the rest of the building. Mr. Young replied that a reduction in the tower height might be agreeable but that Monsignor would have the final word. Douglas Butler, 54127 Valley View Road, Rancho Palos Verdes, resides adjacent to the church. Mr. Butler stated that he feels the bell tower would have a substantial visual negative affect on the neighborhood and added that if the purpose of the bell tower is for site identification within the grounds of the church, it does not need to be 851 or even 50' high. A simple cross on top of the building would adequately identify the sanctuary on the property. He also noted his objection to bells ringing, even on Sunday. He commented that the land next to the church is dedicated open space. The Rancho Crest Homeowners Association owns and maintains the hillside but is not allowed to build on it. He stressed that this is a rural neighborhood and the bell tower and bells would not be compatible. Most of the other churches referenced in the Staff Report are not surrounded by homes; they face other churches or businesses. He requested that the Commission deny the proposal to build a bell tower and allow the ringing of bells. Commissioner Mowlds said that it was his impression that the church wanted the cross to be seen offsite and asked if Mr. Butler objected to seeing a cross. Mr. Butler said that it is not objectionable to see a tower and/or a church normally, but it is objectionable on this particular site because this church is in a rural neighborhood and that historically, church bell towers in Europe are the center of the neighborhood, their purpose to call people together in the town. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 12 This church here that is not the center of Rancho Palos Verdes; it is surrounded by homes. St. John Fisher is on the crest of the Palos Verdes hill so this bell tower will be seen from all the homes in the area and the bells will intrude upon the quiet neighborhood. He repeated that it was his understanding from the Staff Report that the purpose of the tower was not to identify the site to the City, but only to identify it on site. Commissioner Mowlds noted that Mr. Butler's letter mentioned wildlife in the area. Mr. Butler stated that the dedicated open space owned by Rancho Crest Homeowners Association is approximately 16 acres in size and serves as a habitat for local wildlife. He is concerned that the noise from the bells will drive out the small animals who inhabit this area. Carl Anselmo, 5249 Valley View Road, Rancho Palos Verdes, member of the Rancho Crest Homeowners Association. Mr. Anselmo stated that he and his wife bought a home in this neighborhood nine years ago because it was a rural area with wildlife. There has been a gradual increase in noise pollution from more traffic and an increase in the number of residents in the area. He expressed his opinion that the ringing of bells would substantially add to the noise level and that the height of the tower was out of character for the neighborhood and for the peninsula in general. Alan Weissman, 5306 Valley View Road, Rancho Palos Verdes, member of the Rancho Crest Homeowners Association. He stated that in 1986, when he was President Homeowners Association, there was an agreement with the City of Rancho Palos Verdes whereby the residents gave up the use of curbs because the City wanted to stress the rural environment. As a result of giving up the curb, they also gave up the ability to have that street cleaned, but believed it was a fair tradeoff at the time. He stated his belief that, due to the proposed height of the tower, it will be visible to all 32 homes directly behind it. He was also concerned about the illumination of the tower. He felt the tower's presence will decrease the value of the homes because it detracts from the rural environment. He also objected to bells ringing at 8:00 AM on a Sunday in addition to the singing they already hear and, during the weekdays, the construction noise from the church. Joan Olenick, 5431 Valley View Road, Rancho Palos Verdes, resident behind the church. Ms. Olenick expressed concern about noise pollution. She stated that, during church services, she can hear the singing and it is especially disturbing if she wants to sleep past 7:00, 8:00, or 9:00 AM on a Sunday. Ms. Olenick mention her concern regarding low-flying helicopters and suggested that a light be placed on top of the proposed 851 tower. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 13 Commissioner Mowlds stated that he understood her concern about the noise and asked Ms. Olenick if she minded looking at a tower. Ms. Olenick replied that she does not think the tower will look attractive from her back windows and yard. Commissioner Mowlds asked if she minded looking at a cross and she replied that it was merely the height of the cross that concerned her. Commissioner Hayes asked the applicant to please come forward for rebuttal. Monsignor Gill, 5448 Crest Road, Rancho Palos Verdes (pastor of St. John Fisher Church), stated that he was very appreciative of the remarks of his neighbors and that the church wanted to be a good neighbor, as well. He added that he had read the Staff Report and the recommended conditions of approval are acceptable. He corrected a statement made by one of the speakers; there is no construction currently taking place at St. John Fisher. Planning Administrator Petru clarified that the construction is on the adjacent property, owned by the Daughters of Mary and Joseph. Commissioner Mowlds asked if the Commission could approve the proposed additions to the church building most of the proposal and address the bell tower later as a separate item. Director Bernard said that in order to follow Commissioner Mowld's suggestion, the church would have to submit a separate application just for the bell tower. He suggested that the Commission could take a straw vote to give an indication of agreement with everything, but the bell tower. There was further discussion among the commissioners regarding the survey of churches in the area, the height of towers, which ones have bells, and their location in respect to residential areas. Commissioner Lorenzen expressed an interest in being provided with ,,a visualization of the tower at a height of 501. Director Bernard suggested that Staff put up a balloon at that height and take photographs from the surrounding area. The Commission agreed that was a good idea. A motion was made by Commissioner Mowlds and seconded by Commissioner Lorenzen to continue this item until January 11, 1994. The motion passed (3-0) with Chairman Katherman abstaining as he had excused himself from the discussion because of work he had previously performed for the Los Angeles Catholic Archdiocese. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 14 There was a break from 9:15 to 9:35 PM. VIIB. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 178, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 658; Steve Saporito, 28732 Highridge Road. (DJ) Associate Planner Jerex read the Staff Report. This proposal is for a 6 -bay automotive repair facility located on a currently vacant site at the northeast corner of Crestridge and Highridge Roads. Based on the recently adopted Automotive Service Overlay Control District, an automotive repair service use is an allowable use with a Conditional Use Permit. Based on' the fact that this site is zoned Institutional (one of eight Automobile Service Overlay Control District site regarding General Plan Amendment No. 21), and is surrounded by Institutional and Residential Zones, Staff has made specific recommendations including noise levels, aesthetics, positioning of the building, hazardous waste disposal, and requirements for storm water and drainage runoff. Staff's recommendations include mitigation measures which are proposed as part of the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration under consideration this evening. A few comment letters were received requesting that a full Environmental Impact Report be prepared for this project. However, based on Staff's review of the project in accordance with CEQA, including comments received from public agencies regarding the project, Staff was not able to make a recommendation that an EIR should be required. On another note, it was brought to the attention of Staff that the Staff Report stated that the applicant submitted a petition to the City with the signatures of 246 Peninsula residents supporting this project. It should be clarified that the petition actually supported the Automotive Service Overlay Control District for each of the eight sites under consideration at the time and did not relate solely to this project. Staff received 15 additional comments letters yesterday and today, which are being provided to the Commission at this time. Due to the number of letters received at this late date, Staff was not able to provide the commission with a full analysis of the issues presented in the letters. Steve Saporito, 28004 Ridgebluff, Rancho Palos Verdes, applicant. Mr. Saporito agreed with most of Staff's recommendations; however, there were two items he wanted to discuss. (1) Noise Level: Mr. Saporito stated that he purchased a decibel meter and performed tests on the site intersection on several PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 15 occasions. Traffic noise at the nearest residential property ranged from 68 to 79 decibels with an occasional reading of 90 decibels or more when a bus and or trash truck passed by. Staff recommends approximately 60-70 decibels as a noise maximum at this facility and he agrees to this maximum. Mr. Saporito feels that his operation will not be as noisy as it might have been a few years ago. Most of the new cars are made with aluminum and plastic and do not require a lot of impact tools. Hand tools are used for 90% of the work. (2) Closed Doors & Windows: Mr. Saporito reported that, after doing extensive research and because of his own past experience, he has made a judgment that is an unrealistic request. Guidelines set for the 1991 Builders Guide Code #705 for maintaining safe levels of carbon monoxide in work areas recommend that 84,000 cubic feet of air per minute would have to be circulated for proper ventilation. Mr. Saporito received information from W.W. Grainger, in Illinois, who manufactures ventilating systems for underground parking garages and mechanical shops. They state that a fan capable of moving that volume of air would produce 80-82 decibels of noise at a constant level. Additionally, a 112 sq. ft. ventilation opening would be needed. Mr. Saporito believes this is not a feasible option and requested that the doors and windows be left open to maintain a safe environment for his employees. He reported that a station in Minnesota operated in the wintertime with closed doors and several people died from carbon monoxide poisoning. Commissioner Mowlds agreed that the fans would be noisy and would not be feasible. He asked Mr. Saporito if, with the doors open, he can keep the noise level at the 65 decibels at the property line. Mr. Saporito said that he could and that be believes the traffic noise will blend in with the repair shop noise. Commissioner Hayes said that there is probably some concern that, with the doors open, passersby could look in and it seemed to her that the canopies might camouflage this somewhat. Mr. Saporito said that he spent a good deal of time designing the building with appearance in mind and the way the proposed facility is situated on the lot, there is a much smaller opening for viewing by the public than the previous facility had. Chairman Katherman and Mr. Saporito had a discussion comparing Mr. Saporito's former gasoline filling station with his proposed auto repair shop. It was mentioned that Mr. Saporito's filling station had three bays (the new shop will have six) and he operated it from 1984 until April 1992. He provided at the filling station a wide range of mechanical repairs, no body work, and that his proposed PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 15 shop will perform the same type of repairs. His filling station was open from 6:00 AM to 10:00 PM, with auto repair being performed from approximate 7:30 AM to 7:30 PM, Monday through Saturday, closing early at 5:00 PM on Saturday. The new facility would be open for repair work from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM. Commissioner Mowlds asked Mr. Saporito if he was planning to have the new facility open before 8:00 AM and after 5:00 PM to enable customers to drop off and pick up their cars. Mr. Saporito said there are two ways to handle this and he is agreeable to either method. (1) Customers may drop their car keys through a slot with a note and verbally approve the work by telephone or (2) One man may come in 30 to 45 minutes early to fill out work orders. There would be no repair work during that time, just paperwork. Commissioner Lorenzen asked Mr. Saporito he had considered locating the building closer to the street in order for cars to park in the back to reduce noise and approve the appearance of the facility. Mr. Saporito said that had been considered but the lot is not square and, the way it is designed, there can be 10 cars parked in enclosed or covered areas, four under the canopies and six in the bays. The only other cars which would remain throughout the day, would be employee cars. Mr. Saporito noted that he is planning to install 4811 planters by the two driveways on Crestridge and Highridge to screen the cars and there will also be a 91 masonry wall along the common property line with the Terraces residential area to screen the cars and provide a sound barrier. He agrees with Staff that all cars should be pulled inside at night. Cars can be broken into and this would represent an expense to him. Also, customers prefer this arrangement. Tom Beller, 109 Aspen Way, Rolling Hills Estates, resident of The Terraces, adjacent to the site. Mr. Beller stated that he has lived in the neighborhood for 20 years and has been doing business with Mr. Saporito for a number of years. He has found that Mr. Saporito operates a very clean facility and offers a reliable independent auto