Loading...
PC MINS 19920512�1a,sfq� MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 12, 1992 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Katherman at 7:10 p.m. at Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA. Present: Alberio, Clark, Hayes, Lorenzen, Mowlds, Vice Chairman Byrd and Chairman Katherman. Absent: None Also present were Senior Planner Carolynn Petru, Associate Planner Terry Silverman, Assistant Planners Paul Espe, Donna Jerex and Kim Klopfenstein and Assistant City Attorney Michael Colantuono. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS Commissioner Hayes stated that a letter concerning the Housing Element was received from Lois LaRue. Chairman Katherman stated that he wanted to discuss a potential date for the Planning Commission and Staff workshop/retreat. Possible dates included June 27 and July 31, 1992. Commissioner Alberio explained that once the date was set up he would need to know the number of attendees. He stated that the site would be the Cabrillo Beach Marine Museum between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 10 a.m. and that it would include lunch and a boat tour of the Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors. Vice Chairman Byrd stated that the next meeting of the Development Code Subcommittee would be on May 22nd at 2:00 p.m. at the conference room in the Environmental Services Department. He went on to explain that the joint meeting with the City Council was tentatively scheduled for the end of June or the beginning of July. Vice Chairman Byrd explained that the Subcommittee is working on guidelines for a Design Review Committee to protect the property rights of the individual as well as the property rights of their neighbors. Chairman Katherman stated that he would be attending the Contract Cities Conference in Palm Springs on Thursday and Friday and asked which Commissioners would be interested in attending. Mr. Katherman also stated that his application for a parcel map to subdivide his property is scheduled for the May 26, 1992 Planning Commission agenda. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 12, 1992 CONSENT CALENDAR A. RULES OF PROCEDURE B. SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 6918 Senior Planner Petru stated that there was a request to remove Item A. (Rules of Procedure) from the Consent Calendar. Chairman Katherman stated that he wanted to hear Consent Calendar Item A (Rules of Procedure) after Continued Business, to place the Housing Element at the end of the agenda and to take the rest of the items in order. Vice Chairman Byrd moved to approve Consent Calendar Item B,. and Commissioner Mowlds seconded the motion. The motion passed without objection. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. EXTREME SLOPE NO. 30, MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT NO. 433, 28864 CRESTRIDGE DRIVE Chairman Katherman moved to waive the staff report presentation and Commissioner Mowlds seconded the motion. The motion passed without objection. t Chairman Katherman then declared the public hearing open. Al Kuolas, (applicant) 28864 Crestridge Road stated that he was available to answer any questions. He also stated that the project had been approved by the Planning Commission about two years ago and that, for various reasons, building permits were not filed for the project. Mr. Kuolas stated that he has no objections to any staff recommended conditions of approval. Commissioner Hayes moved to close the public hearing and Commissioner Mowlds seconded the motion. The motion passed without objection. Commissioner Hayes moved to accept the staff's recommendation for approval and was seconded by Commissioner Alberio. The motion passed without objection. Chairman Katherman stated that he would sign the resolution that evening and that there was a 15 -day appeal period. 2 0- 0 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 12, 1992 CONTINUED'BUSINESS A. VARIANCE NO. 331 2102 TOSCANINI DRIVE Associate Planner Silverman presented the staff report regarding the applicant's request to approve a concrete block wall and a retaining wall within the streetside setback and intersection visibility triangle with a maximum proposed combined height of 10'911. Staff's recommendation was to approve the application subject to conditions of approval. However, since the last hearing on this project, an alternate solution had been prepared for the Commission's consideration. At the query of Vice Chairman Byrd, Senior Planner Petru stated that since the variance was a discretionary permit, it was City Council policy to require submittal of a Landscape Covenant for all such approvals. Vice Chairman Byrd stated that he felt the landowner should be given the option to file a Covenant or have staff perform a Site Vegetation Review. The public hearing was opened. Winnie Verner, 2133 Rockinghorse Road, stated that in looking over the plans she agreed with the modification to the original proposal. Ms. Verner was concerned with regard to the maximum height of the wall and also suggested that the corner of the wall be rounded to improve visibility at the intersection and the aesthetic appearance of the wall. Antonette Rizzi, (applicant) 2102 Tsocanini Drive, stated that she took the staff's recommendations into full consideration in the redesigning of the wall and presented a drawing prepared by her daughter. Ms. Rizzi stated that it would be easier to extend the wall straight across but it could also be rounded as suggested by her neighbor. Commissioner Hayes moved to close the public hearing and Commissioner Lorenzen seconded the motion. The motion passed without objection. Commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by Commissioner Lorenzen, to add an option for a Site Vegetation Review or a Landscape Covenant in Condition 3. The motion passed without objection. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 12, 1992 Commissioner Kowlds moved, seconded by Commissioner Hayes, to approve the variance subject to the modified conditions of approval. The motion passed 6-0 with Commissioner Alberio abstaining. Chairman Katherman stated that Variance No. 331 was granted subject to conditions and that he would sign the resolution and that the matter could be appealed to the City Council within 15 days. B. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 730 -APPEAL 3502 VIA CAMPESINA Assistant Planner Espe presented the staff report regarding the appellant's request that the Planning Commission overturn the staff's approval of a 970 square foot addition to an existing single story residence. He stated that at the last hearing on this appeal, the Commission determined that the proposed addition did not create significant view impairment and that the appellants were primarily concerned about the large pine trees on the property blocking their view. Chairman Katherman opened the continued public hearing. Barbara Weber, (applicant) 3502 Via CAmpesinas stated that the option was given to either trim the vegetation on their property or sign a Covenant. They opted for a Site Vegetation Review. She questioned the timing of the lacing and felt that trimming every three years was too frequent for the pine trees. Chairman Katherman stated that the property owner is responsible to pay for each trimming and felt that a three to five year time interval between trimmings would be appropriate. Assistant Planner Espe stated that the three to five year period was designed as a mechanism to trigger staff review of the existing foliage and that the applicant would be required to trim the trees only if staff determined that it was necessary. Patsie and Doug Troubridge, (appellants) 5333 Rolling Ridge Road, stated that if there was no Covenant, they would have no recourse once the trees filled back in. The number of years with regard to tree trimming came about because there was a difference of opinion. Mrs. Troubridge mentioned that weather conditions would effect how quickly the trees filled in. Chairman Katherman moved to deny the appeal, thereby approving the request subject to the condition that the Landscape Covenant be 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 12, 1992 enforced on a complaint basis. Commissioner Alberio seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0. C. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 726 -APPEAL 13 HEADLAND DRIVE Assistant Planner Klopf enstein presented the staff report regarding the appellant's request that the Planning Commission overturn the staff's approval of a second story addition. She stated that at the last hearing on this appeal, the Commission directed the applicant to work with staff to redesign the addition to protect the view of Mount Baldy from the appellant's property at 7 Headland Drive. Chairman Katherman opened the continued public hearing. Stan Denis, Esq., 707 Torrance Blvd., Redondo Beach, representing the appellant, stated that the applicant's current plans did not have a window in the south side of the upper floor room (the master bedroom) and that at the appellant's request that there be a condition to prohibit a window to be installed in the future in order to preserve the privacy of their backyard. In addition, it was requested that the Commission would consider limiting the height of trees on the property to 161 - 181 or the ridge line of the house, whichever is less. Vice Chairman Byrd stated that he felt that it was a legitimate request concerning the privacy of the appellant's backyard. Commission Clark stated that the Development Code's height limit for trees is 161 or the ridge line, whichever is lower. Jack Wood, 200 Pier Avenue, #38, Hermosa Beach, engineer, representing the applicants, stated that any Covenant that goes on the land is a negative and would have long-term repercussions. Mr. Wood explained that Mr. Lin would prefer not to have a Covenant on his property regarding the window. Mr. Wood explained that his advice to his client was to follow the law with regard to the Landscape Covenant and that they would agree with the Commission's decision. Mr. Wood went on to explaine that the building was 11-61, lower at the slab level. However, there is 21-611 of decrease in elevation because the pitch of the roof was lowered. He also stated that the two pictures of the trees on the Lin's property were not equal because of the angle at which they each were taken. The public hearing was closed, without objection. 5 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 12, 1992 Assistant Planner Klopfenstein said that a view analysis could be done which would require the trees to be trimmed to 161 or if it's agreeable with the adjacent property owners, the trees could just be thinned out. Commissioner Clark recommended that the height of the trees be limited to 16 feet. Vice Chairman Byrd stated that the trees would look better if they were laced out. Commissioner Katherman stated that he was unsure of the location of one large tree that currently impairs the appellant's view. However, it seemed to be in the middle of the Lin's master bedroom view and that he would suspect that they would take the tree out themselves. Commissioner Alberio agreed with the staff's recommendation of 161 concerning the tree issue. Senior Planner Petru mentioned that the Lin's should also have the option of having a Site Vegetation Review or filing a Landscape Covenant. Stan Denis stated that the Marks' do not object to any trees other than the two that were being discussed in the photograph, which are located in the rear of the addition. Vice Chairman Byrd stated that he felt that it would not be appropriate for the commission to require the Lin's to cut all the trees on their property. Chairman Katherman,agreed with Vice Chairman