Loading...
PC MINS 19840313M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Meeting March 13, 1984 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Hesse Park Community Building at 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard by Chairman Brown. PRESENT: BROWN, MCNULTY, ORTOLANO, VON HAGEN, WIKE Also present were Director of Environmental Services Sharon W. Hightower and Associate Planner Steve Rubin. COMMUNICATIONS CONSENT CALENDAR Brown and passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS None A motion was made by Mr. McNulty to approve the minutes of February 28, 1984 and adopt Resolution P.C. No. 84-5. It was seconded by Dr. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86 Associate Planner Steve Rubin VARAIANCE NO. 89 presented the 3/13/84 staff report. LEVITT He referred to the project mile - 980 SILVER SPUR ROAD, N/W CORNER stones as outlined in that report. SILVER SPUR & CRENSHAW Mr. Rubin explained that the applicant, Mr. Levitt, was presently attending the Rolling Hills Estates City Council meeeting and he would be present subsequently. Mr. Rubin highlighted the most current events. He said in October 1983, the project was brought back as a substantially "redesigned" project with a new architect. In January 1984, the applicant submitted an addendum to the final Environmental Impact Report No. 20 as requested by Rancho Palos Verdes. Also in January 1984, Rolling Hills Estates Planning Commission held a public hearing on the new "revised" project. It received its approval and is now before the City Council,. j Associate Planner Rubin stated that in the interim a study of available office space on the Peninsula was concluded and that report is included. Mr. Rubin stated the subject property is located at the northwest corner of Crenshaw and Silver Spur and is presently vacant and measures approximately 3.06 acres. It has slopes ranging from less than_,25% to Breather than 35%. Surrounding land uses include single family residences to the north on Seashell and Beechgate, commercial development to the west, U.S. Postal 0 6 Annex to the south, and the remainder of the project site is in the City of Rolling Hills Estates to the east. When the projpct_first came­beforq�.the City, the major issues were project scale --and -mass, traffic circulation and potential geology problems. Since the conception of the project, it has undergone numerous re- designs. It is staff's opinion that the project's scale and mass is no longer an issue, traffic circulation has been redesigned, and there have been preliminary reports receiving conceptual approval from the County Geologist and additional reports will be required as it goes through its plan check stages and reviewed by a City Geologist. The addendum to the EIR points out that measures have been taken to eliminate potential impacts. It is a smaller project and the findings were that these potential impacts have been further mitigated, reduced or eliminated. Mr. Rubin referred to his staff report where it stated only comments from the Peninsula Rim Homeowners Association were received. He mentioned that since then -,comments, have been received from the L.A. county Fire Department about,lts ability to -servi ' ce - the area and its require- ment for a minimum 26' wide clear to the sky' or for sprinklers in the building. Either one would satisfy their requirements. Associate Planner Rubin said that basically the findings show no significant impacts associated with the project that cannot be mitigated. He"referenced the projected -floor area as noted in the staff report. Mr. Rubin explained that the application before the Commission is for a Conditional Use Permit and a Variance. He said a Conditional Use Permit refers to a commercial project which is required by the City and the Variance pertains to the several areas of non-compliance of the project. He said it was decided at an earlier joint session with Rolling Hills Estates, that Fw—i-t—h street frontages and property lines abutting non- residential properties Rolling Hills Estates-setb—ack standards would apply., its standards are 0 setback requirements for abutting non residential properties and an average of 15 feet on street frontages. For abutting residential properties, the Rancho Palos Verdes standard would apply and that is a minimum of 50 feet. Mr. Rubin -stated the project meets the minimum setback of 501 for residential properties since the Rolling Hills Estates standards are being used, RPV needs to grant a variance for the non-compliance with our City standards. Another area of non-conformance relates to building height. Mr. Rubin explained our code allows 161 high for one