Palos Verdes Peninsula News
Thursday, June 14, 2007
By Mary Scott Bellgraph

City nixes moratorium, Village Plan

    Crews recently demolished the Palos Verdes Car Wash to make room for a new mixed-use project that will combine business and residential space. The project was part of a bigger master plan — the controversial Peninsula Village Overlay Zone — that was nixed Tuesday night by the Rolling Hills Estates City Council.

    RHE — After three hours of community comment and discussion, the Rolling Hills Estates City Council unanimously voted against a moratorium that would put a 45-day halt to additional approvals for the Peninsula Village Overlay Zone.
    The PVOZ is a high-density mixed-use project that has residents worried about traffic and environmental impacts, and business owners hopeful of revitalizing the downtown commercial district. Lowering the number of units, even in the 375- and 450-unit scenarios, still had a significant impact on traffic and air quality, according to the city staff report.
    Amid the controversy over the PVOZ, council members also voted to abandon the project altogether.
    “I’ve been a great proponent of the overlay zone for a long time,” said Mayor Susan Seamans, “but at this point it seems to me that we’ve really changed it a great deal from the original idealized view that we had … It’s really not the same thing we started out with. I think we should give future councils more flexibility in deciding what should happen in our entire commercial district and not just limit this exercise to a few square blocks east of Drybank Drive down Crenshaw [Boulevard].”
    “Even though we abandon this Peninsula Village Overlay,” added Councilwoman Judy Mitchell, “I don’t think we abandon completely the vision that we encompassed in that plan because there were some very good things that came out of [the PVOZ].”
    First on council’s agenda Tuesday night was an ordinance that would impose a temporary moratorium on the approval of any new residential development in the city’s commercial district.
    Councilman John Addleman brought up the idea of a moratorium at the council’s May 22 meeting, stating that the city needed to step back and see what impact currently approved projects had on the community. “As most of you know, I’m the one who floated this moratorium issue up to the surface,” he said Tuesday night. “This is something that is near and dear to my heart, and I’m disappointed that we can’t do it. But you have to have logic come in. We can only do this for 45 days, and what is it going to get us? Nothing. We may well need the moratorium a year from now or a year and a half from now and we won’t have it.”
    Had the moratorium passed, it would have prevented approval of additional residential building permits in the overlay zone, but city staff still would have to process applications for such permits. City attorney Kristin Pelletier advised officials they must find that the new approvals would pose an immediate threat to health, safety and welfare. The moratorium would give council only 45 days for further evaluation of the project, and would limit officials from imposing another moratorium later on.
    “You’re not just limited for two years of adopting a moratorium,” said Pelletier. “The statute doesn’t have a time limit. What you need are new facts. So the limitation could be longer than that or shorter depending on whether there are new facts.”
    Besides hearing from the city attorney, council also devoted time for residents, local business owners and project developers to speak.
    Randy Morris, the architect for the senior apartment project under construction at 901 Deep Valley (the former McDonald’s site) was surprised to hear that council was seeking a moratorium. “I’m a little disappointed that after all this time and effort that there is a moratorium on the agenda, because I keep asking myself, Where’s the emergency?
    “What’s the critical mass that’s exploding on the scene that’s created this paranoia about development?” he continued. “We’re going through extensive environmental review, we’re applying zoning standards from the mid-90s. These standards have not changed since 1994 and now we’re under an emergency. It’s beyond my belief what’s transpired that created this tremendous, critical juncture of voting for a moratorium … I urge you to move along with the process you’ve created.”
    “I’m for a moratorium,” said Rancho Palos Verdes resident Ken Delong. “I think it’s good common sense to take an easy and slow approach to see what’s going on and what needs to be done. I’m somewhat surprised to see that most of the opponents are from the commercial sector. I don’t know what kind of silver bullet they’re expecting to find by having some redevelopment going on when the issue is the residential side … Having a [few hundred] more residents is certainly not a silver bullet to bring profitability to those businesses.”
    While most comments focused on traffic and business, one environmental concern was voiced.
    “The other issue we addressed in our written testimony was the stability of the land,” said a representative from the League of Women Voters. “I know this issue was brought up with regard to the 827 [Deep Valley] development — Mr. Knickerbocker’s proposed development. I was wondering if anything has been presented as far as that evaluation is concerned … Bottom line, [the league] would like to see a moratorium established by you, because it would give you time to evaluate and get community input as well.”
    Following community comments, the mayor prompted council to move forward with a decision on two issues. “Not only just the moratorium,” said Seamans, “but now we’re thinking about how to go forward with the project.”
    Based on community comment and legal reasoning, council rejected the moratorium. As to whether the council should move forward with the Peninsula Village project, Councilman Frank Zerunyan moved to have it tabled and for officials to continue with the city’s general plan enacted in the mid-1990s, still allowing a residential overlay in the business district but regarding project approval on a case-by-case basis.
    “I move that in light of the conversation that we’ve had that we abandon the PVOZ as we have described in the past, allow each project to come to the council on its merits and for us to utilize all the tools we have available to us in the commercial zone, which happens to be a commercial zone with the overlay of the housing,” he said.
    Council will consider a proposal by the Willdan firm, initially approached as part of the PVOZ, to prepare a traffic-mitigation plan for future upgrades.

 Visit the PV News website at:  http://www.pvnews.com/local_news/