Loading...
PC MINS 19820209M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Ad3ourned Meeting February 9, 1982 The meeting was called to order at 7:34 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard. PRESENT: Baer, Brown, Hinchliffe, Hughes LATE ARRIVAL: McTaggart ABSENT: None Also present were Director of Planning Sharon W. Hightower and Associate Planners Ann M. W. Negendank and Sandra Massa Lavitt. CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Hughes, the Consent Calendar was passed (with Mr. Hinchliffe abstain- ing), thereby approving the minutes of the meeting of January 26, 1982, as presented. Mr. McTaggart arrived at 7:35 p.m. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 37885 Ms. Lavitt said this item was continued CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 79 from the December 8, 1981 meeting, at Forrestal northwest of Pirate Dr. which time the applicant was directed Landowner: Palos Verdes Properties to submit additional information. She Applicant: Sikand Engineering said staff recommended to the applicant the development of design specifications addressing debris fencing, and that said plans be signed by a registered engineering geologist. She said of the Com- mission did not require cutting back the slope, this plan would be approved by the City Engineer as a condition of the final map. She said it would take approximately 24 working days or 5 weeks to build the buttress and 10 weeks to grade the entire site. She said the plan indicates off -sate grad- ing at the southeast boundary at the vacant school site and that an agreement would be required with the property owner to undertake off-site grading. She said the applicant has proposed capping the lots by a depth of 4 feet, which has been approved by Dr. Ehlig and would be a condition on the grading plan. She said the applicant would consider constructing tennis courts and im- proving the soccer field at Ladera Linda Park in lieu of the parkland dedi- cation fee and as a substitute to private recreation. She said the eques- trian trail was relocated, and that staff felt it was possible for an ease- ment in the area of the existing trail to the west of the tract, allowing the trail to be formed naturally by use. She said the applicant agreed to underground the remaining utility poles along Forrestal Drive should the Commission request that undertaking. She noted that the project site itself would be undergrounded per Development Code requirements. She said the developer has offered three alternatives to deal with the unusual problem concerning the slope face: 1) a debris channel be constructed at the bottom of the slope face which would be 20 feet deep and 75 feet wide; 2) removal of the loose rocks and construction of a barrier fence and debris channel; and 3) creation of a 2:1 slope which would require 330,000 cubic yards of grading. She said the geologist has indicated to the applicant that the third alternative would most likely require blasting. She reviewed the Commission concerns with the original design concept and discussed the two alternative designs. She said although a view analysis has not been under- taken it appeared that there would be approximately 20 lots that will have significant views and possibly another 4 lots with partial views. She said 9 -6 with the type design proposed, views were not possible for all of the lots. Staff recommended that the Commission re -open the public hearing, take testimony, discuss the issues and provide direction to the applicant for further changes. In response to Commission questions, Ms. Lavitt said it appeared that de- sign alternative B best responded to the concerns related to amount of road surface and number of cul-de-sacs. She said the 40 -foot wide right-of-way could easily handle sidewalk configuration. Director Hightower said staff has not gotten into details re the street de- sign at this point, but noted that the Street Standards Study does allow for rolled curbs. In response to a question by Mr. Hughes, Ms. Lavitt said staff's recommenda- tion for a naturally -formed trail was because the development of a formal trail seemed inappropriate and would require grading and the construction of walls, etc. Mr. Hughes noted this was a continued public hearing, and so opened it. Ken Marks, Slkand Engineering, the project's civil engineers, said re the slope face, the only viable alternative was #2. He said that the two de- sign alternatives were workable but that from an engineering and design standpoint the original site design was preferable because of the amount of export. He said the original plan offered 190 on -street parking spaces and the alternatives allow for 185. He said they did not intend to put in a rolled curb. He felt a concrete gutter was the best way to handle on -street drainage. He did not know what the minimum trail width should be, but said formal development would require a lot of grading on the steepest slopes. In response to Commission questions, Mr. Marks said he thought a variety of shapes of the lots would make the final subdivision more interesting and that an architect could work with them. He said the existing storm system was adequate to handle the drainage from this project. Mr. Hinchliffe was concerned about the drain outlet in the Portuguese Bend Club area which has deteriorated, and he did not want this pro3ect to create a burden for the City or the County. He said he favored the original site design and did not think the two alternatives showed much creativity. In response to further Commission questions, Mr. Marks said the blasting was necessary due to the depth of the cut in that alternative. He felt the blasting could be done in a manner that would not be detrimental. He said it was indicated to him that the removal of rock could be