Loading...
CC MINS 19750612 ADJ MINUTES RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL Adjourned Regular Meeting June 12, 1975 The meeting was called to order at 7:45 p.m. at Ridgecrest Intermediate School, 28915 Northbay Road, Rancho Palos Verdes, by Mayor Ryan. Following the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, roll call was answered as follows: PRESENT: Councilmen Gunther Buerk, Ken Dyda, Robert E. Ryan, and Mayor Marilyn Ryan ABSENT: Councilman Francis D. Ruth Councilman Ruth arrived at 7:53 p.m. Also present were City Manager Leonard Wood, Director of Planning Sharon Hightower, Administrative Services Officer George Wunderlin, Community Services Officer Tom Bandy, and Acting Deputy City Clerk Martha Cunningham. GENERAL PLAN - Mrs. Hightower presented staff responses to STAFF RESPONSES TO the five questions raised at the June 5 public COMMUNITY QUESTIONS hearing, as follows: (1) Mr. Albanese's ques- tions regarding which items are to be funded by bonding and which by taxes. Mrs. High- tower indicated the Fiscal Element is not intended to specify exactly how particu- lar items proposed in the Plan should be funded. The Element outlines options and explains implementation tools, to provide a guide for future decision-making. It will be up to future Councils to decide what the best means of funding certain items will be. If it is decided to purchase some land, bonding is one method that can be used; however, it requires the vote of the community. (2) Mrs. Hoff's questions as to how the 1 d.u./5 acre designation will work, and are the canyons averaged in? Mrs. Hightower replied that the canyons are not averaged in. It is anticipated that the total density allowed in such an area could be used to create some number of lots off extensions of existing deadend streets which would be con- sistent with adjacent neighborhoods. It is not yet known what zoning tool will be used. (3) Mr. Collins' questions regarding who pays for the areas designated as Natural Environment. Mrs. Hightower indicated the areas shown as Natural Environ- ment include three types of land with safety problems: the coastal bluff, active landslide, and slopes of 35% or greater. It is proposed that they be designated Natural Environment for reasons of health, safety, and welfare. It is further pro- posed that only light intensity uses be permitted, and no new permanent structures be allowed. It does not propose public acquisition or public use, nor does it propose to remove existing structures. The particular areas Mr. Collins is concerned with - the bluff area - needs further refinement, which is why the entire coastal area has been designated for a Specific Plan. The area shown may look larger than it ac- tually is, because it extends inland from the mean high tide line, and not from the top of the bluff. In any case, it will be further refined to show where the safety line for structures should be. (4) In response to Mr. Riegel, no, it is not the intent of the General Plan to have Crest Road through the City of Rolling Hills a public road. It is not within Rancho Palos Verdes' jurisdiction. It is shown on the map because it serves as a collector for Rancho Palos Verdes. If it is of concern to Rolling Hills residents, it can be removed from the map in that city. (5) In response to Mr. Kaye, there is a partial list available of individuals who served on the Goals Committee, but it does not include their occupations. Mrs. Hightower indicated that, in addition to these direct questions, a number of written comments had been received by staff, copies of which were distributed to Council. Staff is reviewing all comments, and will recommend appropriate revisions to the Council beginning next week. It is anticipated that response to requests for Land Use changes will be made when the Council discusses the Land Use Plan sec- tion, probably at a work session June 19 or at a continued work session between June 19 and 26. Councilman Ruth arrived during Mrs. Hightower's responses and was present the re- mainder of the meeting. Council 334 June 12, 1975 STAFF REPORT - REVIEW Mrs. Hightower indicated copies of OF GENERAL PLAN EIR the minutes and recommendations of the Environmental Assessment Com- mittee meeting of June 9 had been distributed to the Council. After two informal hearings, during which no testi- mony was received, the Environmental Assessment Committee has finalized the EIR. As required by the California Environmental Quality Act and the City's own En- vironmental Resolution, staff summarized all written comments dated prior to June 1 (which was the end of the EIR review period) which stated environmental concerns and responded to them. The Committee found these responses adequate, and they will be included in the Appendix of the Adopted Plan. They will also be sent to the individuals who made the comments. No action on the EIR is re- quired at this time; just prior to adopting the General Plan, the Council must "certify" the EIR. PUBLIC HEARING - Continued public hearing on the Rancho REVISED DRAFT GENERAL PLAN Palos Verdes Revised Draft General Plan was opened, notice having been given with affidavit thereto on file. Mr. Ray Mathys, 5738 Whitecliff Drive, commended the City committees, staff, and officials for developing a cohesive and comprehensive plan that, when implemented, will