Loading...
PC MINS 19810811/.9 dQ1 M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting August 11, 1981 The meeting was called to order at 7:36 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Acting Chairman McTaggart. PRESENT: Brown, Hinchliffe, McTaggart ABSENT: Baer, Hughes Also present were Director of Planning Sharon Hightower, Associate Planner Ann Negendank, and Assistant Planners Alice Bergquist Angus and Jonathon Shepherd. CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, the Consent Calendar was unanimously passed, thereby approv- ing the minutes of the meeting of July 23, 1981, as submitted. CODE AMENDMENT NO. 11 Mr. Shepherd said the Amendment, which Method of measuring lot size was initiated at the request of the Council of Homeowners Associations, proposes a revision to the method of measuring lot area and excludes any access easement, right-of-way, or pri- vate street (other than a driveway) from being included in determining lot area. He said the Development Code definition of a driveway would also be revised to correspond with the Amendment. He said when the Code was adopted in 1975, an equitable decision was made that the City would follow the County's interpretation of lot area due to the high number of pending parcel maps at the time of incorporation; said interpretation included access ease- ments, rights-of-way, and private streets in determining lot area. He said under the current definition of lot area, there were less than 50 lots ad- joining private streets or easements that meet the conditions for lot splits and that of those, only 10+ would be directly affected by the Code Amendment. He said there were currently four tentative parcel maps pending Planning Commission action that would be affected by the Amendment. Staff recommended that the Commission recommend to the City Council denial of the Amendment in order to continue the equitable division of land established by the Council when the Code was adopted in 1975 and due to the relatively small number of lots that would be affected by the Amendment. Mr. Hinchliffe asked if the affected property owners would still have to pay taxes or if that portion of the lot would "go away." Director Hightower said it -would not change the taxes, that they would still own the property to the middle of the street. Public hearing was opened. John Arand, 5731 Mistridge Drive, representing the Rancho Palos Verdes Coun- cil of Homeowners Associations, said they reviewed the proposed change and were in agreement with redefining lot sizes. In response to Commission questions, Mr. Arand said it was his understanding that the concerned residents involved in initiating this amendment were up- set about parcel maps being approved with undersized lots, etc. As there were no other parties wishing to speak on this matter, the public hearing was closed. Mr. McTaggart was in favor of the Amendment for safety reasons, since some flag lots have been created without adequate turnaround for fire trucks. He said the Subcommittee felt this would create a mechanism to avoid unwise subdivisions. He said while applicants may show a large access on paper, there were no inspections to make sure the driveway measurement conforms to the plans. Director Hightower said the problems with flag lots and access do not neces- sarily relate to the measurement of the lot. Mr. McTaggart said the area up to the centerline of the street is currently included in the total lot area but is not used as part of the lot. He felt to be consistent and provide for orderly development, the measurement of the actual lot area should be the same whether the street is private or public. In response to a question by Mr. McTaggart, Director Hightower said if the Code Amendment is adopted, future lot splits not meeting the lot size re- quirements would have to apply for a variance. Mr. McTaggart felt that those applications currently pending should be exempt from these requirements since they were filed with the City under the "old rules." Mr. Hinchliffe expressed concern about changing the ground rules at the end of the stream and denying a few people a right which other people pre- viously had. Mr. McTaggart said the change might be occurring mid -stream but noted that since the City's incorporation people had a number of years to split their lot under the old rules. He further felt that people have had an extra- ordinary right, not an adherent right, over the years. He did not feel that a small number of people should receive credit for a piece of property which the majority of people in the City cannot include as lot area. He said while the City does not maintain private streets, the City does have lot standards and that they should be uniformly applied. Mr. Hinchliffe felt people purchased the right with the property. Dr. Brown proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, to recommend to the City Council the adoption of Code Amendment No. 11 with the notation that the Commission felt it would provide consistency and uniform application of the Code and would create a more equitable method of determining lot sizes. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Brown, McTaggart NOES: Hinchliffe ABSENT: Baer, Hughes Mr. Hinchliffe said with the passing of the motion he would support Mr. McTaggart's suggestion that the four pending parcel maps be excluded from this Amendment since they had been filed under the old Code. Dr. Brown concurred. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 8941 Ms. Angus said the request was for the 29085 Palos Verdes Drive East division of an existing 43,801 square Applicant: Stewart Voeltz foot parcel into two parcels. She de - Landowner: Becky Voeltz scribed the project location and said the project meets all of the require- ments of the RS -2 zoning district. She said if Code Amendment No. 11 is adopted, both proposed lots would still be in excess of the required 20,000 square feet. Staff recommended approval of the lot split subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit "A" of the draft resolution. 