Company Might Appeal Final Decision
The Palisades Design Review Board unanimously denied CVS/Pharmacy’s proposal last Wednesday to install a 12-foot-high sign on the store’s Sunset-facing wall, which also hosts a popular community mural. But the board approved the company’s request for a sign above the store’s entrance. The board, which oversees the architectural plans and outward appearance of all commercial structures within Pacific Palisades, said that the proposed sign conflicts with the community’s building codes. Members say those codes, as formulated in the Specific Plan, prohibit the use of signs on the sides of buildings that are neither street fronts nor store entrances. ‘I think the sign facing Sunset is a pretty clear decision,’ said Charles ‘Duke’ Oakley, a board member. ‘It’s not on a street front and it’s not on the entrance.’ The DRB’s decision will be reviewed by the director of the Department of City Planning, who is expected to make a final decision Friday. But CVS lawyer Bruce Evans disputed the DRB’s interpretation of the Specific Plan and indicated that the nationwide pharmacy might appeal the decision. ‘The Specific Plan is not clear that the sign is prohibited,’ Evans said. ‘I can tell you that this is a very important sign to CVS. We believe that it’s important for the viability of the business.’ CVS believes that it has ‘grandfather’ rights to the sign, Evans said. CVS acquired hundreds of Sav-ons nationally last June, including the store on Swarthmore Avenue. Before the current codes prohibiting non-streetfront, non-entrance signs went into effect, Sav-on installed a lighted sign on the building’s Sunset-facing side. CVS hoped that converting the existing Sav-on sign into a CVS sign would be permitted. However, DRB members argue that when the company removed the sign last month, it lost any ability to replace the sign. CVS, which leases the building from the American Legion, sits along Swarthmore. The back of the store, where CVS wants to install its debated sign, faces heavily trafficked Antioch Street and Sunset Boulevard. The store’s entrance, where the sign was approved, faces far less frequented La Cruz Drive. The company thinks that losing a sign facing Sunset could mean losing customers. ‘I understand that this sign is a good advertisement for CVS,’ said DRB Chair Rick Mills. ‘But it’s on our mural and against our codes.’ In 2000, Sav-on agreed to let a local artist paint the Clearwater mural, which depicts life in pre-Columbian Palisades. When CVS acquired the Swarthmore store, community members hoped that the company would overhaul a building they considered ‘out-of-touch’ with the Palisades. In January, the Palisades Community Council urged CVS to redesign the building to be consistent with community ‘standards.’ After community complaints, CVS stopped displaying merchandise at the store’s entrance, and it has committed to fixing a long-inoperable elevator. The store now regularly clears its loading dock, where the mural is located, of overflowing trash. Despite those changes, community members have other concerns that they say range from safety hazards to aesthetic blemishes: for example, an open conduit within reach of pedestrians; a broken fence surrounding high-voltage equipment; chipped, un-matching paint; a prohibited metal awning; and irregular landscaping. CVS lawyer Evans said the company would make a ‘good faith’ effort to address such concerns, but he would not give any specific plans. Evans said the company strives to have a good relationship with the community. Paul Glasgall, a Community Council member who co-chairs the CVS committee, seemed content with CVS’s plans. ‘All the things you said seem to be in accordance, and you appear to have made the changes that seem to have been required,’ he told Evans at the DRB meeting. But Stuart Muller, a council member who has spearheaded efforts to beautify the CVS property, urged the DRB to push the chain to commit to more changes. ‘There’s no housekeeping here,’ said Muller, who was an early champion of the mural. ‘And now they say they’re making a ‘good faith’ effort. What I’m trying to say is, don’t take their corporate snow job! You have a chance to enforce our Specific Plan.’ Board members echoed Muller’s concerns, but the narrow jurisdiction of the DRB limits members’ authority. Also, a division of labor between the Department of City Planning and Department of Building and Safety has often meant lax enforcement of community codes. For example, CVS recently used a Building and Safety electrical permit to install out-of-code fluorescent lights around the perimeter of the building. Building and Safety is currently investigating CVS’s installation of those lights to see if they exceeded the boundaries of their permit, said Chris Koontz, a City Planning official. Attorney Evans said he was unaware of an investigation but said that the lights would be turned off. ‘I wouldn’t characterize enforcement as nonexistent,’ one city official told the Palisadian-Post. ‘But I would say it is a problem. I think it requires some political will.’ Councilmember Bill Rosendahl’s Assistant Planning Deputy, Len Nguyen, attended the meeting and vowed to enforce the Specific Plan. For now, some Palisadians might be voting with their feet. ‘When my wife and I want to buy shampoo or something, we make it a point to go to Santa Monica because the CVS here looks horrible,’ said Murray Levy, a DRB member. ———— Reporting by Staff Writer Max Taves. To contact, e-mail reporter@palipost.com or call (310) 454-1321 ext. 28.
This page is available to subscribers. Click here to sign in or get access.
