Loading...
PC MINS 19990810Approved 8/24/99 ! 0 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 10, 1999 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cartwright at 7.05 p m at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29310 Hawthorne Boulevard PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Vice Chairman Lyon led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. ATTENDANCE Present- Commissioners Alberio, Clark, Paris, Vannorsdall, Vice Chairman Lyon and Chairman Cartwright Absent Commissioner Slayden was excused Also present were Director/Secretary Rojas, City Attorney Wiener, Associate Planners Fox and Mihrarnan, Assistant Planner Louie, and Recording Secretary Atuatasi. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Vice Chairman Lyon moved to re -order the agenda in the following order: 6, 2, 5, 3, 4, and 7. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Clark and passed. COMMUNICATIONS Council PolicyItems- Director/Secretary ems. Director/Secretary Rojas updated the Commission on the City Council Meeting of August 3,1999 and informed them that the access gate for Tract Map No. 44239 (Via Capri) was approved. Staff. Staff distributed P.C. Resolutions and two items of late correspondence regarding Agenda Item No. 3 (Golden Cove Project) and the P.C. Resolution and one item of late correspondence pertaining to Agenda Item No. 4 (Abalone Cove Beach Park Project). The Commission was informed that Staff received 2 additional items of correspondence regarding Agenda Item No. 3 after the • deadline time and the Commission agreed that the two late items could be distributed at the next regular meeting. Commission Commissioner Alberio received correspondence from Mrs. Jane Bottello regarding Agenda Item No. 5 (Appeal of the Re -issuance of Height Variation No. 827 and Grading Permit No. 1887). CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of July 27, 1999 Commissioner Clark moved to approve the Minutes of July 27, 1999 as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Paris and passed. Agenda Item No 6 was considered at this time. 6. Site Plan Review No. 8640; Barbara Dancv (applicant), 7442 Via Lorado Drive. Chairman Cartwright read the applicant's request and Staff s recommendation for this item and inquired as to why Staff recommended that the public hearing of this item be continued to the meeting of August 24, 1999 Assistant Planner Louie replied that the request for the continuance is due to the lengthy items on tonight's agenda Commissioner Clark moved to accept Staff's recommendation, to continue the Public Hearing of this item (Site Plan Review No. 8640) to the Planning Commission Meeting of August 24, 1999. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall and passed (6-0) by acclamation. With no objection, it was so ordered by Chairman Cartwright. The Commission considered Agenda Item No 2 at this time. 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 23 — Revision `HHH'. Variance No. 453, and Grading Permit No. 2109; Mr. & Mrs. Steven Goldstein (applicant), 3407 Palo Vista Drive. Assistant Planner Louie presented the Staff Report and stated that the applicant requested to modify the original building footprint, and grade a total of 950 cubic yards for the construction of a 6,153 square foot two-story residence Staff determined that the proposed project complied with all the requirements of the Seacliff Hills Development Guidelines Furthermore, Staff was able to make all the findings to grant Planning Commission Minutes August 10, 1999 Page 2 the Grading application for the construction of the new residence and the Variance for the 3 roof decks. Assistant Planner Louie stated that the proposed project would not significantly impair the primary view from the surrounding property and would be compatible with the immediate neighborhood Therefore, Staff recommended approval for the proposed project, subject to conditions of approval in `Exhibit A' Chairman Cartwright asked if the Commission had questions for Staff. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked if the retaining walls had been checked for safety and Assistant Planner Louie replied that the structural plans would be reviewed for safety once the plans are submitted to the Building and Safety Division. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked if a geology review was required for the proposed project and Assistant Planner Louie replied that the geology review was conditionally approved. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked how steep was the driveway and Assistant Planner Louie replied that she believed that the grade was 15% but that she would confirm that with the architect Director/Secretary Rojas clarified that it could not exceed 20% steepness Commissioner Cartwright asked if Staff received any comments of opposition pertaining to the analysis given in the Staff Report on the proposed project. Assistant Planner Louie replied that no letters of objection had been received Chairman Cartwright asked if there were any speakers for this item and Staff replied that there were none. Vice Chairman Lyon moved to accept Staffs recommendation, to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 99-26; thereby approving Conditional Use Permit No. 23 — Revision `HHH', Variance No. 453, Grading Permit No. 2109, subject to conditions of approval. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Clark and passed, (6-0) by a roll -call vote. With no objection, it was so ordered by Chairman Cartwright. Chairman Cartwright noted the 15 -day appeal period. Chairman Cartwright noted that the representative from the City Attorney's office was not present at the time to participate in the discussion of Agenda Item No 5. Commissioner Clark moved to re -order the previous agenda and consider Agenda Item No. 3 (Alida Place project) before Agenda Item No. 5 (Golden Cove Planning Commission Minutes August 10, 1999 Page 3 • • project). The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdail and unanimously passed. With no objection, it was so ordered by Chairman Cartwright. As Chairman Cartwright began to introduce Agenda Item No 3 (Golden Cove project) for the Commission's consideration he noticed the representative from the City Attorney's office making his entrance to the room Chairman Cartwright informed the public since the representative from the City Attorney's office was in attendance the Commission would now reconsider the order of the previous agenda At this time, the Commission considered Agenda Item No. 5 5. Appeal of Re -issuance of Height Variation No. 827 & Grading Permit No. 1887: Magda Kispal (applicant), 7455 Alida Place. Associate Planner Fox briefly described the background of the proposed project and stated that the Commission approved the applicant's request on June 9, 1998 and that the approval expired on December 9, 1998 The applicant requested the re -issuance of the approvals for Height Variation No 827 and Grading Permit No. 1887 pursuant to a section in the Development Code that allowed the Director to re -issue expired planning approvals. This decision was granted by the Director to the applicant on June 15, 1999, but was appealed by the appellants on June 24, 1999 Associate Planner Fox pointed out that the plans submitted by the applicant on June 8, 1999 as part of the request for the re -issuance were consistent with the plans that were originally approved by the Commission in 1998 Mr. Fox informed the Commission that the appellants submitted a letter indicating their objection to the re -issuance of these approvals They objected to the proposed residence since it was not consistent with the substantive provisions regarding maximum structure size under the current Development Code The appellants also objected to the application of the Development Code's procedural provisions for the administrative re -issuance of permits in the current Development Code, and believed that it was not appropriate to pursue the re -issuance of a project that was processed under substantive provisions of the previous Development Code Associate Planner Fox addressed the issues raised by the appellants as indicated in the Staff Report Based on the analysis presented that evening, Staff believed that the Director acted appropriately in re -issuing the approval for the Height Variation and the Grading Permit With regard to the comments of the appellants, the original applications were correctly reviewed under the substantive provisions of the 'old' Development Code since the applications were submitted before May 15, 1997 Staff believed that the procedural provisions of the 'new' Development code were reasonably applied to the re -issuance of the project approvals since they were not approved until after May 15, 1997 by the City. Planning Commission Minutes August 10, 1999 Page 4 Therefore, Staff recommended that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the Director's re -issuance of Height Variation No 827 and Grading Permit No. 1887 until December 15, 1999. Commissioner Vannorsdall stated that he was concerned that all parties in this matter had not been completely truthful. He asked if testimony before the Planning Commission might be admissible in a future civil case City Attorney Wiener replied that testimony before the Planning Commission becomes a part of the official record of the matter Commissioner Clark stated that he assumed that all parties approaching before the Planning Commission are being truthful in their testimony. Chairman Cartwright concurred with the comments of Commissioner Clark. Chairman Cartwright requested clarification that the issues before the Planning Commission were- 1) did the Director have the authority to re -issue these approvals; and, 2) did the Director apply the Code properly in doing so City Attorney Wiener concurred, and stated that he agreed with Staff s analysis. However, he noted that the Director's authority is discretionary and therefore appealable. Commissioner Alberio noted that this was the first time the Planning Commission had received input