Loading...
PC MINS 19921013MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 13, 1992 The meeting was called to order at 7:40 p.m. by Acting Chairman Byrd at Hesse Park Community Center, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA. PRESENT: Commissioners Alberio, Clark, Hayes, Lorenzen and Mowlds, Vice Chairman Byrd and Chairman Katherman (Chairman Katherman arrived at 8:15 p.m.) ABSENT: None Also present were Director of Environmental Services Dudley Onderdonk, Planning Administrator Carolynn Petru, Associate Planner Terry Silverman, Assistant Planner Paul Espe, Assistant Planner Kim Klopfenstein and Assistant Planner Donna Jerex. The Pledge of Allegiance followed. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS Director Onderdonk advised that the Policy Memorandums are tentatively scheduled to be heard by the City Council on October 20, 1992. Chairman Katherman will be representing the Planning Commission at the meeting. Director Onderdonk asked if the Planning commission meeting of December 22, 1992 should be cancelled in consideration of the holidays and resultant conflicts of schedules. The Commissioners agreed to cancel the meeting and requested that if Staff determines that a second meeting in December is necessary to prevent a backlog of applications, Staff will bring an alternative meeting date for the Commission's consideration. MOTION: commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by commissioner Hayes, to cancel the Planning Commission Meeting of December 22, 1992 and to arrange with Staff to schedule an alternative date to assure no loss of public hearing time. Notion passed 6-0, with Chairman Katherman not voting since he had not yet arrived for the meeting. Director Onderdonk advised that he had included a memo in the agenda packet concerning the Salvation Army to bring the Commissioners up to date as soon as possible on the Salvation Army's position on the recommendations made by the Planning Commission. He stated that this item is on the Planning Commission meeting agenda of October 27, 1992. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 13, 1992 Commissioner Alberio stated, and Commissioner Hayes agreed, that the Planning Commission gave the Salvation Army direction regarding the Environmental Impact Report and they would like to see that followed. Acting Chairman Byrd explained that the Planning Commission had recommended that the Salvation Army separate the EIR into two parts. One part covering the educational center only and the remaining sections to be used for reference only. The Salvation Army has indicated they could not break apart the EIR. The Planning Commission had also requested that the Salvation Army consider separating the proposed guest facility into two buildings to reduce the massive appearance. They also indicated that they could not afford to divide the larger building. Director Onderdonk reminded the Commission that this was not an agendized item and a vote was not possible tonight. Acting Chairman Byrd stated that he thought the Planning commission was obligated to discuss the issue and provide Staff with guidance before the October 27th meeting. He said that if the Planning Commission approved the full 15 -year master plan EIR, even with the condition that it be used only for the Educational Center, he was concerned that the Salvation Army would use the EIR for approval of future projects. He asked Staff if they thought the EIR could be maintained in its present form with a caveat so there would be no question that the commission would be requiring an addendum to the EIR for approval of all future projects. He also stated that he did not understand a cost of $9,000 as claimed by the Salvation Army just to separate the educational center out of the EIR. Director Onderdonk advised that Staff will be prepared to address that issue at the next meeting of the Planning Commission. Director Onderdonk informed the Commission that correspondence had been received expressing concern about the antenna approved under Conditional Use Permit No. 171 (30057 Matisse) and he advised that it was and FCC issue and not a City code issue. Director Onderdonk told the Commission that Hon -Zuckerman, sponsors of the Area 7 and 8 project, have refiled their proposal. A potential date for a special meeting on`this application is November 5, 1992. Commissioner Clark asked if the refiling was a consequence of the issues that arose at the Coastal Commission hearing. Director Onderdonk responded that Hon -Zuckerman had incorporated many of the Coastal Commission's recommendations into their revised plan. Commissioner Alberio asked if the Coastal Commission had worked with the Hon -Zuckerman people and if they had resolved all the 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 13, 1992 issues and reached an agreement. He wanted to know if the application was coming back to the Planning Commission with the blessing of the Coastal Commission. Director Onderdonk replied that he did not think the Coastal Commission staff had yet given their blessing. In response to Commissioner Clark's question, Director Onderdonk advised that the special meeting would be a hearing to address the Conditional Use Permit and the revision of all other permits, including the environmental work that was done before. Commissioner Clark requested that Staff provide all available information to the Planning Commission as early as possible because of the complexity of the issues. Director Onderdonk stated that he and Acting Chairman Byrd had discussed the possibility of forming a subcommittee to review the project in greater of detail. Acting Chairman Byrd requested that Staff indicate the changes since the last Planning Commission and City Council review of the project. Director Onderdonk advised that Hon -Zuckerman will be revising the EIR and there will be a public hearing on that. MOTION: Commissioner Alberio moved, seconded by Commissioner Clark, to schedule a special meeting at 7:30 p.m. on November 5, 1992, to hear the Hon -Zuckerman application and that the Chairman appoint a subcommittee to review the documents provided by staff and the issues that were raised at the coastal Commission meeting. Motion passed 6-0, with Chairman Katherman not voting as he had not yet arrived for the meeting. Commissioners Alberio, Clark and Lorenzen volunteered and were duly appointed to the Subcommittee by Acting Chairman Byrd. Staff will arrange a meeting with the subcommittee members when the Hon -Zuckerman application is complete. Acting Chairman Byrd stated that he had received a request from the Daughters of Mary and Joseph requesting that Public Hearing Item C, be the first public hearing item. The Commission agreed without objection to hear this item first after the Consent Agenda. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of September 22, 1992, approved as corrected on Page 1 to indicate Commissioner's Hayes presence at the meeting, and as changed on Page 6 to delete any reference to a visibility triangle study in the Motion to approve sign Permit No. 584. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 13, 1992 MOTION: commissioner Hayes moved, seconded by commissioner Alberio, to approve the Minutes of September 22, 1992 as corrected and changed. Motion passed 5-0, with Commissioner Clark abstaining as he was not at that meeting and with Chairman Katherman not voting as he had not yet arrived. B. Minutes of September 26, 1992, approved as corrected to indicate that Chairman Katherman was available for the overview only and did not take part in the tour. MOTION: commission Alberio moved, seconded by commissioner Lorenzen, to approve the Minutes of September 26, 1992. Motion passed 4-0, with Commissioners Alberio and Mowlds abstaining since they were not at the meeting and with Chairman Katherman not voting as he had not yet arrived. C. P.C. Resolution No. 92-60; approved as corrected on Page 1, Section 3, line 6 by adding after the word screening, 11 at the discretion of the Director of Environmental services," and as corrected on Exhibit A, Item i. to indicate at the end of the first sentence, 11 if so required by the Director of Environmental Services" and to change the second sentence to indicate that a Landscape Plan may be required. MOTION: commissioner Hayes moved, seconded by commissioner Lorenzen, to approve P.C. Resolution No. 92-60 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 172, and denying variance No. 340, as amended. Motion passed 5-0 with Commissioner Clark abstaining since he was not at the meeting when the application was discussed, and Chairman Katherman not voting as he had not yet arrived. D. P.C. Resolution No. 61, approved as corrected on Exhibit "A", Condition 5. by deleting the condition that the sign shall be illuminated during business hours only. MOTION: Commissioner Alberio moved, seconded by commissioner Lorenzen, to approve P. C. Resolution No. 61. motion passed 5-0, with Commissioner Clark abstaining since he was not present at the meeting discussion this application, and Chairman Katherman not voting as he had not arrived yet. PUBLIC HEARING C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 165 - REVISION "All; Mr. William Bowler (Daughters of Mary and Joseph Community), 5300 Crest Road. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 13, 1992 Requested Action: Allow construction of a 10,025 square foot two-story building, 26 feet, 10 inches in height for the purpose of housing the senior members of the Daughters of Mary and Joseph Community. Allow the addition to the existing 12,531 square foot Novitiate Building for a total of 22,556 square feet to be located in the southwest corner of the lot. Allow a 600 square foot rest room facility to be added to an existing 4,500 square foot classroom facility located at the southern portion of the lot. Assistant Planner Espe presented the staff report recommending approval of the request, subject to conditions. Joanna Strada, John Bartlett Associates (Architect for Applicant), 250 West Colorado Boulevard, Arcadia, stated that the restroom, facility addition is replacing a similar area they are demolishing at the opposite end of the building. Also, Exhibit "A", Item 4., states that the maximum height of retaining walls shall not exceed six feet and that no other walls shall be approved. She stated that there is a garden wall which might be above six feet in some areas and asked if that could be included in the approval. Ms. Strada also requested that Item 5. of the Conditions of Approval be revised to read that they only have to underground the utility lines which serve the school building. This was her understanding with Staff and the Southern California Edison Company indicated that it may not be possible to put all outside utilities underground. Assistant Planner Espe stated that Staff agrees with the applicant that it would be unreasonable to ask that they remove and underground every single utility and telephone wire on the property. Planning Administrator Petru suggested that the second line of Condition No. 5 be changed to read: "All overhead utility lines located in the area of the proposed construction and serving the existing classrooms shall be removed." , and also the last sentence of Condition No. 4 be changed to read: "No other retaining walls are proposed or approved". Ms. Petru stated that Staff would prefer that a maximum height also be set for the proposed garden wall at the front of the property. MOTION: Commissioner Hayes moved, seconded by commissioner Mowlds, to close the public hearing. Motion passed 6-0, with Chairman Katherman abstaining. MOTION: Commission Alberio moved, seconded by commissioner Clark, to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 165 -Revision "A", and Grading Permit No. 1662 subject to the Conditions of Approval W PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 13, 1992 on Exhibit "All with the changes as recommended by Staff to Conditions No. 4 and No. S. Motion passed 6-0, with Chairman Katherman not voting as he was not present for the entire discussion of this application. At this point, Acting Chairman Byrd turned the meeting over to Chairman Katherman. A. VARIANCE NO. 341, COASTAL PERMIT NO. 112; Dr. and Mrs. John Moeller, 47 Seawall. Requested Action: Approve Variance No. 341 to allow an additional 391 square feet of habitable space within the courtyard in the front of the residence and to allow a 20% reduction in the required 60% open space and a two feet reduction in the required five foot side setback. Assistant Planner Klopfenstein presented the staff report recommending approval, subject to conditions. Ms. Klopfenstein informed the commission that on August 25th, the Planning Commission directed the applicant to move the proposed addition from the rear yard deck in order to protect the view of the adjacent resident at 46 seawall. The redesigned project includes an expansion of a master bedroom and bathroom which would total 391 square feet and will be located in the courtyard between the front of the residence and the garage. The addition will not encroach into the rear or front yard setbacks and it -will encroach two feet into the required five foot side yard setback but will not expand beyond the existing building line. The applicant also proposes to replace the existing roof with a one- half inch to a twelve inch roof pitch which will not exceed a maximum height of ten feet. Staff supports the variance for the two foot reduction in the five foot side setback, the 20% reduction in open space and the 391 square feet of habitable space. The additions will not impair views from the surrounding property and there are no new water fixtures proposed. Staff recommends approval of the project subject to the Conditions of Approval in Exhibit "A". Commissioner Clark stated that since he missed the first hearing on this application due to a business trip, he should disqualify himself from the discussion. Commissioner Mowlds requested that the roof height elevations be shown on the plans since they are so critical. Assistant Planner Klopfenstein advised that she will request that the Architect for Applicant call out the lowest elevation adjacent to the backyard 1.9 11 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 13, 1992 by the courtyard, and Staff will indicate a critical ridge height of ten feet measured from the highest point covered by the structure, which would be just outside the existing master bedroom at the back of the property. Staff will request revised plans with the critical ridge line before applicant submits to the building department. Vice Chairman Byrd stated that it seemed the applicant has agreed to do what the Planning commission requested with the one exception of the ridge height and he felt that Assistant Planner Klopfenstein had clarified that issue. He requested that the clarification of the ridge height and the request to include the ridge height elevations on the plans be included in the Conditions of Approval. Richard Linde (Architect for Applicant), 2200 Amapola Court, stated that the Owner will agree to all the conditions and he was there to answer any questions. Commissioner Alberio asked if the person who objected to applicant's request at the last meeting on the issue had been notified of tonight's meeting. Assistant Planner Klopfenstein replied that the architect and property owner have talked with that person about the redesign and Staff had not heard any objections from him. Staff also required that the applicant get approval from the Portuguese Bend Homeowners Association which he did. MOTION: commissioner Lorenzen moved, seconded by Commissioner Alberio, to close the public hearing. Motion passed 6-0, with Commissioner Clark abstaining. MOTION: Vice Chairman Byrd moved, seconded by Commissioner Lorenzen, to approve Variance No. 341, Coastal Permit No. 112, subject to the Conditions of Approval on Exhibit "A", as amended. Motion passed 6-0, with Commissioner Clark abstaining. Commissioner mowlds confirmed that Staff included a requirement for a roof elevation in the conditions of approval. Assistant Planner Klopfenstein replied that Staff would describe it as a critical ridge line elevation and would require that the applicant submit a certification to the Building Department prior to final issue of building permits. Commissioner Mowlds indicated that this was satisfactory. Chairman Katherman confirmed that the existing ridge line of the house would be continued. 7 • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 13, 1992 • Chairman Katherman advised that he would sign the resolution that evening and that there will be a 15 -day appeal period. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 173; Steve Wu (Kumon Math Center), 28731 S. Western Avenue, Suite 204. Requested Action: Approve CUP to allow a tutoring center in a Commercial General Zone. Assistant Planner Donna Jerex presented the Staff report recommending the approval of the request, subject to conditions. Ms. Jerex informed the Commission of corrections to the Exhibit "All Conditions of Approval, Condition 3. which was changed to Tuesdays instead of Mondays, and Condition 11 was changed to Condition 7. Commissioner Hayes asked why Staff was being so restrictive that if the school's enrollment increases they couldn't have additional classes on other days. Assistant Planner Jerex responded that this is what the applicant requested, however, there is a provision in the Conditions of Approval to allow modifications at a staff level. Commissioner Mowlds asked if the hours were changed to 8:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. from 1:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., would that be considered a minor change or a major change. Assistant Planner Jerex responded that Staff would consider that a minor change because it is such a small space. Commissioner Mowlds asked why not change it right now. Commissioner Hayes said she did not see anything wrong with Monday through Friday. Vice Chairman Byrd asked if the facility was leased and if so, they should be able to use it any time they want to. Chairman Katherman stated that he would not object to Monday through Saturday and Commissioner Hayes also said she did not object to Saturday. Commissioner Mowlds asked if they came at 8:30 p.m. for night school was that a minor change. Commissioner Mowlds suggested that they eliminate all hours and let them run their school as any businessman should be able to do. Assistant Planner Jerex advised that Staff usually looks at the other uses in the Center to coordinate the hours of operation. commissioner Mowlds stated that the City does not regulate the hours of ice cream shops, and that the City regulates the hours for 7-111s. Chairman Katherman stated for the record that his daughter attends the school but otherwise he has no involvement with the application. 8 • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 13, 1992 Steve Wu (Applicant), Kumon Math Center, 8321 Devilwood Circle, stated that he was the owner of this Kukmon Math Center franchise and that he was there to answer any questions. Commissioner Alberio commented that most of the discussion was about the hours of the school and since the applicant requested the specific hours that were put in by the staff, he couldn't see why they should be changed. Mr. Wu responded that he was happy to hear that the Planning Commission would consider expanding the hours. However, all the 300 centers in the United States have a schedule of two days maximum per week. Also, the hours are after school hours and most of the students do not get off until 1:00 p.m. which is why it is not necessary to open earlier. However, Mr. Wu stated that he would appreciate it if he could extend the hours so he would not have to leave the center until 8:00 p. m. He said his last class starts at 6:30 and ends at 7:00 p.m. He also said that most centers do not have Saturday hours. Commissioner Hayes asked Mr. Wu how he would like the hours to be stated. Mr. Wu responded that he would like to have no students after 7:00 p.m. but to be allowed stay to do grading and paperwork until at least 8:00 p.m. and that he would like to open at 8:00 a.m., but would not have any students until 1:00 p.m. MOTION: Commissioner Alberio moved, seconded by Commissioner Lorenzen, to close the public hearing. Motion passed 7-0. MOTION: Commissioner Hayes moved, seconded by vice Chairman Byrd, to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 173, subject to Conditions of Approval on Exhibit "A" with Condition of Approval No. 3 to be modified to read that the hours of student operation shall be limited to 1:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Motion passed 7-0. Chairman Katherman advised that he would sign the resolution that evening and there would be a 15 -day appeal period. D. Tentative Parcel Map No. 2333548; Luke and Elaine Conovaloff, 26559 Silver Spur Road. Requested Action: Allow the subdivision of an existing 37,132 square foot single family residential lot in the RS -5 zoning district into two single family residential parcels of 27,132 square feet (Parcel 1) and 8,000 square feet (Parcel 2), respectively. 9 • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 13, 1992 Associate Planner Terry Silverman presented the staff report recommending that the application be approved, subject to conditions. Ms. Silverman stated that while extreme slopes on the proposed Parcel 2 limit the amount of buildable area for future development, both parcels meet the minimum development code standards for their zone. For this reason, staff has recommended approval of this application with conditions including a notation of a restricted use area on the Final Map where no grading or construction except for decks over extreme slopes will be permitted. Because the Development Code does not specifically require consideration of potential view impairment for subdivisions, Staff did not prepare a view analysis from adjacent properties. However, one of the neighbors called it to Staff's attention that potential development on Parcel 2 would cause significant view impairment from the adjacent property located at 26657 Silverspur. Because the findings contained in the attached Resolution include the finding that potential improvements will not be a material detrimental to surrounding property values, Staff felt it important to provide this information to the Planning Commission. With Vice Chairman Byrd's assistance, Staff erected a 16 -foot high pole at approximately the highest point of potential development on Parcel 2 to show the potential building envelope. The photographs resulting from this analysis are shown on the bottom of the photo board that was provided to the Commission. Commissioner Hayes mentioned that she has some business dealing with the neighbor of the applicant, and although she does not feel this will have any effect on her decision or fairness, she stated that if anyone had any difficulty with that she would leave the meeting at that time. Chairman Katherman stated that there was no conflict and it was not necessary for Commissioner Hayes to excuse herself from the discussion. Commissioner Alberio stated that the application was for a lot split but the Commission was addressing other issues such as view impairment. Although he also had questions when he visited the site about excavation and grading, Commissioner Alberio thought these issues should be discussed later when an application is submitted for grading and building. Associate Planner Silverman agreed and said that is why Staff initially did not do a view analysis, but that Section 4 of the resolution requires a finding that the proposed subdivision and potential improvements will not be materially detrimental to property values. The neighbor is contending that erection of a structure on Parcel 2 will significantly reduce their property value, and for this reason, Staff prepare a view analysis. Typically, views that are W PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 13j 1992 impaired by structures up to 16 feet in height are not protected. However, Staff thought the issue should be discussed wanted and to have the information available for the Planning Commission. Chairman Katherman stated that view protection seemed to be a stretch of the Subdivision Map Act which deals with the division of land and the design of improvements or access to the structure. Vice Chairman Byrd stated that if the lot is buildable in accordance with the Development Code, the Commission had no alternative but to approve the parcel map application. On the other hand, if there is reason to believe that it is not a buildable lot in conformance with neighborhood compatibility requirements, then why go through the expense of dividing the lot if it can't be built on. The Staff report said that the maximum building pad would be approximately 1,800 square feet, plus a two -car garage. Vice Chairman Byrd said he was concerned that excavation would have to be from street level which would require retaining walls approximately 18 feet high because of the extreme slope. Commissioner Mowlds stated that the issue tonight is, does the subdivision conform to the Building Code, not view impairment. He said the issue of view impairment is for another forum. Vice Chairman Byrd stated that he thought it would be very difficult for the Planning Commission to approve a building on Parcel 2. Commissioner Mowlds responded that the Commission does not have a responsibility to guarantee somebody that they have a buildable lot. Vice Chairman Byrd stated that what he meant was that the applicant should know that he may not be able to build on the lot. Chairman Katherman asked if it was legally appropriate under the Subdivision Map Act for the Planning Commission to look at the issue of height and view impairment as part of the design improvement of a lot split; and would