done from above with a crane -type machine. Mr. Hughes was concerned about the servicing of equipment. He said most heavy equipment requires frequent servicing and that it is usually done at night, is a very noisy operation, and requires bright lighting. Mr. Marks said they would be agreeable to a condition requiring no work at night. Re the 4 -foot cap, he said it was more of an insurance situation. He said the likelihood of water getting to -the point of -the buttress is very remote. He said the sub -drain would be at the base of the buttress. Mark Bryant, geologist, Converse Consultants, Anaheim, said proper drainage and landscape water would insure that the cap does not crack. He said the layers below the cap were relatively horizontal and that the water would not go down. He said the water would be picked up by the drainage system in the buttress if it got down that far. He said they really did not be- lieve the cap was necessary but proposed it just in case. He said the standard practice was for a 3 -foot cap, but they based the 4 feet on the assumption that the upper foot would be disturbed. He said the bedding planes were seaward and very consistent. Re the expansiveness of the soil, he said foundations should be designed for that. He said the reason for the drainage concern is to prevent the water from getting down into the mud flow. 2/9/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- Mr. Hinchliffe did not feel the Commission had enough information to properly evaluate the benefits or the impacts of the cap. In response to Commission questions, Mr. Marks said it was not likely that blasting would create additional movement -in the area of the "Flying Triangle" but said that would have to be looked at carefully. Mr. McTaggart was concerned about the liability to the developer and to the City. He wondered if the blasters could use their equipment to determine the amount of above movement before, during, and after blasting. Monte Brower, Palos Verdes Properties, said some streamlining could be done with the boundaries clearly marked to handle the issue of irregular lot con- figurations. Re grading the quarry face, he said Dr. Ehlig approved an alternative with no blasting and the concept of removal of rock and con- struction of a debris fence with the condition that anything be reviewed by the County Geologist. He said alternatives A and B could require blasting. He said each drainage system would have to be clearly identified in the drainage plan. He said the Association would be required to maintain the debris basin. He said the buttress was like a dam up to the site and the cap was like a blanket over the site. Michael Burke, 3642 Vigilance Drive, Palos Verdes South Homeowners Associa- tion, spoke in opposition to any blasting. On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was continued. Mr. Hinchliffe felt the debris fencing should be addressed. He said the main issue was dealing with the slope face and he desired a clear under- standing of Dr. Ehlig's position with regard to removal of the rock. He said he preferred the applicant's first site design. He was not clear on the issue of the cap. He was concerned about the issues of hydrology and drainage. He said the proposal for recreation made sense. Re the eques- trian trail, he noted it did not have to be very wide. He said the road system should allow for access to the soccer field. Dr. Baer generally agreed with Mr. Hinchliffe. He said the cul-de-sacs and irregular lots would be more consistent with the existing neighboring lots. He said vegetation would grow in clay soil. He said he preferred the appli- cant's original alternative. He felt the curved roads gave a more rural, country atmosphere. Mr. McTaggart felt people would have difficulty finding addresses with the original plan. He was not satisfied with any of the three site designs and felt other configurations were possible. He agreed with staff that the 12 -percent grade should be reduced. He said they could put a cop in and feather it out to create an equestrian trail at the foot of the property. He said the trail did not need to be 6-10 feet wide and felt something simple would be appropriate. He noted that removing the loose rock with a bulldozer may be more impactive than blasting. He agreed that the proposed recreation was appropriate and felt it would benefit the community. He agreed with Dr. Baer that vegetation does grow in clay soil. Dr. Brown agreed with Mr. McTaggart re the design. He said it was clear that more regular lot lines were much easier to deal with. He felt Mr. Hinchliffe's concern about access to the soccer field should be considered. He said the largest issue was the hydrology. He said the grading was less with the original alternative but that other problems exist. He felt the Commission should be apprised of the legal issues and the relationship of this site to the "Flying Triangle" slide. Mr. Hughes said perhaps consideration should be given to providing some kind of off-street parking for the recreation area. He said something should be done to insure a finished trail. He said the Commission has seen two alternatives that are very similar in design and that at this point he preferred the original because there was less grading. However, he agreed 2/9/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- with Mr. McTaggart and Dr. Brown that there was an alternative available that would limit the grading and still eliminate some of the cul-de-sacs. It was still not clear to him how long the grading activity would take for each of the alternatives. He requested some kind of time line or graphic representation of the tasks involved and how long they would take, and that it be tied together with numbers on how much grading would take place with each of the methods. He