from the City Attorney on this matter, even though the Commission had asked for this input back in June. Chairman Cartwright asked if there were any speakers for this item and Staff replied that four requests to speak were submitted Mr Sidney Croft, (applicant's attorney), 3858 W Carson Street, #127, Torrance, CA stated that he and his client concurred with Staffs analysis and believed that the Director's decision was fair and reasonable pursuant to Section 17 86 070(D) in the Development Code Mr Croft stated that the appeal should be denied and the Director's actions in making a determination to re -issue the approvals was appropriate Mrs. Kispal, (applicant) 30153 Cartier Drive, thanked the Commission for their diligence in reviewing this matter also thanked the members of the community who encouraged and supported her to pursue her proposed project. Mr Ted Shield. (appellant's attorney), 1 World Trade Center 27th Floor, Long Beach, CA reiterated the appellants concerns about the approval of Height Variation. He stated that he believed that the permits were re -issued under an erroneous assumption by Staff in order to accommodate the applicant Mr Shield strongly opposed the re - issuance and requested the Commission overturn the Director's re -issuance of Planning Commission Minutes August 10, 1999 Page 5 approvals for the Height Variation and the Grading Permits. Mr Shield also stated that he believed that the project should have been reviewed under the `old' Code in the first place because the applications were not deemed complete until after May 15, 1997 Commissioner Paris asked Mr. Shield if there were any legal agreements made between the applicant and appellants, and Mr Shield replied that there had been no such formal arrangements made Commissioner Vannorsdall asked Mr Shield if the applicant made any design concessions such as lowering the pad and Mr Shield replied that the applicant had modified and lowered some ridgelines at the appellant's request Mr. Harold Reaves, (appellant), 7435 Alida Place, inquired if the permits could be sold for any amount of money, if the permits were a commodity for sale or transfer, and, whether the re -issuance of the expired permits were granted to the applicant based on the substantive provisions of the `old' or `new' Development Code. He also requested that the Commission take no action until the new property owner was present City Attorney Wiener replied that the permits "run with the land" The permit itself is not bought and sold, but the land could be bought and sold with the approvals in place. City Attorney Wiener stated that the rights granted by the permit go with the land and there was no restriction on the applicant from selling their land for the market value Commissioner Clark empathized with the appellant's concern and informed him that once the approval is granted for the re -issuance of the permits the City does not require nor is the applicant obligated, to construct the project. Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to close the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Lyon and passed. Chairman Cartwright asked for Commission discussion and comments on this item. Commissioner Paris stated that the extension of the permits were no longer an issue at hand and that the issue before the Commission that evening was the Director's determination for the granting the re -issuance of the Height Variation and Grading permits to the applicant Commissioner Pans stated that the City Attorney had informed him that the Director had the authority to re -issue these permits and also the representative from the City Attorney's Office gave a ruling supporting the Director's action Commissioner Vannorsdall reiterated the comments of Commissioner Paris. He noted that there had been few instances where the Planning Commission did not grant an extension request Commissioner Vannorsdall favored upholding the Director's actions Planning Commission Minutes August 10, 1999 Page 6 Commissioner Clark stated that, based upon his reading of the Staff report and from the input received from the applicant, Staff, and City Attorney Wiener, he believed that the Director acted properly in making the determination for the re -issuing of these permits. Commissioner Albeno stated that he did not question the Director's authority to re -issue the permits His concern was that the Commission had not reviewed timely input from the City Attorney, as had been requested previously. Vice Chairman Lyon concurred with the Director's action and believed that he acted property He stated that the real issue was the fact that the Commission had approved the applications in the past and that nothing had changed. Vice Chairman Lyon felt that the applicant had compromised significantly to accommodate the concerns of the neighbors and saw no point in overturning the approvals Chairman Cartwright echoed the comments of his colleagues He empathized with concerns of the appellants, but believed that the Director interpreted the City policies properly Vice Chairman Lyon moved to accept Staff s recommendation, to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 99-27; thereby denying the appeal and upholding the Director's re - issuance of Height Variation No. 827 and Grading Permit No. 1887 until December 15, 1999. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall and passed, (6-0) by a roll -call vote. With no objection, it was so ordered by Chairman Cartwright. Chairman Cartwright noted the 15 -day appeal period At this time, Director/Secretary Rojas informed the Commission that he was approached by a couple of individuals seeking clarification of the public hearing for the Abalone Cove Beach Park project since the Commission had not formerly continued the item Chairman Cartwright replied that the Commission would make a determination at this time of whether the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 (Coastal Permit No 156 and Variance No 448) should be considered by the Commission that evening Commissioner Alberio moved to continue the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 (Coastal Permit No. 156 and Variance No. 448) to the Planning Commission Meeting of August 24, 1999. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Clark and unanimously passed (6-0), by acclamation. With no objection, it was so ordered by Chairman Cartwright. RECESS AND RECONVENE Chairman Cartwright called for a brief recess at 8 30 p m until the meeting reconvened at8-40pm Planning Commission Minutes August 10, 1999 Page 7 Before the Commission considered Agenda Item No 3, Chairman Cartwright asked City Attorney Wiener to comment on Proposition No. 208 pertaining to restrictions on Commission/Committee members for making contributions to City Council campaigns. City Attorney Wiener stated that Proposition No. 208 was adopted in November 1998 and that one of the provisions provided in the proposition indicated that Commissioners could not make campaign contributions to Council members who appointed the Commission/Committee members City Attorney Wiener informed the Commission that Proposition No 208 was challenged in court and that the Federal District Court found that certain provisions in this proposition were unconstitutional. Therefore, the Federal District Court stated that all provisions in Proposition No. 208 were not enforceable and that this ruling would be appealed through the Stn Circuit Court of Appeals Because of the Federal District Court's ruling, Council members are free to solicit Commission/Committee members for campaign contributions and vise versa The Commission considered Agenda Item No 3 at this time 3. Conditional Use Permit No. 206, Variance No. 446, Grading Permit No. 2135, and Environmental Assessment No. 711; Hannibal Petrossi. Petrossi & Associates (applicant). 31100-31176 Hawthorne Boulevard and 31212-31246 Palos Verdes Drive West. Before presentation of the Staff Report for this item Chairman Cartwright asked those who submitted requests to speak to kindly summarize their comments within the specified time limit of 3 minutes since there were several speakers for this item that evening Chairman Cartwright informed the public that a decision for this item would not be determined that evening, but that Staff will make a presentation and the public and the Commission would give input on the proposed project Associate Planner Mihranian explained the Staff Report and began by describing the subject site which consists of 6.34 acres and is relatively flat in terms of grade The subject property was designated by the City's Zoning Map as a Commercial Neighborhood zoning district and contained 77,500 square feet of existing floor area which is broken down into a vacant supermarket, a two-story office/retail building, the Admiral Risty and the Golden Lotus Restaurant The subject property currently has 353 parking spaces and has 169,490 square feet of lot coverage. Mr. Mihranian pointed out that there were 4 access driveways to the site, of which two were located on Hawthorne Boulevard and two on Palos Verdes Drive West, and that the subject site was surrounded by a variety of uses, such as single-family residential, multiple units, an institutional zone, and a service station. The subject property maintained 22,767 square feet of landscaped area Associate Planner Mihranian stated that the proposed project was composed of three different applications - a Conditional Use Permit, a Variance, and a Grading Application Planning Commission Minutes August 10, 1999 Page 8 and briefly explained the components of each application as indicated in the Staff Report Mr Mihranian pointed out that Staff prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration which was circulated to both state and local agencies for a period of 21 days and as of August 9, 1999, Staff had not received any additional comments from what was attached to the Staff Report As a result of the MND Staff also prepared a Monitoring Program addressing the potential impacts which would bring them to a level of insignificance in order to proceed