the Planning Commission be giving someone a pig -in a -poke if the Commission were to approve the parcel map if it is not a buildable lot. Director Onderdonk responded that it is very important that we make City expectations clear to future developers. Chairman Katherman stated that they do have the findings that Associate Planner Silverman has prepared for the commission from the Subdivision Map Act as part of the Resolution. In his experience, for the Planning Commission to deal with the construction of a house on a lot is outside the purview of the Subdivision Map Act, and what they should consider was if this M PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 13, 1992 lot meets code requirements in terms of the buildable area, level area, slopes, access, compatibility with lot size, etc. Commissioner Alberio stated that the City could be liable if the Commission says it is okay to subdivide the lot and then it can't be built on. Vice Chairman Byrd agreed that the Planning Commission should not lead the applicant down the primrose path and that they were obligated to consider what the property would be used for in the future. Commissioner Hayes stated that she would be fearful that a future owner would be told that they could apply for a variance since the Planning Commission might not approve the variance. She requested the potential problems be stated in the conditions of approvals. Chairman'Katherman asked if Parcel 2 met the requirements of neighborhood compatibility, i.e., was it similar in character and size with others in the area. Commissioner Hayes stated that she understands that a lot of the homes are very small in that area so it would be compatible. Commission Clark asked if Staff had a comment on the issue of potential future use and if the lot would be buildable. Associate Planner Silverman responded that there was an extensive evaluation in the staff report which indicated that while specific development plans were not available, it appeared that retaining walls along the access driveway would be required which will probably exceed 42" ,within the front setback and which would require a variance. It is also indicated in the staff report that development applications would most likely include a requirement that minor permit or variance applications be processed concurrently to allow for a larger structure to be built outside the setback area. Commissioner Clark then asked if Staff felt this was a buildable lot. Associate Planner Silverman responded that there are limitations on it, and that there are approximately 1,800 square feet of buildable area excluding the extreme slope areas and the setback areas. However, she felt that whether or not the lot is buildable would be left up to any purchaser of the lot which was why notification conditions were included to inform future developers or purchasers of the lot. Luke Conovaloff (Owner), 26559 Silverspur Road, stated that he and his wife and children reside in a residence on the property which is presently over 3,700 square feet in size. As compared with the surrounding homes in the neighborhood, it appears to be a rather large parcel. Mr. Conovaloff stated that he had arranged for a survey and investigation of the property to determine the 12 • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 13, 1992 • feasibility of the lot split and it appeared that the characteristics of their property were in compliance with the criteria set by the City. He informed those attending the meeting that he would like them to understand that, should the Planning Commission approve their application, their intention is to do everything they can to provide for a residence that is compatible with and a credit to the neighborhood. He said that they hope to be long time residences of the neighborhood and have every interest in maintaining the environment they all value. Mr. Conovaloff informed the Commission that many of the homes in the area are of a size less than the house that could be built on Parcel 2. In response to Commissioner Alberio's question, Mr. Conovaloff replied that he had only informally talked to an architect to see what he can build on the lot but that no detailed study had been done. Commissioner Clark asked if it was a realistic option from Mr. Conovaloff's standpoint to not build on the second lot. Mr. Conovaloff replied that is one of the options that they are considering. Vice Chairman Byrd asked if a survey had been done on the property and Mr. Conovaloff answered that an aerial survey had been done. Vice Chairman Byrd then stated that in order to meet the City's current front setback requirement of 20 feet, they will have to excavate into the hill to a depth of ten feet in order to provide a foundation for a garage. He went on to say that the applicant could start a house at the 20 foot setback line but then would have to move the garage back another 20 feet which would require another six to eight feet of excavation so there might be a total of 16 to 18 feet of excavation. Bonnie Lowe (APRlicant), South Bay Engineering, 304 Tejon Place Palos Verdes Estates, stated that the walls that in the setback line could be moved back into the slope and graded up from there which would not require a variance. This is just to show that there is access and it is possible to get up to the house from the existing street. Ms. Lowe said she did not know to what Vice Chairman Byrd was referring regarding the grading. She assumed the house would be a split-level. Commissioner Alberio asked how can a survey on a lot split can be certified with an aerial photograph when a land survey has not been done. Ms. Lowe responded that aerial photographs are very accurate. Commissioner Alberio asked how they were going to record a plot plan if the lot corners are not established. Ms. 13 C PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 13, 1992 C Lowe answered that they would have to calc everything out when they record the map. Commissioner Mowlds asked what grade she was assuming for the access driveway. Ms. Lowe replied that they made maximum grade of up 20 %. Commissioner Mowlds confirmed that 20% was at an elevation of 130 feet and that the rest of the lot is up at 140 feet to 150 feet. Associate Planner Silverman replied that the highest point covered by the structure would be 146 feet. Commissioner Mowlds stated that the aerial survey showed that the contours at the start of the garage were 130 feet and then they go up to 140 feet and then up to 150 feet so there is 20 feet of elevation difference from the back of the lot to where Ms. Lowe is assuming you are entering the lot which would require 20 feet of excavation. Ms. Lowe responded that 146 feet was the top corner where they had to stop. Commissioner Mowlds answered that he was concerned about excavation. Ms. Lowe responded it depended on how it was handled, and said that there wouldn't be 16 feet of excavation in front. That there would be no excavation at 130 feet, there would be excavation of about 8 feet partway back and if you went on up from there at a split-level, there might be very little excavation. Vice Chairman Byrd stated that what they are talking about is excavating into an extreme slope and said that they would excavate at the 130 foot level for the building pad. Ms. Lowe responded that would not be the intent to excavate at 130 feet for the building pad but possibly the garage could be excavated at 130 feet or you could go higher. She said it did not mean that they have to excavate all the way up the slope. Commissioner Mowlds stated that the map Ms. Lowe gave the Commission shows the revised contours at the corner as 130 feet in the middle of the driveway. Ms. Lowe confirmed that they would be cutting and filling a portion of the front yard to get access to the remainder of the lot. Commissioner Lorenzen commented that the roof line could get up considerably higher. Ms. Lowe responded that this was a very preliminary design to show access to the property and was not a finished plan. She went on to say that the driveway could be changed to come in from another direction. Commissioner Alberio stated that in order for the Commission to approve the parcel map, they needed an accurate survey. Ms. Lowe responded that it was an accurate survey and that aerial surveys are accepted everywhere. Commissioner Alberio explained that Ms. Lowe has stated that they haven't pinned down the corners and the only way that can be done and to certify the survey is to do an actual physical survey on the ground. Commissioner Mowlds asked if Mr. Lowe had determined that there would only be the minimum 14 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 