PC MINS 19790213M I N U T E S
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning Commission
Regular Adjourned Meeting
February 13, 1979
The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. in the City Council Chambers,
30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Hughes.
PRESENT: Bacharach, Brown, Hinchliffe (late arrival), Hughes
ABSENT: McTaggart
Also present were Director of Planning Sharon Hightower and Assistant Plan-
ners Keith Turner and Karen Heit.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded
by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried,
the minutes of the meeting of January
23, 1979, were approved with the following amendments: page 2, last para-
graph, line 3, should read "...excessively developed, but he felt the tennis
court.... proposed, and would be..."; page 2, last paragraph, line 10, the
following section was inadvertantly omitted from the final typing of the
minutes, but would be included in the minutes when re -typed: "...the Com-
mission was to widen the road to at least 26 feet. He said the Commission
would like..."; page 6, 8th complete paragraph, line 2, should read"...
decision making process. This was considered to be the area in which the
view obstruction and other two-story homes were to be considered. Re view
obstruction..."
On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried,
the minutes of January 30, 1979, were approved with the following amendment:
under Code Amendment No. 5, add as the last sentence: "Mrs. Bacharach will
represent the Planning Commission with the written report at the City Coun-
cil meeting."
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 36301 Mr. Turner said at the last meeting
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 46 the roadway./parking scheme and the
Peacock Ridge & Highridge Roads tennis court were identified as con -
(Lots 1 & 2, Tract 28750) cerns needing further study. He said
Applicant/Landowner: WSM Co, Inc. revised plans show elimination of the
tennis court, 21 guest parking spaces,
and widening of the street to 24 feet
in the approach and ramp area. He said this roadway scheme with the use of
parking bays was chosen by the applicant for three advantages it offers
over the 26 -foot road/parallel parking scheme: 1) more guest parking spaces;
2) more net driveable space; and 3) a more orderly scheme of handling parked
cars and more flexibility in the landscape treatment. He said the recreation
area has been re -organized with the pool in the center of the area and the
recreation building to act as a buffer between the Casas Verdes units and
the pool. Staff recommended that the Commission approve the conditional use
permit and recommend to the City Council approval of the tentative tract
map. He referred to revised conditions for the draft resolution for the
tract map, as distributed to the Commission this evening.
In response to Commission questions, Mr. Turner said he did not include a
condition for parking enforcement because there would be no space to park
on the road. He said the recreation building was slightly larger than ini-
tially proposed, that it was shown as 10 feet from the property line which
meets the Code requirement, and approximately 11 feet in height. He said
fencing proposals would be handled in conjunction with the landscape plan.
He said the planting referred to in condition #7 could not be done withqu.t
the permission of the Casas Verdes residents, that it was merely an offer.
Mr. Hughes explained that this was a continued public hearing; he reviewed
procedures and re -opened the public hearing.
Richard Linde, architect, 210 Avenue I, Redondo Beach, reviewed the revised
plans, noting that they removed the tennis court, widened the drive at the
entry, designed additional parking stalls for guest parking, increased the
driveway length to accommodate two cars, and emphasized a low profile for
the recreation building, which is approximately 1100 square feet in area.
Mr. Hinchliffe arrived at 8:00 p.m.
Mr. Matzuda, 5 Via Seville, Rolling Hills Estates, felt the revised plan
was an improvement and appreciated the elimination of the tennis court.
However, he was concerned about the location and design of the recreation
building. He felt the building as proposed would give the residents of
Casas Verdes a confined feeling due to the closeness of the building and
the difference in elevation. He said they would rather look at the pool
because of the open feeling it would create. He asked about bonding for
the excavation, and wondered about drainage.
Mr. Hughes pointed out that they were opposed to the tennis court because
of the noise and that a pool could be noisier.
Mr. Turner said the City requires bonding for grading and for the construc-
tion of the improvements. Normally no special bonding would be required
which addresses liability.
Virginia Houze, 7 Via Seville, was concerned about the design of the recrea-
tion building and wondered whether there would be windows on the.back side
of the building.
Mr. Hughes said the building had not been designed yet, but was shown with-
out windows on the back side.
In response to a Commission question, Director Hightower said the City does
not have an ordinance regulating what kinds of vehicles may park in the
street, but that a condition could be placed in the CC&Rs.
Mr. Linde said the construction materials for the building would be wood
and plaster with a tile roof.
Mr. Houze, son of Mrs. Houze who spoke above, wondered if noisy activities
could be restricted in the recreation building.
Bob Wysenbeek, 11 Via Seville, was concerned with the location and height
of the recreation building. He felt grading could be done to lower the
building. He said the building as shown would create a feeling of confine-
ment to the residents of Casas Verdes and that they would rather look at
the pool.
