PC MINS 19790227M I N U T E S
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning Commission
Regular Adjourned Meeting
February 27, 1979
The meeting was called to order at 7:37 p.m. in the City Council Chambers,
30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Hughes.
PRESENT: Bacharach, Brown, Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Hughes
ABSENT: None
Also present were Associate Planners Gary Weber and Keith Turner and Code
Inspector Sandra Lavitt.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded
by Dr. Brown, and carried '(with Mr.
McTaggart abstaining), the minutes of
the meeting of February 13, 1979, were approved with the following amend-
ments: page 2, paragraph 4, line 2, should read "...pool could be noisier.";
page 2, last paragraph, first word, second line from bottom, should read
"normally"; page 3, paragraph 8, line 1, should read "...that if it is...";
page 4, 1st complete paragraph, line 3, should read "...located on the Casas
Verdes side..."; page 4, 4th complete paragraph, add following to the end of
sentence as part of condition: "There shall be nor�1�=r^a^a trash enclosure
located between the Casas Verdes development and the recreation building.";
page 4, 9th complete paragraph, should read "Mr. Hinchliffe..."; page 7,
1st complete paragraph, line 5, should read "...during escrow..."
ZONE CHANGE NO. 4 Mr. Weber said during the last couple
CODE AMENDMENT NO. 7 weeks some issues have come up which
the City Attorney was now reviewing.
It was the City Attorney's recommenda-
tion that the Planning Commission not close the public hearing on this mat-
ter tonight; that the Commission open the continued public hearing and then
immediately continue it to a date uncertain, primarily because of some is-
sues that came up at the last meeting.
Mr.'Hughes said this was a continued public hearing and re -opened the hearing.
There was no one in the audience present to speak on this matter.
On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried,
the public hearing was continued to a date uncertain.
SIGN PERMIT NO. 55 Ms. Lavitt said the applicant was re -
Alta Vista Tract No. 36273 questing approval of two temporary
Applicant: P. Y. Builders free standing signs of wood construc-
tion to be located along the Hawthorne
Boulevard frontage of the tract. She
said the Code provides for the placement of one temporary sign and sets a
maximum height of 8 feet for a free standing sign. Staff recommended denial
of the two signs and approval of one double face sign at the entrance to the
tract at a height not to exceed 12 feet, placed 5 feet inside the front
property line, to conform with all other provisions of the Code.
Jerry Petros, P. Y. Builders, 1326 W. Anaheim, Wilmington, said they wanted
two signs so they could place one at Dupre and Hawthorne to direct people
to the tract entrance. He said the sign would have an arrow on it. He
said both signs would be blue and green with the logo on a light colored
background for visibility purposes.
Mrs. Bacharach felt there should be some signing but did not feel there
was a need for a sign at Dupre, and agreed with staff's recommendation.
Dr. Brown agreed with Mrs. Bacharach.
Mr. Hinchliffe said he could see the problem, but did not feel the pro-
posed signs would significantly aid in directing traffic to the tract.
He felt the applicant should advertise the project by other means.
Mr. McTaggart did not feel it was very obvious that there were homes for
sale there, but agreed with the previous speakers.
Mr. Hughes said part of the reason people were not aware of the tract was
because of the wall which was built there. He felt there has been an in-
sufficient attempt at advertising the homes, and was not convinced that
the proposed signing would help direct people into the tract. He said he
would be opposed to any major advertising signing.
On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Dr. Brown, and carried, with Mr.
Hughes dissenting, Sign Permit No. 55 was approved for one sign as recom-
mended by staff.
On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried,
the Commission stated that the 12 -foot height be measured from natural
grade to the top of the sign, at its highest point.
SIGN PERMIT NO. 58 Ms. Lavitt said the applicant was re -
Alta Vista Tract No. 36273 questing a change in the entryway sign
Applicant: P. Y. Builders previously approved because the exist-
ing sign was not as visible as they -
would like because of the dark back-
ground. She said the request was for two signs at the entryway, one at-
tached on each side of the wall, with cut-out lettering attached to the
slumpstone wall b4 bolts. She described the proposed size and style of
the lettering and said the Code allows for the placement of one sign. Staff
recommended denial, but that if the Commission approved the request, the
existing entryway sign be removed as a condition of approval.