said he was referring to grading of the slope face, preparation of the debris basin, the project site, buttressing, and the cap. Dr. Brown said a condition re the repair and maintenance of equipment was a good idea. Mr. Hinchliffe said there was an existing parking area for the soccer field. He discussed possible ways to eliminate the cul-de-sacs. Mr. McTaggart expressed concern about cars being able to legally park on - street in the original design. The item was continued and the applicant and staff were directed to respond to the issues discussed this evening. WORK SESSION Ms. Negendank said the main issues dis- Levitt Development cussed at the February 2, 1981 joint Rancho Palos Verdes/Rolling Hills Es- tates Planning Commission meeting were project mass, geology, and traffic and circulation. She referred to the two models (the original proposal and the revised project) which were on display. She said the project was in compliance with the Rolling Hills Estates set- backs abutting non --residential property but not with the Rancho Palos Verdes standards abutting residential property. She said the height of the project had been reduced. Staff recommended that the buildings be designed to step down with Crenshaw Boulevard, which would lower the overall height of the building, requiring further exportation of soil. Staff further recommended that the buildings not exceed 30 feet above finished grade. The 30 -foot height limit was indicated on exhibits, also the effect of lowering the project 13 feet overall, one story in height. Re geology she said the City had received conceptual approval from the County Engineer and that at this point in the process the geology issue has been resolved for the purpose of approving the project. She said additional geology and soils investigation will proceed through the final phases of project design. She said a traffic study which includes a review of the internal circulation was conducted by the applicant's traffic engineer and was reviewed by the Public Works De- partment. She reviewed the summary list of staff concerns regarding the project circulation, parking, and loading areas, as stated in the staff report. Staff recommended that the Commission discuss the project mass (specifically setbacks and building heights) and circulation and parking (specifically the entrance to the parking structure and the loading area) and that the Commission direct the applicant to redesign the project pur- suant to staff's suggestions. She said the Rolling Hills Estates Planning Commission will hold its work session on February 16. In response to Commission questions, Ms. Negendank said the City Managers from the two cities would be meeting to decide on a joint policy regarding revenues. Mr. McTaggart suggested that the City Attorney be consulted prior to the joint City Manager meeting. Ms. Negendank referred to a letter of concern from neighbors of the project site which had been forwarded to the Commission. John Elizalde, architect, said one of the main revisions centers around the parking, that it is now located in a single structure. He reviewed the circulation and said they have been able to make more efficient use of the site, maintaining the same floor area while reducing the height of the 2/9/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- project. He said strict interpretation of the 30 -foot height limit would limit the developable portion of the site to 20-25 percent due to the severeness of the hillside. He said in contrast to the original proposal the project mass has been substantially decreased. He said by bringing the project closer to the corner they were able to decrease the project height. He said relocation of the parking structure created a more inviting, more gradual transition into the project. He said they proposed a substantial amount of landscaping. He said the project has gone down substantially in scale, bettering the circulation (both pedestrian and vehicular), and that the increased setbacks would provide quite adequate landscaped buffers be- tween the project and the residences. In response to Commission questions, Mr. Elizalde discussed the proposed ventilation, saying that initial review of the project indicates that they could provide a non-mechanical ventilation garage. Re the surface treatment of the parking area with regard to noise reduction, he said it would be an abrasive top coat. He discussed the proposed stairways and the proposed locations for the cooling towers, boiler, and other components of the building's heating/cooling system.. Mr. McTaggart said one of the common complaints about parking structures is the practice of having unsightly piping exposed. He said concern was expressed in the environmental study about mechanical noise and he was not sure that it could be adequately soundproofed for 50 db(A) at the property line. Mr. Elizalde said they would work within the 50 db(A) level and do whatever is necessary to meet that. Mr. McTaggart said the issue of the exhaust products of restaurants had not been totally addressed. Dr. Baer suggested light wells up against the rear wall of the parking structure to allow for light and ventilation. Mr. Elizalde said that was a possibility. He said for the most part the structure has angled parking so at any stall location they could take the void space and create a shaft for better light and ventilation. He said they would explore the benefits of that against the costs involved. He discussed the proposed locations for the restaurants and the degree of cut into the hill for stabilization purposes. He said they proposed 10 -foot clearance for truck access which did not meet the 14 -foot requirement and that they were agreeable to staff's recommendation for a turn -out area with a barrier curb for a loading zone