Byrd. Commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by Commissioner Hayes, to deny the appeal, thereby approving the redesigned second story addition, subject to an additional condition requiring the submittal of a covenant prohibiting additional windows in the master bedroom on the southern elevation. motion passed 7-0. Senior Planner Petru stated that the resolution with conditions would be placed on the Consent Calendar for May 26, 1992. P PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 12, 1992 Senior Planner Petru stated that Michael Colantuono, Assistant city Attorney, was present and suggested that after a short recess, the Commission adjourn to a closed session and then reconvene. Michael Colantuono Esq., stated that he was present to provide legal council or advice regarding the Housing Element and that when the Commission returned from recess they would be meeting in a closed session, pursuant to authority granted by the Brown Act, to discuss the pending litigation which is entitled Alfred Hendrickson et al vs. Robert Ryan et al and that the case was currently pending in the Second District Court of Appeals involving the City's existing Housing Element. They would then return to open session to consider the Housing Element. RECESS AND RECONVENE - A recess was called at 8:35 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at 9:30 p.m. Michael Colantuono, Assistant City Attorney, stated for the record that the Commission met in a brief closed session and discussed the Housing Element and no action was taken. The meeting started at 8:52 p.m. and was closed at 9:25 p.m. CONSENT CALENDAR (Moved from the beginning of the meeting.) A. RULES OF PROCEDURE Lois Knight LaRue, 3136 Barkentine Road, objected to special meetings at any time and stated that the Planning Commission cannot act unless they have an agenda (p. 2) and she added that her newspaper, Random Lengths, 1014 S. Pacific Ave., San Pedro, CA 90731, should be considered as a general circulation newspaper. She stated that the Commission should make an extra effort to inform people of special meetings and disagreed with the submitting of a written request for notice. Ms. LaRue stated that she would discourage the Commission from holding study sessions (p.3) because all meetings should be open according to the Brown Act. Ms. LaRue spoke concerning agendas, and how they are supposed to be available at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Ms. LaRue also spoke concerning the order of presentation (p. 4) and suggested that staff speak after the closing of the public hearing and stated that she objected to section 2.5: Oral Evidence. Chairman Katherman asked if Ms. LaRue had any of her comhents in writing. She stated that she did not. Ms. LaRue went on to say that she disagreed with the fact that no request forms would be accepted after the first speakers have begun F& PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 12, 1992 to address the Commission on a particular item. She questioned Section 2.8 in regard to the City Attorney, which allows anyone on the Planning Commission (through the Director of Environmental Services) to ask the City Attorney questions. She felt that the City Attorney should only assist the City Council and that giving the commission access to the City Attorney would be expensive and she felt that it would be a mistake to allow this. Elizabeth Kelly, 6611 Vallon Drive, stated that her main concern was Section 2.5 Oral Evidence (p.5) where it states that no request forms will be accepted after the first speaker since it discourages the community from attending the Planning Commission meetings. She agrees with Ms. LaRue to keep the meetings as public as possible. Acting Director Petru stated that it would be appropriate to switch B and C under Section 2.5: Oral Evidence as suggested by Ms. LaRue to reflect the staff's current practice. Vice Chairman Byrd commented on Section 2.5, the second paragraph (last phrase), and suggested that the part that reads as follows "prior to the commencement of the discussion" should be deleted. Chairman Katherman agreed. Vice Chairman Byrd read a statement as follows: the City Attorney or his or her assistant may further advise the Commission through the Chairperson on matters of evidence. Commissioner Clark stated that the City Attorney and Assistant City Attorney provide advice to all bodies of the City including the Planning Commission. Commissioner Hayes moved to adopt the changes and bring the item back to the next regular meeting on the Consent Calendar and seconded by Commissioner Kowlds. There were no objections. PUBLIC HEARING B. HOUSING ELEMENT CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES Assistant Planner Jerex presented the staff report regarding the proposed amendment to the City's Housing Element. Staff's recommendation was to proceed with the public hearing while considering the comments from the State Department of Housing and Community Development and provide direction to Staff. 0 .7 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 12, 1992 Dawn Henry, 6525 Via Colinata, President of the Rancho Palos Verdes Council of Homeowners, stated that the City currently has adequate housing stock and meets the goals of the General Plan. In addition, Ms. Henry stated that approximately 40 - 50% of the land within Rancho Palos Verdes has slopes in excess of 25% as stated on p. 1-1, of the 1990 Housing Element. Once the Housing Element is completed, a comprehensive plan can be developed to determine if we need to have any new housing according to the State. Ms. Henry strongly emphasized that they will work with other cities to oppose SB 1019 which is pending in the State Legislature which would allow "use by right". J.J.D. McLaren, 3923 Palos Verdes Drive South, spoke concerning noise reduction. Mr. McLaren stated that the acoustical buffering in multifamily construction