Loading...
CC MINS 19750507 ADJ M I N U T E S RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL Adjourned Regular Meeting May 7, 1975 The meeting was called to order at 7:40 p.m. at the City Offices, 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Mayor Pro Tempore Ruth, notice having been given with affidavit there- to on file. Following the Pledge of Allegiance, roll call was answered as follows: PRESENT: Councilmen Gunther Buerk, Ken Dyda, Robert E. Ryan, Mayor Pro Tempore Francis D. Ruth ABSENT: Mayor Marilyn Ryan Mayor Ryan arrived at 8:11 p.m. and was present for the remainder of the meeting. Also present were City Manager Leonard G. Wood, Planning Director Sharon W. Hightower, Administrative Services Officer George Wunderlin, and Acting City Clerk Martha Cunningham. GENERAL PLAN - Mr. Mel Skoro, representing the B.R. Morris Developers' Proposals Development Company, indicated Mr. Morris B.R. Morris Development Co. was unable to attend the meeting, as he is still ill; however, he still wishes to speak to the Council about the canyons and coastal parcel. It is Mr. Morris' request that the Council give strong consideration to the request made at the previous meeting. Although he cannot have detailed plans of the development for the property before the General Plan is approved, Mr. Morris would like to speak with the Council personally, possibly after the General Plan is adopted, to find some way of resolving mutual problems. Cayman Development Company Cayman Development Company was represented by Mr. Glenn Shaffer, President. A copy of Mr. Shaffer's comments on the Draft General Plan and development proposal is attached hereto. Councilman Buerk inquired what percentage of slope would be considered economically unbuildable. Mr. Jan VanTilburg, architect for Cayman Development, indicated that at 15% slope, difficulties would begin to arise, and a 20-25% slope would be un- buildable on a straight slope basis. The first 50 feet at the top and bottom of the slope would be buildable, but nothing in between. Councilman Buerk further in- quired what the difference in cost to the buyer would be between a unit built at 2 d.u./acre and a unit built at 3 d.u./acre. Mr. Shaffer indicated the difference would be approximately $15,000 per unit. Mayor Ryan arrived at this time, assumed the chair, and was present for the remainder of the meeting. P.V. Monaco Landholders Mr. Graham Ritchie, attorney for P.V. Monaco Landholders, presented the following plan for their 57 acre parcel off Crest Road, adjacent to the existing Sea Vista Monaco subdivision. This parcel was subdivided by L.A. County, maps recorded, and grading permits issued prior to the incorporation. The plan calls for 127 lots on 57 acres of land, with an average gross density of 2.25 d.u./acre. (This figures includes an 11.2 acre lot unsuitable for development.) The average lot size is 19,950 sq. ft. , with no lots less than 10,500 sq. ft. Be- cause of the large amount of money already spent on this property (bonds, engi- neering work, etc. ) it would be an economic loss if the developer was required to develop it in a substantially different manner. In addition, any development sub- stantially different from the adjacent subdivision would be an economic disadvantage in the marketing of these lots. Council 317 May 7, 1975 Mr. Clark Leonard of Lanco Engineering, the engineer for the project, indicated that the proposed plan met County standards, and was planned to minimize grading. Lot averaging was used; all lots average at least 15,000 square feet. The plan does not call for filling the large natural canyon running through the project; it would be left in its natural state. In response to questions from Council, Mr. Leonard indicated: The roads in this project would tie in with the road in the adjacent subdivision and the project would have access to Crest Road at approximately the Northrop entrance, and an- other access point at Crest and Highridge. All lots would be graded, with the ex- ception of the 11 acre unbuildable lot. There is approximately 70 feet of fall from the highest point on the parcel to the lowest. Mayor Ryan indicated she would like to have an alternative to the City Attorney's opinion as to what they can or cannot do in terms of changing an already recorded subdivision map. This is important, as the City Attorney's office has a con- flict of interest with regard to this parcel. City Manager indicated he would have a recommendation of a legal firm at the next meeting. Mr. Owen, one of the partners who own the parcel, indicated he would be willing to donate the 11 acres to the City, if they would be willing to accept it as a