13, 1992 square footage in Parcel 2 or did the owner of the property determine that they would keep the maximum for Parcel 1 and the minimum for parcel 2. Ms. Lowe responded that they did it based on the yard the owners have and where their house is located and that they were trying to protect what they have. Commissioner Mowlds explained that he wanted to know because if one thing goes wrong the owners will be under the required square footage. Ms. Lowe explained that it would be calculated so that it would include at least 8,000 square feet. Commissioner Lorenzen asked if the garage would be at 130 feet and the house at 140 feet. Ms. Lowe replied that she is not an architect and she does not know how a home might be designed, but it did seem to her that a split-level house would be ideal on this lot. Commissioner Lorenzen stated that the total height of the house would be quite high. Associate Planner Silverman stated that it can't be any higher than what is permitted in the Code. The plans as shown are just conceptual and are to show that access could be obtained. Ms. Silverman explained that with regard to her comment about retaining walls, Ms. Lowe had indicated that the walls could be relocated so that a variance would not be required. Ms. Silverman also stated that the grading would potentially include a 16 foot cut and up to a 20 foot cut, but that would only be if they were to completely grade the lot into a flat pad for the construction of a two-story structure. She said that the conditions of approval would restrict grading to prohibit any grading into any extreme slope areas. Jesse Dorman, 26557 Silverspur Road, stated that he owns the property south and east of the proposed Parcel 2 and his residence overlooks that property. The photographs indicating view impairment that Staff presented were taken from his property. He purchased his home in large part because of the view of Santa Monica Bay and the Metro area. Mr. Dorman explained that the proposed subdivision and subsequent construction would completely obliterate his view of the Santa Monica Bay and as much as 80 to 90% of his city view. As recently as two years ago he estimated that the increase to his property value from the view was approximately $100,000. Construction on the proposed lot would decrease the value of his property by approximately that amount. South Bay Engineering states that if this lot is buildable at all it would require a split-level structure containing significant height. The number used tonight is 16 feet. In order to make a 1,600 square foot home, they would have to go higher and he was sure that would become an issue before the Planning Commission at a later date. 15 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 13, 1992 Mr. Dorman said that the proposed Resolution stated in Section 4 that the proposed subdivision and potential improvements will not be materially detrimental to property values which was clearly not the case with this subdivision. He also said that Section 7 of Exhibit "A", Conditions of Approval, stipulates that the owner submit a covenant to protect views from each parcel, meaning Parcel 1 and 2, of the proposed subdivision. The intention is to protect the Conovaloff's Parcel 1 from view obstruction from Parcel 2 which, of course, doesn't protect his view which will be completely obliterated by any construction on Parcel 2. Mr. Dorman went on to say that over the past 18 years, he has been able to maintain his views from his property with a great deal of cooperation from his neighbors who have been extremely cooperative in trimming their trees. He said he wished to point out that should the proposed subdivision be approved, the view from the proposed lot could be maintained only by cutting back the existing trees to the point that their survival would be questionable. He stated that the Staff report references variances, restricted use areas, exceptions, etc. with respect to future construction on the proposed lot, and while the report recommends that the conditions of approval be recorded in the title report, this condition would only define the size of the buildable area and restricted use area. The staff report cites additional problems in relation to constructing a residence on the lot and indicates that numerous variances will be required. Mr. Dorman agreed with Commissioner Alberio that Commission approval of this lot could and would be used as a justification for approval of those variances and exceptions. Should approval of such variances and exceptions not be forthcoming, the City may well be open to law suits for subdividing a lot which is not viable for building. Commissioner Clark asked what Mr. Dorman's source was in determining that he would lose $100,000 of his property values if his view was blocked by a house on Parcel 2. Mr. Dorman replied that it was a verbal estimate from his local realtor. Commissioner Alberio stated that the Commission is considering a lot split which will be conditioned on future development of property which will be taken up at the time the application comes up for grading. He said that he wanted to safeguard the City from any liability and, at the same time, be equitable enough to make sure the neighboring properties are going to be protected, including view impairment etc. Commissioner Mowlds asked if Mr. Dorman was familiar with an accessory structure and explained that if the lot were not 16 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 13, 1992 subdivided and left as is, the owner could build a 12 foot structure and use it for a number of uses and as long as he kept it below 12 feet, he would not need Planning commission approval. Therefore, the difference of a lot split now and somebody building a house later and what he can do now without Planning Commission approval is only four feet. Mr. Dorman should consider the fact that he does not have a protected view. Mr. Dorman asked if such a structure could be built without a permit. Associate Planner Silverman advised that it would need a permit. Commissioner Mowlds stated that the owner could go to the City and pull a building permit by right. Commissioner Clark also informed Mr. Dorman that the City Code does not protect views below 16 feet which is a single story house. MOTION: commissioner Hayes moved, seconded by commissioner Alberio, to close the public hearing. Motion passed 7-0. Commissioner Hayes questioned whether or not the Planning Commission would be approving a lot that is within Code or discussing a house. Chairman Katherman asked Staff what is the Commission's legal latitude under the Subdivision Map Act to regulate the height of the foundation and, therefore, the height of the ridge. Associate Planner Silverman responded that at this point the Planning Commission does not have a mechanism to control the height of the structure. The lot split as shown does meet the minimum Development Code standards since there is a minimum of 3,000 square feet contiguous area that is less than 35% slope, it meets the depth and width requirements and, exclusive of the setback areas, you could get a structure on it, albeit not a substantial structure. Chairman Katherman asked what the average size home was in this subdivision and Ms. Silverman stated that Staff had not done an analysis of that and also stated that a feasible development would include a split- level home which would amount to approximately 2,700 square feet. Chairman Katherman confirmed that the first level would be half the second level and that it would be without any variances or any issues that would come before the Planning Commission. Associate Planner Silverman stated that grading for the driveway would come before the Planning Commission because of the extreme slopes. Chairman Katherman asked if the Commission could require that the grading permit come before the Commission as a Condition of Approval of this Map and he questioned if the Commission had the legal authority to regulate what would be allowed by the Building Code but that from an ethical and equity point of view, he would like to see the Commission restrict the height of the structure. Vice Chairman Byrd stated that they would have to excavate a considerable amount of land as they would have to dig 17 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 130 1992 down ten feet to do it. Associate Planner Silverman responded her rough analysis showed that a legal structure could be built on the lot. Vice Chairman Byrd had concerns about allowing construction to the maximum height of that lot. Associate Planner Silverman said that would require a variance. Vice Chairman Byrd