Loading...
PC MINS 19930209MINUTES dill S PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 9, 1993 The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chairman Katherman 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. ABSENT: None Also present were Director of Environmental Planning Administrator Carolynn Petru, and Jerex. The Pledge of Allegiance followed. STAFF Services Dudley Onderdonk, Associate Planner Donna Director Onderdonk updated the commission on the status of the Portuguese Bend landslide and advised that the City spends between $20,000 and more than $60,000 per year maintaining Palos Verdes Drive South in the landslide area. He also advised that the work in that area is being done by the Redevelopment Agency which has independent sources of funds separate from the City's budget. Director Onderdonk advised that the State requires the City to provide a draft housing element to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). HCD has no legal authority to require changes to the Housing Element since there is no administrative procedure to penalize local governments if the plans do not measure up to HCDIS analysis. However, the Attorney General can file a lawsuit against the City in hopes of forcing it to comply with the intended law. He went on to explain that the City's Housing Element has been designed to withstand legal challenges. Director Onderdonk advised that Staff will be reviewing housing policy options with city council. Commissioner Clark asked if HCD had requested a response to the clarifications and additions they would like to see. Associate Planner Jerex responded that HCD did not specifically ask for a response, but the City has the option to send another draft review. However, Staff felt that since the city is so close to the next update, another draft might muddy the issue. She advised that the next revision to the Housing Element is due July 1, 1994. Staff will be receiving the new regional housing needs assessment in June of this year and will have a year to work with HCD to draft an updated Element. COMMISSION In response to Chairman Katherman's inquiry, Planning Administrator Petru advised that the City Manager's secretary is scheduling a meeting between the Council members, the Planning Commissioners, and Staff to discuss Proposition M and covenants but that a date had not yet been set. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of January 26, 1993. Commissioner Alberio moved, seconded by commissioner Lorenzen, to approve the minutes of January 26, 1992. Motion carried 7-0. B. P. C. Resolution No. 93- ; denying Variance No. 347 at 5561 Gravlog (Panah). The applicant previously submitted a letter and a report from a licensed engineer he hired to determine the original length of the deck. This information was provided to the Commissioners. Mr. Panah's son requested that he be allowed to speak on behalf of his father. Commissioner Alberio opined that the public hearing would have to be reopened to allow someone to speak on a Consent Calendar item. Planning Administrator Petru advised that testimony could be allowed on a Consent Calendar item only to present reasons why the item should be removed. If the item was removed, it would then become an issue of reopening the public hearing. R. J. Panah, (applicant's son), 5561 Graylog, stated that his father was ill as a result of the problems with the deck and could not attend the meeting, that his father had hired a certified engineer who had determined that the depth of the original deck was 15.8 feet, that the neighbors were against them and that Commissioner Mowlds had been rude to his father. He said that his father has been a perfect citizen to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and was being mistreated and he was at the meeting to assure that his father gets a fair chance. Commissioner Mowlds requested it be on record that when he visited the Panah residence he was not rude and had only asked who had installed the deck bracing. Vice Chairman Byrd, who was with Commissioner Mowlds at the time, confirmed that Commissioner Mowlds had not been rude or discourteous. Vice Chairman Byrd stated that if the project had gone through the normal procedure and the required permits had been obtained, there probably would have been just one hearing at which a compromise could have been worked out between the parties. As it was, the neighbors did not know there was a new deck until it was being built and they realized it was larger than the original deck. Vice Chairman Byrd said he had met with the neighbors and did not think they were unreasonable people. He thought that because of incorrect and incomplete information, the variance the Commission heard was not the variance they should have been addressing. The action the Commission took at the last hearing was to say, let's stop this and start all PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 9, 1993 PAGE 2 Aft over again and do it right. If the Resolution to deny the variance is approved, the applicant can appeal to the City Council or can start the project over again. Chairman Katherman stated that the commission had a variance application before them with the flexibility to approve anything from the existing deck to the original deck, and he did not see the point in requiring the applicant to file a new application. He suggested that Staff attempt to get resolution of the project at the neighbor level rather than before the Planning Commission, and that the Commission should allow some time to go through the neighborhood consultation process. Commissioner Clark agreed that the project needed to be looked at again, but did not think that it had