Loading...
PC MINS 199401252/8/94APPROVED ;H11 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 25, 1994 The meeting was called to order at 7:32 PM, by Chairman Gilbert Alberio at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of Allegiance followed, led by Miss Laura Ann Ferraro. PRESENT: Commissioners Vannorsdall, Wang, Whiteneck, Ferraro, Hayes, Vice Chairman Mowlds and Chairman Alberio ABSENT: None Also present were Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Bernard, Planning Administrator Petru, Senior Planner Rojas, Associate Planner Silverman, and Assistant Planner Klopfenstein. SWEARING IN OF NEW PLANNING COMMISSION City Clerk Jo Purcell swore in the new Planning Commissioners and they signed their Certificates of oath. SELECTION OF VICE CHAIRPERSON Commissioner Mowlds was nominated and unanimously selected as Vice - Chairperson. PLANNING COMMISSION ORIENTATION Director Bernard introduced the following Staff members who were present: Code Enforcement Officers George Rodericks and Leea K. Kimball, Senior Planner Joel Rojas, Associate Planner Terry Silverman, Assistant Planner Kim Klopfenstein, Planning Administrator Carolynn Petru, and Jackie Drasco, Administrative Assistant and Planning Commission Secretary. He mentioned that Associate Planner Donna Jerex was at home with a broken foot and Assistant Planner Fabio de Freitas had a class tonight. ORIENTATION The following items were included in packets presented prior to the meeting. Returning Commissioners received only the first four items. 1. Planning Department organizational Chart 2. CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) Flow Chart PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 25, 1994 PAGE 1 3. Planning Permit Fee Schedule 4. City Council Policy Memo #21 regarding Commission and Committee Members' Use of the City Attorney 5. Board of Realtors Map of the Palos Verdes Peninsula 6. Planning Commission Rules and Procedures, Resolution No. 92-37 7. Ralph M. Brown Act 8. Guidelines and Procedures for Preservation of Views Where Structures Are Involved (Height Variations) 9. Development Code and Zoning Map 10. 1990 Housing Element and 1993 Revision 11. General Plan and Land Use Map 12. Coastal Specific Plan and Land Use Map 13. Flyer outlining new extended City Hall hours Director Bernard explained that normally the City Attorney would be here but was unable to attend due to scheduling difficulties. A separate meeting with the City Attorney will be set up soon. Director Bernard discussed the highlights of the Planning Commission Rules and Procedures: 1. Quorum requirements 2. Types of meetings a. Regular Meetings i. During this discussion, the Commission made the decision to return to 7:00 PM starting time as noted in the Procedures. b. Special Meetings C. Adjourned meetings d. Study Sessions e. Open and Closed Sessions f. Agendas 9. Staff Reports 3. Minutes (presentation by Planning Administrator Petru) a. In response to a request for direction regarding the form and content of the Minutes, the Commission replied that no change was necessary at this time. 4. order of Presentation a. Staff is seeking direction regarding the question of rebuttal. The Commission replied that only the proponent should be allowed to rebut. 5. Rules of Evidence 6. Evidence Received Outside a Hearing 7. Use of the City Attorney by individual Commissioners 8. Motions for Reconsideration 9. Decision Making a. Tie Votes, Abstentions, Absences, Appeals 10. The City Clerk will be providing a Commissioners Handbook in approximately one month. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 25, 1994 PAGE 2 Director Bernard stated that if there are any questions regarding the Rules and Procedures, the Commissioners may bring up these at the next meeting. Planning Administrator Petru provided an overview of the Brown Act. If there are any questions, she suggested that the Commissioners refer to the guide to the Act that was distributed by the Commissioners or call the Staff. Director Bernard reminded the Commissioners that they are not to make prejudicial statements and stressed the importance to follow this in order to avoid litigation against the City and themselves. In addition, they should not indicate their opinion on a particular item until the public hearing is closed. Director Bernard outlined the circumstances in which a commissioner would have to excuse himself or herself from voting on an item. Planning Administrator Petru explained Staff's role in assisting the Planning Commission and discussed reference materials that are available to Commissioners at City Hall. Planning Administrator Petru and Director Bernard suggested that the Planning Commission call Staff before the meeting regarding general questions or items on the Agenda, particularly to give Staff an opportunity to answer questions or provide information prior to or at a hearing to avoid continuances. Director Bernard summar i z ed that the City Staff's job is to provide professional support to the Planning Commission and the City Council. He commented that the Development Code and General Plan must be followed, but interpretation sometimes can be different and the Staff needs input from the Commissioners. Director Bernard suggested that dates be selected for various training sessions available to the Commissioners: (1) City Attorney - A meeting should be set up for all the Commissioners with the City Attorney. It was decided that this meeting would take placevat 6:30 PM in the Fireside Room at Hesse Park prior to the City Council Meeting on Tuesday, February 1, 1994. (2) Plan Reading - There was interest in a training session for reading construction plans by Commissioners Hayes, Ferraro, and Wang. commissioner Alberio and Commissioner Vannorsdall offered to help. It was decided that an old case would be used for study and the Commissioners involved will call Director Bernard to set up a convenient time. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 25, 1994 PAGE 3 (3) Site Visit Training - This can be provided for an upcoming item on the February 22, 1994 meeting agenda. Director Bernard will contact interested Commissioners to schedule this before the February meeting. (4) CEOA - It was decided that training on the CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) process and guidelines would be helpful and will be scheduled in the future by Director Bernard. Director Bernard noted that business cards and name plates are being ordered for the new Commissioners. He also mentioned that all Commissioners had been provided disclosure forms which should be returned to the City Clerk when completed. Commissioner Wang volunteered to take care of the coffee fund. Commissioner Alberio stated that some of the Commissioners have asked for guidelines regarding calling applicants of the cases being heard. He said that, although all Commissioners are expected to visit the site, it is not always necessary to call the applicant or the representative. If it is important to actually go on the property or enter the structure, they might want to call to set up an appointment. There was a break between 8:35 to 8:48 PM. COMMUNICATIONS A. STAFF Director Bernard reported there were three letters received after the Commissioners agenda packets were assembled and distributed. For Item VIIIA, there were two letters; and for Item XA, there was one letter. These items of late correspondence had been placed before the Commission. B. COMMISSION Commissioner Hayes reported that she had received one letter regarding Item XA. Copies were made and distributed to each Commissioner and Staff. CONSENT CALENDAR VIIIA. Minutes of December 6, 1993. Angus Lorenzen, 15 Diamonte Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Lorenzen stated that at the December 6, 1993 meeting, there was discussion regarding trees and view restoration involving development of a large property. Staff had recommended removing about ten trees, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 25, 1994 PAGE 4 leaving many 40' to 50' high trees. Mr. Lorenzen proposed a compromise which would require three additional trees to be removed, with minor topping of other trees. He explained that he and other members of the audience thought that the Commission had accepted the compromise because it solved a controversial problem and, in the transcript of the December 6, 1993 minutes, six references are made to the "Lorenzen compromise" which begin with Chairman Katherman stating that "it appears we have reached a resolution" immediately after Mr. Lorenzen had presented the compromise. However, when the Resolution was written, one of the trees Mr. Lorenzen had requested be removed was omitted and another tree was misnumbered. Mr. Lorenzen felt it was the Commission's intent to meet the compromise, but the Resolution was worded very loosely, giving Staff the decision regarding specific trimming. He realized that the Resolution can't be changed, but asked the Commission to provide guidance to Staff regarding trimming and foliage removal. He emphasized that this will not give them back the view he had when he purchased the property, but it does give balance between their view and privacy for new residents. Commissioner Alberio clarified that only he and Commissioners Mowlds and Hayes (the returning Commissioners who were present at the December 6, 1993 meeting) could vote on the approval of these minutes. Commissioner Mowlds recalled that Mr. Lorenzen brought up a diagram with acetate overlays, with an outline of the mountains and a red line representing an outline of the foliage as it existed at that time. There was a discussion about the profile and Mr. Cullen said that trees in front of his home could be trimmed to 16' instead of 121. At the break, Mr. Lorenzen, Commissioners Clark and Alberio, Chairman Katherman, Scott Yanofsky and Lois Larue adjourned to the back room. This discussion was not reflected in the minutes. Mr. Lorenzen said that discussion was in reference to a different matter and it did not need to be in the minutes. Commissioner Mowlds asked which tree was not memorialized. Mr. Lorenzen said it was the large pine tree in the center of the property next to the driveway, near the garage and the house. He added that Associate Planner Silverman said it was numbered as tree 26, but, in fact, it was not. Commissioner Mowlds asked if there was just the one tree in contention. Mr. Lorenzen reiterated that the issue was his request that the Planning Commission provide guidance to the Staff. The one tree was mentioned because Mr. Lorenzen felt that the Resolution did not PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 25, 1994 PAGE 5 clearly state the intent of the Commission. Commissioner Mowlds responded that the final decision would