stated that the building pad size was 1,820 square feet and it seemed to him that the rest of the lots in the area were smaller lots. All are flat lots but the building pads are considerably larger than that. Associate Planner Silverman responded that she did not know about the entire neighborhood, but the applicant's existing home is approximately 2,400 square feet. Vice Chairman Byrd stated that he was concerned about neighborhood compatibility and if they occupy every square inch of the building pad with a house they will be right up to extreme slopes which would require retaining walls or they will have to build the house itself as a retaining wall. Associate Planner Silverman responded that Staff has placed restrictions that there would be no grading permitted on extreme slopes. Vice Chairman Byrd said that would mean that they can't occupy the total building pad. Ms. Silverman explained that the grey area shown on the map in the Staff report shows the total building area and shows the slopes less than 35% slope. Within that map, there is a dashed line representing the setbacks so the grey area inside the setbacks is the maximum buildable area, the rest of the white area will be designated as restricted use areas. Other areas that are grey would be subject to either a minor exception permit or a variance, depending on the amount of encroachment. Chairman Katherman asked again if Staff had an answer to his question if the Planning Commission approved the parcel map, could they require as a condition of approval that any grading permit come before the Planning Commission. Planning Administrator Petru stated that she is not familiar with other cases where the Staff has imposed that kind of condition on a subdivision and said it would require some legal research. Chairman Katherman stated that he was concerned about the size of this lot with respect to other lots in the area and asked if 8,000 square feet is a standard lot. Associate Planner Silverman answered that it is minimum lot size for the zone but she did not know what the average lot size was for the area. Chairman Katherman stated that the Commission could make a finding that it is not compatible with the area if this is substantial smaller than other lots. Commissioner Alberio stated that what is before the Commission is a request for a lot split but they were getting into other areas. M PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 13, 1992 He said the Commission should approve the lot split with some disclaimer in the conditions of approval that the City will not be liable if the lot is not buildable. Chairman Katherman said he did not think liability was an issue and that any other permit was at the risk of the,applicant. Vice Chairman Byrd stated that he did not want to approve something with conditions that Staff would have to make sure occurred in the future. He thinks it is up to the applicant to tell the Planning Commission what they plan to do. Commissioner Alberio stated that the buyer of the lot could say that he was told the Planning Commission said the lot was buildable based on fact they approved the lot split. Vice Chairman Byrd stated that if the Commission approves the lot split and then the applicant or whomever acquires Parcel 2 comes before the same Commission for a building permit it will be a long hearing. He stated that he is reluctant to approve a lot split knowing that. Chairman Katherman stated that he did not want to grant approval of the parcel map without knowing to some extent what will be built on the property. Associate Planner Silverman recommended that Staff make the language in Condition No. 6 stronger to say "any construction shall comply with the minimum setback requirements, anything to exceed those setbacks shall be subject to review and approval of either a minor exception permit or a variance." and make it clear that it is not a right that they can exceed the setbacks. Chairman Katherman stated that would address part of the issue, but he would like to see a conceptual grading plan showing where the foundations of the building would go, and although it would be stretching the limits of the Subdivision Map Act, he thought it was necessary so the Planning Commission would know what they were approving and so that the future buyers would know what they were getting. MOTION: Commissioner Alberio moved, seconded by Commissioner Hayes, that this application be continued until the Planning Commission has an answer to the question of if the Subdivision Map Act allows the Planning Commission to set conditions on a parcel map approval. Commissioner Mowlds stated that the issue before the Commission was to subdivide a piece of property; not create lots, put in retaining walls, locate houses, or guarantee views, and that the Commission should treat the request as a subdivision the same way the Commission has treated other subdivisions. Chairman Katherman responded that the Planning Commission is attempting to determine if the site is physically buildable. 19 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 13, 1992 Commissioner Mowlds said that Chairman Katherman was assuming that a house would be built on Parcel 2, but all the applicant requested was to split the lot. Commissioner Hayes withdrew her second of the motion. Commissioner Clark said that the Development Code requires that the Planning Commission consider potential improvements under Section 4 which states: "the proposed subdivision and potential improvements will not be materially detrimental to property values". He stated that, therefore, the Planning Commission is not out of bounds in considering how the property would be utilized. Commissioner Lorenzen stated that the Planning Commission has to look at what is going to be done on the lot, look at the size and elevations, etc. Commissioner Hayes stated the Development Code talks about lot splits being compatible with the objectives, policies, and general land uses specified in the General Plan. Chairman Katherman stated he thought that included pad area compatibility, lot size compatibility, and height of the structure, and that he would like to see a preliminary plan before granting approval. Commissioner Clark stated he was referring to Section 4 which basically requires the Planning commission to consider potential improvements. Chairman Katherman asked how improvements are defined under the Subdivision map Act. Vice Chairman Byrd said that if the Commission only considers the lot split, a variance will be needed to build anything on the lot. MOTION: commission Alberio moved, seconded by Vice Chairman Katherman, to continue Tentative Parcel Map No. 23548 to the Planning Commission meeting of November 10, 1992 in order to get an answer to the question of the Planning commission's ability to impose conditions under the Subdivision Map Act as to what is going to be done with the land. Motion passed 4-3, with Commissioner Clark, commissioner Mowlds and Vice Chairman Byrd dissenting. RECESS AND RECONVENE The meeting was recessed at 9:45 p.m. and reconvened at 9:55 p.m. NOTION: commissioner Alberio moved, seconded by commissioner Hayes, to reconsider commissioner Alberiols motion to continue Tentative Parcel Map No. 23548. Motion passed 7-0. W# PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 13, 1992 Commissioner Alberio stated that he withdrew his motion for the purpose of taking under consideration Staff's recommendations and to vote on Staff's recommendations. Commissioner Hayes stated that she is concerned about the surrounding land use and condi- tions and eliminating and minimizing adverse effects. Commissioner Clark stated that this lot split is not appropriate and that the owner of the lot has not come to the Commission with an appropriate nor reasonable lot split. He believes there is a materially detrimental effect to surrounding property and he is not in favor of it. MOTION: Commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by Commissioner Lorenzen, to deny Tentative Parcel Map No. 23548, without prejudice, and to waive any future application fees for a resubmittal of the project and to provide the applicant with direction on the content of a resubmittal. Motion passed 6-0, with chairman Katherman dissenting. The following discussion took place before the vote. Chairman Katherman stated that he did not agree with the motion and that the Commission could simply ask the applicant to bring the information to prove that it is a buildable lot and that the pad size is compatible with surrounding properties. Vice Chairman Byrd stated that he thought that what the motion accomplished was to end the discussion and to have