along Silver Spur Road and using the other area for smaller trucks. Mr. Hinchliffe was concerned about the amount of deliveries, particularly with restaurants. Mr. Hughes expressed concern about the appearance of the parking structure. Mr. Elizalde said the original proposed parking structure was terraced back. He said there would be a lot of landscaping. Mr. Hughes said the structure was massive and that the approach in the original proposed facade offered a better opportunity to make it appear less intrusive. He did not feel a cut along the curb for delivery trucks was adequate and he felt shoppers would ignore the "no parking" signs, particularly with the parking structure at one end of the site and the development at the other end. He also expressed concern about the trash service collections and the cleaning of debris, particularly from the several restaurants. For the benefit of the residents above he wondered if the applicant had considered providing a roof over the parking structure to be consistent with the rest of the development. Mr. Elizalde said the problem with that is that it would increase the height of the structure. He said there would be 50 feet available for landscaping 2/9/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5- which would obscure the view of the -parking structure.- He said §u-b-stantial landscaping on the hillside could be made a condition. Re proposed light- ing, he said there would be light fixtures attached to the side walls and that the fixtures would half -screen the light and direct it down onto the walkways. He said they would have low level lighting on the parking struc- ture. Mr. McTaggart was concerned about four floors of trash being dumped down a chute and suggested trash compaction. He was particularly concerned about the restaurant trash. Dan Koehler, 5944 Golden Arrow, representing the Ad Hoc Homeowners Committee, felt most of the concerns except height had been addressed during tonight's discussions. He said the Committee would be happy to supply more detailed information than what was submitted in the letter. He said the recommenda- tion in the letter concerning security requirements was proposed by the adjacent residents and added that the applicant has offered to provide some type of security fencing. Albert Levitt, applicant, said they were proposing to fill in the area that had been cut many years ago. He said they would like to have a significant development that would be successful and a credit to the community. Mr. McTaggart felt the parking structure to be extremely obtrusive. Dr. Brown did not know if the site could accommodate that significant a project. He felt it was massive and inappropriate for the site. He agreed with the recommendations in the staff report. Mr. Levitt said the front setback allowed for a lot of landscaping. He said they were maintaining over an average of 50 -foot setbacks in the rear and that no one should be able to see the decking from the rear. Mr. Hinchliffe felt the revised plan was an improvement and was not bothered by the mass of the project. Mr. Hughes said he was not bothered so much with the mass but rather with the general appearance of the development. He said he did not like the vertical wall. Mr. McTaggart said the lack of roofing over the parking structure made it look different than the rest of the project. He said one of the biggest problems was the imposing nature of that corner. Dr. Brown suggested eliminating one floor from the Crenshaw side, which would solve the shortage of parking. Mr. McTaggart was more concerned about the parking structure. Staff recommended considering lowering the central portion of the structure one story, lessening the impact on the residents directly above. Mr. Elizalde said the concern with the parking structure may be more a question of articulation than height and that they would look into that. Mr. McTaggart felt the treatment of the parking structure should be altered to mitigate its appearance. He felt something should be done to mitigate the appearance of massiveness along Crenshaw. He was concerned about the loading area and felt there should be trash compaction to'limit theriumb6­r of pick-ups. He felt access for deliveries should be made higher. Mr. Elizalde said they would have to eliminate the level of parking above the area for loading and would lose 9-10 spaces. Dr. Brown felt the mass should be better addressed, as well as the loading area which he felt should be out of the way and inside rather than on the street if possible. He felt the traffic at the site was a real problem. 2/9/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5- Mr. Hinchliffe felt the delivery trucks would park in the street regardless. Dr. Baer concurred with the comments expressed by Mr. McTaggart and Mr. Hinchliffe with regard to structure mass, the garage treatment, and the loading area. Mr. Hughes said there was a consensus that the height as now reduced is satisfactory if something is done with the garage structure face, service area, loading and delivery area. He said the applicant should come up with solutiohs to the areas of concern. He also advised the applicant of the difference in lighting standards between the two cities. STAFF REPORT Ms. Lavitt reviewed the staff report Commercial Condominiums which contained responses by the City Attorney to the questions raised by the Commission at the last meeting. COMMISSION REPORTS Mr. Hughes asked about the damaged wall on Hawthorne Boulevard at the Alta Vista tract. He was concerned about its repair and who was responsible. Director Hightower said staff was already investigating. ADJOURNMENT At 12:35 a.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday, February 23, 1982, at 7:30 p.m. 2/9/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -7-