service that is needed on the Peninsula. Jim Koehler, 95 Aspen Way, Rolling Hills Estates, resident of The Terraces. Mr. Koehler stated that he had used Mr. Saporito's filling station for auto repairs for a number of years and found it to be very convenient. Mr. Koehler believes that probably the biggest concern is the visual impact of something like this in the community but Mr. Saporito's proposed facility is surrounded on three sides by huge walls and foliage. Mr. Koehler expressed his opinion that there would be less traffic with the auto repair shop rather than the filling station because these are established PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 17 customers, probably three to four per day, as opposed to many more coming to the gasoline pumps. Mr. Koehler said that he believed Mr. Saporito's new shop would be a benefit and convenience to the nearby residents. Colonel Edward Hall - 48 Cottonwood Circle, Rolling Hills Estates, resident of The Terraces. Colonel Hall stated that he was on the Terraces Homeowners Association Board of Directors for 11 years and President for 5 years up until 1990. He reports that, during that entire period, there was not one serious complaint against Mr. Saporito. The previous building was made of steel building and the proposed structure will be built of cinder block which should reduce noise. Furthermore, at that time, air driven impact tools were required; whereas today, cars are constructed of gather thin metal and most of the work is performed with hand tools. There were complaints of compressor noise but compressors today are much quieter; furthermore, the compressors do not run at night. Colonel Hall commented that the relationship between Mr. Saporito and his customers, which include Colonel Hall, is unusual; there! is a great deal of trust and the customers hope Mr. Saporito will be allowed to provide this auto repair service at this convenient location. Carol Davis, 16 Sycamore Lane, Rolling Hills Estates, a resident of The Terraces. Ms. Davis stated that she has lived in the neighborhood for 16 years and that she has been a customer of Mr. Saporito's for some time. She felt that there were never any problems and that Mr. Saporito provided wonderful service. She said that she was happy to have auto repair available on that corner, especially with the exodus of this type of facility off the hill. Bill Meyers, 28103 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Meyers reiterated that the decibel level of 65-70 mentioned by Mr. Saporito appears to be very realistic. He stated that the level of 50 decibels is probably less than the conversation in tonight's meeting. William Potter, 29126 Oceanridge Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Potter mentioned that he had lived in the area for 27 years and has been doing business with Mr. Saporito since he opened. He said he feels it is great to have an honest, competent mechanic and that the only change is that this facility will no longer sell gasoline. Mr. Potter recommended that the Planning Commission approve this facility and let Mr. Saporito get on with his plans. Jo Landau, 2 Hillcrest Meadows, Rolling Hills Estates, resident across the street from the site. Ms. Landau is a Planning Commissioner for the City of Rolling Hills Estates; however, she stated that she was not representing the City tonight, only herself and her husband. She requested that the Planning Commission deny PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 18 the Negative Declaration and the Conditional Use Permit. She explained that this is a land use issue - it is not about the applicant's character - and that the needs of this area have changed. The service station has been closed for over a year and a half; residents have found other sources for gasoline and auto repair. Ms. Landau expressed her opinion that this commercial facility is incompatible with the residential neighborhood and that community compatibility is essential in order to preserve and enhance the landscape. She commented that nowhere in our country does an auto repair facility exist in harmony with a rural, upscale residential neighborhood and that there is a significant difference between a gas station offering minor repair and a full-scale auto repair facility, which will have a significant negative effect on our environment. Ms. Landau admitted that she is not qualified to judge the degree of that impact but neither is the applicant, the Commission, or the City. She suggested a full Environmental Impact Report be done. Ms. Landau mentioned that noise is one of her primary concerns and, while she acknowledged traffic in the area, this is not the issue. Noise from auto repair facilities with air impact tools, compressors, and the revving of engines is the issue. It has been recommended that the noise level should be held at 50 decibels. She questioned whether a letter from the applicant supporting higher noise levels, based on his questioned study, is sufficient grounds to increase the decibel level. Ms. Landau said that she disagreed with the applicant's environmental information checklist, which was accepted and supported by the Planning Department. He is planning to build an automotive repair site and the former site was a gasoline station. She stressed that environmental questions should be directed at the current use of the land, not the use in the past. If this environmental study is not done, she recommended that the Commission and deny the Negative Declaration and the Conditional Use Permit. A discussion ensued between Ms. Landau and commissioner Mowlds regarding the fact that Commissioner Mowlds has personal knowledge of several very upscale residential communities in the eastern part of the United States which co -exist with exactly the type of facility Mr. Saporito has proposed. Commissioner Mowlds told Ms. Landau that the Commission is directing its environmental concerns based on the fact that the property's land use is designated and zoned for an auto repair station, while she, in turn, views it as an empty lot, which it is now. Ms. Landau said that the environmental checklist asks if the project will have any affect on thecarea and, if you compare it to an empty lot, the answer has to be yes. She stated that she believes a fair approach is to look at area as it is today, not like it was 1 1/2 years ago. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 19 Commissioner Hayes commented that Ms. Landau must understand that this property was only cleared and made a vacant lot in order to eliminate the soil that was contaminated so this is not really an empty lot; it is a lot in limbo. Ms. Landau said the lot was cleared and Union Oil decided not to rebuild the filling station. Commissioner Hayes said that did not change the zoning. Bob Whitman, 10 Hillcrest Meadows, Rolling Hills Estates, representing the Hillcrest Homeowners Association as a Member of the Board of Directors. Mr. Whitman said that he could echo the majority of the things that Ms. Landau mentioned so he would not repeat those issues. He wanted to discuss the Staff Report which refers to this project as a new use. The burden of proof statement states that the previous use was an automotive repair with the sale of gasoline. The new use is a automotive repair shop with six bays, not three bays and it is facing in the opposite direction, directly at Hillcrest Meadows. Mr. Whitman explained that he lived in the neighborhood when the filling station was in operation and there was little noise from the facility because gas sales were small. He indicated that he bought gas at the station on a number of occasions and did not remember one time that there was another customer there. Therefore, it is his opinion that removing the gas pumps will not make the operation quieter. He said that he believes the new use will have an adverse affect on adjacent properties. He indicated that, in his opinion, there were a number of errors or misrepresentations in the environmental checklist. For example, Question 22 asked if there will be a change in pattern, scale or character of general area of the project and the answer was no. His feeling is that there is a definite change in the character of the project. Question 26 asked if there will be a substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity and the answer was no and he felt it should be yes. Question 39 asked about the possibility of more noise. The answer was no and it should be yes, particularly for the properties to the west of the proposed facility. Question 51 asked if the proposal will result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view. He said he realized this could be a matter of controversy but to the nearby residents, the answer is yes, because before the cars faced the opposite direction, toward the church parking lot and now they will face directly at Hillcrest Meadows and Wallace Ranch. He added that the Staff Report states that there will not be a significant effect because of the mitigation of measures described; PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 20 however, Mr. Whitman said he feels many of the mitigation measures, particularly those dealing with noise, allows the applicant to back out. Mr. Whitman described his professional background. He is an engineer with acoustics and dynamics experts working for him for many years. At this time, he has five acoustic engineers, three of whom have PhD's, and one of whom is approved by the FAA to determine acceptability of aircraft noise. This particular engineer reviewed this report and feels that there totally open issues. He pointed out that a company would possibly tell a person what they wanted to hear regarding the ventilation system which was mentioned and the noise it would produce. Mr. Saporito's single design of 82 decibels is not adequate; there are ways to suppress sound. He added that the measurement of 65-70 decibels might be acceptable for a city with noise from streets, freeways, furnaces, etc., but that is not the environment of Palos Verdes, where the background noise level is very low. Therefore, he feels the information has been distorted and that if the Commission does not do a full environmental study, they are placing themselves in jeopardy with regard to the noise issue. Roslyn Shapiro, 4 Hillcrest Meadows, Rolling Hills Estates. Mrs. Shapiro said that she was having difficulty understanding the rationale for supporting a proposal to construct an obvious commercial operation in the midst of a prime residential neighborhood. She expressed concern that this facility threatens to bring numerous hazards into the community, particularly those involving pollution and noise and that this will certainly have an effect on real estate value of the homes in the immediate area. She stated that she had lived in many similar neighborhoods all over the country and, in none of those communities, was a commercial endeavor such as this been permitted to co -exist in an upscale residential neighborhood. She commented that those facilities were always on a major thoroughfares within the business district and feels there are more appropriate locations within the peninsula to build this auto repair facility. Dr. Warren Shapiro, 4 Hillcrest Meadows, Rolling Hills Estates. Dr. Shapiro stated that he came to the meeting to respectfully request a full Environmental Impact Report for this site and to express his opposition to the Negative Declaration. He explained that he has a PhD in molecular design of drugs and the study of pharmacology and toxology and this background, coupled with 25 years of industrial experience, has provided him with extensive interaction with the EPA, the FDA, California EPA and OSHA and an understanding of how chemicals can affect the environment. Many of the products used in an auto repair facility require a California PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 21 Proposition 65 warning which states that "they contain chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer or birth defects". Dr. Shapiro pointed out that the September 21 letter from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works pointed out that a Negative Declaration must identify in detail measures for waste reduction, recycling, and construction waste. The letter also expressed concern regarding hazardous waste and a previous letter discussed a possible threat to water or public health. It is his opinion that these issues have not been addressed in detail. He made known his agreement with the Environmental Assessment Report requirement that noise levels be limited to 50 decibels. Dr. Shapiro summarized that he feels this facility is not appropriate for this residential area. Commissioner Mowlds asked Dr. Shapiro if he was concerned that this site might produce hydrocarbons or something else detrimental to the population. Dr. Shapiro said that he is worried that some of the chemicals used such as those used for cleaning carburetors, flushing out an engine, or repairing a leaking gas tank, might get into the waste water stream and the atmosphere. A discussion ensued between Commissioner Mowlds and Dr. Shapiro regarding the hazards of an auto repair facility being located in the midst of a residential area and the government agencies who regulate businesses such as this. Lily Woncf, 8 Hillcrest Meadows, Rolling Hills Estates. She stated she is at the meeting to support her neighbors and that she is against the project. Jack Harper, 22 Aspen Way, Rolling Hills Estates. Mr. Harper wanted to correct a statement that was made earlier and said that there were air compressors running at night. He also wanted to express his concern about noise - from air impact tools used for changing tires, hammering on metal, possibly a loud radio, increased traffic, engines, and probably a security system. He added that the drawing being presented does not illustrate any security lights or receptacle cans for hazardous waste disposal and these items will have visual impact. He commented that the neighborhood is clearly residential, and, within a one -mile radius of this site, there are five other full service stations. It is his opinion that this facility will reduce property values in the neighborhood. Mr. Harper offered to play a one -minute tape recording of the sound of air impact tools used to change tires but the Commission declined as they felt it was impossible to duplicate the noise which might be heard by the residents near the proposed auto repair facility. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 22 However, Chairman Katherman did agree with Mr. Harper that noise pollution is a big issue and something that the Commission needs to address seriously. Commissioner Hayes asked Mr. Harper if the air compressors ran all night? Mr. Harper said that they were not on all night. The air compressor would come on for approximately 10 to 15 minutes and then stop for 1 1/2 to 2 hours. As the pressure bled off, the compressor would come on again. Commissioner Hayes asked if there couldn't be a restriction on the hours the compressor could be on. Mr. Harper answered that the compressors were probably on because no complaints were received from the residents. He explained that he had not complained because the station was there when he moved in but if this facility is built, he feels sure the noise will return. Jane Hejna, 1 Via La Cima, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Hejna expressed her agreement with the last few speakers.- She said that she and her husband bought gas at the Union station because it was convenient and they liked the man who ran it. She said her first reaction was that this facility would lessen the attractive appearance of the area but she was horrified at what has been said regarding pollution and noise. Susan Fairchild, 23 Aspen Way, Rolling Hills Estates. Ms. Fairchild stated that she has lived on the peninsula for 30 years and although she does not doubt the integrity of the applicant, she feels that the proposed use is no longer compatible with the area. She explained that she has a Bachelors degree in environmental science, has been working in the automotive service industry for several years, and is very well aware of the potential environmental impacts associated with an auto repair shop with regard to noise, hazardous waste, and aesthetics. She stressed that she is not saying that the proposed facility necessarily will have any serious negative impact; however, she added that she would prefer that a full environmental impact statement be prepared by a qualified third party consulting firm before the applicant's proposal is approved because she believes there has not been enough research. Ms. Fairchild mentioned that a previous speaker commented that the facility will only take care of four to five cars per day and it is her opinion that, in today's economy, if the applicant is serving less than ten cars per day, he will not survive. She feels that the applicant probably intends to do some kind of quick service similar to a Jiffy Lube operation, which will create a lot of volume. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 23 Commissioner Mowlds asked Ms. Fairchild if, with her expertise, she could predict how many cars might go in one day. Ms. Fairchild replied that any qualified person would not give an answer without some research; however, she felt sure that the applicant's business plan provides an estimate. Mario Palladini, 13 Hillcrest Meadows Rolling Hills Estates. Mr. Palladini said that he had lived on the peninsula for two years and previously in Redondo Beach for ten years. He stated that he had moved to the peninsula because of his concerned about density and noise pollution and because he wanted to live in the one area left in the South Bay that has some space, clean air, and a rural feeling. He stressed that it is very rare when a City Council or a Planning Commission has the opportunity to improve upon the environment and this is one of those instances. He requested that the Planning Commission require an Environmental Impact Report. George Thompson, 30 Hillcrest Meadows, Rolling Hills Estates. Mr. Thompson said that he had lived on the peninsula for over 25 years and two years at his current residence. He stated that he was a concerned citizen with no technical expertise to express his protest of this project; he just feels the facility is inappropriate for the area. At this point, Chairman Katherman said that since it was near 11:00 PM and there was still have one item of new business to discuss, he suggested that this item be taken care of after a rebuttal from Mr. Saporito. After the new -business item was decided, the discussion would continue regarding the auto repair facility. Mr. Saporito explained that it would be very costly to run an electric compressor on a 24-hour basis and his procedure was to shut the compressor off at night. In reference to commercial facilities in residential areas he said that Rancho Palos Verdes has this situation in the Westmont Plaza area and there are similar situations in the affluent communities of Beverly Hills, Los Feliz, and San Marino. He added that as far as environmental impacts, all hazardous materials are stored above ground and he has to follow specific guidelines and regulations and is checked on a regular basis. Mr. Saporito explained that the plans show that, in the area between the two bay openings, the above ground storage tanks and the compressor are enclosed in a brick casing. The trash situation has been handled through Staff's recommendations and he indicated there was no problem complying. on the subject of aesthetics, he expressed his opinion that the new facility is a considerable improvement over the previous gas station designed in 1966. Mr. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 24 Saporito emphasized that he took on the added expense to design the building carefully because he has lived in the area for years he does not want to be associated with any kind of hazards. Commissioner Hayes made a motion to close the public hearing and it was seconded by Commissioner Mowlds. Approved (4-0). At this point, Chairman Katherman moved on to the New Business item. NEW BUSINESS VIIIA. MISCELLANEOUS HEARING• Lucky Markets, 28500 Western Avenue. (FF) Chairman Katherman commented that presentation of the Staff Report was not necessary and asked the applicant's representative come forward. Keith Martinez, 1833 Victory Blvd., Glendale (architect for applicant). Mr. Martinez stated that he was present for questions. Chairman Katherman asked if he had read the recommended conditions of approval. Mr. Martinez stated that the recommended conditions were acceptable. Commissioner Mowlds made a motion to approve the request which was seconded by Commissioner Lorenzen. The motion was approved by acclamation without objection. (4-0) CONTINUED BUSINESS, (continued) VIIB. Conditional Use Permit No. 178, et. al After a five-minute break, the discussion resumed regarding Mr. Saporito's proposed auto repair station, Commissioner Hayes acknowledged that noise pollution, aesthetics, and density seem to be the primary concerns, but the fact is that there are few pieces of commercial property on this side of the Jhill to provide these kind of services. In