park. It was his opinion that the owners should not be punished any more than they have been already because of the delay (caused by the moratorium) by im- posing lower densities than is economically feasible. Northwestern Mutual Life Mr. E.S. Naly of Northwestern Mutual Life indicated the following: His company are not developers; they are investor/owners of the 14.7 acre parcel on the southwest corner of Highridge and Hawthorne (just above the existing service station) . They have no specific plans for a project on this site; however, since multi-family residential development of extreme density exists adjacent to the property, the only consistent type of development for this parcel would be multi-family residential, of a similar den- sity as that surrounding it. The taxes from such zoning would be a benefit to the City, and such zoning would do no harm to any single family residences. The Council should take into account that the area was originally developed at 70 units to the acre; to downgrade the zoning from that figure to the proposed zoning is unreasonable. From an aesthetic, tax base, and legal point of view, every consideration indicates the zoning should be in conformity with the exist- ing development around it. Prior to May 15, his company will submit written comments on the General Plan. In response to question from Council, Mr. Naly indicated Northwestern is the owner of the lot, and has been for some time. RECESS A brief recess was called at 8:40 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:55 p.m. , with the same members present. COMMUNITY INPUT The Mayor reviewed the procedures for input to the Plan and deadlines for the completion of the General Plan, in- dicating that a revised draft will be available May 30, a newsletter will be mailed May 20 with information on the General Plan, and the League of Women Voters will have a public meeting on May 28 for discussion of the Plan. AUDIENCE QUESTION & COMMENT Mr. Curtis Goetze, 28813 Blythewood, Fiscal Impact Chairman of the Concerned Citizens of Rancho Palos Verdes, expressed his organization's concern that the fiscal impact portion of the Plan was vague and ill defined. His organization is concerned with the actual cost of the Draft. They realize there is no fixed dol- lar cost associated with the Plan, and the impact will depend on implementation; however, as the taxpayers who will be paying for this, there is still great con- cern. Feasibility studies performed prior to incorporation indicated the City could operate with an 18 /$100 assessed valuation tax rate. They are concerned with the alternatives. It is the desire of the Concerned Citizens of Rancho Palos Council 318- May 7, 1975 Verdes to achieve two objectives: (1) The retention of open space, and (2) The retention of low City tax rate. The City cannot afford to lose sight of its fiscal policy objectives. A public awareness campaign is needed to inform citizens of the City of the General Plan and the tax implications of the Plan. The City must be pragmatic; it is going to be heavily dependent on property taxes. The problem is this: Nowhere in the Plan is the cost to the residents spelled out. His organization is asking for the true price tag to be put on the General Plan. Mayor Ryan indicated that a fiscal analysis is not a requirement of the General Plan; the fact that the Council is attempting to put a price tag on the Plan is not only unusual, but an indication of the Council's concern with the cost of the Plan. Councilman Ryan indicated the Development Alternatives were reviewed and rejected by the Council. The Council is not going to raise taxes at this meeting, and there will probably not be a tax raise in the following years. The City of Palos Verdes Estates has exactly the same tax rate as Rancho Palos Verdes, and that city has all kinds of open space. The average amount of taxes paid by individual homeowners last year was approximately $18 apiece; so even if City taxes were raised by 10%, the average increase would be only $1.80. The thing that makes taxes so high are the County taxes, and there is consideration of a 40 County tax increase. Mayor Ryan indicated the City is not heavily dependent on property taxes; the City has many different sources of revenue. Only 25% of the General Fund comes from property taxes, and the projection is that this is a continual figure. Only 1/6 of the budget is property taxes, which cannot be construed as being heavily de- pendent on property taxes. Mayor Ryan asked Mr. Goetze specifically what costs in the General Plan he is most concerned about---cost of low density? cost of parks? Mr. Goetze indicated it is the package cost that is of