Mr. Hughes pointed out that swimming can occur well after the hours that
tennis could be played.
Mrs. Wysenbeek said the building would block the light from the whole side
of their home.
Mrs. Richardson, 15 Via Seville, was concerned about the wall and planting.
William Sechel, 27 Via Seville, asked the height of the retaining wall.
Mr. Linde said they met the sideyard requirement for the recreation building.
He said they designed a rectangular building to keep the height down, and
to provide a buffer for noise from the pool. He said there would be no
openings along the south wall of the recreation building so that all noise
would be emitted to the other side. He said all drainage would be per the
County regulations. He said the footprint shown was correct, that the
building size may be reduced but would not be increased, and that the shape
would remain as shown. He did not feel the building would be a source of
light blockage as there were at least 25 feet between buildings. He said
noYr"Zlly there were only 10 feet required between homes, and he pointed out
that the structure was only 11 feet to the ridge.
2/13/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2-
Ron McAlpin, South Bay Engineering, said there was no proposed fill in the
location of the -recreation building, nor was there any plan to lower it.
He said the net result of grading the site was that they would be hauling
dirt away.
Mrs. Houze asked about street and landscape lighting.
Mr. Hughes said the City had street lighting standards and that the Develop-
ment Code standards limit outdoor lighting in residential districts to 10
feet above grade.
On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried,
the public hearing was closed.
In response to a Commission question, Mr. Turner said staff recommended a
reduction In the number of parking spaces based on the visual impact.
Commission discussion ensued.
PARKING
Dr. Brown said he would not like to see a reduction in the number of parking
spaces. He felt there should be a condition in the conditional use permit
restricting the type of vehicles permitted to park there. He said he would
like to see a requirement that the homeowners association was responsible
for enforcement of the "no parking".
i�
Director Hightower pointed out that 4rt it is designated a fire lane, as pro-
posed, the sheriff could enforce it.
Mr. Hinchliffe felt the parking should not be reduced. He felt the develop-
ment was unique and that parking would be a continuous problem. He was not
opposed to a condition in the CC&Rs restricting the type of vehicle which
may park there. '
Mrs. Bacharach agreed that the parking should not be reduced. She felt
the bays eliminated the problem of illegal parking and felt there should
be heavy landscaping around the bays. She felt they should not prohibit
the parking of recreational vehicles completely, as people would have a
need to bring them home occasionally, if only for loading and unloading.
She suggested restricting the permanent parking of that type of vehicle.
Mr. Hughes agreed with the other members re the number of parking spaces.
Re recreational vehicle parking, he agreed that long-term parking was not
desirable, but total elimination was not reasonable.
It was the consensus of the Commission to leave the parking as shown and
add an additional requirement in Exhibit "A" to limit the parking of rec-
reational vehicles. Mr. Hughes asked staff to work out the language for
that condition.
RECREATION ROOM
Mrs. Bacharach felt it was an appropriate buffer in its present location.
She felt there should be no windows on the back side of the building and
was in favor of adding a condition prohibiting openings on that side. She
asked about the location of trash storage.
Mr. Turner said there would be a trash enclosure somewhere on the site and
that it could not be located within a setback area. He said it was gener-
ally included in the landscape plan.
Dr. Brown felt there was a good distance from the recreation building to
the Casas Verdes development. He said he would like to see a condition
for the maximum size of the building and its location. He felt the pool
would create noise and that the building was a superb buffer.
Mr. Hinchliffe felt the location of the structure was appropriate and agreed
with the other commissioners.
Mr. Hughes also agreed with the other commissioners. He suggested requiring
that any trash enclosure be landscaped and that no structure of any kind be
2/13/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3-
located behind the recreation building. He said the pool equipment should
be located on the pool side of the recreation building.
It was the consensus of the Commission that there be no windows on the back
side of the building, that there be tile roofs, and that no trash enclosure
be located onvthtrt side of the building.
Mr. Turner said the pool equipment was also part of the landscape plan.
It was also the consensus of the Commission that the footprint remain the
same as shown, that the size of the building and the height of the building
remain the same as shown.
On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously carried,
condition #9 was added to Exhibit "A" of the conditional use permit resolu-
tion; said condition to read as follows: "The recreation building shall
not exceed 1100 square feet. The ridgeline shall not exceed 11 feet. There
shall be no openings on the south side of the building. Pool equipment shall
be located on the pool side of the recreation
On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously carried,
the Commission changed condition #4 of Exhibit "A" of the conditional use
permit resolution to include that plants installed be of sufficient size
when planted so as to be able to act as a buffer soon after the planting.
