Loading...
PC MINS 19820223M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission - Regular Adjourned Meeting February 23, 1982 The meeting was called to order at 7:34 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Hughes. PRESENT: Baer, Brown, Hinchliffe, Hughes LATE ARRIVAL: McTaggart ABSENT: None Also present were Director of Planning Sharon Hightower, Associate Planners Ann Negendank and Sandra Massa Lavitt, and Assistant Planner Jon Shepherd. CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Dr. Baer, seconded by Dr. Brown, the Consent Calendar was unani- mously passed as presented, thereby approving: A) the minutes of the meeting of February 9, 1982; and B) a one-year time extension for Conditional Use Permit No. 27 (Tract No. 32977). COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMEND. NO. 1 Director Hightower said on January 22, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 10 1980 the State Coastal Commission cer- CODE AMENDMENT NO. 12 tified the City's Local Coastal Plan ZONE CHANGE NO. 9 with conditions, most of which were minor. She said a major zoning ordi- nance condition was the Coastal Permit Procedure. She said on January 1, 1982, SB 626 became effective, removing the housing requirements. She said Coastal Specific Plan Amendment No. 1 proposes changes to the text of the Coastal Specific Plan to meet the condi- tions imposed by the Coastal Commission, and General Plan Amendment No. 10 would change the former Abalone Cove school site from Agriculture to Commer- cial Recreation, which was already dealt with in the Coastal Specific Plan as the second alternative for the site designation. Mr. McTaggart arrived at 7:37 p.m. Director Hightower said Code Amendment No. 12 would bring the Code into con- formance with the conditions imposed by the Coastal Commission and adds the Permit Procedure, which conform to State regulations; and Zone Change No. 9 was for consistency with the General Plan Amendment. She said proper notice had been given. Staff recommended that the Commission hold the required public hearing and adopt the draft resolution recommending to the City Council approval of the proposals. Ms. Negendank responded to questions raised by Mr. Hughes concerning appro- priate designations (appealable and non -appealable), judicial determination, and appeal fees. She explained that the non -appealable areas were defined as being inland of the first public road or 300 feet from the blufftop, whichever was the greater distance. Dr. Brown asked what would happen if the City did not take any action on this matter. Director Hightower said there was a date in 1983 when the Coastal Commission would start doing it for the cities. Public hearing was opened. Dr. Donald Bebel, 8 Barkentine Road, representing the Board of Directors of the West Portuguese Bend Homeowners Association, said they were opposed to the General Plan Amendment and the Zone Change and felt that a mobile home park was not in the best interests of the City as it would increase the traffic in the now quiet residential area. Director Hightower said there were no proposals for development of the school site at this time. She explained that the zoning designation of Commercial Recreation was an alternative in the Coastal Specific Plan and had nothing to do with mobile home parks. Dr. Bebel said they received information concerning a mobile home park on the site in a written communication from the Council of Homeowners Associa- tions. He said they would be concerned about both mobile homes and recrea- tional vehicles. Marina Simes, 22 Sea Cove Drive, said the important question to consider is whether or not the proposal would be an improvement to the area. She did not feel a recreational venture would make money. She hoped the proposal approved would not degrade the area. John Corcoran, 28033 San Nicolas Drivetrepresenting Marineland, said Marine - land did not request the zone change but was in support of it, in keeping with the intent of the Coastal Specific Plan. He said they did not have any plans to develop the property into a mobile home park and, in fact, had no development plans at all at this time. He submitted to the Commission a flyer which was delivered to the Marineland office from the West Portuguese Bend Homeowners Association. Jean Nerko, 6 Packet Road, expressed concern about traffic, litter, noise, and the lack of policing. She was concerned about the impacts from the influx of people. Everett W. Beran, 19 Packet Road, asked why it was necessary to rezone the site at this time if there were no plans to develop it. Mr. Hughes said the State law requires a specific plan for the coastal area which must meet certain guidelines, one of which is to provide for public access. He said the law further requires that the zoning be in compliance with that specific plan. He said everything in that plan was discussed for almost four years at numerous public hearings. Barbara Walch, 34 Oceanaire Drive, was concerned about the Coastal Commis- sion having jurisdiction and said when she hoped the open space would be left to rattlesnakes, she did not think it would be the Coastal Commission. Dr. Alice Parker, 8 Barkentine Road, said the woman who presented the infor- mation to the Homeowners Association was the recent past president of the Council of Homeowners Associations and that she said