come from the Director, or his designee, and Mr. Lorenzen agreed. Commissioner Mowlds added that Mr. Lorenzen's profile was not being followed completely because it was acknowledged that, after some thinning, other trees would be revealed which might also need trimming. Mr. Lorenzen responded that he intended his profile to solve exactly that problem, trees behind trees. He then asked that his San Pedro Channel view be returned by trimming trees on the center of the lot, the crown of the north slope and that his view be returned of the curve of the bay and the City of Long Beach by topping, not removing, some of those 40-50' high trees. Commissioner Mowlds confirmed that Mr. Lorenzen had read the verbatim minutes, referred him to page 21, and asked Mr. Lorenzen if he agreed with this statement: "He (Mr. Lorenzen) has stated that the various groups of palms which do not stick up into our view line will be moved, and that we don't need to be concerned with that "we (the Lorenzen's) believe that some trimming or thinning of trees would give us a profile that is slightly lower over this very large clump of trees where the house is located". Commissioner Mowlds asked Mr. Lorenzen asked if he (Mr. Lorenzen) thought trees were going to cut to the red profile? Mr. Lorenzen said yes, that's what he had asked for. Commissioner Alberio recalled that the profile had two lines, lower and upper. Mr. Lorenzen responded that the upper line indicated Staff's proposal which was no trimming at all and the lower line indicated his proposed trimming. Commissioner Mowlds remembered that there were green and red lines. Mr. Lorenzen stated that the green (actually blue) line indicated the 16' level, which, according to the Development Code, is where these trees should be cut, but he realized that the Commission had not followed this strictly, due to privacy concerns. Commissioner Mowlds confirmed that this was correct and that discussion had already taken place. Mr. Lorenzen agreed and said that these trees were well above that. Commissioner Alberio remember that there were two red lines and a green one. On the right side looking at the Los Angeles Harbor and PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 25, 1994 PAGE 6 Long Beach the trees were going to cut to -1211, a compromise from 161. Trimming of the trees behind would be left that to the discretion of Staff. Regarding the left side, the north side, coming up the driveway on Via Subida, there is a view of the Los Angeles channel and the Vincent Thomas Bridge. There was a discussion of trees behind trees, some even on Mr. Lorenzen's property. The decision was to use the upper red line, not the lower red line. Director Bernard explained that confusion may be caused by the word "compromise". When that word was used, it did not necessarily mean the "Lorenzen compromise", which was indicated by the lower red line. It is Staff's recollection, as they indicated to the Commission at the last meeting, that some trees would be trimmed between what was the upper red line and the lower red line. Past Chairman Katherman made this same statement in a fax received by Staff that day and the three current Commissioners who were there that evening, also agreed with this position. Commissioner Hayes concurred with Director Bernard's statement. Commissioner Mowlds stated that he thought every tree should have been memorialized, but that did not happen. i He recalled that when Mr. Cullen agreed the trees could be trimmed at 161, and that's what Director Bernard said, there was some compromise between those two lines. Mr. Lorenzen brought the diagram up to the podium and indicated that the trees Mr. Cullen mentioned are located to the far right and not on the sketch, because they are not a issue for the Lorenzen's. He said the trees are very low and if maintained at 161, they will still not show up in the profile as seen from their house. His request contains three elements: (1) Remove three trees, consisting of the two trees which were memorialized in the Resolution and a large pine tree which was not memorialized in the Resolution, but for which removal was very clearly agreed upon and this can be found in the verbatim minutes and; (2) Minor trimming for those trees blocking the channel view, and generally topping of a grove of 40' to 50' high trees to restore the harbor view. He stated that these actions would give back some of their view of Long Beach and the Vincent Bridge and added that he is not asking for view they had when they bought the house, which was considerably more. Commissioner Hayes asked if lacing was mentioned? Mr. Lorenzen said it was not. Commissioner Alberio remembered that thinning was mentioned also. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 25, 1994 PAGE 7 Director Bernard clarified that both lacing and trimming were discussed because of concern that topping might kill many of the trees. Mr. Lorenzen said that he did not believe taking off 101 to 15' from the top of 40-50f trees would kill them. Scott Yanofsky, 1142 Manhattan Avenue, Manhattan Beach, CA. (applicant's representative) Mr. Yanofsky stated that 90 trees had been removed from the site to date. At the meeting at City Hall on January 3, 1994 which included Director Bernard Planning Administrator Petru, Associate Planner Silverman, Mr. Lorenzen and himself, the pine tree behind the house was discussed and the contract was shown to Mr. Lorenzen indicating that the tree was going to be removed. Therefore, even though this tree may not have been mentioned in the Resolution, it is a moot point. No more trimming of trees can be done without harming the trees, but Staff can look at the situation to see if more trees need to be removed. In reference to the north slope, the north ridge and the other group of trees which Mr. Lorenzen addressed, this group of trees, in the compromise, were going to be left to the applicant's discretion. These are the trees that they view from the master bedroom and, once the house is framed up, it will be apparent which trees need to be trimmed to open up views from the house. Mr. Yanofsky noted that the Commission has empowered Staff to obtain input from the local residents and look at the remaining trees to take the necessary steps to increase the views for the neighbors. He suggested that the process be allowed to continue. Commissioner Mowlds asked Mr. Yanofsky if the one tree that Mr. Lorenzen wants removed, is going to be removed. Mr. Yanofsky said yes. Betsey Kelly, 6611 Vallon Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mrs. Kelly supported the Staff's recommendation and discussed maintenance of views. Commissioner Mowlds asked the Staff if they believe the process, as described, will provide what Mr. Lorenzen is asking for. Director Bernard responded that Staff's direction from the Commission is fairly close to that lower red line, with the exception of a few clumps here and there. However, Staff does appreciate Mr. Lorenzen's input and has encouraged it because Staff wants as much direction and input as possible. Commissioner Hayes made ia motion to accept the verbatim minutes of December 6, 1993, which was seconded by commissioner Mowlds. Approved (3-0). PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 25, 1994 PAGE 8 VIIIB. Minutes of December 14, 1993. Commissioner Hayes suggested changes in the minutes of December 14 as follows: (1) She abstained from the PacTel item, Conditional Use Permit No. 119 because she did not participate and would like the minutes to indicate this abstention. (2) On page 15, second paragraph, after "....zoned Institutional, inject: "(one of eight Automobile Service Overlay Control Districts sites regarding General Plan #21)". The reason for adding this is because the Planning Commission has been told this will be appealed and would like the Institutional qualified to cover the fact that the City Council did put in a overlay. Therefore, the Planning Commission was dealing with a commercial piece of property. (3) Page 28 - one word needs to be changed in the second paragraph beginning "Commissioner Mowlds agreed with the Chairman..... change "Repair" to "Report". Commissioner Hayes made motion to approve the December 14 minutes with changes and it was seconded by Commissioner Mowlds. Approved (3-0) . PUBLIC HEARINGS XA. VARIANCE NO. 362; Edward and Tina Ramos, 5930 Montemalaga Drive. (KK) Assistant Planner Klopfenstein read the Staff Report, summarized as follows. On June 2, 1993, a Code Enforcement investigation was initiated against the property at 5930 Montemalaga Drive for construction of accessory structures without City permits. On June 25, 1993, the applicants submitted Variance No. 362 for after -the - fact approval of a 352 square foot deck, with a portable spa and gazebo located on top, to a maximum height of 15'-611, and a lower level 130 square foot deck, to a maximum height of 8'-811. Both decks cantilever over a slope approximately 50o in steepness. The decks are supported by wood beams and the area underneath the decks is still exposed when viewed from the side. Although there is some landscaping on the slope, it does not adequately screen the exposed area under the decks, nor provide any privacy for the rear yards of the adjoining properties. Staff feels that the required findings for the Variance cannot be made for the existing decks, the spa and the gazebo. Not only were the accessory structures developed on an extreme slope, but the gazebo exceeds the 12' height limit for accessory structures by 31- 611. Additionally, Staff feels that the height and scale of the accessory structures result in a loss of privacy, create an adverse visual impact, and would not be consistent or compatible with the existing development patterns found in the surrounding area. Furthermore, Staff is concerned that the placement of the decks on PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 25, 1994 PAGE 9 the slope may cause run-off which could damage the rear slope of both the subject property and the adjacent properties. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny Variance No. 362 and require the applicants to remove all of the accessory structures on the extreme slope within sixty (60) days of the City's decision becoming final. Commissioner Ferraro asked if she understood correctly that •the Code does not allow a height of over 121 for accessory structures. Assistant Planner Klopfenstein explained that anything detached from the primary residence (primary structure) is limited to 121 and anything attached is limited to 161. Planning Administrator Petru added that the Code is particularly strict about measuring the height of accessory structures. Measurement is taken from the grade adjacent to the lowest foundation to the highest point. In the case of a gazebo, the height is measured from where the piling comes out of the ground to the ridgeline, and that accounts for the excessive height. Commissioner Alberio opened the public hearing. Lawrence Roman, 267 E. Carson St., Carson, CA 90745, Attorney for Dr. & Mrs. Ramos. Mr. Roman indicated that he received the Staff Report yesterday and that he and his clients have had little opportunity to study it, let alone act on it. He requested that the Commission postpone their decision for 60 days in order for the applicant to investigate the possibility of bringing these improvements into compliance. Commissioner Alberio asked Staff about the City's contact with the property owner. Assistant Planner Klopfenstein explained that the City's Code Enforcement Officer contacted Mr. and Mrs. Ramos on June 2, 1993, after the structures were already built, giving them a deadline of June 25, 1993 to remove the structures or apply for a variance. The application for a variance was deemed complete on November 16, 1993, and a site visit was conducted a few weeks ago. Unfortunately, Staff does not feel there is an alternative location for the structures; they were constructed over an extreme slope which the Development Code does not allow, and there is a pool and concrete deck on the only level useable rear yard area. Director Bernard commented that if these structures cannot be brought into compliance within the Development Code, the only option, other than removing the structure, was a variance. Commissioner Hayes noted that they have had over six months to PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 25, 1994 PAGE 10 prepare. Director Bernard added that they applied for the variance in November. Commissioner Hayes further stated that the applicant has actually had sixty days to research the problem. Commissioner Alberio stated that it appeared that due process has been followed and now the applicant has an opportunity to be heard. Their notification was not just this past week, but from June of 1993. Commissioner Hayes asked Mr. Roman if the contractor had a business license in Rancho Palos Verdes? Mr. Roman said he was not sure. He had been retained less than two weeks and has not had an opportunity to contact the contractor. He expressed his opinion that neither the City or the objecting property owners would suffer any particular type of prejudice in granting this continuance. He does not consider this a last minute extension because, although the property owners were aware of certain violations and that certain actions would be brought against them, he and his clients feel that the first official action was the issuing of the Staff Report. Commissioner Hayes asked Staff if they consider a code violation notification official notice. Director Bernard confirmed that it is an official notice and there had been a first and second notice from the Code Enforcement Officer and the applicant had applied for a variance to comply with Code Enforcement. Mr. Roman commented that, nonetheless, it seems like an extreme remedy to have the structures removed without giving the applicant a chance to consult with the contractor. Commissioner Alberio explained that a decision has not been made yet. Commissioner Whiteneck stated that he did not understand why more time is necessary when apparently notice was given six to eight months ago. Commissioner Wang concurred. Mr. Roman said that he was sure most property owners don't understand the protocol. His clients have not dealt with this specific subject before and they have been good members of the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 25, 1994 PAGE 11 community and have spent considerable time and resources improving their property which contributes to the entire neighborhood. Commissioner Alberio explained that's why a person hires an architect or builder whose job it is to determine Code requirements and obtain permits and their builder failed to do this. Mr. Roman said that was the case. Commissioner Alberio added that the property owner still has legal responsibility. Mr. Roman replied that he understood and agreed that was correct; however, his clients had acted in good faith and any wrongdoing was unintentional. Commissioner Vannorsdall noted that he has just finished working with a contractor for underpinning a house and that contractor did obtain the permits. He added that he was astounded that Mr. Roman had been retained for two weeks and did not know who the contractor is. It seemed like that would be the first step. Mr. Roman responded that only in the last couple of days had he had an opportunity to contact this particular company and the person he needed to talk to was not available at that time. Commissioner Vannorsdall confirmed that Mr. Roman had been on this case for two weeks. Mr. Roman said yes. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked why, in those two weeks, hadn't he been able to reach this person. Mr. Roman said because of the earthquake and pressing business at the office, he had not had a chance. He added that the earthquake had no effect on the structures in question. Edward Ramos, 5930 Montemalaga Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Dr. Ramos stated that they moved to the neighborhood in 1991. They attended a convention where they purchased a spa and asked during the purchase if they needed a permit. The salesman said usually a permit was not necessary. The purchase was made from Cal Spa who gave them one year to decide where to install the spa. The deck was built about 1 1/2 years ago by a carpenter his wife's mother knew. He added that the deck has been through two earthquakes and many rainstorms and there has been no problem. He also stated that he and his wife are the only employees of his business; they work six days a week and don't have much time. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 25, 1994 PAGE 12 Tina Ramos, 5930 Montemalaga Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mrs. Ramos emphasized that they had no intention of doing anything wrong; they only wanted to improve their home and provide a place for their children to play. She mentioned that the drains (wood platforms which cover the drainage swales) can be lifted to keep the area clean. The wood platforms were constructed to make the deck safer after one of their children was hurt when the area was slippery during construction. She mentioned that she had a photograph to illustrate this. She added that they spoke to the neighbor above twice, and he said it would not bother him for the sake of his view or any other reason. She said that she realized some of the neighbors were opposed because of their privacy but that the way the back yards are situated, there is not much privacy anyway. She apologized for not discussing the project with her neighbors and realized this should have been done. She added that other neighbors have built second stories and other construction, and she and her husband have always supported their projects. Commissioner Vannorsdall stated that he believed their motives were good. He mentioned his concern about the railings of the deck for the safety of the children, and asked Mrs. Ramos their ages. Mrs. Ramos said they were 10 and 6. Edward Ramos explained that the job was not finished because it had not been possible to add railings yet; therefore, they had not been able to use the facility yet. Commissioner Wang asked when construction started. Mr. Ramos replied that the decks were built before the gazebo, which was added in May 1993. Commissioner Wang asked how long the decks had been built. Mr. Ramos responded that it was about six months prior to construction of the gazebo. Commissioner Ferraro asked if they had inquired of the City at all as to whether or not a permit was needed. Mr. Ramos answered that they had not. They had discussed installation of the spa with the company from which they bought the spa, and were told if the spa was built into the ground, a permit would be needed. Therefore, they opted for the portable spa. Commissioner Vannorsdall questioned the means by which water fills the spa. He asked if water was piped up to it. Mr. Ramos said there is not a water supply at the spa; it is simply PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 25, 1994 PAGE 13 filled with a faucet. Lawrence Roman added that, in response to why the applicants waited so long after they had the initial notice of the violation to take further action, they were told they could get a variance and only in the last few days have they realized that the variance might be denied. They paid the application fee and a 100% penalty. James Hearo, 5924 Montemalaga Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Hearo lives next door to the Ramos family on the left facing the property and stated that his view was not obstructed nor did he feel his privacy was violated. He said the Ramos' are fine people who have improved their property and the whole block. He confirmed the fact that there is little privacy because of the way the backyards are arranged. The neighbors can't help seeing each other. Ken Tillung, 5918 Montemalaga, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Tillung lives next door to Mr. Hearo, two doors from the applicant. He mentioned that he too has a portable structure in his backyard which was installed without a permit. He expressed his opinion that Mr. and Mrs. Ramos were good neighbors and have improved their property very much. He said he believes if their spa is allowed to remain, it will be maintained and, if it is too high, he was sure they will do whatever is necessary to remedy that situation. An architect or engineer will have to determine the solution for the other problems. Commissioner Ferraro asked how long Mr. Tillung had had his unpermitted structure. Mr. Tillung replied about a year and that it was very portable and he would remove it, if it bothered anyone. He explained that it was a screened porch, a platform with no top on it. Commissioner Ferraro asked if his structure included a jacuzzi and Mr. Tillung said no. Commissioner Alberio asked him if the Planning Commission granted approval for the variance for the Ramos family, would he feel that he was entitled to approval to build the same structures. Mr. Tillung said he would rather just take down his structure, which he understands he will have to do if he sells the property. H. J. Bosco, 5906 Montemalaga Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Bosco said that he found it almost incomprehensible that any person, supposedly as well educated as Dr. Ramos, could build a project, so strongly against the general plan of our city and that he has pitted neighbor against neighbor. He wanted to go on record PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 25, 1994 PAGE 14 as being completely in support of the findings of the Staff Report, which he had read thoroughly, and that he felt the variance should be denied. commissioner Ferraro asked the location of Mr. Bosco's house and he said he lived four houses from the subject property. Herb Suer, 6002 Montemalaga, Rancho Palos Verdes. Looking at the property, Mr. Suer said he is two doors to the right of the Ramos house. He stated that he was opposed to the granting of a variance for this construction. He felt it was completely out of character with the surrounding hillside greenery and that it was an unattractive eyesore. He is concerned about reduction of his property value. He added that if there was some way to use landscape or fencing to block this view, it would be an improvement, but this was not possible. He stated that he thought having the construction removed was the proper action, and that it infringed on their privacy for the back of their house, patio and back yard. He agreed that residents can see in other yards when they climb the hill to weed and so on, but these decks would be a place where people will congregate which is more of an invasion of privacy. He also expressed concern about drainage and the stability of the hill during rainstorms since much of vegetation has been destroyed or moved around. He remembered that it was mentioned earlier that the decks had been constructed 1 1/2 years ago and that they had survived two earthquakes. He added that he has a PhD from M.I.T. in structural engineering, dynamics loading, and that it was his opinion that surviving the earthquakes was meaningless because the spa was not installed and filled with water during the earthquakes. He said that there appears to be no engineering of the structure whatsoever, but that he could not perform an analysis because he did not know what kind of footings there were. However, he felt that, just by looking at the construction, he could see there was no lateral side bracing, and suspects an analysis would prove that the gazebo would have gone down the hill if it had been at the epicenter of the recent 6.6 Northridge earthquake. Mr. Suer also wanted to comment about the petition included with the Staff Report. He did a spot check and 800 or more who signed do not view the property at all and live two streets away. They had no knowledge of what was constructed. One person said she was badgered into signing, one person was a babysitter, one person denied her signature, and another person said he would not have signed, had he known a variance was needed. Therefore, he did not believe petition is valid. He said he was sorry about the cost, and the fact everything may have to come down but the Ramos' are intelligent, educated people, and it was hard for him to understand that they did not know they needed a permit. Mr. Suer closed by saying that his property would be most affected if the structure PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 25, 1994 PAGE 15 were to fail. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked the location of Mr. Suer's house and he replied that looking at the property, it is on the right. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked Mr. Suer if he had any structures on the hill. Mr. Suer responded that they have a deck on ground level at the top of the hill about 801 behind the house with wooden steps leading up. it had been built a long time ago for a viewing area but they had not used it for quite some time. Planning Administrator Petru clarified that the Ramos' were not aware that a variance application did not require early neighbor consultation as is the case with the Height Variation application. They submitted the petition with the application and, even though the Planner realized this wasn't a requirement, it was attached to Staff Report. She explained that when a Staff Report is written for variances, for after -the -fact structures, Staff analyzes the project as if it were a proposal to build, and how it would measure up against the mandatory findings. One of the handicaps is that the project is not reviewed by Building & Safety. She relayed a similar situation in which a Planning commission approved a variance but, in the plan check process, the landowner was required to almost completely tear down and rebuild because it didn't comply with building requirements for the City. This could well be the case in this situation. Commissioner Alberio concurred. Director Bernard explained that the reason for the permit process is twofold, both to insure safety for the owners and also to make sure there is conformance to Code. John Letcher, 5936 Montemalaga Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Letcher said his house, facing the Ramos, property, is to the right. He said that 95% the signatures on the petition, which was never presented to him, are from people who have never seen the structure. He expressed concerned about safety, because there appeared to be no engineering study done prior to building, and he is concerned about the weight of the structures and the stability of the slope. Mr. Letcher explained that the decks are to the right of his property about six feet away, and he felt he would be most affected if there was a problem. He also felt he would experience a loss of privacy, because he can see the structures from his dining room & master bedroom. He complimented the Ramos' on their attempt to hide the structures by planting two dozen palm trees, but he was not sure how much that would help. He also was worried about the effect on his property value. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 25, 1994 PAGE 16 Betsey Kelly, 6611 Vallon Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mrs. Kelly stated that this country is a nation of laws and everyone must do what is right. She asked Director Bernard if the license of the contractor who built this would be revoked. Commissioner Alberio responded that it had not been determined if the builder was actually a contractor. Mrs. Kelly replied that this man was in construction and he had built these decks. She said that contractors she and her husband have used have always made sure permits have been obtained, and she could not believe Mr. and Mrs. Ramos did not know this was necessary. Commissioner Mowlds made a motion to close the public hearing and it was seconded by commissioner Vannorsdall. Approved (7-0). Commissioner Vannorsdall mentioned that he was concerned that the construction of the platform was braced in only one direction, in cross direction instead of down the hill. He believed that the structures are unsafe in the extreme slope situation, and felt if the hill gave way, the whole thing would come down to the Ramos' house. Commissioner Wang sympathized with the Ramos regarding the cost and is happy that they are in the community and improving their property. However, she said that when she visited the site, she had to be very careful on the steep slope, and she was really concerned about the safety factor. Commissioner Whiteneck said the structures should not have been built without a permit, and this is the responsibility of the property owner. He was also concerned about safety and reliability of the structures. I Commissioner Ferraro asked Staff if structures had ever been approved on a 50% slope, if a permit was requested in the beginning, instead of after -the -fact? Planning Administrator Petru replied that, probably less than six had been approved in her seven-year tenure in the City, but, in all cases, it was after -the -fact. Commissioner Hayes expressed the opinion that the structures looked like a second unit put up on sticks, and felt it was out of character with the neighborhood, and unsightly. She said when she was standing under the structure, she did not feel it was safe. She add that the Ramos' could have a severe liability situation, and that the structures should be taken down. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 25, 1994 PAGE 17 Commissioner' Mowlds agreed with the all commissioners, comments and cited a City Code section which was not included by the Staff - 17.40.060, Extreme Slope: "No construction is allowed on any extreme slope except as provided in Chapters 17.57 and 17.41 for satellite dishes"; and, specifically 17.57.020 states: "for the scope of what may be built, the Planning commission may only grant extreme slope permits for the construction of decks, including a cantilever extending a maximum of six feet into the extreme slope area". He said this is not a cantilever, as a structural engineer has pointed out; a cantilever covered the portion of where a structure overhangs on the slope by six feet. He felt neither of these decks met any of this criteria. Commissioner Alberio stated that ignorance of the law is no excuse especially since Dr. Ramos is a dentist and a very well educated person. They seem like very nice people and they seem to be very busy people also, and they delegated construction to someone who does not appear to be a contractor, but a carpenter. He stated that it has been said that these structures appear to be improperly braced and he agreed with his fellow Commissioners that the structures are unsafe. Commissioner Mowlds made a motion and commissioner Hayes seconded it to support staff recommendation to deny Variance 362 and removal of the structures shall be complete within 90 days, (not 60, which was Staffs's recommendation). Approved (7-0). Resolution will be signed tonight, with 15 -day appeal period. NEW BUSINESS - None REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. STAFF 1. Pre -Agenda for the February 8, 1994, meeting. 2. Development Code Revision - Process Format Discussion. Senior Planner Rojas outlined several options for revision of the Development Code and the Commission selected the Staff's recommendation to appoint a Subcommittee to analyze the Development Code, section by section, and bring their findings to the entire Commission for their input, as well as the public's, on a continuing basis. The subcommittee will include Chairman Alberio, Vice Chairman Mowlds, and Commissioners Hayes, Whiteneck and Vannorsdall. The Commission also accepted Staff's recommendation to substitute Section 16 for 17 for the first meeting on February 8, 1994. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 25, 1994 PAGE 18 B. COMMISSION - None COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE (regarding non -agenda items) Mrs. Betsey Kelly commented regarding a the Villa Capri housing project. ADJOURNMENT Adjourned at 11:10 PM to adjourned meeting on Tuesday, February 1, 1994, at 6:30 P.M. in the Fireside Room at Hesse Park. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 25, 1994 PAGE 19