Loading...
PC MINS 19930308MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNED MEETING MARCH 8, 1993 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 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 Services Dudley Onderdonk, Planning Administrator Carolynn Petru, and Associate Planner Terry Silverman. The Pledge of Allegiance followed. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of February 23, 1993. Commissioner Clark corrected the second paragraph on page two to reflect that he was the one who had raised the issue of the City's Code enforcement procedures. He also requested that his statement in the first sentence of the last paragraph on page five be clarified to reflect that it was made in the "context of the offsets of the design." B. P.C. Resolution No. 93-5; approving Minor Exception Permit No. 453 - Appeal at 4011 Palos Verdes Drive South. Commissioner Mowlds noted that Staff's findings on the constraints of the floor plan and a safer design were findings not normally considered. Also, he disagreed that it was a special lot. Planning Administrator Petru explained that generally there is a finding that has to be made for physical hardships or unusual constraints on the property which is addressed in Section 1 of the resolution. Ms. Petru advised that based on the Planning Commission's discussions at the last meeting, Staff inferred that the applicant was working with a floor plan that was a major constraint. Vice Chairman Byrd stated that if this particular property has constraints, they were self imposed by the owner. Commissioner Clark moved, seconded by Vice Chairman Byrd, to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 93-5 approving Minor Exception Permit No. 453 - Appeal. Motion carried 4-3 on the following roll -call vote: Ayes: Commissioners Lorenzen, Clark, Byrd and Katherman Noes: Commissioners Alberio, Hayes and Mowlds. CONTINUED BUSINESS At Chairman Katherman's request, the Commission agreed to take Item B of Continued Business before Item A. B. VARIANCE NO. 347; Nasser Rastegar-Panah, 5561 Graylog Street Planning Administrator Petru presented the staff report and advised that this was the last meeting at which the Commission could take action unless the landowner grants the City an extension since March 16, 1993 was the deadline date set by the permit streamline act. Commissioner Alberio requested that the Planning Commission reopen the public hearing to discuss his suggestion to allow the applicant the size of the original deck on one level and then go to a second level deck. This way, Mr. Panah would have a larger deck and would not be invading the neighbor's privacy. Since his neighbors would then be looking down on his deck, something would have be to worked out so they would not be invading his privacy. Commissioner Hayes suggested shortening the deck to less than 14 feet and then allowing a lower second level deck. Commissioner Clark said he could support the idea of a two level deck, but since that was suggested in order to deal with the privacy issue why not use vegetative screening. Staff advised that a landscaping buffer was discussed at the meeting between the applicant and neighbors in an attempt to work out a compromise and there was an impasse at that meeting caused by the applicant not wanting to compromise. Director Onderdonk said he thought the neighbors might have looked at some options but the applicant was very firm that he wanted the deck as it is. Chairman Katherman asked the applicant if he would consider a continuance to consider the option of a two level deck. Mr. Panah responded that he was disgusted that the issue was dragging on and Chairman Katherman asked him if he was willing to grant the City an extension of 90 days to work out a compromise as suggested by Commissioner Alberio. Mr. Panah said he might be amenable to an extension but that the basic size of the deck that the Planning Commission had arrived at was wrong and that he had sent a letter which proved that the deck was not 14 feet originally. He stated that he would have to consult with his attorney about granting an extension. chairman Katherman explained that the issue the Planning Commission was going to vote on was to approve the resolution denying the variance or a continuation to discuss the option of a two level deck. Mr. Panah replied that he is definitely not interested in a two level deck and did not want to bear the cost of redoing the deck. Commissioner Hayes noted that in the November 24, 1992 staff report Mr. Panah indicated that his contractor had provided him with a document to prove that the original deck was 16 feet, but that the Planning commission had never seen that document. Vice Chairman Byrd referred to the photographs and the original owner's letter which he felt proved the size of the original deck to be 12 feet. PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 8, 1993 PAGE 2 Commissioner Hayes moved, seconded by Commissioner Lorenzen, to adopt P. C. Resolution 93-6, thereby denying Variance No. 347 and requiring that the applicant remove all but 14' x 24' of the deck. The motion passed 5 to 2 on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Commissioners Alberio, Lorenzen, Hayes, Mowlds, Byrd Noes: Commissioners Clark and Katherman Chairman Katherman advised the applicant that he had 15 days to appeal to City Council. Vice Chairman Byrd suggested that Director Onderdonk verify Staff's measurements and the measurements based on the photographs so City Council would have that information to work with if the decision was appealed. A. ZONE CHANGE NO. 20, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 19 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 647; Shafigh Zadeh, 29941 Hawthorne Boulevard. Associate Planner Silverman presented the staff report and advised that while Staff felt the difference in height allowed would potentially create a view impairment, mitigation measures had been incorporated into the Initial Study and Negative Declaration which would require the City to limit the height of multi -family residential structures through the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process; that the Initial Study and Negative Declaration had been modified to address the impact to views based on the difference between the maximum bulk and building height of