result in the conservation of all the natural resources which are fundamental in protecting and enhancing the lifestyle of the Peninsula. The full text of Mr. Mathys' statement is available in the Environmental Services Department. Norman Oliver, 1000 Sunset Boulevard, Los Angeles, an attorney representing the owners of 19.75 acres at the intersection of Ocean Crest and Island View, indicated his clients have a vested right in the development of this property, and a right to complete the development of the two phase project, of which phase 1 had already been completed. A letter has been submitted to the Council giving the full factual background of the project. He is interested in working with the City staff; how- ever he had been unable to confer with the planning staff personally during the time the Plan was being written. It was his request that the Council seek an opinion from the City Attorney as to the City's legal position with regard to this property and the legal position of the owners, and that he and his clients be allowed to work with the staff on a conference level so that he might know if an accord could be reached to allow them to continue with their project. In response to questions from Councilman Ryan, Mr. Oliver indicated they predicate their position of vested rights on the fact that this was to be developed in two phases. In excess of $115,000 has been expended on on-site and off-site prepara- tions for phase two alone. Mr. Tingle, one of the owners of the property, indi- cated there are approximately 5 acres of existing pads on the site. Mr. Oliver indicated these pads were designed and are suitable only for the type of develop- ment that is adjacent to it. Sheila Hoff, 28205 Ambergate Drive, Co-Chairman of the Vista Grande Sub-Committee, commended the City for using the citizens' input. She indicated their sub-commit- tee will be having a meeting next week, after which they will submit a statement to the City. If possible, she would like answers to her questions in time for this meeting. Mrs. Hoff presented the following questions and comments: (1) Con- cern was expressed that the time limit for receiving comments on the EIR expired before the Revised Draft became available. Mrs. Hightower indicated any comments received on the EIR after the June 1 deadline will be reviewed in the same manner as comments that dealt strictly with the General Plan, (i.e. , those which did not address environmental concerns) and will be taken into account in the same manner; the only difference is that they will not appear in the Appendix of the General Plan along with a written response. (2) What is the justification for changing the designation from "b" to "c" in the area adjacent to the active slide area and extending across the inactive slide area? Mrs. Hightower indicated it was dis- covered that the slopes on this parcel are not in the high category; therefore, it was appropriate to put it into the 1-2 d.u./acre category. (3) There are several small parcels designated as 1 d.u./acre which are surrounded by extreme slopes classified as Natural Environment areas. Will not servicing these areas cause sig- nificant problems? Why are these parcels not also designated Natural Environment? Mrs. Hightower indicated the "b" designation is a reflection of the methodology used in determining land use, based on the physical constraints; these parcels were in the high constraint area and were treated accordingly, even though they are iso- lated. Access would be considered at the time development is proposed. (4) What is the intent of housing policy #2 on page 66 which states all new housing shall Council 335 June 12, 1975 be developed to include parks and recreation features? Does this mean public or private parks and recreation? (5) The Plan states that Control Districts and Special Districts will be created, but there is no statement in the Plan to tie them to any goals or policies. Is this possible and preferable? The full text of Mrs. Hoff's statement is on file in the Environmental Services Department. Mrs. Hightower indicated the remainder of Mrs. Hoff's questions would be answered at a later date. Justine Polk, Honey Creek Road, indicated she was primarily in agreement with the General Plan, but is in opposition to three of the policies stated, specifically: (1) Recreation - is not in favor of parks that can be used by non-residents. The City should not encourage large numbers of non-residents to enter the City, as this will increase crime on the Peninsula. (2) Transportation - some public transpor- tation is necessary; however, limitations should be placed on the encouragement of public transportation, or the City will invite more public and more problems to the City. (3) Providing housing for low and moderate income families could increase crime. This policy should be deleted. Susie Seamans, 6748 Birchman Drive, commended the Council for its work on the General Plan, and indicated it would be helpful to have as many questions answered as pos- sible, particularly those which are a point of clarification. Mrs. Seamans had the following questions, comments, and suggestions: (1) Suggest the EIR portions of the Plan be italicized. (2) Expressed concern with the lack of agricultural zoning. What is the data that supports the elimination of all but one of the agricultural zones