Loading...
CC RES 2011-034 RESOLUTION NO. 2011-34 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING AN APPEAL OF CONDITION NO. 14 OF P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2011-13, REQUIRING A 6'-0" TALL SOLID BARRIER WALL ALONG THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE AT THE PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS GOLDEN COVE CENTER(31110—31176 AND 31212 — 31246 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST — CASE NO. ZON 2010- 00402. WHEREAS, on October 12, 1999, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No.99-33 making certain environmental findings associated with a Mitigated Negative Declaration/ Environmental Assessment No. 711, and adopted P.C. Resolution No. 99-40, approving Conditional Use Permit No. 206, Grading Permit No. 2135, and Variance No. 446 for the construction of three buildings (referred to as Buildings D, E and F) located adjacent to Palos Verdes Drive West, and the construction of a solid wall along the south property line of the shopping center; and, WHEREAS, on April 24, 2001, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2001-08, conditionally approving a Revision to Conditional Use Permit No. 206 to allow the operation of the Peninsula Montessori School at the Golden Cove Shopping Center; and, WHEREAS, on December 11, 2008, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution Nos. 2008-55 and 2008-56, thereby certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving a Revision to Conditional Use Permit No. 206 to demolish and build a new Building C (previously Golden Lotus Restaurant)for the occupancy of Trader Joe's (Case No. ZON2008-00541), and included a condition requiring a 6-month review of the operation of the shopping center and a condition requiring a solid door to be installed in a gap along the south property line wall; and, WHEREAS, on November 10, 2010, the applicant, Paris Zarrabian, submitted an application to revise Conditional Use Permit No. 206 to modify the roof structure of three existing open-air trellises located on Buildings D, E and F to be remodeled with a solid roof/canopy and amend the CUP to allow additional outdoor dining underneath two of the covered patios. The request also included the 6-month review of the operation of the shopping center required through P.C. Resolution No. 2008-56; and, WHEREAS, on March 8, 2011, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution 2011-13, thereby approving a Revision to Conditional Use Permit No. 206 to modify existing open-air trellises to solid roof structures and adding 375 square feet of outdoor dining area to the north side of Building D and the south side of Building F. In addition, as a result of considering the operation of the whole center, the Planning Commission added, deleted and/or modified Conditions of Approval under Conditional Use permit No. 206, including a condition to reconstruct a 6'-0" tall solid barrier wall along the south property line that was lowered to 3'-6" during construction of the Trader Joe's project; and, WHEREAS, on March 22, 2011, Paris Zarrabian, property owner of the Golden Cove Shopping Center, submitted a timely appeal regarding Condition No. 14 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2011-13, requesting that the City Council eliminate Condition No. 14, of P.C. Resolution No. 2011-13, which modified Condition No. 38 of Resolution No. 99-40 for Conditional Use Permit No. 206, relating to a privacy wall located along the south property line; and, WHEREAS, on April 18, 2011, Staff mailed notices for a City Council appeal hearing to 104 property owners within a 500-foot radius from the subject property, providing at least a 15-day time period for the submittal of comments and concerns. In addition, a Public Notice was published in the Peninsula News on April 21, 2011; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), Staff found no evidence that the approval of the requested project would have a significant effect on the environment and,therefore,the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) since the project will not significantly intensify or expand the existing use on the property because there are already existing outdoor dining areas and the proposed dining area will be located underneath existing trellises and there is sufficient parking to meet the need of the outdoor dining areas; and, WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on May 17, 2011, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The request to eliminate Condition No. 14 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2011-13 is denied, and Condition No. 14 of P.C. Resolution No. 2011-13 is upheld as amended, because the 6'-0" tall solid barrier wall is a necessary condition to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the adjacent residential community. Specifically, according to the evidence that was presented and the record of the Planning Commission's proceedings, the intent of the 1999 Planning Commission decision was to require a 6'-0"tall wall along the south property line to preserve the privacy of the adjacent residential neighbors and to reduce noise from the Admiral Risty Restaurant. Allowing the wall to remain at a height less than 6'-0"would not comply with the Planning Commission's original intent and, therefore, may result in potential noise and privacy impacts to adjacent neighboring properties caused by loitering in the area adjacent to the property line. Furthermore, as noted in the August 10, 1999 Planning Commission Staff Report, in order to make Finding No. 6 of CUP No. 206, related to the inclusion of conditions of approval that are necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the adjacent residential area, the Planning Commission required a 6'-0' high solid wall to be constructed along the southern property line to reduce undesired noise and loitering impacts upon the 1362984-1 Resolution No. 2011-34 Page 2 of 5 residents of the Villa Capri residential development. Section 2: Requiring a 6'-0" tall wall along the south property line is consistent with prior requirements of Conditional Use Permit 206 to provide a wall along the south property line to protect the adjacent residential uses from adverse impacts arising from the commercial uses that are located on the subject property. The requirement for the Golden Cove Center property owner to construct a solid wall along the Admiral Risty portion of the south property line of the Golden Cove Center was imposed in 1999. At that time, the Center was seeking approval of a major renovation, which included construction of new buildings along Palos Verdes Drive West. Specifically, Condition No. 38 of P.C. Resolution No. 99-40, which was imposed by the Planning Commission in 1999, reads as follows: "The property owner shall construct a solid privacy wall, not to exceed six(6) feet in height, along the southern property