potential commercial structures and potential R-12 structures; and that issues regarding geology on the site and impacts resulting from proposed construction on the site will be subject to separate environmental review at the time development applications are submitted. Staff concluded that the benefits of additional revenue and opportunities to fulfill requirements for low and moderate income housing outweigh the benefits of maintaining the site for commercial purposes and recommended that the Commission adopt the Negative Declaration and recommend approval of the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to the City Council. Ms. Silverman also advised that although the applicant did not construct a silhouette showing the entire envelope of a potential RM zoned structure as requested, Staff was satisfied that the silhouette that was constructed was adequate to provide an accurate analysis of potential view impairment. Commissioner Mowlds asked why the applicant did not comply with the request for a full envelope silhouette. Vice Chairman Byrd stated that there does not appear to be great view impairment based on the photographs, but that photographs will not alleviate the neighbors, concerns. Chairman Katherman visited the site but could not tell from the silhouette ift ere would be view impairment and asked Associate Planner Silverman ishe thought there was significant view impairment. Ms. Silverman responded that it was her opinion there was a significant view impact to two or three units in the Seagate Condominiums which have panoramic views of Catalina which is a focal point. PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 8, 1993 PAGE 3 Commissioner Hayes asked how firm an imposed restriction would be and Ms. Silverman answered that in the past the City has reviewed residential projects that had a CUP accompanying them and the City has the ability to reduce grades and limit the height of structures to protect views as was done with HMDI, Hon -Zuckerman, and Kajima. Commissioner Hayes stated that the view protection provisions were required by the present Planning Commission and she questioned how to be sure that does that not change with a different Planning Commission. Ms. Silverman advised that the requirement to maintain views would be carried through and that the determination of significant impact would be made at the time applications are submitted. In response to Chairman Kathermants query, Ms. Silverman advised that the site had been approved for commercial development in 1986 and at that time a geology report had been requested. The applicant did not pursue the project and the approval was allowed to expire. Commissioner Alberio thought that the commission was jumping the gun in discussing the proposed building because the request was for a zone change, but that he was also concerned about the fill on the site. Commissioner Mowlds stated that whether the site was zoned commercial or residential, it is all the same fill on the site and that is a down stream item. He said he was concerned that the audience would think the Planning Commission was considering what will be put on the property, and that is not part of the zoning change. Chairman Katherman stated that procedurally, the Commission can require conditions of the Negative Declaration through mitigation measures that would deal with noise, geology, height, habitat, view, etc. He said the major difference between residential and commercial zoning that will have the most impact is the height of the building. Anything else will have to be dealt with through the CUP and the issue is should the Planning Commission require that the CUP be submitted now in order to evaluate the project and to make as complete and thorough a recommendation to City Council as possible. If the Commission recommends approval of the zone change for multi -family housing without the benefit of a full building envelope silhouette, they may potentially be creating a liability for the City by granting an entitlement that may be taken away if it is determined there is significant view impact for anything up to 30 feet when the CUP is reviewed. He advised that he had checked with the city attorney who indicated either course of action would be legally defensible, but that he thought it was more a matter of being reasonable and prudent and responsible to their duty as appointed officials of the City which is to assure that the developments the Planning Commission approves are reasonable in their physical development and will have as little impact on the surrounding properties as possible. Chairman Katherman stated that he did not have enough information in this case to perform that regulatory process. PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 8, 1993 PAGE 4 Vice Chairman Byrd said he understood the logic of separating the proposed building plan from the zoning change request, but felt that if the Planning Commission approves the zoning change they should make it clear that the geology has to be done before a CUP is issued. Also, since the developer can come back and ask for a 30 foot tall building, he suggested conditioning the zoning change with a mitigation of 16 feet. Associate Planner Silverman explained that there is no mechanism to condition the zoning change and if the Planning commission were to review a CUP concurrently with the zone change, there is also no mechanism to assure that the CUP approved with it would be what was actually developed. If the zoning change is approved, the applicant can request a 30 foot maximum. However, through the CUP review, the Planning Commission would have the ability to require reductions or alterations in the design to eliminate or reduce the view impairment. Vice Chairman Byrd thought it would be fair to both the neighbors and the applicant to require a CUP now since the applicant may not get a favorable vote on the zoning change without additional information and he wanted to see the total picture before voting yes or no. He suggested guidelines be given to the applicant and stated that view impairment and the geology were two major concerns and that he would like to see the project stay as close to 16 feet as possible. Commissioner Hayes noted that the schematic designs given to the Planning Commission were only a conceptual analysis of the type of development