in the revised general plan? (3) There is a small parcel on the coast to the east of Marineland (see fig. 33) -- why is this zoned "c" and how would it be affec- ted by the bluff setback? (4) How are single family dwelling units defined? (5) Is in favor of clustering or planned unit developments. Would not like to see all fu- ture residential development to be of the grid pattern. (6) Does net acreage ex- clude canyons, unbuildable slopes, etc. , specifically with a planned unit develop- ment. (7) Would like to see something in the Plan regarding the use of herbicides. (8) The City should encourage the planting of trees. (9) The Revised Plan does not speak to the quality of the existing residential environment. (10) Would like the City to consider regulating or limiting on-street over-night parking and recre- ational vehicles parking. (11) The City should encourage undergrounding of all util- ities. (12) There is nothing in the General Plan about traffic safety. (13) The provision of pedestrian access/pathways should be a condition of subdivision approval for all future developments. (14) Judging by the County predictions of population in the South Bay area, there appears to be little pressure on Rancho Palos Verdes to provide large amounts of housing. (15) Stewardship of land is a public trust in the hands of the City Council; they do not have to be stewards of investors' finan- cial interests. The Council does not have to ensure the highest amount of profit on speculative investments. Mrs. Hightower indicated that undergrounding and herbicides are mentioned in the Plan; pedestrian pathways are also stressed. However, some of Mrs. Seamans' other concerns are too specific to be dealt with in a General Plan, and will be dealt with in the Zoning Ordinances. Traffic safety is not appropriate to a general plan. Councilman Ryan indicated that the 1990 County population projections are mentioned in the Plan. Donald Fraser, 26 Peppertree, requested Council to reconsider the designation of the residential area of Portuguese Bend, to keep it residential, rather than down-zone it to Natural Environment. Such zoning will cause a down-grading of the residents' investment values. By down-zoning, the City will lose the quality of people living there now, who are an asset to the community. It appears that the City is down- zoning the area with the idea of eventually condemning the property for City pur- chase; however, due to the serious problems in the area (caves, etc.) it would be disastrous for the City to own any land in that area. In response to a question from Councilman Ryan, Mrs. Hightower indicated that, as far as the General Plan is concerned, the Natural Environment designation is a change in name only from the previous County zoning. The County would not allow new buildings to be erected, or buildings that were displaced by movement to be re- placed; the same is true of the Natural Environment category. However, other kinds of regulations might be changed in the future, depending on policies adopted. Barbara Gleghorn, 28850 Crestridge Road, and Byron Blue, 3675 Cliffsite Drive, ex- pressed a desire for more agricultural land use (indicating they, and a qualified attorney, felt it could be legally supportable) , and submitted a list of recommended revisions and additions to the General Plan to provide for more agricultural use, Council 336 June 12, 1975 along with a number of backup materials. Mrs. Gleghorn indicated that, at the end of the month, she would submit a petition to the City Council showing a strong com- munity support for maintaining agriculture on the Peninsula. It was her feeling that the City must lead the way in providing for agricultural preservation; even the Peninsula developers point to the agricultural usage with pride. Mr. Blue suggested that, to ensure that future revisions of the Plan are in keeping with the desires of the electorate (and not in response to limited vested interests) the Plan be incorporated into a City charter approved by a vote of the citizens and changeable only by a vote of the citizens. Mr. Blue further indicated that he would be submitting responses to a survey in the Mediterannia Homeowners Association area to the Council in the near future. The full text of Mr. Blue and Ms. Gleghorn's comments are on file in the Environ- mental Services Department. Cleve Stoskopf, 30415 Ambersky, indicated he felt the best investment growth avail- able to Peninsula residents is to maintain open space. It would be better for all residents of the area to have their investments grow, than for the land holders to have their's grow. Mr. Stoskopf had the following questions: (1) Page 64, why have the density figures increased from 10,550 to 11,600, and the induced units from 2,051 to 2,508? Mrs. Hightower indicated the number of existing units changed be- cause of a refined estimate of what is existing (including units under construction) ; the induced units increased because of some changes in density and uses. RECESS At 9:04 p.m. , a recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 9:16 p.m. with the same members present. PUBLIC HEARING - Mr. A. R. Spencer, 30845 Via La Cresta, in- REVISED DRAFT GENERAL PLAN dicated is generally in favor of what the Council is doing; however, as a taxpayer he is concerned with the cost of achieving the goals