Director Hightower said the City Attorney advised the City to not become
involved with CC&Rs except where necessary, so that the City does not become
responsible for enforcement; that it should be left up to the private parties
as much as possible.
Mrs. Bacharach, proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, to adopt Reso-
lution No. 79-2, thereby granting Conditional Use Permit No. 46, subject to
conditions in Exhibit "A", as amended this evening.
Roll call vote was as follows;
AYES: Bacharach, Brown, Hinchliffe, Hughes
NOES: None
ABSENT: McTaggart
Mr. Hincliffe proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Brown, to recommend to the
City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 36301, subject to the con-
ditions in Exhibit "A", as amended and attached to the draft resolution.
Roll call vote was as follows:
AYES: Bacharach, Brown, Hinchliffe, Hughes
NOES: None
ABSENT: McTaggart
Mr. Hughes advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council
within fifteen calendar days.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 35 Mr. Turner said the primary issues
VARIANCE NO. 25 discussed at the last meeting were
Intersection of Silver Spur Road grading, retaining wall height, and
and Silver Spur frontage road liability re the construction of the
Applicant/Landowner: Matt Brunning proposed buttress fill. He said sub-
sequent to that meeting the applicant
revised the parking lot/retaining wall
concept. He said the height of the wall has been reduced which results in
the elimination of three parking spaces. Staff felt the reduction of the
visual impact far outweighed the need for the three parking spaces. He
said in the City Attorney's opinion, the City would not be liable for
damages if the slope failed with or without construction of the buttress,
and that the City may require special bonding for the construction but only
to insure that the work is done according to appropriate plans and specifi-
cations; he suggested that the bond remain in effect for a maximum of one
2/13/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4-
year after construction. The City Attorney also suggested that a hold
harmless agreement for the City and County be filed. Staff recommended
that the Commission approve the conditional use permit and variance sub-
ject to the conditions in Exhibit "A" of the draft resolution. He noted
that included with the staff report was a copy of the proposed wording for
the required CC&Rs and -,that it was currently being reviewed by the City
Attorney.
In response to a Commission question, Mr. Turner said the City has precise
requirements dealing with intersection landscaping and visibility problems.
Mr. Hughes said this was a continued public hearing; he explained procedures
and re -opened the public hearing.
Matt Brunning, applicant, 727 Silver Spur Road, answered questions of the
Commission. Re parking control, he said they would have to exercise some
policing themselves; he felt it was a management problem that every build-
ing has.
Ted de Roos, 27641 Longhill, was in favor of bonding for a reasonable period
of time and wondered about the amount of bonding. He asked what type of
roof would be used.
Mr. Turner said the bond amount would be supplied by the County and would
cover the cost of construction per the approved plans.
Mr. Brunning said the building would have a tile roof.
On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously
carried, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Hinchliffe felt lowering the height of the wall offsets the loss of
three parking spaces. He felt the trade-off was good considering the visual
and geological aspects. He deferred to staff's interpretation of what the
City Attorney indicated would be suitable for bonding and the hold harmless
agreement.
Dr. Brown was concerned about the loss of parking spaces, but did not feel
the loss of three spaces would present that much of a problem.
Mrs. Bacharach was uncomfortable with the parking, but said she understood
Mr. Hinchliffe's point about the trade-offs. She did not feel the findings
should contain any wording about the surrounding developments and suggested
their removal in all portions of the resolution containing such language.
Mr. Turner said that wording was originated by one of the Commissioners
at the time the Commission granted conceptual approval.
It was the consensus of the Commission to change the wording of the findings
and eliminate all references to previous development standards used in the
area.
RECESS At 9:58 p.m. a brief recess was called.
The meeting reconvened at 10:08 p.m.
with the same members present.
Further Commission discussion ensued
On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously carried,
the wording of Section 7. B. of the draft resolution was changed as follows:
"That the variance.... in the same zoning district because of site and park-
ing constraints."
On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously carried,
the following changes were made to the draft resolution: 1) Section 6. A.,
line 4, end sentence with "...severe site constraints." The remainder of
the sentence was deleted. 2) Section 7. A., line 4, end sentence with
natural features." The remainder of the sentence was deleted.
2/13/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5-
Mrs. Bacharach proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, to adopt
Resolution No. 79-3, thereby granting Conditional Use Permit No. 35 and
Variance No. 25, as amended this evening, subject to the conditions in
Exhibit "A".
Roll call -vote was as follows:
AYES: Bacharach, Brown, Hinchliffe, Hughes
NOES: None
ABSENT: McTaggart
Mr. Hughes advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council
within fifteen calendar days.