the applicant resubmit. Vice Chairman Byrd said he did not think the Commission should ask the applicant to resubmit in 30 or 60 days but should instead let him take his time and then come back. He then asked Staff what it would cost the City to process a new application since they are waiving the refiling fee. Associate Planner Silverman responded that the fee is $1,140 for filing a revision to a parcel map. Commissioner Mowlds stated that he made the motion the way he did so it would not financially impact the applicant. Chairman Katherman stated that he would like to request that the applicant provide the information and he thought the commission could do that by continuing the matter as they have with height variations when they asked applicants to provide new designs or additional information. He said that specific guidance could be given the applicant and their engineer as to what information the Planning Commission requires. Chairman Katherman said he preferred to deal with the present application but with additional information from the applicant. In addition, he asked Staff to advise the Commission as to how much they can regulate under the Subdivision Map Act. M] PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 13, 1992 Vice Chairman Byrd stated that the information Planning Commission is discussing should be provided before the application is resubmitted. The applicant should prove that the lot is buildable. If it is not; then it will have to be changed so it is buildable. Chairman Katherman asked that since the Planning Commission requires additional information with a height variation, why wouldn't they do it with a parcel map. He stated that he did not agree with making the applicant refile since they would have to wait for a new hearing, someone will have to pay for mailing out new hearing notices. Commissioner Alberio stated that the applicant should provide information in order for the Planning Commission to make a decision and that maybe the costs could be split. He did not think the City should bear the burden of paying for something it did not cause. Vice Chairman Byrd stated that he did not think it could be done in 30 days. He thought denying the application without prejudice is simply saying that with the information we have now we can't approve it. A roll call vote was taken on the motion at this time, which passed 6-0. Chairman Katherman advised the applicant that they may refile without a fee when they have additional information. He advised them that the information the Planning Commission is concerned with is compatibility of lot size, compatibility of level pad area, physical access via the driveway in terms of wall heights and slope of driveway, a preliminary foundation plan to show what variances, if any, would be required, and a preliminary grading plan to show that the site would be physically suitable for development. Vice Chairman Byrd confirmed that the Planning Commission wanted information on any retaining walls. A preliminary house plan would not be required. Ms. Lowe, engineer for the applicant, said the sizes of the lots would be available but it would be difficult to determine the pad sizes. Commissioner Lorenzen asked about retaining walls and the driveway and Ms. Lowe responded that the driveway is shown on the plan and Vice Chairman Byrd explained that the driveway does not show and what Planning Commission would like to know is what type of variances would you expect to be requested based on the topography of the lot. The applicant asked if their application could be heard again on November 10, 1992, and Chairman Katherman advised that the earliest it could be heard was in two months and since there would be no second meeting in December, it would probably be in January. 22 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 13, 1992 Commission Clark stated for the record that his vote in favor of the motion was because of his belief that there is substantial financial impact on surrounding properties based on this particular subdivision of this lot. NEW BUSINESS A. SIGN PERMIT NO. 585; Valvoline, 29529 Western, Suite 31. Requested Action: allow the 6 -foot height limitation for monument signs to be increased to 814"; allow relocation and addition of two 28.15 square foot channel -lettered signs along sides of building; and allow neon lighting along the ridge and eave lines. Assistant Planner Jerex presented the staff report recommending that the Planning Commission approve the request for the monument sign with conditions; deny the request to relocate two signs and to add a channel -lettered sign; and direct the applicant to apply for a major revision to the Conditional Use Permit for the neon lighting request. Ms. Jerex stated that a wall mounted sign on the north side of the building would soon be blocked by any trees planted on adjacent property and that the majority of the monument sign is currently blocked by a palm tree planted on the Valvoline site. Staff feels that aligning signs on the building sides leads to a proliferation of signage which is not in keeping with the expressed goals of the Code. However, Staff does agree with the applicant that the monument sign is blocked on the south side by a wall constructed on the Mark C. Bloome site. Staff is in favor of allowing the monument sign to be raised from six feet to eight feet four inch height. The neon lighting is a separate item which requires a revision to the Conditional Use Permit. Mark Gons, (Applicant), 6868 Los Verdes Drive, stated that he and his brothers are the franchise operators of the Valvoline Instant Oil Change. He stated that he was happy with Staff's recommen- dation to raise the monument sign, but he would like to do something more to promote better visibility of the site. Mr. Gons presented photographs of his site and of two other franchise sites in San Diego to show the neon signs. He explained that the signs are not actually neon, but are fluorescent lighting enclosed in a red tube. Mr. Gons stated that South from his store along Western there are plenty of businesses with signage on both the north side and east side of the building and he would like to have the same opportunity. 23 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 13, 1992 Commissioner Hayes said that a wall blocks applicant's sign on one side and a billboard and a palm tree block it on the other side. In response to Vice Chairman Byrd's question, Planning Administrator Petru advised that there is no specific City Code on billboards and that the City has not had to address the issue since there has not been a proliferation of billboards. This particularly billboard was in place when Eastview was annexed to the City and there haven't been any additional billboards. Ms. Petru stated that there is a provision in the Code against off- site signs. Commissioner Hayes said there should be a provision in the Code limiting billboards. Vice Chairman Byrd asked if the City could end up with 2,000 billboards on 'Western Avenue advertising businesses on Western? Director Onderdonk responded that it is a muddy legal area. In general, if it is not provided for in the Code it is not permitted. The billboard that is there is grandfathered. It was there when the area was annexed to the City. One of the things the commission may want to look into is an amortization program to make it go away over a period of time. Vice Chairman Byrd stated that he thought that was an excellent idea as did Commissioner Hayes. Chairman Katherman said that his recollection of Planning Commission interpretation of the Code has always been that billboards are not allowed, and that signs are only allowed by a sign permit or Conditional Use Permit. Vice Chairman Byrd requested that Staff present a report to the Planning Commission on how to get rid of billboards and stated that if the City does not now have an ordinance they should adopt an ordinance regulating billboards. Chairman Katherman stated that there are more ways to advertise a business than signage and he did not think putting signs on all sides of the building would help applicant's business since they would not be visible. He said that he would consider putting up a sign on the south side of the building where it would be visible and would not be obstructed but on the north side between the billboard and the trees. In response to Commissioner Alberiols question, Assistant Planner Jerex answered that the applicant could get approval over the counter and would not have to come before the Planning Commission if he enlarged the sign up to 50 square feet. She stated that Staff's recommendation was that he be allowed to raise the