Loading...
PC MINS 19930713MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 13, 1993 APPROVED 8/24/93 The meeting was called to order at 7:31 p.m. by Chairman Katherman at Hesse Park Community Center, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA. PRESENT: Commissioners Alberio, Clark, Hayes, Lorenzen, Mowlds, Vice Chairman Byrd and Chairman Katherman. Also present were Director of Environmental Services Bret B. Bernard, Planning Administrator Carolynn Petru, Associate Planner Terry Silverman, Assistant Planner Fabio de Freitas, and Recording Secretary Michelle Kennerson. The Pledge of Allegiance followed. COMMUNITICATIONS Director Bernard distributed pages 3 and 4 of the draft minutes of June 8, 1993 that were inadvertently left out of the original packets and a letter submitted that evening from Mr. Lawrence Clark regarding Continued Business Item C. He also mentioned that there was an error regarding the recommendation of Continued Business Item A. The Staff recommendation was to continue the item to August 24, 1993. Chairman Katherman suggested taking the New Business item after the Commission dealt the first Continued Business item. A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 132 - EXTENSION: Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District, 6245 Via La Canada (Miraleste Elementary School). (TS) Commissioner Clark moved, seconded by commissioner Hayes to continue this item to the August 24, 1993 P.C. meeting. (7-0). NEW BUSINESS A. SIGN PERMIT NO. 627• Pemba Properties, Inc., 550 Silver Spur Road. (CP) Commissioner Alberio moved, seconded by commissioner Hayes to approve the request, via minute order, subject to conditions of approval. (7-0) CONTINUED BUSINESS B. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 768 -APPEAL• Mr. and Mrs. James La Barba, 3300 Palos Verdes Drive West (a.k.a. 30101 Palos Verdes Drive West). (TS) Associate Planner Terry Silverman presented the Staff Report, stating that the last time this item was discussed, the commission directed Staff and the applicant to work towards reducing the ridgeline of the structure and to provide additional information regarding cumulative view impairment and foliage removal. Since that hearing, the applicant has reduced ceiling heights and has modified the grading plans to provide for a two foot reduction in the overall ridge height. However, Staff feels that the reduction in ridge height is minimal and that view impairment remains significant because the revised structure will continue to exceed the horizon as viewed from the northbound travel lanes on Palos Verdes Drive West. While the total grading for the revised plans has increased only slightly, the net export for the project has increased drastically. For this reason, Staff still feels that the grading for the project remains excessive for the primary use of the lot. Theoretically, cumulative view impairment is not an issue because any new structure built at the front setback would impair views at 16 feet in height. However, realistically, cumulative view impairment would still likely occur with second story additions to the existing structures. Staff met with the architect and a representative from the Lunada Pointe HOA to discuss foliage removal. The architect indicated that, with exception of all of the palm trees and four specimen trees located in front of the house, all other vegetation would be removed. While removal of the vegetation in the Lunada Pointe common area will improve views of Catalina Island from the southbound travel lanes, the four trees to remain on the property should be trimmed to 16 feet to maximize view restoration. Finally, the architect provided a packet entitled "View Enhancement". Because there are no photographs to compare these views with, Staff is unable to concur or disagree with the information, but Staff has provided it for the Commission's review. Commissioner Hayes asked Ms. Silverman if lacing the trees would be appropriate for the trees exceeding the 161 maximum, thus restoring the view. Ms. Silverman responded that the trees would still be exceeding the horizon line and are quite large and bushy, and in order to maximize view restoration, would have to be trimmed to 16". Ms Silverman continued to say that the types of trees that the architect is proposing to remain will lend themselves very PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 13, 1993 PAGE 2 • readily to being trimmed. She continued to say that the olive trees will respond very well to severe trimming and also the xylosma tree is actually an overgrown shrub. Chairman Katherman asked Ms. Silverman if she referring to the four trees that will remain on the property in regards to trimming. Ms. Silverman responded that the four trees in front would remain, but Staff is recommending that they be trimmed to 161. Chairman Katherman asked about the trees in the Lunada Pointe HOA's control. Ms. Silverman responded that they have agreed to remove these trees. 