border issues status report
RHE City Council Staff report for Brickwalk,
LLC
project
E-14
The City of Rolling Hills Estates
AGENDA
MEMORANDUM
rCD 12 201~
Planning Department
ITeiM NQ, _
gA
Date:
January 31,2013
To:
Mayor and City Council
From:
Niki Wetzel, AICP, Principal Planner
Subject:
Planning Application No. 01-07 (655-683 Deep Valley Drive/924-950 Indian Peak Road - Brickwalk)
Attached please find the staff report for the Brickwalk mixed-use project which will be discussed at the City Council meeting of February 12, 2013. At the direction of the City Manager, the staff report is being prOVided now to allow the Council extra time to review the material given the size of the project. Copies of the Draft Environmental Impact Report were previously provided to Council, and all information including appendices is also avaHabie on the City website. If any additional project information is received prior to the meeting, it will be provided to you under separate cover with your packet next Thursday. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions at (310) 377-1577, extension 115. Ccmem.1.31.13
E-15
Staff Report City of Rolling Hills Estates
DATE:
FEBRUARY 12, 2013
TO:
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
NIKI WETZEL, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DAVID WAHBA, PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT:
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-07 APPLICANT: MR. STEPHEN JORDAN, THE AURIC GROUP, LLC PROPERTY OWNER: BRICKWALK, LLC (MR. GEORGE DANESHGAR) LOCATION: 655-683 DEEP VALLEY DRIVE/924-950 INDIAN PEAK ROAD
OVERVIEW The following is a request to approve: 1. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 67553; 2. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a mixed-use development including 148 condominiumltownhome units and 14,200 square feet of commercial space in the ..- ---.··-·--·----Gommer-eial·GeneFal(-C-Gj/Mi-xed-Use0vefla-y-Zene-;···-----· ---. -- --. 3. A Precise Plan of Design (PPD) for buildings and structures; 4. A Variance to exceed the maximum permitted bUilding height; 5. A Variance to permit a smaller setback than required by Code; 6.A Variance to permit fewer parking spaces than required by Codelshared parking agreement; 7. A Grading application is required to permit stabilization of the landslide and building pads for buildings and structures; and 8. An Environmental Impact Report, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION Application Filed: Public Notices Mailed: Public Notices Posted: Public Notices Published:
7/2/2009 .. 1/30/2013 1/31/2013 1/31/2013
"Original application was submitted in 2007 by Laing Urban. Current application was resubmitted by The Auric Group, LLC for Brickwalk, LLC on 7/2/2009.
E-16
Project Summary The following provides a brief overall project summary. Further project information can be found in Planning Commission staff reports and minutes included herein as Attachment 2. The applicant proposes to demolish bUildings at 944 and 950 Indian Peak Road and at 655-683 Deep Valley Drive, stabilize the landslide, and subdivide the 10.42-acre site into two lots. Lot 1 would be 8.05-acres in size and contain 148 residential units in two development "pad" areas. Pad 1, located in the current location of the 655-683 Deep Valley Drive office building, would consist of a five-story, 102-unit, condominium "podium" building with 14,200 square feet of ground-floor commercial space. The one and two-bedroom condominium units would range in size from approximately 1,200 to 1,900 square feet. The building would also feature a gym, courtyard, and swimming pool. The building would be accessed from Deep Valley Drive by a shared driveway located between the building and the Brickwalk development. Pad 2,.Iocated on the slope to the rear of the existing Brickwalk commercial development, would consist of 46 three-bedroom townhomes ranging in size from approximately 1,875 to 1,920 square feet. The homes would be accessed from a u-shaped road descending from Indian Peak Road to Deep Valley Drive. From Deep Valley Drive, the townhomes would be accessed from the driveway shared with the condominium building and the Brickwalk development. Lot 2 of the project site WbUidencompass ti1eBrickwalk development on a 2.37-acre site. The project would demolish 2,013 square feet of existing commercial space from the 23,187 square foot development and add 63 parking spaces. The area of demolition would be in the upper portion of the Brickwalk site and would not affect the continuous retail frontage along Deep Valley Drive. In conjunction with this application, the applicant has proposed fac;:ade improvements including first-floor awnings, paint and signage for the Brickwalk buildings. Fac;:ade improvements would consist of painting the buildings a darker earth-toned color at the base with a lighter color at the top of the two-story buildings to break up the massing. Within ______re.cessed. .first .. floor..r:etaJL. areas., _a .. darlrer._colar.. _w.o.u.lcLals.o....b.e ...us.ecUQ._prQvide ..additional distinction.for those tenants. Stairway openings to the second floor would be accentuated with signage, lighting and a decorative entry canopy. Conditions of approval for this project would require a Precise Plan of design for a master sign plan as well as a Precise Plan of Design for building colors and awnings. The application indicates that the 103,600 cubic yards (c.y.) of earth material would be removed from the site during project construction. The maximum cut length would be 446' feet, and the maximum cut depth would be 53'. Cut would consist of 201,500 c.y., and 508,000 c.y. would be over-excavated and recompacted for site remediation. The maximum fill length would be 48', and the maximum fill depth would be 8'. Fill would consist of 8,253 c.y., and 597,647 c.y. would be recompacted. Planning Commission Public Hearing A public hearing for this project was held before the Planning Commission on September 4, October 15, and December 3, 2012. On December 17, 2012, the Planning Commission approved Resolution No. PA-01-07 recommending approval of the project and certification of the project Environmental Impact Report (EJR) to the City Council which is included herein as Attachment 1. It can be noted that the Draft EIR was provided to the City Council under separate cover on June 27, 2012. It can be further noted that the Draft EIR, staff reports and other pertinent information for the project are available on the City's website.