to be started all over. He thought Staff should work with the applicant and the neighbors to reach a solution that is a win/win for everyone. Commissioner Lorenzen also thought the applicant should work with the neighbors and the Staff to come up with a solution and then come back to the Planning Commission. Vice Chairman Byrd stated that the Planning commission had reviewed the project for three months which was enough time for the applicant to work with his neighbors to reach an understanding. Commissioner Alberio commented that at one of the hearings, Mr. Panah said he had worked it out with one of his neighbors but at that same meeting, that neighbor testified that his problems and concerns about privacy had not been resolved. Commissioner Alberio said that the Planning Commission had a responsibility to assure that projects are built according to the Development Code. He stated that people have come before the Planning Commission who are in violation of the Development Code and he wanted to send a strong message to be sure that does not continue. Commissioner Alberio expressed his concern that the Commission would be liable if they approve a project in a case like this where it has not been built to Code. He said he wanted to be sure the project was built properly, he wanted to protect the City from liability, he wanted to be equitable, and he wanted to be sure the neighbors, problems of privacy, views and other concerns were resolved. Commissioner Alberio cited other cases that have come before the Commission without permits and without respect for the City's rules and regulations and said that this is one of those cases. Commissioner Hayes agreed with Commissioner Alberio and said since the deck was built without permits, she thought to deny this application was the cleanest way to handle it. PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 9, 1993 PAGE 3 • Chairman Katherman advised that if the Resolution is adopted denying the variance, unless it was done without prejudice, the applicant would have to wait six months before filing a new variance application on the same project. He said that the Qity sannet r-equi-;;o that tlia-process to require that the deck be altered would take longer than six mont s Vice Chairman Byrd moved, seconded by Commissioner Hayes, to approve the Resolution denying Variance No. 347. Commission Lorenzen made a substitute motion, seconded by Commissioner Clark, to continue the Resolution to March 23, 1993 to allow Staff to meet with the applicant and neighbors to determine if an equitable compromise can be reached. The motion carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: LORENZEN, CLARK, MOWLDS, KATHERMAN, ALBERIO NOES: HAYES AND BYRD PUBLIC HEARING A. VARIANCE NO. 352, GRADING PERMIT NO. 1673; Kenneth Vukov, 2 Mustang Road. Associate Planner Donna Jerex presented the staff report and advised that the applicant is requesting that the 20 -foot minimum front yard setback and the second story stepback requirements be waived and that a flagpole be allowed outside the front yard setback. The structure would encroach approximately seven feet into the front yard setback. Ms. Jerex advised that even with the hardships that adhere to this property, ample area exists for the development of a generous size home within the Code requirements and without over building the lot. She recommended that the project be redesigned in a manner that meets the Code's requirements. Kenneth Vukov (landowner), #2 Mustang, stated that he has seen many different style homes in Rancho Palos Verdes including Italian Villas, English Tudor, Contemporary, etc. Mr. Vukov said his dream is more traditional and that he wants to build an authentic and tasteful Federal style home, and that he hopes that about 100 years from now the house will still be there with a plaque in front saying "compliments of the California Historical Society." Ray Medak (Applicant and Architect), 150 West 6th Street, San Pedro, stated there are three issues: (1) the setback encroachment of the building, (2) the setback encroachment of the flagpole, and (3) the stepback requirement for structures in excess of 16' in height on an upsloping lot. Mr. Medak indicated he was asking for special consideration because of the hardship of the lot configuration which has a 60' foot street and a 24' easement going through it. He indicated that 49.7% of the lot is public street or easement, and, PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 9, 1993 PAGE 4 therefore, less than 51% can be built on. Additionally, the street fully dissects the lot so another wedge of land (12% of the lot) can't be built on because it is too narrow. He explained that other lots in the neighborhood have 301 streets and the easements vary between 12, and 181. He also advised the Commission that the portico which encroaches into the frontyard setback is an architectural feature necessary to the Federal style as is a straight two story facade front elevation of the home. He stated that other homes in the area were in excess of 5,800 sq. ft. and are two stories with no front setback condition. In order to comply with the two story stepback require- ment, they would have to recess the second floor by seven feet which would require a seven foot terrace which would not be an authentic Federal design. Mr. Medak advised that the lot is surrounded by trees which hide the building, plus there is a natural berm which conceals the building. He did not think the project would set any precedent and that the design does not conflict with the General Plan. He stated that the adjacent lot was 20,003 sq. ft. with a 6,500 sq. ft. home on it and that the proposed project is a