4 Commissioner Byrd asked if the flags have been changed to show the 21 reduction. Ms. Silverman responded that they have. Chairman Byrd asked Ms. Silverman if there was a trade off in terms of view as to what is to be gained by foliage control and lost due to the height of the house. Ms. Silverman responded that the hatch marks on the architect's exhibit show the portions of the proposed residence that will exceed the horizon line. Commissioner Byrd asked Ms. Silverman if she concurred with that. Ms. Silverman responded that because Staff does not have comparable photographs, she could not say. Commissioner Alberio asked Ms. Silverman how the City can require the Lunada Pointe HOA to trim the foliage located in the common area. Ms. Silverman responded that there is a separate grading application from the Lunada Pointe HOA and that the foliage removal could be a condition of the approval. Commissioner Byrd asked if the Lunada Pointe HOA's letter be interpreted as being a part of the application. Chairman Katherman responded that he was not sure from a procedural point of view. commissioner Byrd commented that the Commission could draft a letter asking the Lunada Pointe HOA about tying the tree removal and grading application together. Commissioner Mowlds asked Ms. Silverman what determines excessive grading. She responded that Staff typically takes a conservative viewpoint on reviewing grading applications. When Staff comes across a property with a flat pad that can easily accommodate a structure 161 in height similar in size and bulk to that proposed, 50-200 cubic yards of grading is generally acceptable. In this case, the grading is well over 3,000 cubic yards on a flat pad lot that has approximately over 25,000 sq. ft. of level area. In the past, the Commission has found it acceptable to balance the grading on site so that the impacts for export or import are not discernable to the neighbors. In this case, there is nearly 1,000 cubic yards of export proposed. Commissioner Mowlds stated that he felt that the proposed grading was not excessive. Mr. Mowlds referred to the Transamerica project, in which 50,000 cubic yards was exported for 10 houses. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 13, 1993 PAGE 3 Mr. Mowlds also referred to the Song's residence in which there was 500 yards of export for a residence with a 2195 sq. ft. footprint, or less than a quarter of a cubic yard of grading per square foot of building footprint and this project would amount to 1/3 of a cubic yard of grading per square foot of building footprint. Since this was a continued Public Hearing, Chairman Katherman asked that the speakers be called to address the commission. George Shaw, 23727 Hawthorne Blvd. Torrance, CA., architect, stated that he wanted to clarify the subject of the four trees in the front of the property. Mr. Shaw stated that when they did the view analysis, they considered the those trees to still project above the horizon. Mr. Shaw stated that when he and Ms. Silverman went out to the site, they estimated the two olive trees to be 301 high. The applicant will prune them back, but he doesn't think he can go down to 161 and still have viable trees. Mr. Shaw continued to say even leaving the trees projecting above the horizon, there would be an 18% increase in view northbound, compared to what is existing there now. In the southbound direction there would be a 53% increase in view from the site line. Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, RPV, CA commented that she is delighted to hear that Staff is aware of the importance of the view in question. Ms. Larue further commented that this particular area is located on one of the richest archeological and anthropological sites on the peninsula. Commissioner Clark asked Ms. Larue what her source of information was in regards to her claims that it was an rich archeological site. Ms. Larue responded that she could not recall, but has been doing the research with Dr. Atwood. Commissioner Alberio recalled that there was a standard condition for conditional use permit applications regarding archeological sites. Planning Administrator Carolynn Petru confirmed that the standard condition is placed on new tract developments, where there is going to be grading in previously undeveloped areas. In that case, it required an archeologist and paleontologist to be on site during the rough grading operation. Commissioner Alberio then asked if that can apply to any property, such as the La Barbas. Ms. Petru responded that she was not aware of a situation were it was ever required on a single family residence. Chairman Katherman commented that usually the residence would be categorically exempt, because it is a replacement of the existing structure. James La Barba, 2621 Via Ramon, Palos Verdes Estates, CA. stated that he wanted to assure the Commission and residents of the Peninsula that if anything is found of any archeological value during construction he would turn it over to the proper authorities. Commissioner Alberio asked Mr. La Barba if he would PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 13, 1993 PAGE 4 • 6.1 mind if this was part of the conditions of approval. Mr. La Barba agreed. Commissioner Byrd stated that in the front of the La Barba's home, they will have four trees alongside the roadway. Mr. Byrd stated that olive trees can be laced so you can see through them, but he was concerned about the two other trees that are located at the boundaries, not directly in front of the home. Mr. Byrd asked Staff how much improvement there would be to the view if these two trees were removed. Ms. Silverman responded that looking at Photo #A and basing it on that, probably about 10 ft. of view would be gained on the left side. Commissioner Alberio moved, seconded by Commissioner Lorenzen, to close the Public Hearing. Commissioner Mowlds stated that he does not believe that Staff's comment that 3,300 yds. of cut and fill is excessive, since