2
E-17
As seen in staff reports and meeting minutes, major issues discussed before the Planning Commission involved grading and geotechnical issues, safety during and after construction, construction phasing, and traffic and parking issues. Notably, the Planning Commission expressed concern over assurances that grading would be completed once commenced. Conditions of Approval No. 37 and 38 of Resolution No. PA-0107 are expressly intended by the Planning Commission to ensure that bonding for project grading is sufficient for the City to complete grading, retaining walls and the proposed tie-back system if necessary. Further, Ordinance No. 646 (adopted in 2008) specifically requires residential and mixed-use development projects to: 1. Provides for a general public benefit (above and beyond the payment of any City adopted development fees) including, but not limited to, public art, or semi-public plazas or open space integrated into private development projects; and 2. Provides for a specific benefit to a segment of the community including, but not limited to, facilities for teens or children, a community recreational or meeting room, or a senior center. 3. Maintains or enhances the economic viability of the underlying commercial property and/or CQmmercial-Gen~ral Qr Gomme.rcial-:-Limited designation in general. 4. Maintains the ability of the City to provide adequate land area and lease space for the provision of goods and services for the community. 5. Assists the City in meeting requirements of its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) especially with regard to affordable housing. 6. Demonstrates a commitment to environmental sustainability including, but not limited to, an ..'- . .,.. ···,·_·-ex~resse€l-wFitten --iAtsRt··to--attain··.cert.ificatiOl-1..puf.suant ..to.thaLeadership..in_Energy ..amL Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System TM.
..
As discussed in September 4, 2012 Planning Commission staff report, staff believes that Items 1, 3-4, and 6 have been satisfied in the subject application with a public plaza incorporated into site design, retention of the Brickwalk developmenUcommercial space incorporated into the ground-floor of the new buildings, and an intention to meet LEED requirements. Regarding Item 2, the applicant is considering the viability of utilizing a portion of the commercial space on Deep Valley Drive in the podium bUilding for community purposes. Staff suggests that this issue be further discussed with the applicant at the public hearing. Further, staff does not believe that item 5 has been met in the sUbject application. The applicant indicates that the project will provide long term stabilization of a landslide area. To achieve this, the project is designed to include Type I structured parking to help with this mitigation. Additionally, a parking structure provides parking for residential units. Due to the high capital cost associated with the grading and the parking structure, and the length of time before any revenue return is achieved, the project is heavily burdened economically. Any further revenue burdens would likely make the project unfeasible economically. Additionally, with the current capital markets, the builder would likely not be able to secure any debt providers for the grading and structured parking. While staff understands the economic investment inherent to this project due to the landslide condition, it appears from the response that the applicant is not prepared to assist the City in
3
E-18
meeting requirements of the RHNA especially with regard to affordable housing. The Planning Commission specifically recommends that the Council discuss this issue as noted in Resolution No. PA-01-07. Finally, as noted in Resolution No. PA-01-07, the Planning Commission decision to recommend approval of project Variances to the City Council was predicated on an assumption that requested project density is required to provide funds for repair to the landslide area inherent to the site. The Planning Commission, however, did not review financial evidence in support of this assumption and recommends that the City Council consider this evidence in its evaluation of requested project Variances. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council 1. Open the Public Hearing; 2. Take public testimony; 3. Discuss the issues; 4. Continue this application to a date uncertain; and 5. Direct the applicant to prepare a project pro forma or other financial information justifying requested project density and that a community benefit and provisions for affordable housing be further discussed. EXHIBITS Attached -------------- 1.---l2.la-nning Commission--ResolutionNo.__PA,01 ~OL 2. Planning Commission Staff Reports and Minutes
_
Separate 1. Project Plans
Pa01-07 em
4
E-19
LLC
project
E-14
The City of Rolling Hills Estates
AGENDA
MEMORANDUM
rCD 12 201~
Planning Department
ITeiM NQ, _
gA
Date:
January 31,2013
To:
Mayor and City Council
From:
Niki Wetzel, AICP, Principal Planner
Subject:
Planning Application No. 01-07 (655-683 Deep Valley Drive/924-950 Indian Peak Road - Brickwalk)
Attached please find the staff report for the Brickwalk mixed-use project which will be discussed at the City Council meeting of February 12, 2013. At the direction of the City Manager, the staff report is being prOVided now to allow the Council extra time to review the material given the size of the project. Copies of the Draft Environmental Impact Report were previously provided to Council, and all information including appendices is also avaHabie on the City website. If any additional project information is received prior to the meeting, it will be provided to you under separate cover with your packet next Thursday. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions at (310) 377-1577, extension 115. Ccmem.1.31.13