In response to Commission questions, she said there was no lighting pro-
posed and that staff felt the existing sign was visible from either direc-
tion.
Jerry Petros, P. Y. Builders, said the sign was not visible because of the
brown background of the wall. He said they were proposing bronze lettering
for the new signs. He said the lettering would be a little smaller and be
spread out more than the Mira Verde sign.
Mr. Hughes pointed out that the letters of similar signs have been stolen
from other locations.
Mr. Petros said the sign man proposed to weld the letters on to prevent
that, and that if no one mars the lettering, it should last a long time.
Mr. Hughes asked about continued sign maintenance by the homeowners asso-
ciation.
Ms. Lavitt said that condition was on the previous permanent sign permit.
Mr. McTaggart felt the two signs were nicer in appearance than one, and
recommended conditioning the approval with a requirement for homeowners
association maintenance of the signs.
Dr. Brown said a number of tracts only have one identification sign and
did not see the need for one on both sides of the entryway.
2/27/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2-
Mrs. Bacharach felt for visibility there should be two signs. She agreed
there should be a condition for homeowners association maintenance and
further recommended welding the letters.
Mr. Hinchliffe felt although this type of sign was pleasing to look at,
they are susceptible to vandalism. He felt the existing sign was appro-
priate.
Mr. McTaggart said the thickness of the bolt was important in keeping the
letters on the wall.
Mr. Hughes felt the existing sign was properly located and suggested chang—
ing the color of the sign to make it more visible.
Dr. Brown said he was in favor of one sign or retaining the existing sign,
but was opposed to two signs.
Ms. Lavitt said if there was to be extensive redesigning or recoloring of
the existing sign, the applicant would have to obtain a sign permit.
On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Dr. Brown, and carried, with Mrs.
Bacharach and Mr. McTaggart dissenting, Sign Permit No. 58 was denied.
Mr. Hughes advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council
within fifteen calendar days.
SIGN PERMIT NO. 53 Ms. Lavitt said subsequent to notifi--
Golden Cove Shopping Center cation by the City to each merchant in
Landowner/Applicant: Terra III the center to obtain sign permits,
Terra III has requested all signs to
be considered at this time as a sign
program. She reviewed the signs as listed in the staff report, noting the
amortization periods for nonconforming signs. She reviewed the alternatives
as listed in the staff report. Staff recommended the following: 1) that
the signs (#1 thru #11, except #10 which has been altered recently and now
has additiond sign copy) be approved for sign permits as they are in confor-
mance with the Code; 2) that signs illegally installed (#12 thru #14) be
approved for permits at this time; 3) that the nonconforming signs (#10 and
#1thru #18) be approved with the existing copy; 4) that the signs (#19
thru #22) which constitute an unnecessary proliferation of signing be amor-
tized over the time period specified in the Code; 5) that Golden Cove Phar-
macy (#23) which is under notice by the owner to reduce the sign size (per
the attached letter) under City Code has two years to conform; 6) that
Seven Seas Cleaners (#24) be approved in its current location due to the
visibility factor; 7) that the signing on the Center interior and on either
the north or south face of the building of Film n' Foto (#25) be eliminated;
and 8) that the pole sign (#26) be reduced to 16 feet in height, measured
,>from the mound of dirt on which it is sitting. She noted that the Rolling
Hills Realty sign was installed last week without permits, and was not part
of this application. She mentioned window signs in a couple of the estab-•
lishments and said there was a temporary sign for employment in the Bank of
America which came to staff's attention today, all of which are up without
permits and are not included in this application.
In response to Commission questions, she explained the notification pro-
cedures.
Re the Van De Kamp bakery sign at Safeway, Mr. McTaggart felt the intent
of the Code was not to prevent a separate business sharing a building with
another business from having signing.
Ms. Lavitt said the subject sign would only be permitted if it was the sole
bakery produce being sold in the store.
Mrs. Bacharach felt it could not be considered a bakery as they were not
there baking fresh goods nor did they have an employee there working separ-
ately selling the baked goods over a separate counter. She felt they were
just another bread company supplying bread to the store.