smaller home on a 23,568 sq. ft. lot. Vice Chairman Byrd stated that the steps shown on the model of the home presented by Mr. Medak were in the easement and the garage was infringing on the driveway. Mr. Medak responded that the intent was to use the common driveway. Commissioner Hayes commented that guests would have to park on the street. A discussion ensued and the consensus of the Commission was that the house was beautiful but was too large and not suitable for the buildable space available on the lot. Mr. Medak indicated they would consider altering the design but wanted to retain the Federal style. He advised that the roundness of the portico and the straight two story elevation were essential to the Federal style. He said other homes in the neighborhood have two story facades. He indicated that they had an alternate design that would meet the frontyard setback requirements but that would encroach into the rear setback and which would require more grading. Chairman-Katherman disagreed that the house was oversized Mavar Nancy ate-. #2 Mustang Road, testified for the project on behalf of herself and her husband and said it was a beautiful home which would enhance property values. John Bennett, 3 Eastfield, Rolling Hills, testified against the project because he thought the view of the proposed home from Palos Verdes Drive East would be a blight on the landscape. He thought the project represented a continuing deterioration of all the standards that represent the community such as homes on much less than the 20,000 sq. ft. Mr. Bennett said he originally could see the whole panorama of the harbor area but now has a very limited view and his main concern with the project was visibility. PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 9, 1993 PAGE 5 Chris Pauly, P. O. Box 486, Gardena, stated that he was representing his parent who lives at 0 - Eastfield which is across the street from the proposed project. He was concerned that the house will be higher than Mustang Road and would be unpleasant to look at. He also thought the house was extremely large compared to other homes in the area and did not blend with adjacent properties. Lindsay Olson, #10 Mustang Road, testified against the project and stated that he lives across the street and one house up from the project. He indicated that he was also representing his neighbors, Tom and Mary Russell at #7 Mustang and Michael and Rae Wetmore at #3 Mustang. Mr. Olson presented letters from the Russells and Wetmores indicating that they were against the project and in support of Staff's recommendation. He objected to the Code violations of the proposed project and requested that the applicant comply with the existing Codes and come up with a compromise design more suitable to the lot. Mr. Medak rebuttal's to Mr. Bennett was that the eucalyptus trees which are now impeding his view will be trimmed to restore his view. Mr. Medak also said that as for Mr. Pauly, he cannot see the proposed house since it is screened by the trees. After additional discussion, it was again the consensus of the Commissioners that the house was too large and massive for the building space available and they recommended that the architect meet with Staff to redesign the project to reduce the mass and to increase the setback. 'Chairman Katherman disagreed and commented that it was approximately the same size as the conceptual design presented when the Commission considered the Parcel Map. Commissioner Mowlds advised that if the project was appealed it would go to the City Council who have been adamantly against projects with large houses on small lots. He said it was his understanding that the City Council and the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes do not want hagh huge houses on small lots. He also thought those who had to look down at the flat roof would object to the Federal style architecture. Commissioner Hayes added that she believed the setbacks should be adhered to. Vice Chairman Byrd suggested the architect and owner meet with the neighbors who had objected to the project to come to some agreement. commissioner Alberio moved, seconded by Commissioner Clark, to continue variance No. 352, Grading Permit No. 1673, to March 23, 1993 to allow the architect and applicant time to meet with Staff to redesign the project. Motion passed 7-0. The Commissioners then provided the following guidelines: (1) move the house back in a northerly direction and consider a variance to the rear setback and (2) determine if the street and the easement can be moved to the south to provide a larger building area. PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 9, 1993 PAGE 6 B. ZONE CHANGE NO. 20, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 19, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 647; Shafigh Zadeh, 29941 Hawthorne Boulevard. Planning Administrator Petru advised that Staff had prepared an initial study and a Draft Negative Declaration was issued on January 14th, 1993, subject to a 21 day review period for public written comments. Ms. Petru explained that at the request of Mr. John Sharkey, Staff extended that period from February 9th to February 17th and that since the comment period for the Negative Declaration does not end until after this hearing, Staff is recommending that the hearing for the project be continued until February 23, 1993 and that the Commission take testimony tonight on the adequacy of the Negative Declaration. She advised that it would also be appropriate for anyone in the audience to comment on the merits of the project. Ms. Petru informed the Commission that, due to illness, Staff did not have time to prepare a staff report to analyze