close to 900 yards is located on another piece of property. He continued to say that if the Commission applied Staff's criteria on every flat lot, there never would be an Eastern -style basement built in the City. Chairman Katherman stated that his concern with the 946 cubic yards is not whether it is excessive or not, but what does it provide in terms of view enhancement. He continued on to say that he feels it is a trade off. Commissioner Lorenzen referred to the last meeting, and asked Staff if the Commission was looking at the three photographs numbered #4, 5 and 6 to compare the revised plan. Staff responded that these photos were on the board. Ms. Silverman clarified that Photos #4, 5 and 6 are the previous photos from the last meeting and were in the applicant's packet last time. Commissioner Alberio stated that he feels that the trees should remain and that the house should be lowered 1 foot. Commissioner Hayes moved, seconded by Commissioner Alberio, to approve the height variation with conditions. Chairman Katherman clarified that the standard covenant should to be applied to this height variation and also to the grading plan for the property owned by the Lunada Pointe HOA. Commissioner Byrd stated that he would like to see language included in the covenant requiring the applicant to trim the foliage that is in the side yards. Commissioner Alberio clarified that the Commission cannot regulate foliage below 16' in height. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 13, 1993 PAGE 5 Ms. Silverman stated that Staff typically includes condition stating that the landowner must submit in writing that they agree to all the conditions within 30 days or else the approval becomes null and void. Ms. Silverman further stated that they can add this condition to the grading permit submitted by Lunada Pointe HOA. Commissioner Hayes stated that she feels the Commission should go ahead and approve the project subject to the conditions. Chairman Katherman asked commissioner Hayes whether an archeological conditions be included to the conditions of approval. Commissioner Hayes stated this condition was acceptable. Ms. Silverman clarified that the landowner should understand that they would be required to retain an archeologist acceptable to the city to be on site during all rough grading operations. Commissioner Hayes stated that she felt having the archeologist there was excessive. She stated that the property has already been graded and already has a pad. Commissioner Hayes commented that condition would be there only if something were accidently found. Planning Administrator Petru advised the Commission that it has been Staff's experience that generally untrained people cannot identify an archeological find when they are out there with a bulldozer. Commissioner Hayes stated that the grading for the driveway and for the pad of the house has been done. Ms. Petru stated Staff would suggest omitting the condition. Chairman Katherman asked if Staff had a map that indicates the known archeological sites of the City. Ms. Petru that the City does have one. Chairman Katherman continued to say that if this site is in a generally known archeological site, he feels that the requirement of the services of an archeologist or paleontologist is a reasonable condition. Chairman Katherman then asked the Commission if they want a condition of a 946 cubic yards of excavation to lower the house one additional foot. Chairman Katherman stated that he feel's this is not necessary and said in his opinion it does not provide anything in terms of a reduction of view impairment. Commissioner Hayes moved, seconded by Commissioner Alberio to approve Height Variation No. 768 -Appeal thus conceptually approving the original grading plan and the revised structure design to lower the residence one foot and direct Staff to prepare the resolution and conditions of approval and also to include a condition that an archeologist and paleontologist be present during rough grading operations, if the property is determined to be a sensitive PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 13, 1993 PAGE 6 61 archeological area and bring it back to the July 27, 1993 Planning Commission meeting. The motion was passed by acclamation 7-0. RECESS AT 8:30 P.M. RECONVENED AT 8:39 P.M. Commissioner Clark removed himself from the dais because he is the appellant in the next item. CONTINUED BUSINESS C. HEIGHT VARIATION 773 -APPEAL• Mr. and Mrs. David Tabah (applicants); 3348 Corinna Drive; Mr. Lawrence Clark (appellant) 3354 Corinna Drive (FF) Assistant Planner Fabio de Freitas presented the Staff Report, stating, as directed by the Commission at the last hearing regarding this item, the appellant and the applicants have met on two previous occasions before this evenings, hearing. Direction was given to both parties to try and come to a resolution regarding the issue of invasion of privacy. Unfortunately, no compromise solution could be agreed upon. Mr. de Freitas stated that Staff is seeking direction from the Commission regarding this matter. Mr. de Freitas then explained that three photo boards were being passed among the Commission. He explained that one is a photo board that was prepared by Staff and is identified. The other photo board was prepared by the applicants and the third one that is up on the stand was prepared by the appellant, Mr. Lawrence Clark. Mr. de Freitas continued to say that there were additional photos taken by Mr. Clark that