story structure measured from the sidewalk elevation ; a Conditional Use Permit would allow it to go to 30 feet. The project now proposes 55 feet. The City of Rolling Hills Estates measures in a different manner. They measure as an envelope taken from existing grade rather than from sidewalk elevation and they have a 44 foot maximum as taken from grade. -2- P/C 3/13/84 0 Thus, Mr. Rubin said the three areas of non-compliance would require a variance in order for the project to go ahead as proposed. Mr. Rubin mentioned topography as one of the major contributing factors for the variances. Allowing a height variance would make the project more compatible with that portion in Rolling Hills Estates. He felt a need to consider the topography, building placement within the project, and other commercial uses throughout Peninsula Center. Illustrations were displayed and discussed. Traffic circulation, exits, potential view angles from above, median, traffic signal were all topics thoroughly discussed. Briefly Mr. Rubin summarized the findings_ of_ the.;ivail ahl P__offi ce_ space survey and noted that the survey did not include the S.P. Devco project. Mr. Rubin clarified that the purpose was to hold a public hearing to receive public input and for the Planning Commission to advise staff of the appropriate conditions for a resolution to be brought back to the Commission for decision. Mrs. Ortolano wanted on record that the two cities use different measuring methods. Our 55' equals Rolling Hills Estates 441. She also wanted on record her understanding from Mr. Levitt that there would be no restaurant. The grading was then discussed. Mrs. Ortolano referred to the Rancho Palos Verdes memo of 2/4/81 where the General Plan identified this area as probable landslide and the Environmental Impact Report, page 4, discussed it as ancient landslide area. She questioned conceptual approval by the geologist. She asked how geology is now determined. Steve Rubin explained that Rancho Palos Verdes now contracts with a private firm to provide Building and Safety Services which subcontracts with a private geologist. Dr. Brown asked staff if they have communicated with the Rolling Hills Estates staff any of Rancho Palos Verdes' concerns regarding normal conditions. Mr. Rubin replied yes. More discussion continued relative to concerns about the proposed greenhouse, Rolling Hills Estates traffic report, turnarounds in parking aisles and the need for islands where ramps join the parking decks. The public hearing was opened by Chairman Brown. Mr. Ronald Altoon, 2706 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles 90047, representing Charles Kober Associates, the architect, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He stated that Mr. Levitt had recently advised him that Rolling Hills Estates did approve the project this evening. -3- P/C 3/13/84 ?) 0 0 Mr. Altoon gave a slide presentation and covered the applicant's goals. He discussed the project being a gateway access to the Peninsula Center with respect given to the speed and movement of Crenshaw Boulevard and scaling the project to the village character, utilizing the beneficial climate with curbside retail and 100% hidden parking. Discussion ensued relative to the site plan, elevations, and site sections. Clarificaton was made by Dr. Brown that by Rolling Hills Estates measurement standards, the project meets its code of 44 feet. Mrs. Ortolano asked how much under 44 feet do the buildings fall. The reply was deferred to later. Dr. Brown iterated the height exceeds Rancho Palos Verdes standards. More discussion ensued relative to measurement standards. Dr. Brown raised concerns over fire protection and asked about the applicant's willingness to put in sprinklers or widening the access point. Mr. Penrose of Charles Kober Associates, 2706 Wilhsire Boulevard, Los Angeles 90047, deferred comment until after a meeting with the Fire Department. Off-loading was discussed by Mr. Von Hagen, and it was agreed that, as proposed, loading would go across the main entrance of the project. However, according to Mr. Altoon, the only types of vehicles that would be off-loading would be vans. Dr. Brown asked if the plan was to, -stabilize the slope to 1.5 factor. Mr. Levitt, 2105 Rosita Place, PVE, spoke regarding the sprinklers and stated it would be sprinklered if required by the Building Inspector. Mr. Levitt spoke about the caisons for retaining purposes and explained his understanding of the geologic report is that on the whole the hill at present has a factor of safety of 1. That would fail the Code for building; therefore, they will bring up the factor of safety to 1.5. In reference to