is important in reducing noise impacts for tenants even though it is costly. Chairman Katherman explained that the Commission would appreciate written comments from interested parties prior to the next meeting. Vice Chairman Byrd suggested that the written comments, presented by topic, be turned into the Commission at least one week before the next hearing. Lois Knight LaRue, 3136 Barkentine Road, stated that the electric company defines "low income" as $14,900 a year and that in the Planning Commission's revised draft amendment, $20,000 a year is regarded as "low income". Ms. LaRue brought up the issue that nothing can be built at the end of Barkentine Road and that it wouldn't be honest to let people believe that anything would be built there. In addition, the Salvation Army, which is 42 acres, is proposing a 72,000 square foot conference center and that low income housing is not a possibility. Ms. LaRue stated that there are not enough funds in the general fund for the City to construct low income housing. Vice Chairman Byrd stated that Ms. LaRue's comments from March 17, 1992, were reviewed by Staff and the City Attorney and were incorporated into the Staff Report. Michael Colantuono, Assistant City Attorney, spoke in reply to the comments made by Ms. Henry and Ms. LaRue and stated that a "Female Heads of Household" is defined by the State's statute and required housing needs are generated by SLAG. Mr. Colantuono mentioned that he preferred to see Senate Bill 1019 appealed, but did not think that it was likely. A more realistic goal for the Council of Homeowners and perhaps the City was to support the legislation that 2 • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 12, 1992 I] was being suggested at present which would allow cities to trade off their affordable housing goals with adjacent communities. Michael Colantuono also stated that the way that the Building Codes become relevant to the Housing Element is that the Housing Element is required to evaluate whether or not local amendments to the Uniform Building Code make housing more expensive and that staff may be proposing that the City waive those requirements for affordable housing developments. In addition, he stated that the amendment to the Housing Element represents a commitment by the City to evaluate each of the sites to determine if it's appropriate to provide housing there. The program is an ambitious one, but the City may not be able to accomplish every item contained in it due to lack of funding and other constraints. Chairman Katherman asked if it was possible to set aside housing for people such as teachers that work in the Peninsula. Mr. Colantuono said that legally it would depend on the circumstances under which the condition is placed, such as fire departments which have dormitories that are specifically for fire fighters. He spoke concerning the Employee Housing Program which is in the program portion of the Housing Element under Table 25. Chairman Katherman asked if notice was given to appropriate parties such as non-profit organizations, churches on the Peninsula, and the Salvation Army, and if their input was taken into consideration. He presented a letter from HCD dated February 25, 1992 concerning participation of all economic groups in the development of the Housing Element and suggested a specific date be set up to address just the Housing Element. He stated the importance of involving other groups in the process to involve the Council of Homeowners and Homeowners Representatives and holding a special meeting. Commissioner Clark agreed with conducting a separate meeting on the Housing Element and stressed the importance of this document. Michael Colantuono stated that it was likely that he would be the representative of the City Attorney's office and that he had no objection to a special meeting date. Commissioner Clark stated that a special meeting would provide an opportunity for more of the public to be at the meeting. Commissioner Clark moved that the Director of Environmental Services request that the City Council authorize the City Attbrney to be present at the meeting to provide continuity for the project 10 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 12, 1992 and because the consultant that put the amendment together was no longer working for the City. Vice Chairman Byrd seconded the motion. The motion passed without objection. Commissioner Alberio moved to continue the Housing Element to Saturday,, June 27, 1992 and Commissioner Lorenzen seconded the motion, which failed 4-3. Commissioner Alberio moved to continue the Housing Element to Tuesday, June 30, 1992 and Commissioner Byrd seconded the motion, which passed 5-2 with commissioners Clark and Lorenzen dissenting. Commissioner Clark encouraged the Council of Homeowners to give their members information about the special meeting on the Housing Element. J.J.D. McLaren, 3923 Palos Verdes Drive South, asked if the staff could prepare a summary of the document. Vice Chairman Byrd stated that if the Commission receives the comments in writing that a lot of preparation could be done prior to the meeting. Michael Colantuono stated that it would be appropriate to state for the record that the intent of the previous motion was to continue the public hearing on the Housing Element and the Negative Declaration until 7 p.m. on June 30, 1992. Senior Planner Director Petru mentioned that the City Attorney also pointed out that written comments cannot be required, however, it should be encouraged in the subsequent public notice. Chairman Katherman stated that notices would be going out to non- profit organizations in the community. AUDIENCE QUESTIONS -- None Commissioner Mowlds, seconded by Commissioner Lorenzen, moved to adjourn the meeting until the next regular meeting on May 26, 1992. There was no objection. ADJOURNMENT -- The meeting was adjourned at 11:18 p.m. "Ll