they may build, and therefore, there was no indication that what the applicant presented to the Commission is what will be built. She agreed that it was not time to make a decision without additional information. Chairman Katherman suggested that the project be put on hold and the applicant be required to submit a CUP application. The Commission would then have the general plan amendment, the zone change, and the CUP application and would know exactly what they are being asked to approve. Commission Clark said if the Commission were to get CUP data and could review the geology, the noise, view and traffic congestion impacts, the residents in the adjoining areas would be satisfied that this Commission is looking comprehensively at the project and he supports that idea. He asked if it was legal to require a CUP at this time and if so, is it legally binding upon the applicant when they actually submit an application. He thought the applicant was applying for a zone change because he has a plan for the site, and if he has an immediate plan, the Commission was basically saying let's bring all the cards on the table. Commissioner Mowlds stated that he agreed and that the Commission had made it clear they wanted a full envelope silhouette which they did not get, therefore, he was concerned about what they won't get in the future. He said that without knowing where this was going, he would have a very difficult time voting for a zoning change. PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 8, 1993 PAGE 5 Commissioner Lorenzen agreed and said he needed more information before making a decision and if he had to vote at this time, it would be against a zoning change. Phil Freeland, Pacific Development Consultants, 3205 Manhattan Avenue, Hermosa Beach, advised that they suggested doing a specific plan a year ago and were discouraged by City Council and Staff. He said that to go to virtually full construction drawings to accommodate a final geological decision, including the design phase and an environmental impact report at substantial cost, would put an incredible burden on them. Mr. Freeland stated this was a land use issue of whether the site should be residential or commercial and that the applicant presently has the right to build a commercial development. He explained that their objection to putting up a complete envelope silhouette was that they are not going to build to 30 feet and also, they were not present at the meeting when the request for a full envelope was made. He said the City has the right to change the 30 foot height standard in that zone and they are willing to accommodate the lowest possible profile that they can build. He said they would like to proceed with some indication that the City was interested in having a residential project versus a commercial project. He stated that they would and have to do all geological studies necessary before they can build anything on the site. Also, it is their intention to submit a CUP, a Grading Permit and a Parcel Map. Mr. Zadeh, the applicant, would like to have the recommendation on the land use issue because it has to be consistent with the General Plan. Commissioner Alberio stated that the applicant may not want a 30 foot height but after the zoning is changed, lie can sell it and the next buyer may want a 30 foot height. Mr. Freeland agreed and said that is why the City should develop a set of development standards for that zone which are not that high. Vice Chairman Byrd asked what height he had in mind and Mr. Freeland answered that their brochure shows 26 feet on the peaks of the roofs, but he thought they could accommodate at 24 feet. He said that the basis on which they made their representations that they would not cause a view impairment was 26 feet. Vice Chairman Byrd asked if the Staff agreed with that and Associate Planner Silverman responded that Staff did not have the information available to them to do a view analysis at that height. Chairman Katherman asked Ms. Silverman if the conceptual plans and the booklet that the applicant submitted were sufficient for the CUP application and she responded that basically, yes, but that additional information including elevation drawings, grading, topography, etc., would be needed. Chairman Katherman confirmed that the Commission would not be asking for final building plans, but would simply be using the conceptual drawings the applicant had already submitted. Commissioner Mowlds'asked Mr. Freeland if the drawings and brochure they submitted represent the structure they would like to build. Mr. Freeland responded that it was very close. Commissioner Mowlds then PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 8, 1993 PAGE 6 0 0 asked why the footprint of the structures did not match the rendering. Mr. Freeland stated that at the time they were done it was a request for nine units which has since been reduced. RECESS AND RECONVENE - Recessed at 8:50 p.m. and reconvened at 9:15. Chairman Katherman asked if the applicant was willing to file a CUP at this time that would indicate the development plan and provide full geological information. Mr. Freeland responded that they had met with Staff at the recess and were advised that an environmental impact report and other reports may be required and he requested that the item be continued to allow time to consult with his client and Staff. He said they are prepared to provide additional documentation since a lot of that was done and the geology was very close to being done,'but they have to consider the cost of the environmental impact and other reports. Vice Chairman Byrd advised that the City is much more careful about geology than in the past, but the City could not have a repeat of certain projects that ended up with geological problems. He stated that what was done ten years ago may not be acceptable today and that it was going to be difficult to prove that the site is stable. Chairman Katherman asked Staff that given that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the environmental documentation to look at the whole of an action and the physical impact as a result therefrom, what would be the difference from what the Commission is doing in terms of a zone change and its environmental analysis versus the environmental analysis that would be required if there were to be a subsequent