the merits of the zone change or General Plan amendment, but Staff could discuss the initial study and any of the items contained therein. In response to Vice Chairman Byrd's inquiry, Ms. Petru advised that the site has uncompacted fill on it. Vice Chairman Byrd then asked if a Negative Declaration can be approved recognizing that the site has some major geology problems. Ms. Petru responded yes, since what is being considered is the change in the land use of the property. She advised that a Conditional Use Permit would be required when the actual site development plans are submitted to the City and a geology report would then be required. Chairman Katherman advised that there was a potential impact of 14 feet that should be addressed in the initial study. He explained that 16 feet is all that is allowed as a matter of right with a commercial project and 30 feet is allowed for an RM -12 project. He also said that he would like to see a preliminary site plan before signing off on the environmental impact since this site has a history of controversy in terms of view impact and geological problems. He went on to say that he would not want to change the general plan without having all of the geotechnical information done up front. Chairman Katherman explained that before approving a change from a commercial structure which would be owned and operated by the developer/owner to a residential project that would be sold off to future buyers, he would like to have assurance that the property can be built on and would like to see a preliminary geotechnical report. Vice Chairman Byrd commented that when there is questionable geology on a site, one of problems is the one year time requirement to process an application. By the time the geology is solved, the year could be up. He said the Planning commission did not want to give anyone the impression that if they changed the zoning, they would be allowed to build on the site. PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 9, 1993 PAGE 7 Commissioner Alberio opined that the Commission would only be changing the zoning and would not be giving permission to build on the property. Vice Chairman Byrd said the applications they approve could be tacit approval to build on the lot. Ms. Petru advised that the applicant could file an application today to build a commercial project and they are just requesting a change in the land use which does not guarantee the property can be built on. She explained that it may be geology studies will show that it is an unbuildable lot despite its land use designation. In answer to Commissioner Clark's inquiry, Ms. Petru said she did not agree with correspondence from a City resident that an Environmental Impact Report should be done before a land use change is granted since Staff found that there are not significant impacts which warrant the preparation of an EIR. There may be significant geological impacts to warrant an EIR if and when a Conditional Use Permit and a Subdivision Map Application is submitted which also require full public hearings. Shafigh Zadreh (Owner), 29620 Island View Drive, stated that he has been a resident of this area for 15 years and lives very close to this project and he cherished the values of this community and he knows what the values are. Philip Freeland. Pacific Development Consultants (Applicant). 3205 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach, requested that he make his full presentation on the land use change and the zoning at the next hearing since the Staff report was not available. He stated that they were in full agreement with Staff's position on the Negative Declaration and thought it was the appropriate action. Mr. Freeland understood that a full environmental review would be required for a specific proposal for a residential project and said they are prepared to do whatever is necessary to get approval including the geotechnical reports. Robert Earl (Architect),8500 Melrose, Los Angeles, informed the Commission that he planned the Ranch, Island View Estates, and the Wallace Ranch developments and stated that he is very sensitive to the residents and the soil conditions of the community. As a result of his experience on the Peninsula, he had already addressed many of the concerns of the Commission and had presented geological reports and studies, site plans, density figures, lot coverage information , photographs, sight lines, etc., to Staff in hopes of presenting a clear picture to the Commission. Mr. Earl stated that they had hired City approved geologists to prepare new geology reports He agreed that the top 15' of this site is junk dirt, and as a result, their design approach is to remove that soil and use that 15' for underground parking. He advised that they plan to have a low density project with considerable open space. Since a staff report was not available, he requested that this matter be continued until the Commission had all the documentation available to properly judge the project. PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 9, 1993 PAGE 8 Frank Sesno, (Chairperson for the Environmental Committee of the Rolling Hills Estates. Mr. Sesno testified that he was against a change in the zoning because he was concerned that the proposed project would have a significant environmental impact and an EIR should be required. His main concern was that their views would be impacted and he requested that a frame of the proposed project be put up to determine the view impact. He stated that he disagreed with the builder on some items on the Environmental Information and Checklist Form regarding blockage of the view and neighborhood compatibility. John Kendall, 6653 Crest Road, advised