with the proposed project As explained in the Staff Report, the proposed project consisted of components that required further review prior to the issuance of building permits Staff recommended that conditions be imposed requiring the applicant to submit landscape, lighting, drainage, and hydrology plans to the Planning Department for further review and approvals In addition, the Commission is required to review and approve a master sign program, prior to issuance of building permits Regarding foliage, Staff determined that any on-site foliage that exceeded sixteen feet in height should be removed in order to enhance views that may be impaired by the proposed project Associate Planner Mihranian informed the Commission on the status of the hand car wash at the Unocal Service Station that was approved by the Commission on December 9, 1997 and had subsequently expired due to a lapse in time. A condition was imposed requiring the applicant to contact the owners of Golden Cove Center to consider a reciprocal parking and driveway agreement As of this date there has been no documentation of any agreement to such a condition by the Golden Cove Center Based on the analysis given in the Staff Report, Staff had recommended approval for the Conditional Use, Variance, and Grading Permits, subject to conditions of approval. Chairman Cartwright asked how many speakers were there and Staff replied that 27 request to speak were submitted Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to open the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Paris and passed. Ms. Kathy Berg. (representative for Napa Valley Farms & Golden Cove Group, LLC), 26621 Hawkhurst Drive, stated that the Golden Cove Center in its current state is negative to property values in the surrounding areas, but in a re -modeled state the center will include a proposed market and four snack shops Ms. Berg explained that the developers proposed to upgrade the exterior facade of the existing two-story office/retail and supermarket buildings, construct a 12,600 square foot addition of which 5,250 square feet would be utilized for 4 small snack shops in 3 individual buildings located along Palos Verdes Drive West. Ms Berg stated that 900 square feet would be used for dining The Golden Lotus Restaurant will have 5,000 square feet added of which 2,500 square feet would be used on a roof -top patio for dining and that the remaining square footage will be added to the interior market in the form of a mezzanine The last goal proposed was to create a Mediterranean village atmosphere in the center. Planning Commission Minutes August 10, 1999 Page 9 Ms Berg informed the Commission that Napa Valley Farms had signed a conditional lease which expires August 28, 1999 requiring City approval of the owners complete development plan to become effective. Furthermore, she stated that the proposed renovations would enhance the property for the users, have positive effect on the neighborhood, and increase tax revenues for the City. Ms. Berg stated that she visited 50 tenants and homeowners in the immediate vicinity of the center and a member of the Villa Capri Homeowner's Board She showed them conceptual renderings and plans and asked for their comments In response, the residents were very enthusiastic about the remodeling of the center and the addition of the proposed market, but were concerned with the increase height of the building fagades would impair their ocean views. Also expressed by the residents were concerns with possible increase in traffic, noise, parking, and lighting Ms. Berg informed the Commission that the developers met with the residents to discuss these issues In regard to view impairment, the developers were considering to reduce the height of the proposed facades on all of the buildings A traffic study was conducted by LIN Consulting and determined that overall site accessibility appeared to be adequate with no obvious traffic hazards to be found The property is well served by 4 access driveways — two each on Hawthorne Boulevard and Palos Verdes Drive West The noise issue was not a factor since the only modification would be a low -noise level elevator installed at the existing two-story building and that the 4 snack shops would be oriented toward the west away from residents In regard to the parking area, there were currently 353 parking spaces, but after the proposed improvements are made 32 existing parking stalls would be removed resulting in 321 parking stalls at the center. The developer requested approval of a joint -use parking program as an effective method of enabling the center to use the existing parking stalls for different uses depending on the hour of the day Concerning lighting, the architect indicated that any additional lights would include shade to direct the glare of the light in a downward angle. Ms. Berg kindly requested that the Commission approve the proposed project. Ms. Bonnie Cox, 31201 Palos Verdes Drive West, read aloud a letter from Timothy Hamilton, Vice -President of Sales and Marketing at Capitol