most concern. He cannot understand what the total package cost is, and why there is no price tag on the Draft General Plan. Mayor Ryan stressed that the Plan is only a working draft, and the Council is working on such figures. In the Development Alternatives, the parkland costs were responsible for the increase in taxes (based on an erroneous assumption of acqui- sition of large amounts of parkland) . The costly items were not low density or services. Councilman Dyda indicated the Council is trying to put a price tag on the Plan; they are not trying to keep the cost away from the community. In order to deter- mine what factors influence the cost to a City, you develop alternatives and take them to the extreme, to find out which ones are cost sensitive. None of these alternatives necessarily reflect the kind of tax the City will have. For example, the large developed park and new City Hall mentioned in the Development Alterna- tives will probably not be acquired. The Fiscal Element is being worked on now to identify the cost of this Plan, as well as the alternatives, so the citizens can make a choice of what they want to pay for and what they do not. The Fiscal Ele- ment in the re-draft to be finished the end of May will have the figures and costs, to allow the Council to make a fiscally responsible decision. Councilman Buerk asked Mr. Goetze if he had seen the resolution passed by the Council in which they rejected the alternatives and committed themselves to a low tax rate. Mr. Goetze indicated he had not seen a copy of the resolution, although he had seen it mentioned in a newspaper article, but that it was his understanding that the General Plan was based on Alternative A of the Development Alternatives. Councilman Buerk indicated the Plan was not based on Alternative A and directed staff to send a copy of the resolution to Mr. Goetze. Councilman Ruth asked Mr. Goetze if his organization had a price tag in mind that the Council should not go above. Mr. Goetze replied that they felt this deter- mination is up to the Council. Councilman Ruth requested Mr. Goetze to advise the city staff of his organization's meetings so that either a staff member or Council member could attend. AUDIENCE COMMENT Mr. Harold Weil, 28221 Ridgepoint Court, Taxes & Commercial Property indicated his major concern is that the densities and tax rate be chosen in a ju- dicious manner so that citizens can afford to live here. One problem citizens face is the lack of commercial property in the City from which to derive income, such as business property tax and sales tax. Council 319, May 7, 1975 There are areas in the City that could be developed along this line to everyone's best interest, e.g. the property owned by Northwestern Mutual Life at the corner of Hawthorne and Highridge. Since this property is surrounded by high-rise units, one alternative might be to consider zoning this property for limited commercial. This would provide additional services to the residents and, at the same time, would provide additional sources of revenue to the City. Mayor Ryan indicated the Council would like to hear from people as to where they think commercial property might be appropriate. AUDIENCE COMMENT Mr. Omer Tingle, 26846 Basswood Ave- Zoning nue, indicated he is one of eight indi- viduals who own two parcels located near Island View Drive and Hawthorne Boulevard. They have owned this land since 1960, when it was originally zoned R-4. In 1972, they built the first phase of a two-phase development. The first phase contained 167 units; the final plans called for 348 condominiums. Because the project was being completed in two phases, the property was subdivided. At that time, grading was done, sewers installed, and underground utilities in- stalled (these utilities were sized for the total number of units planned for the project) . In addition, they had planned a 3-par golf course in conjunction with Phase II. It was his concern that the General Plan gives no consideration to an incremental type of development, specifically one begun prior to incorpor- ation. Although he is in general agreement with the goals of the City, he has problems with this property, specifically, that a considerable amount of money has been spent in the development of the second phase of the project, and they have been paying taxes on this property since 1960 on the basis of it being zoned R-4. It was his request that Council give fair consideration to allowing him to com- plete this project. The total undeveloped parcel is approximately 20 acres, in- cluding a portion of the canyon. The canyon has been filled to provide space for the golf course; however, the fill is not