are not included on the board because they seemed to duplicate what is shown,. but they are available for the Commission's review. Commissioner Byrd asked Mr. de Freitas if there were any changes made to the plans since the last meeting. Mr. de Freitas responded there were no changes. Chairman Katherman asked Mr. de Freitas based on the last meeting, if it were correct to assume that the applicant has officially withdrawn the request for the balcony and has agreed to raise the height of the sill of the two windows. Mr. de Freitas responded that at the last meeting, the applicants had agreed to raise the sill of the windows to waist height and eliminate the rear balcony. Mr. de Freitas continued to say that the commission may want to ask the applicants if they still feel that way. Since this was a continued Public Hearing, Chairman Katherman asked that the speakers be called to address the Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 13, 1993 PAGE 7 • :7 Lawrence Clark, 3354 Corinna Drive, RPV CA (appellant) stated that he would like to reserve his time to respond to any comments made by the applicants and that he is available for any questions from the commission. Director Bernard stated that the pages 3 and 4 of the draft minutes were distributed to the Commission, as well as a letter from Mr. Clark which was received that afternoon. Chairman Katherman stated that due to the nature of this case, he has not engaged in any "expartell communication with either the applicant or the appellant on this matter since this case has been pending before the Planning Commission. He asked all of Planning Commissioners to make a similar statements regarding any exparte communication. Commissioner Alberio stated that he has not engaged in any communication with any of the parties involved. Commissioner Lorenzen stated that he has not engaged in any type of conversation with either party on this case. Commissioner Byrd stated that he visited the applicant's home with Commissioner Hayes and, talked to Mrs. Tabah in the course of a normal site visit. Commissioner Byrd continued to say that he would like to commend Mr. Clark because he has not attempted to discuss this case with him and added that it would not have done any good anyway because he believes that the Commission votes based on their convictions. Commissioner Hayes stated that she received a call from Mrs. Tabah and did visit her home and went into her backyard. Ms. Hayes also stated that she listened to what Mrs. Tabah had to say. On the other hand, Ms. Hayes stated that she had not spoken to Mr. Clark, although she has visited his backyard three or four different times when he was not at home. Commissioner Mowlds stated that he received a call from Mrs. Tabah regarding his visit to the her house and discussed his recollection of that visit. Mr. Mowlds stated that he did see Mr. Clark at a social gathering but they did not discuss the specifics of the appeal. Assistant Planner Fabio de Freitas stated to Chairman Katherman that there have been four requests to speak; two are the applicants, one is the project architect and one from the attorney. The applicants have asked that their attorney speak for the allotted time for all four speakers. Chairman Katherman stated he had no objection to the request. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 13, 1993 PAGE 8 Fred Corballis III, 707 Torrance Blvd, Torrance CA, attorney for the applicants, stated that he would like to briefly touch on what he perceives to be the germane issues that have not been previously discussed. He continued to say that analyzing this application, it is really a two-step process. The first step is to look at the applicable law and the second is to determine how the factual circumstances relate to that law. The Planning Commission receives it's powers from the City Council which receives it's police powers from the State. The State basically says that Cities must further the safety and welfare of the people, so long as the enforcement of the law rationally relates to the goals of those laws. For Height Variations, the Development Code sets forth eight specific criteria. Mr. Corballis continued to say that the primary issue is privacy. In this particular Ordinance, privacy is specifically addressed, only in terms of removal of foliage. It is not listed as a specific criteria of what is compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Corballis stated that the compatibility factor uses specific sub factors in determining whether there is compatibility with the immediate neighborhood. He felt that privacy could not even be construed as part of one of the listed subcategories. Commissioner Alberio stated that he appreciates Mr. Corballis' discussion of the 10th Amendment of the Constitution and pointed out that Mr. Caballis recited it very well and that he recognizes it from his days at law school. However, Mr. Corballis neglected to mention the applicable portion of the 4th Amendment of the Constitution: the government has the discretionary power to regulate. Privacy is one of the issues that the Commission tries to regulate or at least balance the equities between the applicants and the neighbors who are opposed to it. In this case, Mr. Clark and the Tabahs who are involved. Commissioner Alberio stated that the Commission has tried to balance the issues with Mr. Clark and the applicant. However, he gathers from Mr. Corballis' presentation that the Tabah's have decided not to agree to what they decided at the previous meetings, i.e. to raise the sill of the windows and eliminate the balcony. Mr. Corballis responded that the Tabahs are still willing to do that. Commissioner Alberio asked if Mr. Corballis found anything in the Ordinances that allows the Commission to regulate the privacy issue for height variations. Mr. Corballis responded that from what he read, the privacy issue for height variations is not addressed. Mr. Corballis continued to say that privacy was specifically addressed in the statute but was not applied to second story additions. He added that he assumes that the drafters of the statute did this intentionally. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 13, 1993 PAGE 9 Commissioner Alberio stated that the Commission has tried to balance all the issues including privacy, not just for Mr. Clark, but also to protect the privacy and rights of the Tabahs. He continued to say everyone has the right to develop their property as they see fit without encroaching on someone else's rights and he feels the Commission has done a very good job of balancing those rights here. Commissioner Alberio pointed out that that was one of the reasons why Chairman Katherman said because Mr. Clark is a member of the Commission# he does not get any special privileges. Mr. Clark is treated like any other citizen who comes before this Commission. He is subject to the same rules and regulations like everyone else. Commissioner Alberio assured Mr. Caballis that he can show other cases that the Commission has acted in the same way. Commissioner Alberio then invited Mr. Corballis to review the cases if he desired to. Mr. Corballis stated that redesigning the interior does not seem appropriate as part of the Height Variation. commissioner Hayes agreed with Mr. Corballis, stating that the Commission should not redesign the interior. However, the commission was trying to find some way so that the exterior would not overlook the adjacent property. Commissioner Alberio stated that if Mr. Clark decided to do a height variation, this whole case would be moot. Mr. Corballis responded that he understood. Commissioner Lorenzen referred to the subject of the windows and stated that very high decorative windows would still bring in the light and the Tabahs could still view the sunset. Mr. Corballis responded that he feels that the waist high windows would be necessary for viewing the sunset. Commissioner Byrd stated that this Commission, as well as the one before it, has a history of looking at privacy and have allowed residents to build and improve their property as long as it doesn't encroach on the privacy rights of their neighbors. Chairman Katherman wanted to clarify to Mr. Corballis that the Commission has a history of trying to negotiate these kinds of impasses by suggesting alternative design measures. Commissioner Mowlds stated ' that proposed residence would be 4400 square feet in size. All the other houses in the area are slightly over 2200 square feet in size. Commissioner Mowlds then stated that he does not understand why the Staff didn't deny the application simply based on the square footage. Mr. Corballis responded by saying that the addition is compatible with the neighborhood, and the Staff considered facade articulationf roof design, architectural style and materials. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 13, 1993 PAGE 10 Commissioner Lorenzen asked the applicant's architect Jerome Keller, why the windows could not be long and slender. Mr. Keller responded that the applicants want some view of Catalina Island and the sunset. Chairman Katherman asked Mr. Keller if he looked at reviewing the interior design of the master suite. Mr. Keller responded that he had proposed several layouts to the interior of the master bedroom suite. The alternative before the Commission was the one that the Tabah's were most satisfied with. Lawrence Clark, 3354 Corinna Dr. RPV CA stated that he felt the applicants and their attorney had more than enough time to present their case and quoted the time being used, from 8:55 p.m. to 9:35 p.m. Mr. Clark said he hopes he would be afforded the same consideration. Director Bernard clarified that the time taken by the attorney for the Tabahs was 20 minutes and most of that was taken up by a question and answer session. Mr. Clark stated that he is not trying to prevent the applicants from building their addition. Mr. Clark stated that allowing the Tabahs to their addition is a major concession on his part, because he is the neighbor that would be most impacted by it. He continued to say that regardless of whether the windows and balconies stay, if the project is approved, he would always have a massive home, (twice the size of his home) located only 12 feet away. Mr. Clark stated that he thinks that is a fundamental point. He continued to say that it would be the only 2 -story home of its size on Corinna Drive. Mr. Clark then added that he believes that he has conceded a lot in supporting the Tabah's desire to add on to their house. Mr. Clark stated that he feels that the issue is really neighborhood compatibility. Mr. Clark stated that the Code refers to neighborhood compatibility and scale of surrounding residences. He then added that he thinks in the re -design the Tabahs have soften the architectural style and the perception of bulk and mass as viewed from the street. Mr. Clark stated that he feels the real issue is not the Tabah's desire to have a 4,000 sq. ft. home with unobstructed views, but the creation of a new view corridor over his property of the far west "sunsets" and maybe Santa Barbara Island. He continued to say that these homes were not originally designed for that type of view. Mr. Clark also stated that his real estate broker informed him if the applicants were to have that view, which is not enjoyed by any other home in the Mira Catalina tract, it would diminish the comparative value of his home by $50,000. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 13, 1993 PAGE 11 Commissioner Mowlds clarified to Mr. Clark that he accepts the massiveness of the structure, but does not want the two windows in the master bedroom. Mr. Clark responded that was correct. Commissioner Mowlds asked Mr. Clark if he would mind if the windows were to be opaque or translucent. Mr. Clark responded that he would be willing to live with that. Commissioner Byrd asked Mr. Clark if he would be willing to sign a covenant prohibiting windows on that side of his house. Mr. Clark responded that he would be willing to sign a covenant. Chairman Katherman stated that the Commission was told that the applicant's architect had laid out the location of the windows and, measured them very precisely on the roof. Mr. Clark stated that the only photos that were taken when all the parties were present are the ones that he had taken himself. Chairman Katherman then asked Assistant Planner de Freitas about the Staff photos. Mr. de Freitas responded that the photos referred to were taken prior to the appellant's visit to the applicant's rooftop. However, Staff felt that these photographs accurately depicted the view that would be afforded by these windows. Chairman Katherman asked Mr. Clark would he be willing to accept landscaping in lieu of opaque windows. Mr. Katherman continued to say that a hedge could be planted that would be of a height to screen Mr. Clark's backyard from the two windows of the applicant's and would be located in Mr. Clark's yard so he could maintain the height of it. Mr. Clark responded that if it were feasible, he would be willing to consider a hedge. Commissioner Byrd stated that he thought the idea was very impractical. Commissioner Alberio stated that he wants the Tabahs to make comments on the landscaping idea. David Tabah, 3348 Corinna, RPV, CA stated that he is disgusted with the whole issue. He then asked what was the position of the Commission. Chairman Katherman responded that one solution is to eliminate the windows; another solution is to raise the height of the windows to eye level; another solution is to make the windows opaque and leave them as proposed; and the last solution is to place landscaping between the two properties and allow the windows to be clear. Commissioner Hayes asked Mr. Tabah if he would agree to opaque windows. Mr. Tabah responded that he would have to ask his wife. Mr. Corballis stated that the foliage was a good idea, but they felt it wouldn't be practical. Mr. Corballis suggested just making PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 13, 1993 PAGE 12 • Ll the side window opaque. Commissioner Mowlds reponded that that was the window that was obtrusive. Commissioner Hayes then suggested that both of the windows be opaque. Mr. Corballis responded that is not acceptable and reiterated that the applicant wants both windows to be clear. Commissioner Byrd moved, seconded by Commissioner Lorenzen to close the public hearing. Assistant Planner Fabio de Freitas stated that Staff would certainly do their part to come back with a recommendation as to whether or not the landscaping question is feasible. He stated that, in his opinion, the vegetation does not necessarily have to be located along side the appellant's house, but might be placed beyond the appellant's house. Commissioner Alberio stated that the applicants want to acquire a new view corridor and at the same time Mr. Clark is trying to protect his right to privacy. commissioner Alberio then stated that a motion should be made to either eliminate the windows all together, make them opaque or raise the height of the windows so as to protect Mr. Clark's privacy. Commissioner Alberio commented that he favors the opaque windows. Commissioner Lorenzen stated that he feels the applicant would be gaining a view that he does not have now. He continued to say that he could support opaque windows or the higher clear windows. Commissioner Byrd stated that one of the questions he feels the Commission has to address is whether this project meets the neighborhood compatibility standards considering the immense size of the proposed addition. He further stated that the applicants have done a beautiful job of designing their home. He said that he cannot see granting the applicant permission to build a second story addition if that will infringe on someone else's property rights. He stated that the applicant should do one of two things; either eliminate the windows entirely or make them opaque. Commissioner Byrd further stated that foliage to screen the two properties from one another is not a good idea. Commissioner Hayes re -stated that she will agree to the second story, if the windows in question are opaque. Commissioner Mowlds stated that he would accept opaque windows. Chairman Katherman stated that both parties are friends of his, that he is disappointed in both of them for not being able to reach a solution themselves and that it is unfortunate