Pacific Holdings. The letter indicated that they were developing luxury homes in the vicinity and that local quality shopping was critical for the community to survive and flourish Mr. Hamilton expressed the support on behalf of Capitol Pacific Holdings to the development of the Napa Valley Farms Market in the Golden Cove Center and particularly enthusiastic to see a high quality project developed in this location. He stated that the future buyers at Oceanfront Estates would greatly appreciate the retail center being proposed and politely request the Commission's consideration and approval for the proposed project Ms. Darioush Khaledi (Golden Cove Partner), 1724 Via Coronel, Palos Verdes Estates, CA, stated that in the past years he observed the vacant market at the Golden Cove Center and thought it would be a great idea to bring in a full-service upscale market into the community Mr Khaledi stated that after the purchase of the center the owner (Mr Soroudi) and other Golden Cove Partners reached an agreement that if he could invest enough funds to upgrade the fagade of the center it would be reserved for the Napa Planning Commission Minutes August 10, 1999 Page 10 • • Valley Farms Market. Mr Khaledi informed the Commission of the expiration date of August 28, 1999 on the conditional lease of Napa Valley Farms Commissioner Paris asked if the center would be viable without a second anchor tenant and Mr Khaledi replied it would work for Napa Valley Farms and felt at the time that there was really no need for a second anchor tenant. Commissioner Clark asked why was it an imperative issue for the conditional lease expiring on August 28, 1999. Mr. Khaledi replied that if the owner does not have hard evidence that the City supports the project, then the lease would expire. Commissioner Clark informed Mr Khaledi that the Commission takes the amount of time necessary to properly deal with the proposed project and furthermore, the Commission does not deal with these matters under an artificial time constraint Commissioner Alberio added to Commissioner Clark's comments and stated that if the proposed project were approved by August 28th the neighbors may decide to appeal this item to the City Council Mr Khaledi intervened and clarified that the evidence of the City's support for the proposed project in what was presented in the Staff Report was suitable Chairman Cartwright informed Mr. Khaledi to be aware that discussions of the proposed project may take at least two to three meetings. Mr Bryan Stafford, (Director of Operations for Napa Valley Farms Market), 1245 Watson Center Road, Carson, CA stated that the exterior and interior design of the proposed market will be unique to southern California and a tremendous asset to the City. He believed that the new design and format would set the proposed protect apart from the existing competition. Mr. Stafford stated that the proposed market will have on staff a concierge to greet the shoppers as well as a nutritionist and will include coffee, juice, and nutrition bars, wine tasting and food -to -go areas, and a bakery Mr Stafford urged the Commission to approve the proposed pians Mr. Mehdi Soroudi (Golden Cove Partner) 8383 Wilshire Boulevard, #254, Beverly Hills, CA, stated that he and his partners were interested in the proposed remodeling of Golden Cove Center and the addition of Napa Valley Farms Market He felt that the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes deserved a wonderful shopping center and sincerely would like to be good neighbors to those who have raised concerns He and his partners believed in the proposed project and would like to see it proceed and succeed. Mr Tim Marshall, (Property Manager of Golden Cove Center), 21718 Vermont Avenue, #203, Torrance, CA, stated that the Golden Cove Center has been a ghost town for some time and now with the support of the community and a carefully proposed designed market the neighbors can shop locally once again. Mr. Marshall was strongly in favor of the proposed project Planning Commission Minutes August 10, 1999 Page 11 Mr Corey Udkoff, (Golden Cove Partner), 1001 Muirfield Drive, Newport Beach, CA, stated that the Golden Cove Shopping Center had been 50% vacant for the last five years. Mr. Udkoff informed the Commission that when he and his partners were marketing the subject property they had 3 to 4 proposals on the table -• one of which was Napa Valley Farms. Mr. Udkoff and his partners made a decision after negotiations to go with Napa Valley Farms because they felt it would be a superb concept to the neighborhood In addition, he and his partners recently negotiated 2 additional leases — one a nail and spa shop and the other a boutique He stated that the 2 leases include a termination clause and if the remodeling of both shops are not approved their leases will be terminated Mr Udkoff therefore reiterated why it was imperative to proceeding with the proposed project Commissioner Paris asked why a second anchor tenant was not found and if there were any plans intended for