E-15
Staff Report City of Rolling Hills Estates
DATE:
FEBRUARY 12, 2013
TO:
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
NIKI WETZEL, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DAVID WAHBA, PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT:
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-07 APPLICANT: MR. STEPHEN JORDAN, THE AURIC GROUP, LLC PROPERTY OWNER: BRICKWALK, LLC (MR. GEORGE DANESHGAR) LOCATION: 655-683 DEEP VALLEY DRIVE/924-950 INDIAN PEAK ROAD
OVERVIEW The following is a request to approve: 1. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 67553; 2. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a mixed-use development including 148 condominiumltownhome units and 14,200 square feet of commercial space in the ..- ---.··-·--·----Gommer-eial·GeneFal(-C-Gj/Mi-xed-Use0vefla-y-Zene-;···-----· ---. -- --. 3. A Precise Plan of Design (PPD) for buildings and structures; 4. A Variance to exceed the maximum permitted bUilding height; 5. A Variance to permit a smaller setback than required by Code; 6.A Variance to permit fewer parking spaces than required by Codelshared parking agreement; 7. A Grading application is required to permit stabilization of the landslide and building pads for buildings and structures; and 8. An Environmental Impact Report, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION Application Filed: Public Notices Mailed: Public Notices Posted: Public Notices Published:
7/2/2009 .. 1/30/2013 1/31/2013 1/31/2013
"Original application was submitted in 2007 by Laing Urban. Current application was resubmitted by The Auric Group, LLC for Brickwalk, LLC on 7/2/2009.
E-16
Project Summary The following provides a brief overall project summary. Further project information can be found in Planning Commission staff reports and minutes included herein as Attachment 2. The applicant proposes to demolish bUildings at 944 and 950 Indian Peak Road and at 655-683 Deep Valley Drive, stabilize the landslide, and subdivide the 10.42-acre site into two lots. Lot 1 would be 8.05-acres in size and contain 148 residential units in two development "pad" areas. Pad 1, located in the current location of the 655-683 Deep Valley Drive office building, would consist of a five-story, 102-unit, condominium "podium" building with 14,200 square feet of ground-floor commercial space. The one and two-bedroom condominium units would range in size from approximately 1,200 to 1,900 square feet. The building would also feature a gym, courtyard, and swimming pool. The building would be accessed from Deep Valley Drive by a shared driveway located between the building and the Brickwalk development. Pad 2,.Iocated on the slope to the rear of the existing Brickwalk commercial development, would consist of 46 three-bedroom townhomes ranging in size from approximately 1,875 to 1,920 square feet. The homes would be accessed from a u-shaped road descending from Indian Peak Road to Deep Valley Drive. From Deep Valley Drive, the townhomes would be accessed from the driveway shared with the condominium building and the Brickwalk development. Lot 2 of the project site WbUidencompass ti1eBrickwalk development on a 2.37-acre site. The project would demolish 2,013 square feet of existing commercial space from the 23,187 square foot development and add 63 parking spaces. The area of demolition would be in the upper portion of the Brickwalk site and would not affect the continuous retail frontage along Deep Valley Drive. In conjunction with this application, the applicant has proposed fac;:ade improvements including first-floor awnings, paint and signage for the Brickwalk buildings. Fac;:ade improvements would consist of painting the buildings a darker earth-toned color at the base with a lighter color at the top of the two-story buildings to break up the massing. Within ______re.cessed. .first .. floor..r:etaJL. areas., _a .. darlrer._colar.. _w.o.u.lcLals.o....b.e ...us.ecUQ._prQvide ..additional distinction.for those tenants. Stairway openings to the second floor would be accentuated with signage, lighting and a decorative entry canopy. Conditions of approval for this project would require a Precise Plan of design for a master sign plan as well as a Precise Plan of Design for building colors and awnings. The application indicates that the 103,600 cubic yards (c.y.) of earth material would be removed from the site during project construction. The maximum cut length would be 446' feet, and the maximum cut depth would be 53'. Cut would consist of 201,500 c.y., and 508,000 c.y. would be over-excavated and recompacted for site remediation. The maximum fill length would be 48', and the maximum fill depth would be 8'. Fill would consist of 8,253 c.y., and 597,647 c.y. would be recompacted. Planning Commission Public Hearing A public hearing for this project was held before the Planning Commission on September 4, October 15, and December 3, 2012. On December 17, 2012, the Planning Commission approved Resolution No. PA-01-07 recommending approval of the project and certification of the project Environmental Impact Report (EJR) to the City Council which is included herein as Attachment 1. It can be noted that the Draft EIR was provided to the City Council under separate cover on June 27, 2012. It can be further noted that the Draft EIR, staff reports and other pertinent information for the project are available on the City's website.