that this had to come to the Planning Commission at all. Commissioner Katherman continued to say that the cases that have been cited by some PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 13, 1993 PAGE 13 continued to say that the cases that have been cited by some Commissioners are cases where the applicant has agreed to let the Planning Commission impose privacy conditions and clearly this is not one of those cases. Mr. Katherman continued on to say that he does not see the second window which is the one closest to the street as adversely impacting on Mr. Clark's property. The window closest to the rear property line has some impact, but could be protected with some sort of vegetation that could be placed on Mr. Clark's property and be maintained by him. Commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by Commissioner Lorenzen, to uphold Height Variation #773 -Appeal, thereby approving the first and second story additions to the existing residence, at 3348 Corinna Drive, subject to additional conditions of approval requiring the master bedroom balcony to be removed and the two windows on the west elevation to be opaque. AYES: Alberio, Lorenzen, Mowlds, Hayes, Byrd NOES: Katherman The motion carried by a vote of 5-1. Chairman Katherman directed Staff to bring back a resolution on this item to the July 27, 1993 Planning commission meeting. Chairman Katherman commended Staff for all their hard work and efforts in this matter. Commissioner Mowlds also thanked the recording secretary for having that portion of the draft minutes of June 22, 1993 available for the Commission to help in their decision. REPORTS A. Staff 1. Update of the City's Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) Program (CP) Planning Administrator Carolynn Petru discussed the status of the City's Natural Community conservation Planning Program (NCCP). This is a program that was put in place by the State of California as a alternative to listing the California Gnatcatcher as an Endangered Species. It's an attempt by the State to target the habitat of the gnatcatcher, which is in the coastal sagescrub community. However, the implementation of this program has been greatly influenced now with the listing of the California Gnatcatcher as a federally threatened species. Staff has been attending several meetings within the last couple of months, most notably the seminar at UC Irvine and also with the Department of Fish and Game and other interested parties about establishing an PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 13, 1993 PAGE 14 NCCP program on the peninsula. Staff has been advised by the Department of Fish and Game that in order to have a successful NCCP program, the participation of not only the currently enrolled cities, which include Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills Estates, but also the participation of Palos Verdes Estates and Rolling Hills would be required. Commissioner Alberio asked Ms. Petru what impact an NCCP program would have on individual projects. Ms. Petru responded that if there was an NCCP program, individual developers can avoid the rigorous 10A permit process, which is the development of individual habitat management plans for each project site. It would allow a the "taking" of, gnatcatchers in certain areas, with the preservation and enhancement habitats in other areas of the peninsula. Commissioner Byrd asked if an analysis been done on the amount of area that this program would require. Ms. Petru responded that the there is a scientific review panel that has been gathering data over the last year and have developed a set of criteria and one of the things they are working towards is identifying the minimum habitat size. Director Bernard stated that it is a unique situation to have an NCCP program both for the conservationists and for the developers because it involves a trade off between developing in one area and providing habitat in another. Without this process in place it imposes a hardship on the conservationists to build a viable link but also on the developers to develop a project with an isolated habitat on their property. Staff would appreciate anything that the Commission can do to help influence the two cities to join the NCCP program. commissioner Byrd stated that on the surface, the program looks great, but wants to make sure how it would be implemented and how it would be funded. 2. Removal of Contaminated Soil: Unocal Service Station - 28732 Hig ridge Road (DJ) Received and filed. Chairman Katherman asked if there was still a proposal to require a conditional use permit before a landowner can close a gas station. Director Bernard responded that an Environmental Assessment for a General Plan Amendment Zone Change to address the issue of retaining automobile stations in the City will be brought back on a separate meeting in August. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 13, 1993 PAGE 15 COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE Lois Larue referred to an article in the LA Times regarding the Gnatcatcher. Ms. Larue submitted the copy of the article to Staff. Ms. Larue continued to say she was very proud of the City to consider participation in the NCCP program. She also made comments on another article in the LA Times regarding CEQA. Commissioner Alberio moved, seconded by Commissioner Lorenzen to adjourn the meeting. Meeting adjourned at 11:02 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 13, 1993 PAGE 16