addition, from the favorable response received by many residents, it appears that they would like these types of businesses conveniently provided. Commissioner Mowlds asked Staff if a number of local agencies were contacted who commented on ene environmental aspects of this project. Associate Planner Jerex confirmed that 40 agencies were contacted, some of them during the research for the overlay control district (I am guessing about this - tape was hard to understand). There PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 25 were no significant problems anticipated. The Los Angeles County Department of Public Works sent a no -comment letter. (something was mentioned about drainage runoff - couldn't understand it on the tape) The comments of these local agencies were taken into account in the evaluation. Commissioner Mowlds remembered that there were quite a few Environmental Impact Reports and Negative Declarations during the last year, and he asked if Staff's past experience has provided them with general information to be used in the evaluation of this particular project. Conditions of approval include comments made by the County with regard to the county with regard to their review of the overlay Control District. The County has strict requirements for hazardous waste disposal and storage and there will be a continuing overseeing by the County throughout the life of the project if approved. The conditions also require that all the permits required by the county must be obtained before the issuance of any building permits by the City. Commissioner Lorenzen expressed his concern regarding the increase in size of the new facility from the original service station. He also questioned the position of the building on the lot because the new building would be facing in the opposite direction. Associate Planner Jerex replied that the total lot coverage of the building is about 26%, a somewhat larger percentage than the previous facility. Chairman Katherman asked about was the size of the previous building. Associate Planner Jerex answered that she did not recall the exact square footage but believed it was approximately 2500 square feet. Mr. Saporito added, that if he was not mistaken, that the new building, including the canopies was pretty close to the size of the old building. The comparable size of the new and old buildings takes into account the canopies. Because there was a side canopy (there are pictures) and a big canopy out in front, the actual square footage on those two canopies included with those three bays and the office of the old building are pretty close to what this is. Commissioner Lorenzen asked for confirmation that there were three bays and now there will be six. Mr. Saporito said yes, he understands that this is being considered PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 26 a six -bay shop. He stated that he traded canopy space for work space. He added that he was under the impression that he was allowed a 500 sq. ft. expansion. Associate Planner Jerex confirmed that a 500 sq. ft. expansion, is permissible. Chairman Katherman asked how the six bays work and did Mr. Saporito have floor plans. Mr. Saporito explained with illustrations that he will have the capability of putting two cars behind each set of double doors. Chairman Katherman questioned Mr. Saporito regarding the possibility of arranging the bays similar to the way the filling stations were, facing the church rather than the opposite direction. Associate Planner Jerex stated that, based on the information received from Mr. Saporito, this configuration appeared to the best for mitigating impacts to the neighborhood. Chairman Katherman wondered how the decibel standard, when it finally determined, would be enforced. Director Bernard said possibly the City might purchase a decibel meter and train someone in its use; that would probably be most preferable. Another option would be that, upon a complaint being received, the City would hire an independent technician and follow through with Code Enforcement. The property owner would then be liable for fees and costs associated with this procedure. Chairman Katherman expressed doubt that this would be easy to regulate. The fact that this is a residential neighborhood and there are difficulties in blending with a business of this type. He agrees that the residents have brought up valid issues but did not feel that an Environmental Impact Report is appropriate in this case. It was his opinion that each impact must be dealt with one at a time and attempt made to provide conditions which will mitigate these impacts. It seemed to him that endless studies were a waste of time and money. He stressed that any auto repair facilities, no matter how nicely it may be designed, will be a source of noise and visual impact because of the parking and the movement of automobiles. He summarized that this site has been a service station and our city attorney has told us the owner of the land, not necessarily Unocal, because these things run with the land, not with the ownership, has the right to replace the service station until January 6 or 9, 1994, and by filing this conditional Use Permit application, it is assumed that the applicant has the legal grandfathering necessary to comply with that. It is likely PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 27 that any decision made tonight will be appealed so this issue will go beyond the January deadline in any case. Chairman Katherman stated that it appears the Commission and the City is faced with the situation that an auto facility of some kind is reasonable for this site, based on the past, and then it comes down to a comparison between a three -bay gasoline station to a auto repair facility with three double bays and how this larger facility might be laid out to provide mitigation of impacts on the nearby residents.. He said that he did not believe it is appropriate to create a situation requiring constant code enforcement problems and asked the Staff and Mr. Saporito how this could be accomplished. Commissioner Mowlds agreed with Chairman Katherman that an Environmental Impact Report was not necessary. A discussion ensued between Commissioner Mowlds and Mr. Saporito regarding the average number of cars he would service per day. It was brought out that there are always cars waiting to be repaired or to be picked up, or cars who repair have been delayed by receipt of an incorrect part. Mr. Saporito estimated that he would expect approximately five to fourteen cars per day and as to why he would need six bays, it would be to be have the capability to screen these cars from view as much as possible. Also, some bays are designed for certain functions, for example, alignments or oil changes. Mr. Saporito explained that the building itself will accommodate six cars and the canopies, four and there was no way to predict how long a particular car may occupy a space. He added that, under no circumstance would cars be parked on public streets because his liability insurance would not permit it. Bill Meyers commented that is typical for a bay to be