Palos Verdes Peninsula News
Thursday, May 10, 2007
by Chris Boyd 

City scales back Village Plan

 Thursday, May 10, 2007

 §   Two council members still are at odds with fellow officials about scope of project.

By Chris Boyd - Peninsula News

RHE — It’s rare when the Rolling Hills Estates City Council makes a split decision. But that’s exactly what happened Tuesday night, when, following more than seven hours of debate, council voted 3-2 to direct staff to come up with two new alternatives for the hotly contested Peninsula Village Plan.

 This plan aims to turn parts of the RHE commercial district between Hawthorne and Crenshaw boulevards into a European-style village complete with high-density condominiums, apartments, offices and small businesses. Last fall, officials released the draft environmental impact report for the Peninsula Village Overlay Zone, which proposed a maximum density of 40 residential units per acre, allowing for 900 total dwelling units downtown between Crenshaw and Hawthorne. It also permitted commercial development of 2.3 million square feet.

But many local residents decried the plan, and staff this week proposed an option that cut development in half.

“There’s going to be a study that will trigger a new environmental impact report. One scenario looks at 459 units, another scenario at 375,” Mayor Susan Seamans, who supported the alternatives, said yesterday. “I think with the 900 units, people didn’t understand and we didn’t understand what the impact was.”

“It sounds pretty clear that the council has heard from the community and is interested in responding by lowering the number of units that are under consideration,” said City Manager Doug Prichard.

Council also directed staff to redraw the Peninsula Village boundaries as those areas on both sides of Deep Valley Drive between The Avenue of the Peninsula and Silver Spur Road, including the former McDonald’s property at 981 Silver Spur. Little Silver Spur is no longer considered part of the plan.

Will the revised plans quiet skeptics? “I would hope that they will see that we have been listening and [heard] what the EIR said,” Seamans said.

Dissension in the ranks

Despite the lower numbers, two of the project’s most vocal opponents sit on the City Council.

With four mixed-use developments and 133 units already approved, Councilman John Addleman wants the city to take a break and determine how those projects will impact traffic, air quality and other variables before forging ahead. “I am a strong supporter of enough is enough,” Addleman said yesterday. “We can’t go too fast on this. I was very, very disappointed basically [with Tuesday’s vote].

“The cumulative impacts of these projects are going to change the face of the city. Sitting here right now, we don’t know how this is going to play out,” he added. “I think we’re playing with fire … I haven’t had one person come up to me and say, ‘We need this project.’”

Addleman wondered how the council could ever compromise and agree to the construction of less than 459 units after raising developers’ expectations. “Mostly the developers take what the City Council says at face value,” he said. “We have to have a measured approach. To me, the residents come first, and they always will.”

Councilman Steve Zuckerman sided with Addleman. Under state law, Zuckerman said, the council cannot approve any projects unless there is a public benefit that overrides air-quality issues. The only proposed project that does that, he added, is the Laing Urban development, which calls for stabilizing the Deep Valley landslide.

“The reason I couldn’t agree to what the council is doing is because I don’t think it’s consistent with the wishes of the community and California environmental law,” said Zuckerman, who indicated he could support the 300-unit alternative. “I am very disappointed that people have ignored the guidelines under the law and the wishes of the community … People had an appetite to realize their own personal vision, and that’s where we are. It was a very sad evening.”

In the meantime, Zuckerman said, developers will continue to “try and cram more condominiums down our throats.”

‘Reasonable compromise’

However, supporters of staff’s proposal said it was fair. “I thought we’d reached a reasonable compromise,” said Councilwoman Judy Mitchell. “I think where we all agreed is that we should have some limitations on it, we should phase it in, do it step by step.

“The number that we approved is not set,” she added. “We have regulatory powers to determine with each project whether or not it will be approved … We still have regulatory control over the number of units.”

“Good-intentioned people disagree sometimes. I personally don’t disagree with Steve and John from the initial premise that we have to be extremely careful, phase development and limit development,” said Councilman Frank Zerunyan. “We have more than enough tools to navigate ourselves on a case-by-case basis. We have all the right in the world to deny any project that comes before us on the basis of traffic, safety and air quality.”

Traffic impacts are tough to gauge, Mitchell said, but she is confident officials can ease commuter woes throughout the city. “There’s very little difference in traffic impact from 300 [units] to 459,” she said. “We don’t really know what the traffic impacts are going to be because it’s an estimating, waiting game.”

Zerunyan said getting to 459 units was key. “[Seamans and Mitchell] conceded to a reasonable number,” he said. “No one wants a huge development to come here. I think yesterday was a victory for our constituents … We all have in our hearts the good of our community. We will do right.”

According to Seamans, the EIR process is working. “It’s going to take years to see all these projects come to fruition and develop,” she said. “I believe in the efficiency of people living closer together to lighten the load on the Earth, if you will. We have to have enough housing and enough people there to strike a balance that will make the project work.

“The sky won’t fall,” she added. “The sky will be just fine.”

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