PC MINS 19830111APPROVED AS PRESENTED
JANUARY 25, 1983
M I N U T E S
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning Commission
Regular Adjourned Meeting
January 11, 1983
The meeting was called to order at 7:34 p.m. in the City Council Chambers,
30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Hinchliffe.
PRESENT: Brown, Hughes, McNulty, McTaggart, Hinchliffe
ABSENT: None
Also present was Associate Planner Sandra Massa Lavitt.
CONSENT CALENDAR By motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded
by Dr. Brown, the Consent Calendar
was unanimously passed, thereby
approving: A) the minutes of the meeting of December 14, 1982; B) a
six-month time extension (to August 17, 1983) of condition #2 of Conditional
Use Permit No. 29 (Tract 33093); and C) an 18 -month time extension (to
June 7, 1984) of Conditional Use Permit No. 68 (Tract 40640).
WORK SESSION Ms. Lavitt said the Housing Element
Second Units as amended September 1981 contains
the goal of promoting a range of
housing types and a policy of encourag-
ing the design of housing with variety in size, number of rooms, and level
of amenities. She said the staff report summarized: 1) the State law,
which requires cities to consider second units; 2) what other California
cities are doing; and 3) the City's options. She said no City may adopt
an ordinance that totally precludes second units unless adverse impacts on
health, safety and welfare would justify such an ordinance. She said a
second unit is defined as either a detached or attached dwelling unit
providing complete, independent living facilities for one or more persons.
She said single family conversion must be allowed per State law if it
meets certain criteria. Staff recommended that any type of second unit
that would be inconsistent with the Development Code requirements regarding
setbacks, height, garage spaces, open space, etc., not be permitted.
Staff recommended that the Commission define second units to include
conversion and separate units and that the Commission find option #5,
adopting a procedure to allow second units City-wide with City specific
restrictions, to be the appropriate option. She said the Commission
should give staff direction regarding the criteria to be met by proposed
second units, as listed in the staff report.
Mr. Hinchliffe said the "granny flat" issue is not inconsistent with the
City goal adopted in September 1981. He said while it was not a new
issue, it had not received a lot of attention until the past few years.
Mr. Hughes thought they should explore all other options which may be
open, including legislative relief.
Mr. McTaggart said they could proceed with the ordinance to meet the time
limit and still pursue legislative relief if it is desired.
In response to a question by Mr. McNulty, Ms. Lavitt said there was no
provision for a time extension on the deadline. She said the City had six
months in which to adopt an ordinance.
Mr. Hughes said he would like to know from the City Attorney what restric-
tions or controls the City can place in an ordinance. He said he had no
objections to working on an ordinance but wanted to know what the boundaries
are so no time is wasted working on limitations which cannot be used. He
thought they should be able to get a response from the City Attorney in
relatively short order.
Mr. McTaggart said they could limit the units to certain areas or zoning
districts of the City.
Dr. Brown concurred.
Mr. Hinchliffe wondered if this matter could be added to the agenda for
the work session scheduled with the City Council for clarification of the
goal established in September 1981.
The Commission reviewed the list of potential criteria, expressed various
concerns, and determined as follows:
1. Ok.
2. Ok.
3. Ok.
4. Ok.
5. Ok.
6. Limit size of units to 10 percent or 640 square feet, per State
law.
7. Limit units to two bedrooms.
8. Remove.
9. Refer to City Attorney.
10. Considered limit to adults over 60 years in age, but no decision
yet.
11. Remove.
12. Remove.
13. Remove.
14. Require a conditional use permit, but no limit to number of
conversions since, in the opinion of the Commission, there would
not be a significantly large number of applicants.
COMMISSION REPORTS
Dr. Brown asked about the status of
the Eastview annexation.
Ms. Lavitt said it became official on the 5th of January.
Mr. Hinchliffe said he was contacted by the developers of the proposed
Golden Cove project about meeting with them.
Mr. Hinchliffe and Mr. Hughes had no problems with the idea of meeting
individually or in pairs with the developer. The other Commissioners were
concerned about meeting with the developer anywhere except at a public
meeting, particularly due to the controversial nature of the proposed
project.
It was the consensus of the Commission that it would not be appropriate to
meet with the developers prior to the public meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
1/11/83 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
At 9:08 p.m. it was moved, seconded,
and carried, to adjourn to Monday,
January 24, 1983, at 7:00 P.m.,
Z'
-2-
2-