of the General Plan (e.g. , Natural Environment, agriculture, etc.) and how this will affect the tax rate structure. In addition, has Council considered the cost and impact of litigation which is likely to result from the Plan? Mayor Ryan indicated the City's tax rate is 18 , so the income from property taxes is not heavily influenced by assessed valuation, particularly of land that has been identified as Natural Environment. In addition, potential litigation has been dis- cussed by the Council, but no figures estimated. Councilman Dyda indicated that the taxes which may or may not accrue to the City will be a function of the implementa- tion of the amenities, and to what extent they can be regulated and to what extent they may be purchased by the City in one form or another. It is, therefore, difficult to give a number in terms of tax rate; that will have to be determined in the future. Charles Abbott, 6554 Madeline Cove, made the following comments and questions: (1) Is it correct that the City would not have to buy any land if the General Plan is adop- ted as presented. Mayor Ryan indicated this is correct; the Plan proposes no pur- chase of land. (2) Are any areas designated 4-6 d.u./ac. , 6-12 d.u./ac. , or 12-14 d.u./acre (categories e, f, g) that are not now fully developed as such? And how many units would be on each parcel if developed at the proposed density? Mayor Ryan indicated there are two such areas, one below Palos Verdes Drive South near Porto Verde Apartments, the other at Highridge and Hawthorne. (3) What guarantees do the citizens have that whatever Plan is adopted will not be changed in the future? Mayor Ryan indicated there is a State law that limits the number of changes that can be made to the General Plan to three per year; these changes require public hearings. However, the best safeguard is for the community to elect a City Council they have confidence in. (4) Is it possible for the Plan to be built into a charter arrangement, whereby the adoption of the Plan, and any changes thereto would require a vote of the community. Mayor Ryan indicated the State laws are not set up for a General Plan to be a referendum vote; as to whether this is possible through a charter, the City Attorney should be asked for an opinion. Al Rosenthal, 29716 Whitley Collins Drive, President of the Mesa Palos Verdes Home- owners Association, presented a letter to the Council from the Mesa Palos Verdes Homeowners Association Board of Directors supporting the proposed General Plan. The Association feels the land south of Crest Road should be developed at less than 2 d.u./acre, and agreed with the 2-4 d.u./acre zoning for the 8 acres at Crest and Crenshaw, in order to preserve the pine trees on the site. The institutional desig- nation for the land north of Mesa Palos Verdes is also agreeable to the Association, provided that any development be limited to serving the community, in order to Council 337 June 12, 1975 minimize the impact on the area. Robert Smolley, 56 Limetree Lane, President of the Portuguese Bend Community Associ- ation, distributed copies of the Association's recommended revisions to the General Plan. There being no further individuals wishing to give testimony, the public hearing was declared closed. It was moved by Councilman Dyda, seconded by Councilman Ryan, and unanimously carried that the public hearing be continued to June 19, 1975, at Ridgecrest Intermediate School. COUNCIL DISCUSSION At the suggestion of Director of Planning, it was decided that the public hearings be closed June 19, with adoption of the Plan on June 26. Director of Planning outlined the revisions staff is working on, indicating that the first list of revisions should be presented to Council at their June 17 Regular Meeting, the second list by June 20. Another work session will be needed June 19, with as many others prior to June 26 as necessary. Mayor Ryan suggested the Council identify major concerns at this time; it was agreed that it would be inappropriate to discuss policy issues before the public hearings are closed and all citizen input received; however, it would be appropriate to dis- cuss their concerns and to address questions of a factual nature. Mayor Ryan identified some of her concerns with the Plan, including: the cumulative effect of the ancient landslide, use of toxic chemicals, use of Nike Site for low and moderate income housing, definition of single family housing, possible intro- duction of a new service station, the inclusion of Palos Verdes Drive South sliding in the Infrastructure section, confusing chapter titles in the Fiscal Element. Councilman Dyda expressed concern with encroachment of landscaping on views, re- quested staff to check figures in the table on page 200 for mathematical errors, and requested the EIR portions of the Plan be identified in some manner (underlining, italics, etc.) . Mrs. Hightower indicated that italicizing or underlining the EIR portions of the Plan would make it confusing to read as a General Plan. Councilman Ryan requested more data on the slope along Silver Spur Road. ADJOURNMENT At 10:20 p.m. , it was moved by Councilman Ryan, seconded by Councilman Dyda, and unanimously carried that the meeting be adjourned. Mayo LEONARD G. WOOD, CITY CLERK AND EX OFFICIO CLERK OF THE COUNCIL By/(2051..-).--k Deputy Council 338 June 12, 1975