CC MINS 19761220 M I N U T E S
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL
Work Session
December 20, 1976
The meetin g was called to order at 7:30 p.m. at the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified
School District Building, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard. Following the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag, roll call was answered as follows:
PRESENT: Councilmembers R. Ryan, Ruth, Dyda and Mayor Buerk
ABSENT: None
Also P resent were City Manager Leonard Wood, Director of Planning Sharon Hightower,
Associate Planner Larry Davis, Associate Planner Gary Weber, John Corrough of EDAW,
and Planning Commission members Byron Blue, Mel Hughes, John McTaggart, Lou
Rosenberg, and Ann Shaw.
Mr. Larr y Davis made a presentation to the Council concerning planning decisions ef-
fecting uncommitted sub-regions in the coastal area. The elements of the report
presented by Mr. Davis were:
1. Purpose
2. Chronology of planning efforts
3. Major issues/implications of uncommitted sub-regions
4. Effects of planning decisions on uncommitted sub-regions
5. Appendix
The report covered Sub-regions 1, 3 and 7 and dealt with the following topics:
1. Natural environment
2. Activity areas
3. Social
4. Infrastructure
5. Fiscal
Under the subject of Natural Features Mr. Davis reported on Topography with special
�
emphasis on drainage courses, Hydrology with the need to preserve water courses for
beach sand replenishment, Biota which was of crucial importance along drainage areas,
Marine Life, Existing Land Use Patterns, and Traffic. He indicated the slide area
acts as a natural breaking point for traffic and gives Sub-region 7 a different
traffic movement from Areas 1 and 3. The critical traffic points are (1) Palos Verdes
Estates Trainag, which is at capacity, (2) Rolling Hills Estates, at Palos Verdes
Drive North and Hawthorne where the east and north roads exceed capacity, (3) Palos
Verdes Drive East and Palos Verdes Drive North, and (4) 25th Street, which is not at
capacity. He reported that development of Areas 1, 3 and 7 does not impact traffic
adversely within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, but does at the critical inter-
sections outside of the City.
A discussion then took place among the Council members concerning Parcels 1, 3 and
7. The Council requested that the Planning Commission and Staff present the consi-
derations to be weighed in establishing density for each parcel.
Parcel 1
A. Consideration
1. Existing pattern of homes ..
2. Traffic impact at Palos Verdes Estates Triangle
3. View corridors; lower density means better ability to cluster and
maintain view corridors.
562 December 20, 1976
4. Adjacent to sensitive coastal area and need to attempt to preserve
sea life land access
(a) Water runoff as potential problem which is impacted by density
5. Coastal Commission recommended this area for purchase which is an
indication of the fact that it is a sensitive area.
6. The land below Palos Verdes Drive is of a substantially different
character than that above it.
7. The area is a crucial migratory location due to its closeness to
Point Vicente for both birds and marine wildlife.
Parcel 7
A. Considerations
1. Traffic
2. Unique area _ 7
3. Need for marine environment protection
4. A need to maintain view corridors
5. Similar to Parcel 1 except traffic, existing development, less sen-
sitive marine life, different migratory animal pattern, and more ex-
tensively impacted by White's Point wastewater outfall.
Upon discussion of Sub-regions 1 and 7, various members of the Council expressed
their opinion that the two areas probably should be treated equally. Mr. Buerk in-
dicated that he favored at this point two units per acre in Sub-regions 1 and 7 with
some limited neighborhood commercial, with a village connotation, which would reduce
density. Councilmen Dyda and Ruth indicated they concurred. Councilman Ryan indi-
cated that he favored one unit per acre for both areas with neighborhood commercial
to be added without losing any density.
The City Council expressed its concern and desire for innovative planning and imagi-
nitive approaches to the land uses proposed for the coastal areas.
A discussion then took place concerning Planned Area 3.
Area 3
A. Considerations
1. Traffic
2. Marine environment
3. Area presently over impacted
4. View corridors
5. Improvement associated with past subdivision
The various members of the Council, in discussing Area 3, indicated that they favored
maintaining the school site as commercial recreation, supported four units per acre
for the area inland of Sea Cove Drive with higher density clustering and one unit
per acre on lands seaward of Sea Cove Drive with possible density transfer.
ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
MA 4R I 0 TEMPORE
LEONARD G. WOOD, CITY CLERK AND
EX OFFICIO CLERK OF THE COUNCIL
BY I lit
De I '�
, y
P
563 December 20, 1976