2/27/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3-
Monte Ormsby, Terra III, said they have not owned the center for a long
period of time and that the merchants had been relying on the previous
owner. He said the merchants felt they received proper permits from the
County for most of the signing. He said as new owners, the intent is to
enlarge the shopping center and at that time it would have a new facade.
Mr. Hinchliffe said he was acquainted with the applicant as a neighbor.
Mr. McTaggart said his son was a dishwasher at the Admiral Risty.
Mr. Ormsby indicated the expansion plans would be ready in about three
months and it should be built within two years.
After discussion it was the consensus of the Commission to consider the
large sign cans under this blanket procedure and handle the other signs,
such as window signs, as separate items at a different time.
On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously carried,
signs #1 thru #9 and #11 were approved as existing, as identified in the
staff report.
On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried,
signs #12 and #13 were approved, per the staff report.
On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously carried,
signs #10 and #14 thru #18 were approved per the staff report for a period
not to exceed two years.
On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously carried,
signing #19 (Bank of America), the two conforming signs were approved, and
there shall be amortization of the pole sign with the time period effective
as of April 1978, per the staff recommendation. I, -
On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried,
signing #20 (Admiral Risty), the two signs ("Admiral Risty" and "Steaks"
"Cocktails") were approved, and the other signs as shown in item 1 and 2
of the staff report were denied.
On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously carried,
signing #21 (Golden Cove Pet Store), the single sign in the can was approved
and the window sign was denied, per the staff recommendation.
On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously car-
ried, all of the signs of #22 (Safeway) were denied. I
On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously carried,
the signing for #23 (Golden Cove Pharmacy) was denied per the staff report.
On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried,
the signing for #24 (Seven Seas Cleaners) was approved per the staff report.
On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and carried (with Mr.
McTaggart dissenting), the signing for #25 (Film n' Foto) was denied per
the staff report.
On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried,
sign #26 (the Center's pole sign) was denied per the staff report and shall
be amortized.
Mrs. Bacharach asked that the merchants be noticed about window signs and
the permits.
Mr. Hughes said the signs not considered this evening should be taken on
an individual basis.
2/27/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4--
v ,
RECESS At 9:45 p.m. a brief recess was called.
The meeting reconvened at 9:55 p.m.
with the same members present.
GRADING APPLICATION NO. 302 Mr. Weber said this was a revision to
6457 Le Blanc the original application which had
Applicant/Landowner: Cliff Lai been approved by staff, and that it
comes under the Planning Commission
now because of the quantity of grading.
He reviewed the request and the plans. Staff recommended that the revised
application be approved without conditions.
Michael Smith, representing the architect, 3 Malaga Cove Plaza, Palos Verdes
Estates (office address), answered questions of the Commission and reviewed
the plans as revised.
On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously car-
ried, Grading Application No. 302 was approved as revised.
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 11790 Mr. Weber said the request was for a
6510 Palos Verdes Drive South two -lot subdivision of a .51 acre par -
Applicant: William Rook cel. He reviewed the area and project
Landowners: Rook,Freeman,Ratzlaff description, zoning, and grading. He
said the project was consistent with
the Development Code. He said issues
of concern were the access, sewer, and view/visual character. He distributed
photographs to the Commission. Staff recommended that the Commission review
the subdivision and that approval be granted subject to the conditions listed
in Exhibit "A" of the draft resolution.
William Rook said they proposed two residences with a low profile in a
Spanish style with tile roofs. He said the garages would be underneath and
the proposed residences would be 3500 square feet. He said the topography
map was correct and that the majority of slope to which staff referred was
off this property.
William Freeman, 200 Palos Verdes Drive East, reviewed the plans and an-
swered questions of the Commission.
Mr. McTaggart said he would like staff to establish a ridgeline elevation.
Dr. Brown agreed. He said it was important to preserve the view from Palos
Verdes Drive.
Mr. Hughes asked about grading land not on this site.
Mr. Weber said trying to establish a ridgeline height would be difficult.