8/11/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- Mr. McTaggart expressed concern about the 12 -foot high chain link fence currently existing on the site. He did not want to create an illegal situa- tion. He said the fence did not conform to the current City standards and also was not permitted under the County regulations. Public hearing was opened. Mary Mitts, 29077 Palos Verdes Drive East, wondered if the fence was 12 feet because of its adjacency to the school. Mr. McTaggart said the fence did not separate the site from the school property but rather was located in the interior of the site. On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the Commission continued the public hearing and tabled the matter because the Commission felt it could not consider the lot split since the fence did not comply with the current Code. Staff was directed to so advise the appli- cant, there being no one representing the applicant in attendance. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 9 Ms. Negendank reviewed the background Housing Element Revision of the Amendment. She explained that State legislation requires that all cities and counties bring their Housing Elements into conformance with the substantive requirements of AB 2853. She said the Commission and City Council have been meeting since may as the Housing Committee, reviewing draft working papers on housing. She said the draft working papers were used as the basis for the draft Amendment, which was submitted to the California Department of Housing and Community Develop- ment (HCD) on July 31 for review and comment. She reviewed the required procedure for General Plan Amendments. Staff recommended that the Commission recommend to the City Council adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 9. At Mr. McTaggart's request, Ms. Negendank read aloud the existing and recom- mended goals and policies. Public hearing was opened. John Vanderlip, 99 Vanderlip Drive, said housing for seniors was not covered in much detail in the housing document. He said seniors requiring a full - care facility have to go somewhere else, off the hill. He pointed out that there were 35 acres on Crestridge zoned Institutional which would be appro- priate for senior citizen housing. He said in 1979 Mr. Barron spent a great deal of time working on a proposal for a senior facility for that area. He gave the name and address of a University of Southern California professor or architecture, also with a private company in Santa Monica, who may be able to assist the City. He questioned the affordability of Canterbury Gardens, The Episcopal Home facility for senior citizens. Tim Burrell, 4038 Exultant Drive, asked questions of staff re page G-6 of the document. In response, Ms. Negendank said the annual goal of 52 units a year reflects • variety of programs that the City might implement, one of which would be • rehabilitation program of some kind, and not just new housing. Re page P-5, Mr. Burrell did not feel in -lieu fees should be included in the document as a program. Director Hightower said the City was collecting those fees now, that the document proposed to continue an existing program. Mr. Burrell said exclusive of costs for the land and other improvements, with building costs at $60 per square foot, he could build an 800 square foot home with a two -car garage for $60,000. Re expediting permits he said 8/11/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- the only problem was going from the tentative map approval to final map approval, which takes about 18 months and should take only about six months. He did not feel there was any need to speed up any other parts of the process as he felt they were reasonable. John Arand, 5731 Mistridge Drive, president of the Rancho Palos Verdes Council of Homeowners Associations, discussed areas of concern with regard to the City's restricted financial resources, the City's higher than average percentage of multi -family units, the lack of community desire to change the philosophy reflected in the City's General Plan, and the recent Los Angeles Times article which indicated that .the County housing has grown at nearly twice the population rate. He concluded that the City has suffi- cient housing stock that can be utilized. He submitted written copies of his testimony with the referenced news article attached to the Commission and staff. In response to a question by Dr. Brown, Director Hightower said the legisla- tion that recently passed requires much more detail than is currently con- tained in the City's General Plan, i.e. programs, etc. She said the City would be looking at several different programs. Re senior citizen facilities, Mr. Arand said their position with regard to the Barron proposal was that the density was too intense. He said if a project meets the density designated by the General Plan it would be accept- able. Don Blaha, 30504 Santa Luna Drive, spoke of a report which stated that by the end of next year the Federal government would have spent one-quarter trillion dollars for subsidized housing. He was not in favor of gerry- mandering people around and felt the current system worked well. He said it made sense to provide housing in areas with large industries for the employees but that Rancho Palos Verdes is primarily a bedroom community. On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. RECESS A brief Commission discussion ensued. At 9:15 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 9:28 p.m. with the same members present. Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Brown, to adopt Resolution No. 81-52, thereby recommending to the City Council adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 9. Mr. McTaggart said the interesting thing about this matter is that the Federal government is now saying it does not make sense to move people away from the centers of employment because it creates air polution. He said the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is now reconsidering the fair share numbers and that if they were determining the allocation for Rancho Palos Verdes today the figure would be less than the previous number. Roll call vote on the above motion was as follows: AYES: Brown, NOES: None ABSENT: Baer, ADJOURNMENT Hinchliffe, McTaggart Hughes At 9:37 p.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday, August 25, 1981, at 7:30 p.m. 8/11/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4-