sign to 8 feet four inches because the wall on the adjacent property blocks the sign. Mr. Gons stated that he was hoping for 24 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 131 1992 something more and asked about relocating the channel letters from the front of the building to the south side. Commissioner Hayes said she did not see any reason to deny the relocation of the sign. Assistant Planner Jerex stated that the relocation request was to move the wall mounted sign on the front facade of the building to the south and north facades. Commissioner Hayes said that in talking to the applicant, she thought he meant that he would like to move that sign to the center. Ms. Jerex advised that was okay as long as he stayed three from the property line. MOTION: Vice Chairman Byrd moved, seconded by Commissioner Hayes, to accept Staff's recommendation to approve the request for a monument sign with conditions; to deny the request to relocate and add --,a channel -lettered sign; and to direct the applicant to apply for a major revision to the Conditional Use Permit for the neon lighting request. Motion passed 7-0. B. SECOND UNITS: City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Assistant Planner Jerex presented a brief overview of the regulations with regard to second unit. Ms. Jerex advised that the City does not currently have an ordinance governing second units. Therefore, by state law the City must adhere to the state requirements governing second units. Staff has requested an interpretation from the Department of Housing and Community Development's legal department as to the specific differences between the limitations on granny housing and second units because they are so similar. Also, Staff proposing revisions to the Development Code and Staff will be recommending an amendment to include a second unit ordinance. Commissioner Clark asked if the amendment promotes second housing units as a way to meet some of the City's housing requirements. Assistant Planner Jerex responded that the intent would be to streamline the process. These are maximum requirements set by State law. The City can be less restrictive in implementing a second housing ordinance. The intent would be to simplify the procedures for the applicants to perhaps gain staff level approval and to also find a simple way to legalize existing second units. Commissioner Mowlds stated that State law says that second units cannot be more than 1,200 square feet and there are some in the City that are substantially larger. Therefore, Staff is going to W PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 13, 1992 get applications to increase the ones that are there by in the neighborhood of 1,000 to 1,500 square feet each. He asked why second units are limited to no more than 1,200 square feet. Assistant Planner Jerex responded that currently the City has no ordinance and 1,200 square feet is the State's maximum. Commissioner Mowlds asked if someone came and said he had a bunch of second units and he wanted to make them nicer, is there anything that says he can't. Chairman Katherman stated that since the City has no local ordinance, State law governs. Commissioner Mowlds stated the issue concerns him because he knows it will be facing the Planning Commission and asked when the Planning Commission would see the new draft ordinance. Ms. Jerex stated that it is part of the proposed Development Code revisions that have not yet been reviewed by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Alberio stated that the City cannot do less than the State requires. Assistant Planner Jerex responded that the City can be less strict but cannot be more strict than the state requirements. Commissioner Alberio disagreed and stated that the law is that the City can be more restrictive but cannot be less strict. Ms. Jerex informed him that it works in reverse in this case. Commissioner Mowlds said he was not trying to block anything. He stated that he thought when the Planning Commission approved the Housing Element there was a section that said the City was going to do something and he thought the City should do something. Vice Chairman Byrd agreed and said that he thought the Planning Commission is obligated to tell the community the Commission's views this matter. Commissioner Mowlds stated that he wanted to go on record that he thought the Planning Commission had ducked the matter of second units too long and that it was time to take are of it. Chairman Katherman stated that he did not think that they have ducked it since the Housing Element is a policy statement. Vice Chairman Byrd stated that it wasn't put on the front burner and Commissioner Mowlds said that they haven't done it for three years. Chairman Katherman thought that the Code amendments which were passed by the former Planning Commission and were now pending before the before the City Council included a section for second dwelling units. Assistant Planner Jerex stated that certain sections of the Code revisions did go through the Planning Commission and were adopted by the City Council. They were the definition section and the land use moratorium section. The issue of second units was never looked at by the Commission and it never went before a public 26 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 13, 1992 hearing. Chairman Katherman stated that he thinks they should do this. Vice Chairman Byrd stated there is a Planning Commission Subcommittee but they haven't looked at this particular issue. Chairman Katherman stated that there were two options - give it to the subcommittee or create a new subcommittee. Commissioner Lorenzen stated that this was going to directly affect on lot open space questions. Chairman Katherman agreed and asked that consideration be allowed for reduction in open space to allow granny or second units. J. J. D. McLaren, 3923 Palos Verdes Drive South, asked for a review of State law. Assistant Planner Jerex answered that in the absence of a City ordinance, State regulations apply. In a single or multi -family residential zone, through a Conditional Use Permit or another application procedure, you can build a second unit that isn't more than 30% of the existing living area of the current existing dwelling if it is attached; or if it is detached structure, it cannot be more than 1,200 square feet. In addition, there are other City building requirements. Mr. McLaren stated that at the present time a lot of people in this City own their house and the house is too big. He said that it is very expensive for young people to buy a house today unless they want to live on the other side of Palmdale or even further out. Mr. McLaren said he thought the City needed a second unit ordinance as it would be good for the City. Vice Chairman Byrd suggested that this issue be given to the current subcommittee. He said that he would like some guidance as to what to do about current open space requirements. If current open space requirements are maintained, smaller lots would be excluded from having any granny or second units at all. He thought that some kind of survey will have to be made in Rancho Palos Verdes before can the answer question of open space. There was a discussion of whether to give the issue of second units to the current subcommittee or to form a new committee. It was decided that the matter is to be referred to the current subcommittee on Development Code standards. Vice Chairman Byrd suggested that the Staff and Subcommittee meet to discuss changes they both anticipate. He didn't think they should work on it independently and suggested that they meet on the matter soon so there would not be a duplication efforts. QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE M PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 13, 1992 E Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, stated that she attended the Long Rang Finance Committee meeting on October 12, 1992 and that she was upset when Staff told the Committee that community activists are discouraging development in the City. Commissioner Clark stated that he didn't think there was a question here and Chairman Katherman stated that he appreciated her feelings but did not think that it was a matter under the purview of the Planning Commission. I Chairman Katherman stated that he thought that the Planning Commission had never, and he did not think the Council had, abridged peoples' participation in the process and thanked her for her comments. MOTION: commissioner Hayes moved, seconded by commissioner Alberio to adjourn to the Planning commission meeting of October 27, 1992. Motion passed 7-0. Meeting was duly adjourned at 11:09 p.m. MW