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 11435 Ms. Heit said this was a request for a
2800 and 2652 Colt Road lot line adjustment. She said there
Landowner/Applicant: Kenneth Poole was an existing residence at 2652 Colt
Road and that 2800 Colt Road was a
vacant lot. She said no grading or
construction was proposed. She described the slope of the lot and said all
of the Open Space Hazard zoning would be on lot 1. She said both lots would
exceed the minimum lot size, and that although the Code requires a minimum
width of 90 feet, the lot currently exists with a nonconforming width. Staff
recommendation was for approval of the tentative parcel map subject to the
conditions listed in Exhibit "A". She noted that the address on the draft
resolution was wrong and would be corrected.
Ken Poole, 2652 Colt Road, applicant, spoke briefly to the Commission.
Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Brown, to adopt Resolution
No. 79-4, thereby approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 11435, subject to the
conditions in Exhibit "A", and with the address correction on the resolution.
Roll call vote was as follows:
AYES: Bacharach, Brown, Hinchliffe, Hughes
NOES: None
ABSENT: McTaggart
Mr. Hughes advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council
within fifteen calendar days.
ZONE CHANGE NO. 4 Director Hightower noted an error on
CODE AMENDMENT NO. 7 the first page of the written material.
She said the Coastal Development Permit
section is and will remain incomplete
until the Coastal Commission has completed this section of its regulations.
She said the amendment was to add sections to the Code for implementation
of the Coastal Plan. She said the Zoning Map revisions included refinement
of the Open Space Hazard zone to more accurately reflect the topographical
lines, and changes in the Coastal area, including the coastal setback zone.
She said there were also minor revisions to the overlay zoning districts.
In response to a Commission question, Director Hightower said even after
the Coastal Commission approves the Coastal Plan, there are certain cate-
gories where decisions may be appealed to the Coastal Commission.
Mr. Hughes explained procedures and opened the public hearing.
Mike Downs, general manager of Marineland, said they have submitted a bid
to purchase the Abalone Cove school site. He said the site is about 18
acres and is directly adjacent to Marineland. He was concerned about zoning
it for agricultural use. He requested that the City delay action until they
are able to do some research for the purpose of determining a compatible use
of the property which would serve their needs, the City's needs, and the
needs of the Coastal Commission. He said the cost of the land makes it un-
feasible to farm and make any money. He said possible uses would be a motel
with meeting rooms or for marine research. He said he was meeting with the
2/13/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -6-
research people the following day and expects the studies to be completed
in 90 to 120 days. He said he would be discussing this with the Coastal
Commission and felt the property should remain under Commercial -Recreation
zoning.
Al Levitt, 2105 Rosita Place, Palos Verdes Estates, owner of Hillside
Village, said he purchased the property at Silver Spur and Crenshaw, part
of which is in Rancho Palos Verdes and part of which is in Rolling Hills
Estates. He was concerned with the Open Space Hazard zoning which would
affect this property. He said during escrow he determined that the geology
problems could be resolved and requested the opportunity to develop and
present to the Commission a proposal for development of the site prior to
action on the Zone Change.
Mr. Hughes explained that the Code prohibits development on any slope of
35 percent or greater, regardless of the zoning. He suggested that Mr.
Levitt work with staff in trying to resolve some of the problems with which
he is faced.
Peter Delgado, Tumanjin and Tumanjin, 21515 Hawthorne Boulevard, Torrance,
owner of the 28 acres at Seahill Drive was concerned with the proposed
density on the upper parcel.
Mrs. Bacharach proposed a motion to close the public hearing. The motion
died for lack of a second.
Director Hightower advised that unless the Commission was sure they would
act tonight or at the next meeting, they should not close the public hearing.
On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Dr. 'Brown, and unanimously carried,
the public hearing was continued.
Director Hightower explained that the property Mr. Downs spoke of was zoned
for agricultural use if funding could be gained, if not it would be zoned
for Commercial -Recreation.
Copies of the letters and attachments from Dayton Realty and Zuckerman,
both of which were submitted to staff today, were distributed to the Com-
mission. Due to their size, the Commission felt they could not possibly
read them during the meeting.
The matter was continued to the next meeting.
COMMISSION REPORTS Re the proposed training seminar/
retreat for Commission and staff, Mr.
Hinchliffe reported that the consultant
was available any Monday in March. He said the fee would probably be around
$400 or $500. He suggested mailing the consultant a copy of the Development
Code, General Plan, and draft Coastal Plan so he could prepare himself. He
further suggested they prepare some sort of agenda. The Commission decided
to try to arrange it for March 12.
ADJOURNMENT
At 11:55 p.m. it was moved, seconded,
and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday,
February 27, 1979, at 7:30 p.m.
2/13/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -7-