CUP, Tract Map and Grading Permit. Associate Planner Silverman explained that on a project specific application, regardless of whether it be commercial or residential for the site, her opinion was that a full EIR would be required because there are issues of biology, grading, noise and traffic that are required by CEQA to be thoroughly analyzed. She thought an EIR would be required for either development because of the geology and the biology. Ms. Silverman advised that there is coastal sage scrub growing on the side of the canyon which is a habitat for the California gnatcatcher. She said there was the issue of views as well. Ms. Silverman thought there may not be as much concern with a specific application for commercial development to 16 feet as there would be for a residential development up to 30 feet. She advised that the initial study identified which impacts would be anticipated for either type of development which included grading, air quality, plant life, animal life, noise, light and glare, population and housing, public services and utilities. All were potential impacts associated with development of the property. Commissioner Alberio stated that the applicant will have to update his geological information since it dates back to the 1980's. PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 8, 1993 PAGE 7 Commissioner Alberio moved, seconded by commissioner Mowlds, to continue the hearing to enable the Planning Commission to obtain updated information and to request that the applicant file a Conditional Use Permit and all associated documentation. Vice Chairman Byrd stated that he did not want to have the clock start ticking and then have nothing happen for six months. He asked if the applicant had filed a CUP. Associate Planner Silverman advised that he had not and that the City would have to get a waiver of time limit from the applicant for his application for the general plan amendment and zone change. Vice Chairman Byrd suggested that the application be deemed complete when the geology was completed to the satisfaction of the City and that would be when the clock would start on the CUP. Ms. Silverman said that the Commission could make that a requirement of determination of when the application is complete. Ms. Silverman advised that the CEQA deadline of 105 days starts from when the application for a general plan amendment and zone change is deemed complete which was deemed complete on December 1, 1992. Therefore, the Commission would have to make the finding that the application is not complete pursuant to CEQA and they are requesting additional information if that was agreed to by the maker and seconder of the motion. Commissioner Kowlds agreed that it be part of the motion. Commissioner Clark said he would like to see what the Staff had on geology information. Associate Planner Silverman advised that the geology done for previous approvals was not extensive. She did not know if the present applicant had done his own geological analysis since then or if he was basing his comments on the findings from 1986. She stated that in 1989, additional geology was requested by the city which was not provided and the geology file was closed. Commissioner Clark asked if the City geologist had looked at the site and Ms. Silverman answered that it was the City geologist who had requested additional information in 1989. Chairman Katherman clarified that by the Commission's unanimous vote they had required the applicant to submit a CUP, stopped the time clock on the application under CEQA processing and determined the application to be incomplete, and continued the item to April 13, 1993. Mr. Freeland advised that they would need between two weeks and 30 days to determine if they could comply with the request. He said he believed that their application was complete in terms of the environmental information submitted and he stated that they would have to talk to their attorneys about is concluded and what action they should expect from the Planning Commission as a result of that application. They would like to comply with the Commission's request for a CUP at this time, but without some indication that the Commission would allow residential on the site, the additional expense did not make much sense for the applicant. PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 8, 1993 PAGE 8 Elizabeth Kelly, 6611 Vallon, stated that the present Planning Commission was probably one of the most thoughtful Planning Commissions the City ever had. She went on to testify against the zoning change and said that she did not think that they owed any developer or applicant a profit on their investment. Ms. Kelly advised that the City had a similar situation with the Villa Capri development against which there had been a furious citizens, fight because they knew the soil was bad in that area and no one would admit it. Today, the Villa Capri Homeowners Association has a lawsuit against the developer who was saying the problem is not his, it is the soil. She suggested that before the City makes any more mistakes bringing more litigation, they need to take a very careful look at this project. She stated that there was no law that said the City had to change the zoning. It was her opinion that if the applicant got the general plan amendment and zone change he would turn around and sell the property just as the developer of Villa Carpi did and she advised that Villa Capri is a City-wide scandal that cannot be repeated. Ernest Gambaro, 6542 Ocean Crest, Seagate Condos, testified for the zone change and questioned the request for a continuance. He said he understood the concerns about geology, height, and project definition but that those are issues best addressed at another time when the particulars of the full project are better known. Mr. Gambaro said that as a resident of Seagate, he was for the zone change since the site will be developed some day and given the choice of overlooking a canyon of residential properties that will probably cost approximately $500,000 as opposed to looking at a little strip mall occupied by a 7- 11 store and a Blockbuster Video store, he would vote to have something that is aesthetically pleasing and balanced with minimum traffic, noise and congestion and which would be a positive contribution to the community instead of a commercial project. Chuck