compacted. The majority of the canyon is not suitable for construction. Councilman Dyda inquired what provision for drainage has been made on the uncom- pacted part of the canyon, and if there is any problem with erosion. Mr. Tingle indicated there is surface drainage on the uncompacted portion of the canyon. Erosion occurred immediately after the grading; however, what now appears to be erosion is not going any further, because it has a rock face. AUDIENCE COMMENT Mr. Robert Smolley, 56 Limetree Lane, Portuguese Bend Area President of the Portuguese Bend Community Association, indicated the following: The Portuguese Bend Com- munity Association is the oldest association on the Peninsula, having incorporated in 1957. As a private association, they make their own tax assessments. The tax rate was $1.65/$100 assessed valuation this year, and will be higher next year. With these funds, they maintain their own roads, access control, and flood control. There is an active slide within the Association area, and they are particularly sensitive to various governments' position relative to the slide area. He is skeptical of the wording contained in the Draft General Plan, and is very much opposed to the document as it refers to the Portuguese Bend community. The den- sity proposed for the area is 1 d.u./acre. The area is already subdivided, and the deed restrictions preclude any further subdivisions; however, some of the lots are still undeveloped. He is concerned with the wording of the Draft in that it can be interpreted as condemning the vacant lots in the area, in that some of them are less than one acre. Mayor Ryan requested an opinion from the City Attorney regarding existing lots and their status. Mr. Smolley further indicated there are 103 undeveloped lots in the Portuguese Bend community; the taxes on these lots represent income to both the Associa- tion and the City. He also expressed concern that the Plan for the slide area is a "pseudo condemnation" of the property without due compensation. Residents feel they are being persecuted because of the slide area. People have lived in the area before the slide and want to continue to live there. If the plan is adopted as it is, there is a strong possibility of legal action being taken by the Association. Council '320 May 7, 1975 Councilman Buerk asked Mr. Smolley if he had any specific recommendations for changes in the wording. Mr. Smolley indicated he did have some recommendations, which he would incorporated into a letter by May 15. Mayor Ryan inquired whether the Association had addressed the land use in areas con- tiguous to the Portuguese Bend community and the impact they might have on the area. Mr. Smolley indicated that, with regard to storm drain water from the area above Portuguese Bend, most of the water is now in Altamira Canyon; however, they cannot handle any more water through this canyon. The Association has prepared a report for the County and City; they would like flood control money to solve these problems. This problem must be considered when the zoning on upper adjacent areas is considered. Councilman Dyda asked whether his concern for the water drainage is because of the potential for greater slide. Mr. Smolley replied that he has never read that there is sub-surface water lubricating the slide. As far as he is concerned, this is a mass dislocation problem, and it will eventually stop. The City should consider what will happen when it does stop---what about building? what about property values? The City should not condemn it as a park or open space right now. It is prime property, and will generate large amounts of taxes. Councilman Dyda asked whether there is any concern with erosion in the area. Mr. Smolley indicated that culverts were put in when Portuguese Bend area was estab- lished in 1947. New culverts have since been added, and all the culverts are full. They have had one major washout this year, with a cost of approximately $13,000 to fix the road. Mr. Smolley indicated the major concern to the Portuguese Bend residents is that they have been paying taxes for many years, and do not want to see the property inversely condemned in the manner the Plan now describes. Their Association would like to work with the staff to resolve the problem. Councilman Ruth left the chambers at this time, 9:48 p.m. , and did not return for the remainder of the meeting. AUDIENCE COMMENT & QUESTION Mrs. Sheila Hoff, 28205 Ambergate, Chairman Open Space of the Vista Grande Sub-area of the General Plan Goals Committee, indicated that the Goals Committee had been formed to get citizen in- put on the needs of the community, and that the Preliminary Goals