that his is the closest private residence to the project and that he has lived there almost 25 years. He expressed his concern about not enough land available for parking and Chairman Katherman noted that the applicant is proposing subterranean parking. Mr. Kendall then discussed his concerns about the geological conditions. He requested that the project have a retention wall strong enough to stop a rolling trash truck from going into the canyon and informed the Commission that there had been a trash truck down there already. He also informed the Commission that since the last rain, there was a blow out on the canyon approximately 30 feet wide and 150 feet long where the canyon and vegetation has washed away because of improper drainage on this project. He implored the Commission to take a good look at the numbers and how much parking would be available. In addition, he thought entering and exiting this project would be a problem without a decelerating lane. Marie Donovan (President, Cresta Verde Homeowners Association), 105 Cresta Verde Drive, Rolling Hills Estates, testified that the main concern of the Cresta Verde homeowners was to have a nice, residential area and she felt this was being downplayed in the negative declaration. Ms. Donovan said they have a magnificent unobstructed view,of Santa Monica and Malibu and that is the reason they purchased their homes. She claimed that views increase property values and the residents do not want to lose them. Ms. Donovan requested that a frame of the proposed project be put up to determine the view impact. Stephen Kowalski, 6542 Ocean Crest Drive, #C311, testified that he was also representing his wife and that they were not sure if they were for against the issue. Mr. Kowalski said he was concerned about the effect the requested zoning change would have on height limitations and how that would affect his views. He also expressed his concerns about how the project would affect the animal and plant life in the canyon and about the geological problems on the site. Commissioner Alberio moved, seconded by Commissioner Lorenzen, to close the public hearing on the Draft Negative Declaration and to continue the hearing on the General Plan Amendment No. 19 and Zone Change No. 20 to February 23, 1993. Motion carried 7-0. PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 9, 1993 PAGE 9 Planning Administrator Petru advised that the comment period to submit written comments on the Negative Declaration will expire on February 17th and that the discussion at the February 23rd meeting will be about the merits of the General Plan Amendment and the Zone Change. Ms. Petru thought the staff Report would be available and would analyze that particular project including any proposed modifications that Staff makes based on the comments received on the Draft Negative Declaration. The staff report will analyze the zoning change and the General Plan amendment. Vice Chairman Byrd requested that the commission require that the geology be completed at the time a Conditional Use Permit is processed on this project and Commissioners Mowlds and Clark concurred. Mr. Freedland agreed and advised that they are prepared to have a final geological report approved when they come back with a specific project. He explained that they have a two-step process set up by the City Council and city Staff, which is to submit the applications for rezoning and a general plan change. Then, if they receive approval, they assumed they would have to come back with a completed geology report approved by the City in order to apply for a Conditional Use Permit, a Grading Permit and a Tract Map all of which would come before the Planning Commission at a public hearing. Vice Chairman Byrd wanted him to understand that before the public hearings are over, the Commission will know that the geology is safe for the project. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS (Continued) COMMISSION Commissioner Mowlds requested that Staff report at the next meeting on the status of the following projects on which applicants were required to modify their structures: (1) the property in Island View on Santa Catalina where the applicant was required to move the pilasters and part of the driveway, (2) the house on Western Avenue where the garage was converted into a living space and the Commission requested they convert it back to a garage, and (3) the project where the trellis was to be shortened and the steps were to be moved. Commissioner Mowlds advised that he had checked the project where a wall had to be straightened and caissons cut off and that work had been done. Commissioner Mowlds also discussed a letter from Mayor Susan Brooks thanking the Planning Commission for moving ahead on the Development Code changes. He suggested that the Commissioners send suggested changes to Senior Planner Rojas on a weekly or biweekly schedule and that a definite day be arranged for a meeting with Mr. Rojas to discuss the changes. Chairman Katherman suggested reviewing the proposed Development Code changes with the Council of Homeowners and to ask them for their suggestions and comments. Commissioner Alberio PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 9, 1993 PAGE 10 -Z volunteered to meet with the Council. Commissioner Mowlds suggested that the members of the Council discuss the proposed changes with their individual Homeowners Associations to obtain as much input as possible. ADJOURNMENT On a motion by Vice Chairman Byrd, seconded by Commissioner Alberio, the meeting was duly adjourned at 11:00 p.m. to Tuesday, February 23, 1993, at 7:30 p.m. at Hesse Park. PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 9, 1993 PAGE 11