McCormick, President, Seagate Homeowners Association, 6542 Ocean Crest Drive, testified against the project and informed the Commission that they had an environmental impact committee prepared to make a presentation. He said Seagate had been uninvolved in the past, but they now have very active individuals living in Seagate with a active Board of Directors, and he assured the Commission that as far as the Environmental Impact Report and all the other specifics of this project they will definitely be involved and will be watching it step by step. Mr. McCormick commented on the Commission's discussion about the expense to the developer and asked what about the erosion of the value of the properties of the people who live in Seagate. He said they were talking about value deterioration and view desecration. Stephen Kowalski, 6542 Ocean Crest Drive, representing the Seagate Homeowners Association as Co -Chair of the Environmental Impact Committee, testified against the zone change and distributed petitions against the project to the Commission and said that he hoped to present enough information to allow the commissioners to deny the request without continuing it. Mr. Kowalski said that an overwhelming PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 8, 1993 PAGE 9 majority of the Seagate residents had expressed their opposition to the zone change through letters and petitions for the following reasons: 1. Private View Impairment - not just two units whose views will be impaired, it is the entire first floor of units and some of the second floor. He distributed photographs of the view from two condominiums on the first floor and stated that it was clear any structure over 16 feet would impact the view of Catalina Island enjoyed by the Seagate "A" building residents and that for every foot increase in structure, approximately 200 feet of Catalina would be blocked. He said that in one unit the view of the isthmus would be blocked which is a focal point within a focal point. Mr. Kowalski stated that private views within the City are protected as per the City attorney and that he did not accept the future promise of the CUP as an acceptable solution. He advised that there was no such thing as RM zoning with a foot note attached and a developer can sue for his right to go to 30 feet. 2. Public Views - Will also be blocked from the intersection of Crest and Hawthorne and the public view of Malibu would be blocked by anything over 16 feet. Mr. Kowalski stated that public views are protected by the City's General Plan also. He distributed copies of Figure 41 "The Visual Aspects" figure from the City's General Plan which he thought clearly showed that distance and view corridors are protected on both Hawthorne and Crest and, in fact, the intersection of Hawthorne and Crest was called out as a view enframement. 3. Aesthetics - A residential site between two large commercial sites was out of place. He said the canyon is undevelopable and a residential building there would look unpleasing. The site is also one of the busiest intersections in the City and a local real estate agent said that it is one of the poorest location for real estate in the City because of the traffic. 4. High Density Issue - Residents of the City want lower density not higher density. He said the City was formed for this reason and it was an essential element of the General Plan. 5. Geology - Basically junk dirt which never had a permanent structure built on it. Mr. Kowalski stated that the geology was not a down stream item. He said if the City changed the zoning to residential, they were saying it was suitable for long term habitation of families and he asked the Commission to think about that since no matter what precautions were taken, there would always be some risk of land movement. He advised that geotechnical engineering was characterized by uncertainty and was often described as an inexact science or art. In a previous geology report on the site, four separate bentonite beds were identified in the test excavations and bentonite is slippery when PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 8, 1993 PAGE 10 wet. He thought the developer was trying to create a silk purse from a sow's ear. Commissioner Clark observed that the photos of the first two Seagate units showed that there was a substantial view blockage from foliage and asked if the owners had applied for view restoration,/ &, Bob Shaftel, 6526 Ocean Crest Drive, testified against the zone change and said that he lives across from the site and is Treasurer of the Board of Directors of Seagate Homeowners Association which is composed of 167 owners. He said the project would seriously impair his view and he referred to the photographs taken from his balcony to prove his point. Mi'. Shaftel expressed his concern that anything over the present 16 foot height limit would degrade his view. He stated that had the poles of the frame silhouette been properly positioned and had they reflected the full buildable envelope, they would have demonstrated an even greater obstruction of his view. He noted the General Plan protects both private and public views in this specific area and that approval of the zone change would significantly degrade his views and the value of his property. Mr. Shaftel said that it was not unusual for one's equity in his home to comprise a large part of their net worth. He stated that there were no mitigation measures that could be taken short of building glass houses, and asked why the Commission would want to encourage the applicant only to impose restrictions on him later. It was unfair to the developer as it represented additional processing and resources for everyone involved. Mr. Shaftel said it appeared to be faulty reasoning, unless the Staff anticipated only negligible mitigating measures in the future. Sherry Creigton, 6526 Ocean Crest Drive, testified against the zone change and said that she bought her unit in 1975 and had worked four jobs for three years to keep it after her divorce because she was under the impression that her view was protected. Ms. Creigton referred to Mr. Freeland's letter included in the Staff report where he stated "I feel very comfortable that we are representing the situation correctly when we say that no private views will be affected by our proposed project". She said this was