Report and the Development Alternatives report had both been presented at public hearings, allowing people several opportunities to get involved in the development of the General Plan. The goals of the community are, in general, reflected in the Draft General Plan. With regard to the goals of acquiring open space through dedication, etc. (e.g. coastal access) , Mrs. Hoff asked staff how this is coordinated with the zoning. If an area is proposed at 1-2 d.u./acre, with 25% of the land to remain open space, should this be designated on the land use maps and the zoning adjusted accordingly? Mrs. Hightower indicated this is a general plan; there are perhaps other open spaces and even parks which will later be implemented through various means, but until there are more specific plans, the City cannot designate where they might be. This can be dealt with in terms of goals, but not specifically on the map. If the City requires dedication of land, the owners could only de- velop on what remained, at the density specified. AUDIENCE COMMENT Mr. Pigott, 31030 Hawksmoor, indicated that, Tax Rate as a guideline for the cost of the General Plan, the tax rate should remain the same, or go lower. Councilman Ryan indicated that there are possibilities of going to a -0- tax rate, but that the citizens would still pay enormous taxes to the County of Los Angeles. The City is currently party to a suit to change the sales tax distribution; if this suit is successful, the City would have a very large source of added revenue, but citizens would still have to pay the County tax bill. Councilman Buerk pointed out that most individuals are very anxious for their prop- erty values to increase, but are annoyed when this causes their taxes to increase. Council 321 May 7, 1975 AUDIENCE QUESTION Mr. Robert Smolley, 56 Limetree Lane, Road Maintenance expressed concern with the avail- ability of funds for the maintenance of streets in the City at their cur- rent level. Councilman Ryan indicated the Council does not foresee any problems with road main- tenance. Councilman Dyda indicated the funds are adequate to maintain existing roads in their current conditions; small surpluses will also be available to add new roads, etc. In terms of gas taxes, off road vehicle taxes, etc. the City will get about $600,000 this year alone for roads; these funds are allocated specifically for roads, and cannot be used for anything else. Mayor Ryan indicated the City has more money available now than the County ever spent on roads. The City has accumulated $700,000+ in a reserve account for roads, and will get approximately $600,000 more per year. In addition, the County helps cities maintain major roads. There will be funds available to resurface Palos Verdes Drive South, but the City is not getting Federal funds for this purpose. AUDIENCE QUESTION Mr. Nielson, 5531 Shoreview Drive, Land Acquisition Costs indicated the fiscal impacts were considered for the other plans, but what is the cost of the acquired land or the condemned land proposed? Councilman Dyda indicated the Fiscal Sub-committee is in the process of developing figures to support the various alternatives in terms of goals adopted by Council. Mayor Ryan indicated the City might acquire 180 acres at the present tax rate. There are other sources of income available to the City, such as. Environmental Excise Tax, revenue sharing funds, etc. There are other ways of acquiring land than by raising the property tax rate. Mr. Nielson expressed concern that the Environmental Excise Tax funds are being obtained at the expense of new residents to the City. AUDIENCE QUESTION Norman Green, 31017 Hawksmoor, ex- Circulation pressed concern that there are no new arterials planned for the City. If the present road system ade- quate to hold the projected increase in population? Mrs. Hightower indicated the projected increase in population is approximately 7,000 and the present road system should be adequate to serve them. AUDIENCE QUESTION Paul Burger, 30451 Via Victoria, ex- Recreation pressed concern with the rate of taxes. One of the primary concerns seems to be the retention/acquisi- tion of open space and recreational areas; however, these areas will be used by people living outside the City. Some advantage should be given to residents of the City. Perhaps something can be done to get some• of- the value back from the people who use these facilities. ADJOURNMENT At 10:08 p.m. it was moved by Councilman Buerk, seconded by Councilman Dyda, and carried, that the meeting be adjourned to Saturday, May 10, at 8:00 a.m. ,i4- MAYOR LEONARD G. WOOD, CITY CLERK AND EX OFFICIO CLERK OF THE COUNCIL By Council 322 May 7, 1975