tied up for extended periods of time because the geographic location causes the parts houses to deliver less often than other areas more conveniently located to their site and this is complicated by the fact that occasionally the wrong part is delivered. He explained that it would be ideal in this industry to turn over cars more often but it does not happen. Commissioner Mowlds asked Mr. Meyers how many cars he has every day waiting either for repair or pickup or sitting out front of his very large establishment for a quick job like changing a fan belt or charging a battery Mr. Meyers stated that on an average day, they work on probably no more than 10 cars, not disputing the fact that there may be more cars on the lot. Sometimes, customers will want to leave their car for repair while they go on vacation for a week Commissioner Mowlds mentioned that he had, on occasion seen as many PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 28 as six or eight outside the building. Mr. Meyers explained that sometimes when times are slow, as they are now, they may only work on one car in a day and sometimes they park the employees vehicles on the property to attract business because work seems to generate work. Therefore, many times, the situation is not exactly what it appears to be. Chairman Katherman asked Mr. Saporito if he would selling products such as cigarettes, soft drinks, candy bars, snacks or radios, floor mats, seat covers and other auto accessories. Mr. Saporito replied that he would not be. Chairman Katherman questioned Mr. Saporito regarding the possibility of an outside telephone booth. Mr. Saporito asked that he did not feel it was decision and he was willing to go along with what Staff proposed. Director Bernard explained that it was not the City's decision; it was his. In response, Chairman Katherman suggested that a condition be added disallowing an outside public telephone. Chairman Katherman asked Staff for suggestions on reconfiguring our ,the building on the lot. Director Bernard responded that it is difficult for Staff, as well as the Commission, to make any recommendations without Mr. Saporito's contractor's input. A discussion ensued regarding methods of providing landscaping and buffering of the site, as well as the driveway configuration which would need to be taken into account with regard to planter areas. Chairman Katherman repeated that suggestions are needed for mitigating the issue of changing the direction in which the facility faces and asked Staff if they any better way to place the building n the property. Director Bernard proposed that having the building face the church (as similar to the old building) might be the best arrangement but he was hesitant to assume that this would not cause problems for Mr. Saporito or his architect. Chairman Katherman queried Mr. Saporito regarding his comments. Mr. Saporito replied that this would cause additional noise for PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 29 residents at The Terraces which are the closest neighbors. Chairman Katherman stated that he picture some sort of "Ll' shaped configuration, building along Highridge and on the common property line between you and The Terraces. Mr. Saporito indicated that there could be a problem with this plan because of the shape of the lot. Chairman Katherman suggested that Mr. Saporito notch the building to accommodate the 101 setback. Commissioner Mowlds had an idea to located the two bays for alignment and oil facing Highridge because this the quietest work. Mr. Saporito indicated that this would be possible. Commissioner Mowlds added that there could be additional screening with dense foliage such as oleander and reiterated that there was still no actual layout of where all the cars would be which were not actually being repaired. Mr. Saporito stressed that, in any case, all the cars would be out of sight after closing time. Commissioner Mowlds stressed that he was not talking about after hours but during the day because people passing by would not like to see a lot of cars on the property and suggested that they be screened or arranged in an attractive fashion to make the best of a bad situation. Mr. Saporito indicated he would agree to that; he is not on the Highridge side which is the side that is under the most controversy. Commissioner Hayes mentioned that the conditions provided that any vehicles undergoing repair must be housed or screened. Mr. Saporito said that he is willing to meet that criteria. Commissioner Mowlds said that it appears a landscaping plan is needed. Mr. Saporito answered that he was willing to provide foliage for screening as long as he can still have three driveways; he indicated that he was not sure where to put this foliage and would be open to any suggestions. Chairman Katherman indicated that the two ideas of providing more parking or more landscaping are at cross purposes and suggested PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 30 that one driveway be closed on Highridge to create more parking and then to provide a planting plan, subject to review and approval by the Director. Commissioner Hayes returned to the noise problem and suggested that restricting the noise level to 50 is unreasonable considering that the traffic noise is at a level of 65 to 70. Planning Administrator Petru commented that the city does not have a noise ordinance. In some isolated cases, standards have been set as in the case of Marymount College. Then there are special events, the noise level is restricted to 45 dba at the property line but that is a good distance away from where the activity is actually occurring on that property and the city has never been required to test that 45 dba. Chairman Katherman asked if 65 decibels is normal for traffic on the streets at this intersection. Mr. Saporito said he had no problem with a 65 decibels level. Commissioner Hayes brought up the subject of the hours of operation and, after some discussion by the Commissioners, it was decided that the operation could be open from 6:30 AM to 7:00 PM but actual repairs would take place only between the hours of 8:00 to 5:00 PM. Associate Planner Jerex quoted from the Noise Study for the Salvation Army which was included in the Staff Report which stated that 65 decibels is the approximate level at which background noise does not interfere with normal conversation Chairman Katherman asked for a motion. Commissioner Hayes moved to adopt the Staff's recommendation, with modifications to the Conditions of Approval as discussed by the Commission. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mowlds. Chairman Katherman suggested that conditions mentioned in Ms. Landau's letter be considered and mentioned some of them. Everyone seemed to be in agreement with the conditions. After some discussion with Mr. Saporito, Chairman Katherman stated that all vehicles, including the two truck, be stored indoors overnight. Mr. Saporito mentioned condition #8 stating that there be no inside storage of any kind and asked it that included vehicles being dropped off or picked up by his customers. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 31 Chairman Katherman said that it did. Commissioner Mowlds clarified that this applied to after hours. Chairman Katherman suggested 6:30 PM or some reasonable time to allow people to come pick up their automobiles Chairman Katherman asked Mr. Saporito if he was willing to accept the operation hours of 6:30 AM to 7:00 PM and Mr. Saporito agreed. Commissioner Mowlds added that the hours could be shorter if Mr. Saporito wished. Mr. Saporito responded by saying that the only thing is that due to the fact that his shop will be located on the hill, a later closing time would allow people to pick up their cars after work. Chairman Katherman clarified that all vehicles, including the tow truck, must be stored inside at night. Mr. Saporito asked if vehicles may be stored overnight under the canopies and Chairman Katherman said no. Chairman Katherman said that he did not quite understand condition #11 of Jo Landau's letter; I did not understand, in the event this establishment closes or goes out of business, the property must be returned to its original condition (vacant lot) before the facility was built. It must be done within 180 days. He said he did not know if the Commission could do that, quite frankly. He repeated that he did not understand the premise. The Commissioners' consensus was that condition #11 should not be accepted. There were other comments regarding Ms. Landau's conditions. Commissioner Hayes commented that probably Mr. Saporito would not allow loitering. Commissioner Mowlds felt strongly that there should be no amplified music. He summarized that the commission is accepting all of her conditions with the exception of #11. Mr. Saporito asked for a clarification of the term "amplified music" and, when he was told the Commission interpreted that to be a radio playing while a repairman was working on a card, he stated that he does allow that anyway. Director Bernard suggested adding to the Conditions of Approval a review period of six months or one year, as deemed appropriate by PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 32 the Commission. Chairman Katherman suggested that the Commission review it in a year, rather than six months, because it will take some time to erect the building. Chairman Katherman asked if Director Bernard was talking about Mrs. Landau's Condition #12 about loitering because the Commission wouldn't allow that anyway. Director Bernard stated that Condition #12 is not allowed by penal code, but wondered how Staff would enforce it. There was a discussion between the Commissioners regarding chaining off the parking lot after hours to avoid people congregating there. Mr. Saporito commented that he did not believe the Fire Department would allow it. Chairman Katherman suggested that Staff come up with a feasible plan for blocking access to the parking lot which would not offend the Fire Department. Commissioner Mowlds brought up the subject of loitering during working hours. If there are people hanging around who are less than desirable and not on your payroll, they become a degradation to the neighborhood and they should not be there . Mr. Saporito replied that the problem with that is that he is being asked to make a judgment as to whether someone is undesirable and he is concerned about opening himself up to all kinds of problems. However, he agreed that if people don't have business on the property, will not be there. Mr. Meyers confirmed that loitering can definitely be a problem at service stations and auto repair shops and although it is very easy to pinpoint those problems, there is no easy solution. it certainly helps when a resident complains to the Management regarding what they consider to be undesirable people hanging around so that it can be handled directly instead of bringing in the City. Chairman Katherman agreed that it would be advantageous to provide a procedure for the neighbors to discuss problems directly with the applicant. Commissioner Hayes summarized that it appeared that all the conditions were acceptable except #11. She added that the Negative Declaration would have a few changes. Chairman Katherman clarified that the Conditional Use Permit and PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 33 the Negative Declaration are consistent with each other and the could include both. Staff can bring it back at the next meeting for approval on the Consent Calendar. Planning Administrator Petru commented that Staff has been given direction to modify the Resolutions, and they will be brought back at the next meeting with the modified conditions. Chairman Katherman agreed that the Commission will then vote on adoption at the next meeting. He then thanked everyone for participating through this long process and added that this is one of those situations which may not make everyone happy but, the competing property rights have been balanced as much as possible and there will be a 15 -day appeal period from our January 11 hearing date. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATION Director Bernard asked the Commission if, in the future, they would rather have Staff put together a notebook instead of just a packet, especially for a heavy agenda as tonight's meeting. It was the consensus of the Commission that the current procedure is adequate. Director Bernard mentioned that Staff will be modifying the noticing language to make it clear that comments must be received well before the agenda packets are assembled. In addition, on the Saturday before a meeting, a packet will be dropped off at Hesse Park for public viewing. Chairman Katherman said it is beneficial to the Commission and the public if the final reports are completed early in the week because of the last minute rush for Staff to put all this information together and things are complicated when correspondence is coming in at the last minute. He indicated that this would require a change in the work of the Planning Commission and the City Council but he expressed his strong feeling, as his parting suggestion to the Planning Commission, to continue to push for this. Director Bernard expressed his understanding of this request and commented that Staff does try very hard, and there has been some improvement. He suggested that, in the future, copies of the signed resolutions from the previous meeting would be presented to all the Commissioners in each agenda packet. Chairman Katherman agreed with this suggestion. Director Bernard wished Happy Holidays to the Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 34 9 0 Commissioner Mowlds suggest that the Code revision, scheduled to be heard by the Commission next year, be broken down into several sections. I Director Bernard said that Staff will offer several options. For example, there could be special meetings for just this purpose. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE There were none. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 12:32 AM to the regular meeting on January 11, 1994, at 7:30 PM, at Fred Hesse Community Park. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 35