RPVCCA_SR_2011_06_07_I_Planning_Commission_Appeal_Golden_Cove_CenterCITY OF
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
REVIEWED:
Project Manager:
HONORABLE MAYOR &
JOEL ROJAS,COMMUNI
JUNE 7,2011
APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S IMPOSITION OF
CONDITION NO.14 OF P .C.RESOLUTION NO.2011-13
PERTAINING TO THE HEIGHT OF A SOLID BARRIER WALL
ALONG THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE OF THE GOLDEN COVE
CENTER -(31100 -31176,AND 31212 -31246 PALOS VERDES
DRIVE WEST -CASE NO.ZON201 0-~0~2)
CAROLYN LEHR,CITY MANAGER C!:>L---
Leza Mikhail,Associate Planne~
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Resolution No.2011-_,thereby denying the appeal of Condition No.14 of P.C.
Resolution No.2011-13,and affirming the Planning Commission's decision to require a 6'-
0"tall solid barrier wall to be reconstructed along the south property line at the Golden
Cove Center (Case No.ZON2010-00402).
DISCUSSION
At the May 17,2011 City Council meeting,the City Council heard an appeal by the Golden
Cove Center property owner of the Planning Commission's decision related to Condition
No.14 of P.C.Resolution No.2011-13,which required the property owner to reconstruct
and maintain a 6'_0"tall solid barrier wall along the south property line of the center.After
hearing the public testimony and considering the evidence that was presented,the City
Council acknowledged the desire of the property owner to obtain a view for future outdoor
dining areas near the south property line of Golden Cove Center;however,the City Council
found that the impacts of the operation of the commercial center upon the residential
neighbors at Villa Capri were not adequately mitigated when the original solid wall was
reduced in height from 6'_0"to less than 3'_6"in height.
Thus,with a vote of 4-0,with Mayor Long absent,the City Council closed the public
I - 1
hearing,and denied the Appellant's appeal,thereby affirming the Planning Commission's
imposition of Condition No.14 as part of P.C.Resolution No.2011-13.The City Council
also clarified the time frame for the wall to be increased in height.To ensure that the City
Council's direction is properly set forth in the resolution,a revised resolution memorializing
this decision is attached for the Council's review and adoption.Specifically,the Resolution
affirms Condition No.14 of P.C.Resolution No.2011-13 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 offinal certificate of
occupancy for the new 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.
Attachments:
•Resolution No.2011-
I - 2
RESOLUTION NO.2011-_
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
I - 3
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-
Page 4
I - 4
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-
Page 4
I - 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 priorto issuance offinal certificate of occupancy for the new
1362984-1 Resolution No.2011-
Page 4
I - 6
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 i h day of June 2011.
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
State of California )
County of Los Angeles )ss
City or Rancho Palos Verdes )
I,Carla Morreale,the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,do hereby
certify that the above Resolution No.2009-10 was duly and regularly passed and adopted
by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on May 17,2011.
City Clerk
1362984-1 Resolution No.2011-
Page 4
I - 7