Loading...
PC MINS 19801014M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting October 14, 1980 The meeting was called to order at 7:41 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Brown. PRESENT: Baer, Hinchliffe, Hughes, McTaggart, Brown ABSENT: None Also present were Acting Director of Planning Gary Weber, Associate Planner Richard Thompson, and Assistant Planner Sandra Lavitt. CONSENT CALENDAR Dr. Brown removed item A., minutes of the meeting of September 23, 1980 from the Consent Calendar. On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Mr. Hughes, the Consent Calendar (with the ex- ception of the above' -pulled item) was unanimously approved, thereby approv- ing the following items: minutes of the meeting of October 1, 1980, six- month time extension for Tentative Parcel Map No. 1.1819, and re -scheduling the Commission's November 11 meeting to November 13, 1980. On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously car- ried, approval of the minutes of September 23, 1980 was moved to follow New Business. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 39673 Mr. Weber said at the last meeting the CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 58 Commission determined that the general Southwest of Beachview & Coastsite design was acceptable but concerns re- Landowner/Applicant: Tumanjan and garding view obstruction and public/ Tumanjan Investments private designation of streets re- quired further investigation. He said the general matter of public versus private streets was discussed at a joint meeting of the Planning Commission and City Council on September 30 and while no formal action was taken, it was the consensus that there should be no further gated private roads and that each case should be decided on its own merits. Staff still recommended that the streets be dedicated public roads. He said the Public Works Depart- ment recommended that if the roads are to be public, there be a four -foot right-of-way on both sides, no landscaped medians be approved, and a method be devised to guarantee long term maintenance of the textured portion of the roads. He said staff disagreed about the landscaped medians. He said a procedure for maintaining the landscaping and textured surfaces could be developed in connection with maintenance responsibilities of the Homeowners Association, that this has been done a number of times in the past. He said it was the City Attorney's opinion that since the Code specifically refers to structures, second story dwelling units do not have a reasonable expectation of a view. He said, however, that staff has always considered the view from these units and others that may not t6chhically have'a view in the 'review of any development. He referred to the view analysis on display and said essentially it shows that there will be some view obstruc- tion although in no case would any residence lose all of its present view. Staff recommended that the perimeter units be lowered to the maximum ex- tent possible to achieve a low profile, enhance some of the views, and achieve more of a single family appearance. Staff recommended that the Commission review the view analysis and direct the applicant to make the necessary revisions to minimize view obstruction. He said if the Commis- sion was able to grant conceptual approval, staff would prepare the appro- priate resolutions and conditions for the next meeting. Dr. Brown noted this was a continued public hearing. Peter Delgado, Tumanjan and Tumanjan Investments, Inc., 22939 Hawthorne Boulevard, Torrance, answered questions of the Commission and said they could probably lower the units between 36 and 48 inches. Mr. Hinchliffe suggested that the Commission consider this item along with the next agenda item for purposes of discussion. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 39672 Mr. Weber said at the last meeting it CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 71 was mutually agreed that the submittal South of Seacove Drive of a conditional use permit would pro- Landowner/Applicant: Tumanjan and vide a degree of design flexibility. Tumanjan Investments He said the key element in all three concepts submitted by the applicant involved the location/configuration of the proposed public vista park. He said in each of the concepts the eleven residential lots ranged upward of three-quarters of an acre. He referred to the chart in the staff report. He said staff felt the Residential Planned Development requirement for 30 percent common open space could be waived because the project would exceed all yard and patio requirements. Staff felt that the proposed vista park would function in the same manner as a privately owned common open space, yet offered the added advantage of providing a valuable public open space. Pursuant to the Commission's request, he said the Council considered the issue of bluff dedication at its October 7 meeting. It was staff's feeling from the deliberations at that meeting that the Council would be receptive to bluff dedications in general. He re- viewed the view analysis which was on display. He said there would be no view obstruction to the Bay Club, that Porto Verde would be the most im- pacted. He pointed out that where there was view obstruction, there was