totally incorrect. Commissioner Clark asked about the significant view impairment caused by foliage from Mr. Shaftel's unit and Mr. Shaftel responded that he did not know there was anything he could do about it and that he was going to start the process for view restoration the next morning. John Kendall, 6653 Crest Road, testified against the zone change and advised that he was the closest resident to the project. He stated that the building that was there before a little clapboard sided building that was put in by the developer of the properties in Monte Verde. It was on three 41 x 121 skids and the only connection it had with the ground was a flexible tube between the sewer and water connections. In response to Mr. Freeland;s statement about the cost of developing a plan to show the Commission, Mr. Kendall thought it would take no more than eight hours on a CAD system for scale PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 8, 1993 PAGE 11 elevation drawings as well as a site plan. Mr. Kendall asked where the children who would live in the units will play. He also expressed his concern about the fact that the whole project will be built on junk fill. He said he did not object to a change in the zone from commercial to residential, but he does object to the fact that the current plan says six or eight or twelve units and he thought that maybe it could hold a duplex on the cut that was there but he would not want to own it. Mr. Kendall asked how much land would be dedicated to a deceleration lane and how would the residents, get in and out of that property with all the traffic from the market across the street. Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, testified against the project and said it would be ridiculous to change the site to residential from commercial because even though presently in a recession, things are looking up. She advised that Pacific Sales is leasing what was once Gelsons Market and perhaps the Lincoln Savings building would also be leased. Ms. Larue said that if the site were converted to residential units at $100,000 per place, one percent of that would be divided among various entities such as the library and the City would get three percent which is only $30. She also noted that a residential project would require more sheriff and fire protection services. She stated there are other residential projects pending such as the Kajima development and probably the Northrop property and, therefore, the City did not need additional residential units. She went on to say that she was appalled at Mr. Freeland's letter which she thought said nasty things about the Kowalskis. She suggested that someone explain to him that in this City the citizens are sovereign, that the Kowalskis have a lot to be concerned about on their property. Mr. Larue stated that when Mr. Kowalski says that there are four bentonite slices on that property, she believes Mr. Kowalski. Commissioner Clark asked Staff to comment on the staff report's discussion of the benefits from a property tax and revenue standpoint of converting this to residential which is opposite to Ms. Larue's testimony. Ms. Silverman replied that a preliminary analysis done by the County Assessor's office indicated that residential development„ would net the City more property tax revenue than commercial. Chairman Katherman commented that the issue was sales tax revenue, not property tax revenue. Melanie Rosenthal, 6542 Ocean Crest Drive, testified against the zone change and stated she had purchased her condo a month ago and was shocked to learn that her view might be blocked which would ruin her property value. Ms. Rosenthal stated that she did not have any geological statistics, but neither did Mr. Freeland, as to what the development would do to the property . She advised that she moved to the Peninsula because of the beautiful views of the ocean and the canyon and that was the reason most people live in Rancho Palos Verdes. She said there was no need to continue the item since the majority of the people in the audience were against it. PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 81 1993 PAGE 12 0- 0 Dawn Henry, 6525 Via Colinada, President of Rancho Palos Verdes Council of Homeowners, testified that she was speaking on behalf of the Rancho Palos Verdes Council of Homeowners and that they were against the amendment and zone change for the following reasons: (1) the general plan amendment to change the zoning will set a precedent and it could have very negative implications that will come back to haunt them; (2) if the applicant is allowed to build this project she doubted that they will be able to build it within the 16 feet and, therefore, it will infringe on the public view corridor which is part of the General Plan; (3) private views will be devastated by this project; and (4) a discussion of development of the property is academic without having the geological information first. She sympathized with the developer's concern about the expenses, but said that goes with the territory since any developer of large property knows there will be certain expenses associated with it such as an EIR and geology reports. Ms. Henry commented that she had been to some of the previous Planning Commission's meetings prior to the current Commission, and the change that she sees with this Commission was wonderful and that the Commissioners were very considerate and very patient. She said she applauds their efforts to study this so in depth and thanked the Commissioners for the time they were putting in. John Sharkey, 3032 Avenida de Calma, testified against the zone change. He said he saw a for -sale sign on the site a year ago and believed that the applicant wanted to get the zone change and then sell the property. He stated that the issue is a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, not this development. Mr. Sharkey said that the first reason the Staff had put forward for approval of the zone change was revenue to the City and he advised that total revenue to the City for the residential project would be the pittance of $600 per year. The second reason for approval put forth by Staff was that the residential project would provide opportunities for the City to fulfill requirements in its Housing Element for "low and moderate income housing". Mr. Sharkey noted that there