He did not feel the structures alone were the problem, that it was the
structure and the pad. He said he would like to see a more natural slope.
He said the intent of the approval should be made clear in the minutes and
the condition should be properly worded.
Mr. Hinchliffe expressed concern and was uncomfortable about approving the
project this evening.
Mrs. Bacharach did not want to come up with an arbitrary number when the
problem could be solved by,proper placement of the structures.
Mr. Weber suggested a condition that any grading plan for this lot must
come back to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Freeman said there were five feet more of level lot on the next property
owned by Palos Verdes Properties.
Mr. Hinchliffe asked if it was reasonable to'continue this matter so that
staff could look at it closer and so that the applicant could present a
more accurate topographic map.
2/27/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5-
•
Dr. Brown suggested that staff check with the City Attorney re how much
restraint the Commission could place in -the conditions.
Mr. Weber said he would check with the City Attorney but that in his
opinion, the condition for grading to a more natural slope was as far as
the City could go since this request was for a division of land.
Mr. McTaggart said this particular request was in a view plan area and
that there may be possible grounds for not allowing the split. He suggested
checking with the City Attorney re that also.
Mr. Hughes felt they should postpone the decision and ask staff to resolve
the problem. He said they need to know without any question what the topo-
graphy conditions were. He said he was uncomfortable about acting on this
matter tonight.
On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously carried,
the matter was tabled.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 48 Mr. Turner said this request was for
VARIANCE NO. 36 the construction of a community care
Crestridge Road (east of Temple) facility on a 3 -acre parcel of land in
Landowner: Palos Verdes Properties an Institutional zone. He reviewed
Applicant: Lester Barron the project and site description, the
proposed structures and parking. He
said the Code allows this use in any
district with a conditional use permit if it is determined to be a desirable
use for the City. He said the applicant was requesting three variances: a
decrease in the total number of parking spaces; a decrease in the number of
covered parking spaces; and to exceed the maximum height limit. He referred
to the chart in the staff report and said concerns include the following:
view obstruction, grading, visual appearance, intensity of use, use of
abandoned structure, and licensing. Staff recommended that the Commission
open the public hearing, take testimony, discuss issues, and give direction
to the applicant.
Mr. Hughes asked how the height was measured, as 36 feet seemed high for a
two-story building.
Mr. Turner said if the buildings were not connected by any means, each
structure would be measured individually; however, since there was a struc-
tural connection, the overall height had to be measured per -the Code.
Mr. Hughes explained public hearing procedures and opened the public hearing.
Lester Barron, 909 Lucile Avenue, Los Angeles, discussed the increase in the
number of people in the "over 65" age group. He said they were not proposing
housing units and any comparison with residential density did not fit. He
felt it should be looked at as people per acre rather than units per acre.
Bob Benson, architect, Long Beach, said they were cutting into the ground
to eliminate view obstruction and that they dropped one floor of the build-
ing. He presented a model of the project to the Commission. He said ap-
proximately 28 percent of the floor area would be a common area.
Paul Barron, 909 Lucile Avenue, Los Angeles, said re density, in residential
development there was nothing limiting the number of people. He said in
this development there would be a limit on the number of people and pointed
out that this type development would not impact schools, etc. He felt the
traffic generation would be minuscule. He said re police services, the
building would be a secure building with a video system. Re fire services,
he said the building would have sprinklers. He said the project may impact
paramedic services, but that the Fire Department indicated there would be
no problem serving the facility. Re parking, he said they submitted stud'
s
from other cities with regard to senior citizen housing. He said they werl
0
2/27/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -6-
proposing 1:1.44, and that during the environmental assessment staff had
indicated that 1 per 3 beds was very generous. He said they also had ,
reciprocal parking agreements. He said the Code does not address itself
to this type facility, that this particular type facility requires less
parking than a convalescent facility, for instance, because there are less
visitors, and the visitors that do come can take the residents out for the
day rather than staying at the facility. He felt the height problem was
a procedural complexity. He encouraged the Commission to visit facilities
like theirs.
The Commission asked the minimum number of beds the development could have
and still be a feasible project.
