CC MINS 19761007 M I N U T E S
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL
Work Session
Thursday, October 7 , 1976
The meeting was called to order at 7 :45 p.m. at the Rancho Palos
Verdes City Hall , 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard. Roll Call was answered
as follows :
PRESENT: Counci lmembe rs D. Ruth, R. Ryan, K. Dyda
and Mayor Buerk
ABSENT: M. Ryan
Also present were Director of Planning Sharon Hightower, Associate
Planner Larry Davis , City Attorney Pat Coughlan, Planning Commission
Member Mel Hughes , and Administrative Assistant Trish Eby.
PROGRESS REPORT ON Larry Davis reported on the current
COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN status of the California Coastal Act
(701) and on the City 's Coastal Specific
Plan Workbook.
The Council directed that the geologist report include a listing of
all reference materials used. The Rancho Palos Verdes Coastal Specific
Plan itself should be supported by copies of all source data.
Councilman Dyda requested a report on the appeal provisions of the
Coastal Act.
After considerable discussion, it was the concensus of those present
that the City proceed with development of its Coastal Specific Plan
based on the factual data gathered by the City and not wait for the
guidelines from the California Coastal Commission.
The City Attorney recommended that every effort be made to have the
Plan completed to the point of Public Hearings before the Planning
Commission by the end of February.
The staff was directed to keep the equivalent of one full person's
time on the project to meet that completion date.
Mayor Buerk requested a specific time schedule for the Coastal Specific
Plan through the end of February so that the impact of any new items
can be measured.
Staff was directed to obtain written communique from other jurisdic-
tions about proposed traffic plans for critical intersections (Palos
Verdes East triangle, Hawthorne and Palos Verdes Drive North, Hawthorne
and Pacific Coast Highway) to have on file.
The Council would like to see all the factors that were considered in
establishing the levels of density in the Coastal Specific Plan and
receive an explanation of how those factors relate to the specific
density levels that are recommended. (Some of these include traffic
load, preservation of marine resources, compatibility with existing
development, the sensitivity of the coastal environment, view preser-
vation, etc ) In addition, the Council would like to review all
Coastal Plan recommendations made by both the staff and the Planning
Commission and the justification for those recommendations. The
Council will consider this information in a future review of the
Coastal Specific Plan.
It was further recommended that alternatives to single family resi-
dential development be investigated - such as commercial recreational
development.
Council 537 October 7, 1976
:i��v ° �S>i'tF: , ;& _ ...a+,. , . ?k'' "r•5:' :f4..9awMt 33s!!x?tla,:_.r.w. x»..,cY....r«vr.-?c.c.n...rc..,-,v.e�....-i.. ... .aa...1•"-------
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Planning Director Sharon Hightower
OBJECTIVES FOR 1976-77 reported on the existing priorities
(1203) and work load for the Environmental
Services Department.
The Council agreed that a lower priority item may be finished first,
as long as it does not conflict with completion of a higher priority
Y
It was the concensus of those present that the procedure for future
planning items should be for the Planning Commission to develop the
conceptual idea or philosophy that will be applied to a given situation
and present that to the Council before proceeding with development of
the specific language and details of the ordinance or report. This
will cut down on the need for staff time at the beginning phase of a
project and possibly eliminate later disagreements.
After discussion, the Councilmembers present agreed on the following
prioritization of planning items :
A. Coastal Specific Plan
B. Applications Processing
C. Development Code
1. Grading Ordinance
2. Map errors and refinement and overlay control district
boundaries
3. Subdivision Ordinance
4 . Antennae Ordinance
5. Tree Control Ordinance
6 . Small Animal Ordinance
7 . All other potential code amendments are to have equal
priority.
D. Parkland Resources Analysis
E. Application for State Park Bond Funds
It was agreed that amendments affecting legal and functional require-
ments of the Department should have a higher priority. When new
potential amendments are proposed they should be judged on this
general criteria in setting priorities .
Mayor Buerk indicated that the Council subcommittee is still planning
to undertake a systematic review of the Development Code.
CRITERIA FOR WALLS ALONG On recommendation of staff, the Council
HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD directed that this be made a part of
(1804) the Public Works Street Standards T r
M
FENCE HEIGHT The Planning Director was directed c.
(1804) initiate the process to increase the
fence height limitation to six feet
and process it with next Code Amendment that is initiated. It was mo
by Councilmen Ryan, seconded by Councilman Dyda and unanimously appro
to waive the permit application fee for minor exception permits to
construct six foot fences backing on existing legal six foot fences.
ADJOURNMENT At 11 p.m. , it was moved by Councilman
Ryan and seconded by Councilman Dyda
to adjourn the meeting.
it" /
Mayor
e'
By .J5, A(()
Administrativ Assistant
Council 538 October 7
1976