providing stores with necessities such as a hardware store and stores that could appeal to everybody Mr Udkoff replied that there was not enough square footage to provide another anchor store, but perhaps in discussions with his marketing group they could consider providing a small hardware store Commissioner Albeno inquired if August 28, 1999 was a common deadline date for all the leases in the center. Mr Udkoff replied with the exception of Napa Valley Farms, this date was not common, and that during the tenants lease term a condition clause indicates that the lease can be terminated if the remodeling of the space is not approved and the not released by the 28th to Napa Valley Farms. Vice Chairman Lyon stated that he was inclined to be very enthusiastic about approving the proposed project, but he intended to hear all sides of the issues and listen to everyone who has any interest and discouraged anyone from referring to deadline dates Ms Susan McNeill 32735 Seagate Drive, stated that she has sorely missed a neighborhood market since the closing of Vons Market Ms McNeill stated that she travels either to San Pedro or to Ralphs Markets for her shopping needs She supported the proposed project and urged the Commission for approval Ms Margot Maertens, 19 Narcissa Drive, stated that she was confident with the effort and commitment on the part of the buyers investing in the proposed project Ms Maertens stated that this would benefit the community with the new business providing different services for the community, jobs will be created, and property values will increase around the area Ms Carol Ritscher, 2113 Palos Verdes Drive North, #105, Rolling Hills Estates, stated that she supports business on the peninsula The Golden Cove renovation would be beneficial to the existing merchants and attract new business to the center Furthermore, the increase of residential homes in the surrounding area demand for a full-service retail shopping center Currently the Golden Cove Center does not provide Planning Commission Minutes August 10, 1999 Page 12 a variety of businesses to serve the City, but after renovations are done the center would attract new business that would increase tax revenues for the City and especially if Napa Valley Farms becomes the anchor tenant. Ms. Marilyn Qrtner, 25546 Whitehorn Drive, stated that she has been upset with the emptiness at the center and does not wish to see that for her City She stated that the key to the development would be the proposed market and believed that Napa Valley Farms will do very well at the Golden Cove Center Ms Jacqueline Crowley, 32538 Coastsite Drive, stated that she hoped the Commission considers the proposed project very seriously She felt that it was preposterous for the neighbors not to have any type of supermarket nearby and that looking at a wonderful tiled -roof is better than looking at rock -roof and asphalt which had been there for some time. Ms Crowley stated that the proposed project would boost the property values in the surrounding area Ms. Charles Hugan, 21 Via San Remo, complimented on Associate Planner Mihranian's thorough and comprehensive Staff Report for the proposed project Mr. Hugan stated that the proposed height of the facade would impair his view of the ocean and pointed out that there was no discussion in the Staff Report regarding the roof -top at the Golden Lotus Restaurant. Mr Hugan urged the Commission to not approve the proposed plans Mr. Ken Vakil, 7105 Via Del Mar, concurred with the comments of the previous speaker. Mr Vakil expressed his concerns regarding the proposed height of the towers, lighting, and noise issues Mr Vakil stated that he was not satisfied with the noise study as indicated in the Staff presentation and furthermore does not approve of the proposed project as presented. Mr Mario Fuentes 7100 Via Del Mar, expressed concerns regarding his ocean view impairment, noise issues, and the decline of his property value He too urged the Commission not to make a determination on the proposed project Ms. Joan Williams 7095 Via Del Mar, stated that she approved the project, but not as proposed Mr Williams stated that the proposed roof -top patio at the Golden Lotus Restaurant would impair her view of the ocean and would create a noise problem Mr John Douglass, (representative for Via Capri Homeowners Association), 62 Via Capri, encouraged the Commission to continue to allow the developer to address the concerns of the residents such as, the types of restaurants at the center The homeowners association opposed drive-thru restaurants, requested that the flags be relocated, and inquired about security at the center. Mr. Joseph Freitas, 11 Via San Remo, requested that the Commission consider the proposed project with professional judgement before making a determination Mr Freitas would like to a shopping center and not a restaurant row Planning Commission Minutes August 10, 1999 Page 13 Mr Mohamed Ganaba 7040 Via Del Mar, stated that he was not informed by Staff of the proposed project nor did Staff visit his