is no proposal from the developer to donate any of the housing units to low or moderate income people and, therefore, no opportunity for the project to fill any of the City's Housing Element requirements. Mr. Sharkey stated that this was a general plan "dual" protected view since it is protected both publicly and privately, and was the only view site in the City that is a dual protected view. He said that the General Plan was the constitution of the City and an amendment is a very serious matter. He noted that Staff had done an Initial study in January 1993 and then issued a Negative Declaration which then went before the public for comments. Staff then decided there were substantial impacts, so the Initial Study was reedited which he thought was illegal. He referred to Section C of 21080, No. 2 "an initial study (which was done in January) identifies potentially significant effects on the PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 8, 1993 PAGE 13 environment. But (i) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant before the proposed negative declaration is released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and (ii) there is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment." Mr. Sharkey opined that the revision must be done before the Negative Declaration is released, therefore, the zone change application now must go to an EIR since the Negative Declaration as certified is illegal. Kim Zaslow, "All Building, Seagate Condominiums, testified against the zone change and responded to Commissioner Clark's comment about foliage presently blocking some views and stated that looking at a tree is much more pleasant and serene than looking at a building. She thought the community was beautiful and would like to keep it that way. Marie Kowalski, 6542 Ocean Crest Drive, testified against the zone change and summarized her reasons and the statements of other speakers as follows: (1) The amendment would not benefit the entire community, and is not in the public interest; (2) in addition to there being no neighborhood support for the request, the proposal will add very little to City revenues, and over the long term will put more demand on the City for services; (3) the proposed project will not fulfill any requirements for the City's housing element since the developer is not providing any of these units for low and moderate income housing; (4) in granting the General Plan Amendment and the Zone Change, the City is not able to restrict the Zoning change with a CUP since the City does not have Zoning ordinances with "footnotes" or "conditions"; (5) The "mitigated" Negative Declaration is contrary to CEQA and an EIR is required since the City now admits to significant environmental impacts coming from the proposal, after issuing its Negative Declaration; (6) degrading or disrupting a public and private protected (dual), view is contrary to the view policies of the City's General Plan; and it is also the destruction of an enframement as well; (7) there is sufficient evidence that the site is unstable and the proposed project will endanger the sensitive geology in the area. Therefore, all citizens of the City are at risk financially for approving an RM zone without absolute assurance of the stability of the site in advance of the zone change; (8) the'proposal will impact the sensitive habitat in Armaga Canyon thereby disturbing several rare species of flora and fauna; (9) the developer may,sell off the site after the zone change, and the City may legally be required to allow a new owner to fully develop the site to 3011 regardless of verbal agreements with the current developer and a new owner may sue for his right to go to 301; and (10) the General Plan Amendment and Zone change should not be permitted, because the "mitigated" negative declaration is flawed and cannot be accepted or certified. Vice Chairman Byrd said that the applicant had indicated that they planned to excavate to 15 feet and they will have to export that dirt PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 8, 1993 PAGE 14 which will affect the necessity of an EIR. He requested that Staff advise at the next hearing as to what kind of problems they anticipated with excavation and export whether the project is commercial or residential. Commissioner Mowlds advised that the City Council said it was okay to export 40,000 yards and there will not be 40,000 yards exported from this project. Phil Freeland, 3205 Manhattan Avenue, Hermosa Beach, apologized for his letter to Staff concerning the Kowalskis and said he had been asked by Mr. Sharkey to apologize. He said it was not intended to be an attack on them but that he thought there was misinformation in the document that they had been circulating and that the City was in charge of the project and by that he meant the City Council. He also wanted the residents at the meeting to know that Mr. Zadeh was not some developer from out of town, but that he lived almost adjacent to the Seagate Condominiums and had been a resident of Rancho Palos Verdes for almost 14 years. He said Mr. Zadeh had property rights that should be recognized that and that they would try to do a good job in providing the requested information. At this time, the Planning Commission took a short recess to discuss the next item of business. NEW BUSINESS A. PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO THE VIEW RESTORATION ORDINANCE Planning Administrator Petru presented the Staff report which compared the points raised by Councilman Ryan's memorandum to current Code. In the case of the third recommendation, the City Attorney will be providing the City Council with input on the recommendation that the View Restoration Committee revisit major cases. She advised that the first item, Phasing and Payment for Foliage Removal, was considered by the View Restoration Committee at a special work session last Thursday and that the second item, the Covenant to Protect Views, was one that City council was particularly interested in getting the Planning Commission's input on since this had previously been an item of discussion before the Commission. Ms. Petru advised that Councilman Ryan and the City Council had asked for comments from the View Restoration Committee, the Planning Commission and the City Attorney on a proposed Code amendment that would modify