the zone change would allow development on the site such as a mobile home park. Dr. Parker did not feel commercial zoning was needed along the coastline. She said the residents were not fighting public access but rather commercial zoning. She did not see why the Coastal Commission would consider that this last un- developed stretch of very scenic land should be developed in this manner. She asked who owned the subject property. Director Hightower said the current owner of the site also now owns Marine - land. Elizabeth Campbell, 29 Packet -Road, preferred that the site remain Agricul- tural and said a second choice would be Single Family Residential. Mr. Hughes said Commercial Recreation zoning was more consistent with what is there now. He said there is a requirement for adequate buffering between commercial and residential uses and that it would be poor planning to put single family homes on this site. He said the City determined that the first 2/23/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- and best use of that land was Agriculture but if that was not feasible that the next best use would be Commercial Recreation. He said Agricultural zoning was not practical for this site and noted that the courts have ruled that cities must allow reasonable development of land or purchase.it. Bob Pelton, 2 Packet Road, asked questions of the Commission and staff. Director Hightower explained that the Coastal Commission agreed with the Commercial Recreation zoning, but that the City suggested that zoning as secondary only. She said if the City does nothing the Coastal Commission would keep all permit processes and could make the changes for the City. Mr. Hughes said the property would provide public access to the coastal area. Mr. Pelton expressed concern about the traffic along the Drive and recom- mended that the Commission not recommend to the City Council rezoning of the site because it would be to the detriment of the area. He suggested in- stead support of the City's initial position for Agriculture. Mr. Hughes said the Coastal Specific Plan addresses traffic and makes pro- visions for the slide. He said traffic in the whole City was dealt with and was considered with respect to the zoning designations. Mr. McTaggart said the City would lose control by insisting on its initial position. He said Agriculture was not a reasonable, profitable use of the property. Dr. Baer said this change would provide access for visiting people and was a good location for Commercial Recreation zoning. Glenn Kirwan, 18 Barkentine Road, did not feel it would do much good to pro- vide access because people would not want to use it. He did not feel a commercial venture would do well there because the area was far away from the main stream of the Peninsula. He was also concerned that allowing people the opportunity to be near the cliffs would contribute to the destruc- tion of wildlife. James Troxel, 16 Barkentine Road, understood that the City was amending a previously approved plan in order to conform to the Coastal Commission con- ditions. He felt, however, that the zoning ordinance was too broad and vague for development of the site and that a fairly easy interpretation would include overnight camping and recreational vehicles. He agreed that a reasonable use for this parcel would be Commercial Recreation but felt that Agricultural zoning allowed for accessory uses without rezoning, and wondered if the owner would be supportive if he could use the site for uses such as parking, etc. Mr. McTaggart noted that the Code states that any application must be found to be compatible with the surrounding area. Joan Friedman, 13 Sea Cove Drive, was concerned about the actual negative environmental impacts on the community. She felt a more appropriate loca- tion for Commercial Recreational uses would be at Golden Cove. She was concerned about the increase of traffic and its effects on the safety of the children in the area, and the lack of aesthetics. She felt it was dangerous to bring people that close to residential areas. On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. RECESS At 9:50 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 9:58 p.m. with the same members present. 2/23/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- Mr. Hinchliffe had no -problems with the amendment to the Coastal Specific Plan. Re the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, he agreed with the change from Agriculture to Commercial Recreation because he felt it made sense for the -16 -acre site to be in the -same z6_ffe as Marine -land-- He did not feel development would be approved for the site that was not compatible with the area. In the context of trying to obtain final approval of the Coastal Specific Plan, he felt it was not an unreasonable compromise. He felt the Code Amendment was more procedural and was in support of it also. Dr. Brown proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Baer, to adopt Resolution No. 82-4, thereby recommending to the City Council approval of Coastal Specific Plan Amendment No. 1, General Plan Amendment No. 10, Code Amendment No. 12, and Zone Change No. 9. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Baer, Brown, Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Hughes NOES: None ABSENT: None Mr. Hughes said this item would next be heard by the City Council and that said hearing would be noticed as was this one. CODE AMENDMENT NO. 13 Ms. Lavitt said this Code Amendment was Miscellaneous Text Revisions initiated by the City in order to add, correct and clarify various sections of the Zoning Code. She said proper pub- lic notice was given. She said the proposed amendment deals with mobile homes, geological investigations, commercial condominiums, clarification of measurement of accessory structures, clarification of the fencing ordinance, clean-up legislation for minor exception permits and appeals of same, and additional definitions. Staff recommended that the Commission hold the public hearing and adopt the draft resolution recommending to the City Council approval of Code Amendment No. 13. Public hearing was opened. No one wished to speak. on motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. Dr. Brown proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, to adopt Resolution No. 82-5 with attached Exhibit "A", thereby recommending to the City Council approval of Code Amendment No. 13. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Baer, Brown, Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Hughes NOES: None ABSENT: None WORK SESSION Mr. Shepherd said at the request of the Fire Resistant Roofing Council the issue of fire resistant roofing standards had been researched by staff and that the information pre- sented was intended to assist the Commission in determining if different standards should be adopted than those adopted by Council October 6, 1981. He said the alternatives were: 1) determine that current standards are sufficient; 2) determine that more restrictive standards may be needed in some areas of the City and not in other areas; 3) determine that more restrictive standards may be needed Citywide; or 4) determine that previous standards are sufficient. He said the Council wanted an initial recommenda- tion from the Commission and that if alternative 2 or 3 were recommended and concurred with by Council, the matter would return to the Commission for further study and recommendation. 2/23/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- In response to Commission questions, Mr. Shepherd said the difference between class B and C shingles is what goes under the roofing material. He said materials lower than class C were unrated. He said the Building Code speci- fically deals with roofs and does not include siding. He said the life of a treated shingle depends upon wind and rain conditions, and that roofing companies estimate the fire treatment lasts about five years, although the life expectancy of the shingle is about 15 to 20 years. Dr. Brown said one of the Council concerns is that people would be required to install class C roofs but that after 3 to 5 years the roofs would have deteriorated to below class C. He said the report did not address that problem. Mr. McTaggart said the same problem existed with class B shingles except that after deterioration of the shingle you would have the underlining so it would still be at least a C rating. He asked if it would be possible to get samples of those types of roofing materials. He said he was familiar with CAL -shake, that it was so heavy that most roofs were not built to be able to withstand its weight. He said he would like to see the composition shingle. Dr. Brown noted that the statistics provided in the report indicated that with a higher rating you get a lower cost as well as better fire protection. Mr. Shepherd noted those costs were for materials only, that the higher the rating the more the installation would cost. He said generally fires start within the structure but spread to other structures when the embers land on the roofs. Mr. Hinchliffe said it would be interesting to compate the statistics on homes which have burned in the Peninsula cities. Mr. Hughes said the City should not permit shake roofs. He said he would like to know what happens to class B materials, whether they stay at the same rating or deteriorate to a lower rating. Mr. Shepherd said the more time it takes for the embers to ignite the roofs, the more time the Fire Department has to contend with the fire. Mr. McTaggart said it was interesting that the fire insurance companies did not take into consideration the type of roofing used, that there were no reduced rates because of treated roofing. He asked if shingles could be retreated. Mr. Shepherd said there was a spraying process to retreat roofs but that it was expensive. It was the consensus of the Commission to send this matter back to the City Council stating that the Commission thinks Alternative 2 should be followed: there may be some areas needing more restrictive standards but that the Commission would like to look at it further with more study on deterioration of treated roofs and different types of roofing materials. STAFF REPORTS Director Hightower said staff was in Commission/Staff Work Session the process of scheduling a 3oint Commission/staff dinner meeting and that possible dates were March 10 and March 17, both Wednedays, at the Hungry Tiger Restaurant. It was the consensus of the Commission to schedule the work session for the 17 th March at 6:30 p.m. ADJOURNMENT At 11:17 p.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday, March 9, 1982, at 7:30 p.m. 2/23/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5-