property. He did not agree with Staffs recommendation and believed that a Mitigated Negative Declaration should have been approved. He raised concerns of his view impairment as well as noise issues Mr Ganaba believed that there was a major problem with the proposed project Mr. Hannibal Petrossi (applicant's architect), 3700 Campus Drive #203, Newport Beach, CA, stated that his client considered and agreed to reduce the height of the towers Mr. Petrossi informed the Commission that he would gladly provide information regarding the traffic concerns of the residents Commissioner Vannorsdall questioned the roof equipment on the existing market and requested that the architect devise a plan to shield this equipment, secondly, he suggested the compressors be enclosed by a concrete wall, thirdly, he suggested a wall be installed at the back of the Admiral Risty Restaurant, and, fourth to work on a plan to address the odor problems. Commissioner Paris stated that the air conditioners on top of the office space gave an unpleasant appearance. He asked the architect if he could work on plan to drop the height of the air conditioning units so that the proposed walls would not have to be raised so high. Mr Petrossi replied that he would look into this matter and stated that there was a possibility of the existing units being lowered if he changed the whole system throughout the building. Mr. Petrossi added whatever is done to the units, the homes above would still have a direct view of the roof Commissioner Paris asked if there were any intentions of making compact spaces and Mr. Petrossi replied that he intended to leave the parking spaces the same size, but that there would be additional spaces Commissioner Paris echoed Staff's recommendation regarding the height of the towers since it would effect the view and believed that the height reduction of the towers would be appropriate Mr Petrossi replied that two towers were reduced by eight feet and would look into lowering the height of the elevator tower. Commissioner Paris asked the architect if anything could be done with the exit ramp and how they would accommodate the truck traffic for deliveries Mr. Petrossi replied that he would look into this matter and suggested that the trucks could exit from the lower portion of Hawthorne Boulevard Commissioner Clark stated that he would have questions at the site visit and also mentioned that the proposed project could fail if the parking situation is not carefully planned Mr Petrossi concurred and replied that he has worked on the parking area plans for the past 6 months and believes that the proposed parking area is adequate Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1998 Page 14 Commissioner Clark had concerns with the roof -top deck at the Golden Lotus Restaurant and requested an explanation from the property owner as to reason for the request of this amenity to the existing restaurant Commissioner Alberio stated that Staff has addressed all concerns. He echoed the comments of his colleagues in regard to issues of view, noise, lighting, parking, and safety Vice Chairman Lyon stated that he could not see any issues that could not be resolved In regard to the deck seating arrangement for both restaurants, Vice Chairman Lyon stated that it may work for the lunch hour, but felt that it could become wasted space since the weather can be breezy and cold at the dinner hour. He felt that the architect should look further into the practicality of proceeding with those proposed plans Mr Petrossi replied that he would have the developer look into that matter. Chairman Cartwright requested that the architect be available to present proposed plans at the site visit and to be prepared to address the concerns of the neighbors and the Commission Commissioner Clark moved to continue the public hearing of this item to a site visit at the Golden Cove Center on Saturday, August 21, 1999 at 2:00 p.m. Chairman Cartwright asked Staff if that was sufficient time for the architect and developer to prepare for that site visit. At this time, Mr. Petrossi intervened and informed the Commission that they could meet with the Commission and the public to address all concerns at an earlier date Commissioner Clark amended his motion and moved to continue the public hearing to a site visit at the Golden Cove Center on Saturday, August 14, at 11:00 a.m. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall and passed, (6-0) by acclamation. With no objection, it was so ordered by Chairman Cartwright. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Staff 7. PRE -AGENDA FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF Commission i� None. Planning Commission Minutes August 10, 1999 Page 15 ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Alberio moved to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Clark. The meeting was adjourned at 11:43 p.m. to a site visit at the Golden Cove Center on Saturday, August 14, 1999 at 11:00 a.m. W.1PC\Minutesl19990810 doc Planning Commission Minutes August 10, 1999 Page 16