no reasonable expectation of a view. Staff felt that by requiring additional front setbacks, controlling landscape heights and grading, some good views could be maintained. He said per the Commission's request the Director of Parks and Recreation reviewed the alternative locations for the proposed vista park and verbally reported back to staff that the first choice would be the central location, the second choice would be a linear bluff park, and the third choice would be the westerly site near Marineland. He said staff concurred that the central location was superior. He said the pro- posed concepts did not include dedication of continuous blufftop for trail purposes. He said staff had given the matter a great deal of thought and was of the strong opinion that the vista park would provide greater public benefit than a continuous bluff trail. Staff recommended that the Commis- sion grant conceptual approval to the proposed design with the vista park in the central location, and that the map be changed to reflect an offer of dedication of the bluff face. He said if the Commission concurred, staff would prepare the appropriate resolutions and conditions for the next meet- ing. In response to questions by Mr. Hinchliffe, Mr. Weber said the Council did not get to an in-depth level of discussion re bluff dedication. He said the Council was very familiar with the large bluff parcels in the City, particularly in Subregions 1 and 7, and he felt it was to -those -parcels that the Council was referring. He said this site is a more isolated case. He said if the project is approved as presented, there would be no con- struction permitted beyond the coastal setback line without a variance, other than fences. Dr. Brown said the tentative tract map was a continued public hearing and he opened the public hearing on the conditional use permit. Peter Delgado, Tumanjan and Tumanjan Investments, Inc., 22939 Hawthorne Boulevard, Torrance, answered questions of the Commission. He said he did not want the bluff trail dedication because of land values. He said having the public behind those homes would decrease their value. Mr. Hinchliffe wondered how the private area would be defined, if there would be fences built out to the -bluff. 10/14/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- 0 -1 Mr. Hughes said it was clear that the blufftop has been used for years by the public, that there was an extremely well-defined path. Mr. Hinchliffe was not sure that there would not be more problems with the public if they did not accommodate the public. He said even with fences, people could jump them. Dr. Brown agreed it would be practically impossible to prevent problems from occurring. Mr. McTaggart pointed out that if it was blocked off, there would be no emergency access. On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously carried, the public hearing for Conditional Use Permit No. 71 was closed. On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously carried, the public hearings for Conditional Use Permit No. 58, Tentative Tract Map No. 39672, and Tentative Tract Map No. 39673 were closed. Mr. Hinchliffe suggested that the ridgelines be lowered to -the -minimum; as necessary. Mr. McTaggart suggested establishing a line which no -structure may exceed, as they did with the project at Crest and Crenshaw. Mr. Hughes noted that there were a lot of people in the audience and sug- gested that the Commission come back to these items and give them the attention they need after going through the other agenda items. Dr. Brown felt the Commission should discuss some of the issues and come back to the more difficult ones later, if necessary. He asked about the issue of establishing ridgelines or maintaining a 16 -foot height limit. Mr. Weber said staff had some problems dealing with the project at Crest and Crenshaw, that it took a great deal of time. He said maintaining a 16 -foot height limit was easier than establishing a plane. He said he understood the concern and that was the reason he had suggested lowering the perimeter units as much as possible. Mr. Hinchliffe felt they should let the applicant know that if the project requires more earthiekport in order to achieve a lower profile it would be acceptable. The Commission was satisfied with staff's recommendations for Tract No. 39673, at Beachview and Coastsite, with public streets. The major concern was with minimizing view obstruction. Mr. McTaggart asked about setting up a maintenance district for both the textured streets and the landscaping. Mr. Weber said there were ways to assign the responsibilities to the Home- owners Association instead of setting up a district. Dr. Brown suggested that there be species requirements and that the City somehow be a party to the CC&Rs. Mr. Hughes said they should make sure that the strip of land near the right- of-way and fences, etc., be maintained. Dr. Brown directed staff to come back with appropriate resolutions and con- ditions which respond to the Commission's concerns. Mr. Hinchliffe noted that staff and the applicant should work on lowering the ridgelines. Mr. Hughes noted that it was really the burden of the developer to prove that each of the homes above 16 feet in height would not cause impairment of view. 10/14/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- Further discussion on Tract No. 39672 was postponed until the other agenda items had been taken care of. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 61 Ms. Lavitt said the Commission was 27990 Palos Verdes Drive East able to observe the temporary lighting Landowner/Applicant: Mr. & Mrs. fixtures installed for the private Jack Atkinson tennis court at its meeting of October 1, which convened at the subject prop- erty. She said the lighting contractor explained a new technique which minimized the off -court and halo effect il- lumination caused by these types of fixtures. She said the major concerns of the Commission had been the impact caused by the lights on adjacent prop- erties, the effect of the halo on residences at a higher elevation, and view obstruction of City lights. She said observations of the lights were made from 27996 Palos Verdes Drive East (directly across the private drive- way), from 28001 and 28003 Palos Verdes Drive East, and from 25 Headland. She said it was determined at the time of the "test" that there were no significant effects. She noted that the lights and associated reflective glare were not visible from Palos Verdes Drive East. Staff recommended approval of the tennis court lights since all required findings could be made, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit "A" of the draft resolu- tion. Dr. Brown noted that this was a continued public hearing. Mr. Atkinson, 27990 Palos Verdes Drive East, applicant, said the tennis court was for family recreation and for health reasons. He said his neigh- bors were in favor of the lighting and the only person who sent a letter of objection stated during the "test" that the lights were not visible until the fog rolled in. Dr. Brown asked if the contractor was comfortable with the conditions. Herb Bieber, lighting contractor, said he understood the conditions and was comfortable about meeting them. On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Dr. Brown, and carried, with Dr. Baer and Mr. Hinchliffe abstaining, the public hearing was closed. Mr. McTaggart said he was very pleased with the design of the fixtures, that there was a significant difference between the Iacono project and this one. Dr. Brown noted that there was a question at the time about moving the hanger arms an additional two feet. Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, to adopt Resolu- tion 80-18, thereby approving Conditional Use Permit No. 61, subject to the conditions of Exhibit"All, modified with the following addition as condi- tion no. 7: "That installation of hanger arms shall not exceed six feet." Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Hughes, McTaggart, Brown NOES: None ABSTAIN: Baer, Hinchliffe ABSENT: None Dr. Brown advised the audience of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen calendar days. Mr. McTaggart commended both the applicant and the contractor for their cooperation in this matter. 10/14/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 37818 Mr. Thompson said the Commission first CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 59 considered this project at the meeting North and east of Hawthorne Blvd. of August 26 at which time the matter between via Rivera & Via2La Cresta- was continued and comments were re - Landowner: Palos Verdes Properties quested from the City Attorney regard - Applicant: Sikand Engineering ing access to the site. He said al- ternative site designs prepared by the applicant during the early design stages of this project were also requested for Commission review and were on display tonight. He referred to the traffic study prepared by Linscott, Law and Greenspan which was attached to the staff report and said the traf- fic engineers have proposed an alternative traffic design which calls for the relocation of the shopping center driveway and a median cut. He said the matter went to the Traffic Committee because of the proposal for the median cut on Hawthorne Boulevard and that the Public Works Department and the Traffic Committee recommended against the proposed design. Staff recommended that the Commission review the information presented and con- tinue this matter to a future date. Kenneth Marks, Sikand Engineering, 2400 Michelson Drive, Irvine, briefly spoke to the Commission. In response to a Commission question, he said he preferred the solution in Alternative A, which proposed development at two locations: adjacent to Via Rivera and adjacent to Via La Cresta. Monty Brower, representing Palos Verdes Properties, said they contacted Zuckerman re gaining access through that property but have not been success- ful. He said he liked the alternative which the Commission is currently reviewing with modifications to the road design; he felt the curb cut should be,located further away from Via Rivera. Jack Greenspan, Linscott, Law and Greenspan, Inc., 8405 Pershing Drive, Playa del Rey, said he would agree with the Public Works Department if this was a tract of a great size. He said this tract would probably produce less than 10 cars during peak hours; therefore, the proposed design is adequate. Mr. McTaggart said he did not feel anyone was taking into consideration the steep grade of Hawthorne Boulevard at that point. He felt it was dangerous because of the steep grade of Hawthorne Boulevard and the lack of site distance. On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously car- ried, the public hearing was continued. Mr. Hughes said the City would like to avoid access off Hawthorne Boulevard if at all possible. Dr. Brown noted that the applicant was willing to bear the cost of condem- nation. Mr. Hughes felt they should pursue access off of Via Rivera. Dr. Brown said the other concerns of terracing, etc., were really secondary to the access issue. The matter was continued. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 55 Mr. Thompson said due to the time con - VARIANCE NO. 44/GRADING NO. 403 straints the Commission must make a Northwest corner Crest &-Hawthorne final decision tonight. He said staff Applicant: Neil Stanton Palmer did not feel that adequate information Landowner: Universal Trade & Ind. had been submitted and, therefore, staff recommended denial of the project without prejudice, which would allow the applicant to resubmit the current project at any time. He said another alternative was that the applicant withdraw the applications. He said a 10/14/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5- resolution was prepared denying without prejudice and had been -distributed to the Commission this evening. In response to Commission questions, Mr. Thompson said the unresolved issue - was geology. He said the applicant was requesting some guidance from the Commission tonight in terms of the other items.` John Manavian, Neil Stanton Palmer, 672 Silver Spur Road, said the main concerns previously raised were view obstruction and geology. He felt they had resolved the City Engineer's concerns and said the issue raised with the County was re applying the 1.5 safety factor to the parking lot which would cost a great deal of money. He said they were willing to withdraw the application but would like guidance from the Commission. In response to Commission questions, Mr. Manavian said if it was asked that the same level of safety be applied to the structure and the parking lot, they would have to remove all the uncompacted rock fill, not only on the site but in the canyon, which could be a two to three year process, and then must find enough fill to replace it. On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Dr. Baer, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Hughes said if the geologist and City were satisfied with the geology, it was fine. He said it was dust a matter of determining what was safe. Dr. Brown said other problems were with parking, setbacks, retaining walls, and views, etc.; however, he felt that the applicant was on the right track in responding to those concerns. Mr. Hinchliffe did not feel they should apply any conditions to the parking lot different than what would be applied anywhere else. Dr. Baer felt the design was acceptable. In response to a Commission question, Mr. Weber said it would be easier if the applicant would just withdraw the application. Mr. Manavian formally withdrew the application and submitted a letter to staff which was addressed to the Commission withdrawing. VARIANCE NO. 55 Mr. Thompson said the applicant was 3 Tangerine Road requesting to replace an approximately Applicant: Robert McJones 1548 square foot single family resi- Landowner: Justin McJones dential structure located in the active Portuguese Bend landslide. He said the original structure had been destroyed by fire and the applicant was proposing to replace it with a larger struc- ture. He said the proposed project was somewhat unique in that it utilized three large cargo -type shipping containers as foundation members. He re- ferred to the findings listed in the staff report and noted that exhibits were on display. Staff recommended approval subject to the conditions in the draft resolution. The public hearing was opened. Bob McJones, 1 Limetree Lane, said the subject home belonged to his son, Justin. He said the actual area of the structure was 1759 square feet. Mr. Thompson said staff felt the figure was 1835 square feet. Mr. McJones said the drawings may not be accurate, but he was certain that the area within the outside walls was 1759 square feet. He submitted a letter from Mr. Marin who was the previous owner of the residence at the time of the fire. He noted that Mr: Marih stated in his letter that the square footage of living area at the time of the fire was 1800 square feet. 10/14/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -6- Mr. Hughes said the request was for the reconstruction of a home but when he visited the site the structure was already there. Mr. McJones said this variance was the last thing needed before the entire package is submitted to the County Engineer. The Commission expressed concern that proper approvals had not been ob- tained prior to the construction. Mr. Weber noted that the Planning Department had issued a number of stop work orders. On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to adopt Resolu- tion P.C. No. 80-19, thereby approving Variance No. 55, based on the find- ings listed in the staff report and subject to the conditions in Exhibit "A". The square footage of the residence was changed to reflect staff's computation. In response to a question by Dr. Brown, Mr. McJones said he had read the conditions of approval. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Baer, Hinchliffe, Hughes, McTaggart, Brown NOES: None ABSENT: None Dr. Brown advised the audience of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen calendar days. RECESS At 10:45 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 10:55 p.m. with the same members present. On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously carried, the Commission changed the order of the agenda by making the continuing dis- cussion of Tract No. 39672 the next item. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 39672 Mr. Hinchliffe said the City Attorney CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 71 felt there was a pretty good case for South of Seacove Drive a prescriptive easement, but it was Landowner/Applicant: Tumanjan and the developer's desire not to have Tumanjan Investments the public behind the homes. He was concerned that they were creating a situation where any of the eleven owners could erect a fence in an effort to keep people from trespassing on their property. He said one solution to the problem would be to have the edge of the bluff under public ownership, blending it as part of the park. He said this would force people to come through the park to gain access to the bluff edge. He said a solution along those lines may be to the benefit of the developer as well as the City. Mr. Hughes had essentially the same concerns. He said fences going up would limit the vista from that site. He said they could restrict the development of fences under the conditional use permit but felt the only way that made sense was to dedicate the bluff edge. He said he would not suggest that it be improved like the:park but at least it would allow for emergency access. He said this would be a regional type park, not a neighborhood park. He said the City fought long and hard for control of the coastline and these homes propose to cut off access to the bluff edge which is contrary to what the City is tryiAg to protect. He suggested the central park plus a 10/14/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -7- strip of dedicated land, left in a natural state, just including the trail. He felt both the bluff face and bluff top should be dedicated and that there be no development of any kind seaward of the setback line including fences. He did not feel it was in the best interest of the City to accept the tentative map as it stands. He said he was comfortable with the park in the center. Dr. Brown said the frontage of the park was wider now which makes it more acceptable. Mr. Delgado said he had no incentive to give a vista park if he had to also give a bluff trail. He said he would lose value of the homes with the public going along the rear of them. Joe Barnett said this concept came from what Palos Verdes Estates has done for years, whereby the City owns the bluff faces, then there are vista spaces. He said the public uses the open spaces but once a house is built they tend to not go over to the areas where it is landscaped or there is a low fence. Dr. Brown said ideally they would like the vista park with the dedication of a bluff trail. Mr. Hughes said he could not vote for the tract map as proposed. Mr. McTaggart concurred with Mr. Hughes. Mr. Hinchliffe felt there should be a band of City property along the edge of the bluff and he could not support the map as drawn. Dr. Baer said he could support the map as drawn. He felt it was cleaner if the lots extended down to the water's edge, but development was re- stricted through the conditional use permit. Dr. Brown said the other issue was the question of the view analysis which has already been addressed and there are some mitigating measures that the applicant has indicated a willingness to pursue. He directed the applicant and staff to resolve the problem of view and the dedication of the strip at the bluff edge. He said he did not feel the dedication would make a great deal of difference to the marketability,of the lots. Mr. Delgado asked if the Commission would consider keeping the property line as proposed with an easement to the City of 25 to 30 feet along the back side. It was the consensus of the Commission that this would be an acceptable com- promise if it was cleared through the City Attorney and would accomplish the same thing as dedication. The matter was continued. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 29 AMENDMENT Ms. Lavitt said the request was for Island View and Ocean Crest the construction of a swimming pool, (West of Seagate condominiums) spa and recreational area on portions Applicant/Landowner: Seagate Inv. of lots 24 and 26, which were held as common open space. She said the recrea- tion area would include a pool, decking, spa, a barbeque area with sink; and a utility building consisting of the pool equipment, men's and women's dressing rooms and a shower. She said the site was located at the most westerly portion of the residential planned development, adjacent to unit 23, and includes development of the restricted use area. She said the project's close proximity to unit 23 would cause noise disturbances and some loss of privacy. She