the ordinance as outlined in Mr. Ryan's memorandum. She advised that she will be assisting the chairman of the View Restoration Committee prepare a memorandum which will express their opinion of Councilman Ryan's memorandum. She advised that the City Manager had requested their comments by tomorrow. Chairman Katherman requested that Staff respectfully advise the City Manager that the Planning Commission would not be able to respond in the requested time frame since one of the two subcommittee members was leaving the next morning for the Planning Institute seminar, but that they would have a response as soon as possible. PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 8, 1993 PAGE 15 Commissioner Clark advised that he had Committee workshop and stated that the the absence of Councilman Ryan and that their own without explanation. attended the View Restoration Committee was disappointment by his proposals do not stand on Commissioner Alberio stated that the City should give the View Restoration Committee the guidelines set up by the Court so they can revisit ,the old cases. Chairman Katherman stated that the commission's concern was primarily with the covenants which they wanted applied consistently and fairly throughout the processes, be they discretionary or ministerial. He recommended that the covenant include the option of culling and lacing. The second issue was to change or clarify the language in the covenants to acknowledge the concept of the lacing or thinning on a periodic basis as a method for mitigation. He advised that this is often what the View Restoration Committee recommended so when someone signed the covenant they weren't living in fear that they would have to chop down most all of their trees if someone were to complain. Commissioner Mowlds requested that the photographs the Staff took of the Via Campesina project be shown to the city Council. He said that with Councilman Ryan's proposal, one of the Via Campesina trees would have to be cut down every year until there weren't any left. He recommended that Council consider the procedure Staff suggested on that project to annually lace the trees to maintain the view. Although the City may need to increase fees to cover the cost of annual inspections, this method is more equitable than simply removing the trees. Commissioner Mowlds thought the City had to do something better than cut the foliage in Rancho Palos Verdes to 16 feet. Vice Chairman Byrd said the procedure has to be fair and has to be consistent for everyone in the City and recommended that Staff be allowed the latitude to use their judgement since every case cannot be treated the same. Ms. Petru advised that the difficulty the staff has had is that a strict meaning of the Code doesn't allow much choice. She said that Staff was suggesting building in more options than a strict reading of the ordinance currently allows. Ms. Petru advised that Staff's position had not changed since their January 11, 1993 memorandum from the Director to the City Manager for discussion by the Council. She said Staff was suggesting that if the Covenant is used, Staff can use their discretion where there is mature vegetation on the property to allow culling and lacing rather than strict removal. She advised that from Staff's point of view, the current covenant Staff was using was not appropriate in all cases. Via Campesina being a perfect example. Ms. Petru confirmed that the Council wants to have the view covenants filed. She advised that Staff's position in the cases of Staff approval, not view restoration permits, was that they could support landscape covenants because they are more lasting than site vegetation analysis. The problem with site vegetation analysis was that Staff PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 8, 1993 PAGE 16 visits the property and requires the trees be trimmed before the City issues a permit, but there was no mechanism to assure that the upslope neighbors document the view they have gained from that trimming and put it on file with the City. The memorandum of January 11, 1993 suggested adding another step to the process that would include that documentation of the restored view, but would require an increase in the fee to cover the cost of the additional staff time. At least with the landscape covenant, if view ever does become an issue it doesn't matter who owns the property or when it occurs, we have a mechanism to go in and require compliance with code enforcement. Commissioner Mowlds stated that the Code requires the foliage be cut before the building permit is issued and Ms. Petru advised that by adopting the height variation guidelines, the Council had allowed the option of a landscape covenant instead of trimming all foliage down to 16 feet or the ridgeline. Commissioner Mowlds noted that the Development Code does not include the Council's guidelines and allowance for a covenant and Chairman Katherman confirmed that the subcommittee should request that it be included. Commissioner Clark and Chairman Katherman agreed that photographs and documentation should be done and Vice Chairman Byrd stated that Staff should also recommend an appropriate fee. Vice Chairman Byrd requested that there be some method of appeal and Ms. Petru responded that she would check with the City Attorney because Staff had been instructed in the past to handle non-compliance through Code Enforcement. The Planning Commission directed the subcommittee of Commissioner Clark and Commissioner Mowlds to work with Staff to prepare a memorandum to City Council expressing the Planning Commission's recommendations on the proposed modifications to the view restoration ordinance. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Drive, informed the Commission that a tree was blocking the view of the sign at Golden Cove Center. She also advised that Senator Kopp had reintroduced his bill to tighten up on the Brown Act and asked for the Commissioner's support of the bill. Vice Chairman Byrd asked if the bill would apply to the State legislature which it does not now do and Ms. Larue did not know. ADJOURNMENT On a motion by Commissioner Alberio, seconded by Commissioner Lorenzen, the meeting was duly adjourned at 11:25 p.m. to Tuesday, March 23, 1993 at 7:30 p.m. at Hesse Park. PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 8, 1993 PAGE 17