2
E-17
As seen in staff reports and meeting minutes, major issues discussed before the Planning Commission involved grading and geotechnical issues, safety during and after construction, construction phasing, and traffic and parking issues. Notably, the Planning Commission expressed concern over assurances that grading would be completed once commenced. Conditions of Approval No. 37 and 38 of Resolution No. PA-0107 are expressly intended by the Planning Commission to ensure that bonding for project grading is sufficient for the City to complete grading, retaining walls and the proposed tie-back system if necessary. Further, Ordinance No. 646 (adopted in 2008) specifically requires residential and mixed-use development projects to: 1. Provides for a general public benefit (above and beyond the payment of any City adopted development fees) including, but not limited to, public art, or semi-public plazas or open space integrated into private development projects; and 2. Provides for a specific benefit to a segment of the community including, but not limited to, facilities for teens or children, a community recreational or meeting room, or a senior center. 3. Maintains or enhances the economic viability of the underlying commercial property and/or CQmmercial-Gen~ral Qr Gomme.rcial-:-Limited designation in general. 4. Maintains the ability of the City to provide adequate land area and lease space for the provision of goods and services for the community. 5. Assists the City in meeting requirements of its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) especially with regard to affordable housing. 6. Demonstrates a commitment to environmental sustainability including, but not limited to, an ..'- . .,.. ···,·_·-ex~resse€l-wFitten --iAtsRt··to--attain··.cert.ificatiOl-1..puf.suant ..to.thaLeadership..in_Energy ..amL Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System TM.
..
As discussed in September 4, 2012 Planning Commission staff report, staff believes that Items 1, 3-4, and 6 have been satisfied in the subject application with a public plaza incorporated into site design, retention of the Brickwalk developmenUcommercial space incorporated into the ground-floor of the new buildings, and an intention to meet LEED requirements. Regarding Item 2, the applicant is considering the viability of utilizing a portion of the commercial space on Deep Valley Drive in the podium bUilding for community purposes. Staff suggests that this issue be further discussed with the applicant at the public hearing. Further, staff does not believe that item 5 has been met in the sUbject application. The applicant indicates that the project will provide long term stabilization of a landslide area. To achieve this, the project is designed to include Type I structured parking to help with this mitigation. Additionally, a parking structure provides parking for residential units. Due to the high capital cost associated with the grading and the parking structure, and the length of time before any revenue return is achieved, the project is heavily burdened economically. Any further revenue burdens would likely make the project unfeasible economically. Additionally, with the current capital markets, the builder would likely not be able to secure any debt providers for the grading and structured parking. While staff understands the economic investment inherent to this project due to the landslide condition, it appears from the response that the applicant is not prepared to assist the City in
3
E-18
meeting requirements of the RHNA especially with regard to affordable housing. The Planning Commission specifically recommends that the Council discuss this issue as noted in Resolution No. PA-01-07. Finally, as noted in Resolution No. PA-01-07, the Planning Commission decision to recommend approval of project Variances to the City Council was predicated on an assumption that requested project density is required to provide funds for repair to the landslide area inherent to the site. The Planning Commission, however, did not review financial evidence in support of this assumption and recommends that the City Council consider this evidence in its evaluation of requested project Variances. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council 1. Open the Public Hearing; 2. Take public testimony; 3. Discuss the issues; 4. Continue this application to a date uncertain; and 5. Direct the applicant to prepare a project pro forma or other financial information justifying requested project density and that a community benefit and provisions for affordable housing be further discussed. EXHIBITS Attached -------------- 1.---l2.la-nning Commission--ResolutionNo.__PA,01 ~OL 2. Planning Commission Staff Reports and Minutes
_
Separate 1. Project Plans
Pa01-07 em
4
E-19