said a lot line adjustment was necessary for the project to be constructed totally within lot 24 and the City must first approve the removal of the restricted use area. She said the project engineer has indicated that the designation of restricted use was put on all of lot 26 to save time and money during the tract map process. She said the restricted use indicates a flood hazard located at 10/14/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -8- the extreme northwest corner of lot 26 and noncompacted fill on the south- east portion of the lot, near the location of the proposal. She said the applicant proposes grading approximately 150 cubic yards of earth and creating architectural features which would necessitate low retaining walls. Although the present site design was acceptable staff felt that alternative designs could be developed which would more efficiently use the site and minimize potential impacts. She said an alternative roof design or reloca- tion of the structure would allow for better solar access. Staff recommended approval of the revision which would allow the recreation area in the general location and configuration of the proposal, but that the plan be modified and submitted to the Director of Planning for approval. In response to Commission questions, Ms. Lavitt said alternatives included turning the utility building parallel to unit 23 to give them more privacy and slightly changing the configuration of the pool. She said it appeared possible that by turning the pool, etc., they may be able to stay out of the restricted use area. Bernard Kemp, developer of the tract, 1012 Via Mirabel, Palos Verdes Estates, said when they acquired the project they decided a pool was desir- able. He said they conducted a survey to be sure the area was geologically stable. He said the owners of lot 23 would not buy the unit if they did not want to be near the pool. He felt it would be much nicer looking out at the pool than looking out at the back of a building. He did not feel the location of the building should be changed. He said he was satisfied with the conditions but would prefer that the pool hours be from 9 a.m. to 10 p.m. instead of 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. He said there would be considerable landscaping to buffer any noise across the canyon. Joseph Montagna, Geotechnical Consultants, discussed the geology. He said they went all the way down to bedrock and that none of the structures shown on the drawings would be supported by the former fill, but rather by the recently placed compacted fill. Mr. Hughes said he would like to have a landscaping plan submitted for staff review and a view analysis from homes across the canyon. Ms. Lavitt suggested adding appropriate language at the end of condition no. 2. Mr. McTaggart suggested changing condition no. 7 to require that the solar panels be oriented to maximize solar access. Concerning pool hours, the Commission decided to stay with the staff recom- mendation. Dr. Brown suggested adding condition no. 9 requiring that a lighting plan be approved by the Director of Planning. Mr. McTaggart felt the condition should include that there be no off-site illumination of any light source. He also felt that the pool equipment and lighting specifically for the pool be turned off per the pool hours. This was added to condition no. 5. On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Dr. Baer, and unanimously carried, the Commission adopted Resolution P.C. No. 80-20, thereby granting the amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 29, subject to the conditions in Exhibit "A", as modified this evening. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously car- ried, the minutes of the meeting of September 23, 1980, were approved with the following amendment to the last line of the last paragraph on page 8: "...recent action on the proposal by the Council of Homeowners Association was to receive and file." 10/14/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -9- COMMISSION REPORTS Dr. Brown asked about the Episcopal Home. Mr. Weber said they interpreted the condition to mean signs at a sales office on-site. He said at this time they have 29 reservations and of those most of them were generated from the Peninsula. He said in terms of meeting the intent, it has been happening naturally. He said they would be coming in for a revision to their conditional use permit which would allow a portion of the all-purpose area to be designed as a small infirmary. Dr. Baer reported that he attended the Southern California Planning Congress meeting in Brea at the Civic Cultural Center. He said it was a new two- story building still being constructed which was being financed by revenue bonds. He said they were leasing out space for commercial use. He sub- mitted copies of the material he received to staff. Mr. Weber said he would pass it along to the City Council. Mr. McTaggart felt that persons representing a homeowners association should only do so if they have had a meeting and there were minutes reflecting the feeling of the organization. ADJOURNMENT At 12:50 a.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday, October 28, 1980, at 7:30 p.m. 10/14/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -10-