Ms. Ortolano's question about a restaurant, Mr. Levitt replied that the parking just exactly fits the need of one for every 200 square feet. The code for restaurants requires more parking. He said he would be illegal to convert any of the space to restaurants without coming back for a variance. Director Hightower concurred with Mr. Levitt's statement. Dr. Brown raised the question of idemnifying the residents and/or the City of the potential hazards, and asked Mr. Levitt what kinds of things he would be willing to provide towards securing that concern. Mr. Levitt replied that any substantial project must be bonded. Neighbors are endangered not only on a hill property but also next to a level site. -4- P/C 3/13/84 �7 Dr. Brown mentioned the bonding is a protection for the developer in case of litigation involving failure. It would not protect the City or residents. Mr. Levitt replied that t it is protective for him because if there were a problem the people damaged would sue him. Dr. Brown once again reiterated that the bonding protects the Developer. The City's idemnity and the resident's idemnity are not addressed directly by the bonding mechanism regardless of,the fact that the developer may be sued. That is a concern that has been raised for 3 1/2 years. Mr. Emmett Ingram, 28006 Beechgate Drive, RPV asked the Commission to clarify each of the variances. Dr. Brown responded to Mr. s Ingram' 1� s questions:_ Mr. Ingram said his concerns are in addressing the variances.! He felt the project -has -a— positive -approach. However, he is also concerned about the stabilization. Mr. Marshall Colburt, 28003 Seashell Way, RPV 90274, addressed the issue of assurance of liability by a developer regarding damage to property due to development. He aired concern for the stability. He also discussed a. potential traffic problem and parking problem; post office employees parking in the streets. He felt the development will have negative effect on the neighborhood. Mr. Von Wagner, 27948 Beechgate, spoke on behalf of the Peninsula Rim Homeowners Association. He aired a definite concern over the geology. Mr. Von Wagner also took exception to the addendum to the Environmental Impact Report relative to a statement of a moderate impact with an additional traffic light.- He felt any restriction on Silver Spur would impact Silver Spur to Crenshaw. Mr. Von Wagner asked for clarification of the height of the building. He expressed desire for the project to be built properly. He also requested a time limit on the Conditional Use Permit if approved. He aired concern over grading and excavation during a rainy season and over the parking problem already mentioned. A motion was made by Mr. McNulty to close the public hearing. Motion died for lack of second. RECESS RECONVENED 9:50 p.m. 10:00 P.M. A motion was made by Mr. McNulty to continue the public hearing, seconded by Dr. Brown, and passed unanimously. Dr. Brown stated the issues of the three variances and listed several questions, that were raised throughout the hearing: fire access, traffic signal control, parking on Beechgate, idemnity, lighting, geology, signing, restaurants, greenhouse and building height. -5- P/C 3/13/84 Discussion continued relative to procedure. Lengthy discussion ensued relative to the three variances. Regarding the height variation, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Von Hagen and Dr. Brown agreed they had no dispute over allowing the height. Ms. Ortolano could not agree on the height variation when the geology is questionable. She felt it should be looked at following the results of the geology. Mrs. Wike felt uncomfortable with the height and would like to see it scaled down for aesthetic purposes. All commissioners were in agreement with allowing the 5 foot front setback. Dr. Brown asked for additions to the list of conditions already discussed. After discussion, it was agreed to include the screening of the mechnical equipment for noise and aesthetics. Mrs. Ortolano referred also to CQndition 35 on Rolling Hills Estates conditions regarding LiquidattFifg Damage Provision. She asked that it be 11discussed with the City Attorney. Mrs. Ortolano also suggested that the reciprocity of our conditions be looked into relative to the legal aspect. All Commissioners were in agreement. It was the consensus that staff bring back a set of conditions and highlight the possible differences between Rolling Estates and Rancho Palos Verdes. STAFF None COMMISSION The Commissioners discussed the recent seminars they had attended. ADJOURNMENT At 11:15 p.m., Mr. McNulty moved to adjourn the meeting. It was seconded by Dr. Brown and passed unanimously. no -6- P/C 3/14/84