line, immediately adjacent to the rear of the structure occupied by the Admiral Risty. Such wall shall be constructed and finished with materials that resemble the existing perimeter walls." As discussed in the August 10, 1999 Staff Report to the Planning Commission, Staff recommended said condition to address concerns raised by some Villa Capri residents, who raised concerns about noise due to loitering at the back entrance to the Admiral Risty restaurant. Furthermore, there was some public testimony(see pg. 17 of the October 12, 1999 Planning Commission Minutes) that requested the construction of a buffer wall between Villa Capri and the Admiral Risty to shield the view of delivery trucks, garbage trucks and vehicle lights. Therefore, the original purpose of the solid wall was to help mitigate undesired noise and shield the view of vehicles at the back entrance area of the Admiral Risty restaurant from the Villa Capri condominiums, so that the findings approving Conditional Use Permit No. 206 could be made. As further noted in the August 10, 1999 Staff Report, the intent was to require a 6'-0" tall solid wall along the Center's southern property line adjacent to the Admiral Risty restaurant building. A 6'-0" tall solid wall was subsequently constructed in 2000 to the satisfaction of Staff, but subsequently was reduced in height by the owner of the subject property in 2010. In connection with the Planning Commission's consideration of the amendment to CUP No. 206 to allow additional covered, outdoor dining areas to the north side of Building D and the south side of Building F, the Planning Commission received a number of comment letters and public testimony from residents in Villa Capri requesting that the solid wall, which was reduced in the summer of 2010, be required to be increased back to 6'-0" to mitigate continuing noise and privacy impacts from the Center. As a result of the evidence presented to the Planning Commission regarding noise and other impacts from the Golden Cove Center upon the adjacent residences,the Planning Commission revised the condition to require a solid six foot wall along the south property line. In imposing this condition, the Planning Commission determined that the original intent of the south property line wall was for a 6'-0" tall wall, which would mitigate noise and loitering impacts upon adjacent properties, and that considerable public testimony was provided that noise impacts upon the adjacent residences increased due to the lowered wall. Therefore, the City Council hereby finds that the Planning Commission's action is consistent with the prior 1362984-1 Resolution No.2011-34 Page 3 of 5 requirements of Conditional Use Permit 206 regarding the construction of a six foot high wall along the Center's southern boundary line. Section 3: The revision of the condition of approval to require a six foot high wall on the property line was not beyond the scope of the March 8, 2011 Planning Commission decision. During consideration of the property owner's recent request to amend CUP No. 206 to allow additional outdoor dining areas, the issue of the wall was raised again by owners of adjacent residences due to continuing concerns about noise and privacy. As a result, the Planning Commission required the wall to be raised to the height originally intended by the 1999 CUP No. 206 decision. Due to the fact that an amendment to a CUP opens up the CUP so that issues raised by the public or the Planning Commission can be addressed through additional conditions of approval, the Commission had the ability to impose Condition No. 14 (P.C. Resolution No. 2011-13)to require the wall be increased to its original height of six feet to help mitigate the adverse impacts on the adjacent residential area caused by the commercial uses located on the subject property. In order to ensure that the health, safety and general welfare of the surrounding community is protected and that the findings supporting the issuance of Conditional Use Permit No. 206 and the revision thereto could be made, requiring the six foot high wall on the south property line was within the scope of the Planning Commission's authority and affirms the Planning Commission's original intent to require a six foot high wall along the south property line to protect the public health safety and general welfare and the use and enjoyment of adjacent residential properties. Even though requiring a six foot high wall along the southern property line may adversely impact some of the views from the outdoor seating areas located on the subject property, the intensification of the use of the subject property by the addition of the outdoor seating, along with the existing commercial uses at the site, requires the additional wall height to protect the public health, safety and welfare. Therefore, the existing conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 206, including those added by P.C. Resolution No. 2011-13, shall remain in full force and affect, thereby requiring the property owner to provide and maintain a 6'-0" tall solid barrier wall along the south property line. Section 4: In order to ensure that the wall along the south property line of Golden Cove Center is returned to it originally intended and constructed height of 6'-0" within 90- days of this decision, the City Council does hereby amend Condition No. 14 of P.C. Resolution as follows: The property owner shall provide and maintain a 6'-0" tall solid barrier wall along the south property line. The portion of the solid barrier wall located along the southern property line which is less than 6'-0" in height shall be increased in height and maintained as a solid 6'-0"tall wall that aesthetically matches the existing wall, with stucco that is the same color on both sides of the wall. The height of the wall shall be measured from existing adjacent grade on the shopping center side of the wall. Said wall shall be increased to 6'-0" in height prior to issuance of final certificate of occupancy for the new 1362984-1 Resolution No.2011-34 Page 4 of 5 dining areas, or prior to final of the building permit for the conversion of the open air trellis to a solid covered patio, which was approved by this CUP Revision, or within 90 days of the City Council's decision (by September 5, 2011), whichever occurs first. Section 5: The time within which judicial review of the decision reflected in this Resolution must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure and other applicable short periods of limitation. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 7th d. - • June 2011. / /40 AiLiiiiiiiirhe Mayor Attest: e) - , i / f - City Clerk State of California ) County of Los Angeles ) ss City of Rancho Palos Verdes ) I, Carla Morreale, the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2011-34 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on June 7, 2011. ,• fr, / 4 City Clerk 1362984-1 Resolution No.2011-34 Page 5of5