Lester Barron said he did not feel the plan as proposed would fly. He said
they have already spent a great deal of money on plans and that they were
trying to build a facility for senior citizens with limited income. He
said the average facility in field has 83 rooms per acre, that the facility
proposed has 60. He said they could not decrease the number, that the pro-
ject as proposed was not financially feasible right now. He felt they
would probably have to increase what they have submitted.
Jean Curtis, 5 Cinnamon Lane, said the closest existing facility of this
kind was in Long Beach. She said she would like to see the development
built, that she was impressed with the proposed design. She said the faci-
lity in Long Beach has a long waiting list and that she would like the
older people of the community close enough where their loved ones could
care for them.
John Vanderlip, 99 Vanderlip Drive, said he had visited the other two faci-
lities and urged the Commission and staff to visit them also. He felt the
facility proposed would give good care at a reasonable price.
Herbert Roberts, 5693 Mistridge Drive, read a written statement to the
Commission. He said he had no objection to the type facility proposed but
was concerned about the variances requested, the grading proposed, and the
intensity of development. He felt the City should preserve land contours
and ridgelines. He felt ' the view analysis should be prepared. He felt
there should be ample parking and that the uncovered parking should be
screened. He felt the existing reciprocal parking agreements were not
being used on that street.
Joseph Ragozino, 5725 Mistridge, felt there would be a tremendous traffic
impact without adequate parking. He was concerned with the structure
height and felt the development was too intense for the site. He also
wondered if lighting would be a problem.
Mr. McTaggart said he was satisfied that there would not be much traffic
generated from this type facility.
John Arand, 5731 Mistridge, wondered what the General Plan intended for
this area.
Mr. McTaggart said it had been changed from commercial to institutional.
Mrs. Sorenson, 5677 Mistridge, said she was not in favor of the project as
proposed.
Alice Colby, 5711 Mistridge, asked the height of the ridgeline from the
street.
Mr. Benson said it was 28 feet from the street.
Georgalee Works, 5717 Mistridge, felt the proposed structures on the site
would be overwhelmingly large.
Phillip Doppelt, 29535 Oceanport, expressed concerns about the project.
On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously carried,
the public hearing was -. e
2/27/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -7-
w u.ez.,.
Mr. McTaggart felt the size of the rooms were too small, that this would
affect the residents of the facility. He felt the site was proposed to be
too intensely developed, that the buildings appear to cover more than they
really do. Rather than increase the number of people, he felt the applicant
should decrease that number and reduce the impact of the presence of the
structures.
Mr. Hinchliffe had no additional comments.
Dr. Brown said he agreed with Mr. McTaggart. He felt it was too intense a
development and was concerned with the number of people proposed.
Mrs. Bacharach said she had nothing further to add.
Mr. Hughes felt the project site was intensely developed. He said he could
not agree to an increase in the number of residents, that if the applicant
really needed more than was now proposed, he felt the project would be de-
feated. He pointed out that a lot of pertinent material was not available
to the Commission until late this afternoon.
Mr. McTaggart and Mrs. Bacharach said they would like to visit the facilities.
On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried,
the matter was continued to the next meeting.
COMMISSION REPORTS Mr. Hinchliffe said the planning con-
ference was scheduled for March 12.
He said Tom Cooke would arrive in Los
Angeles around 8 a.m. and that the conference could probably`' around
9 a.m. He said the cost would be about $600. He felt an agenda should be
prepared prior to the conference. Suggested items for the agenda were view
protection, height ordinance, tree ordinance, coastal development, hillside
development, density compatibility, open space, and architectural control.
He said he would inform Mr. Cooke to expect a letter from Director Hightower
inviting him to the conference and stating that costs may not exceed $600.
Mr. Hughes suggested that prior to the actual building of major projects,
everyone involved get together with staff so that it is clear what the
restrictions are.
Mr. Hughes asked about the lights in St. John Fisher Church.
Mr. Turner said he felt they may be back before the Commission for some
sort of modification to the approval.
F1IONfell) kNtuM�1�i�ii
At 1:15 a.m. it was moved, seconded,
and carried, to adjourn to Monday,
March 12, 1979, at 9 a.m.
2/27/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -8-