PUBLIC HEARING
Date: May 17, 2011
Subject: 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. ZON2010-00402)
Subject Property: Golden Cove Center
1. Declare the Hearing Open: Mayor Long
2. Report of Notice Given: City Clerk Morreale
3. Staff Report & Recommendation: Associate Planner Mikhail
4. Public Testimony:
Appellants: Paris Zarrabian
Applicant: Paris Zarrabian
5. Council Questions:
6. Rebuttal:
7. Declare Hearing Closed: Mayor Long
8. Council Deliberation:
9. Council Action:
22-1 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES MEMORANDUM
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: JOEL ROJAS, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTO~ ~~
DATE: MAY 17,2011 . .\Y
SUBJECT: 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. ZON2010-00402) REVIEWED: CAROLYN LEHR, CITY MANAGER 0.9-- Project Manager: Leza Mikhail, Associate p,anne@0
RECOMMENDATION
Deny the appeal of Condition No. 14 of P.C. Resolution No. 2011-13, thereby affirming the Planning Commission's decision to require a 6'-0" tall solid barrier wall along the south property line at the Golden Cove Center (Case No. ZON2010-00402).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 1999, the Planning Commission required 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. While the intent was for the wall to be 6'-0" in height, and the wall was subsequently constructed 6'-0" in height, the condition of approval requiring the wall established a maximum height of 6'-0", but no minimum height. As a result, in mid-2010, the current property owner reduced the height of the wall adjacent to the Admiral Risty restaurant from 6'-0" to 3'-6". The property owner lowered the wall in an attempt to gain ocean view from the tenant space across the driveway aisle from the Admiral Risty building. Due to the condition language, Staff could not legally prevent the property owner from lowering the wall. In March 2011, the Planning Commission considered an amendment to the Center's CUP to allow additional outdoor dining area north ofStarbucks and south ofAsaka, and considered a 6-month review ofthe Trader Joe's approval. Based
22-2 on testimony from some Villa Capri residents who relayed concerns of increased noise impacts from the Center due to the lowered wall, the Planning Commission imposed a condition of approval on the latest CUP amendment that required the Center's property owner to increase said wall height back up to 6'-0" in height. The property owner is appealing this request as he believes requiring the wall at 6'-0" in height would impair an ocean view from potential outdoor dining areas and possible future tenants. In reviewing the appeal, Staff sees no new information to warrant changing the Planning Commission's decision on the wall given the original intent ofthe 6'-0" tall wall and current noise concerns raised by adjacent Villa Capri residents. BACKGROUND
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. As a result of concerns raised by the public and in making the ~ findings for a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission added a condition of approval requiring a solid wall to be constructed along a portion of the south property line. As a result, a solid 6'-0" tall freestanding wall was constructed between the Admiral Risty section of the shopping center and the adjacent, then vacant, lot to the south
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 a Trader Joe's (Case No. ZON2008 00541). When the Trader Joe's project was approved by the Planning Commission, a condition of approval was added in response to public testimony which allowed a solid door to be added to the existing solid wall required by P.C. Resolution No. 99-33. A Certificate of Occupancy was issued for Trader Joe's in April 2010 which triggered the need for a 6 month review for compliance with the conditions of approval ofCUP No. 206. However, the 6-month review hearing did not occur at the end of 2010 because the applicant was contemplating other improvements to the center which would require the approval of another CUP revision and so Staff agreed to wait and combine these items together so that all of the issues could be addressed at one public hearing.
In early summer of 201 0, the property owner reduced the height of the solid wall between the Admiral Risty section ofthe shopping center and the adjacent lot to the south from 6'-0" in height to 3'-6" in height. This action could not be prevented by Staff as Condition No. 37 of Resolution No. 99-40 does not establish a minimum height ofthe wall, only a maximum height of 6'-0".
On November 10, 2010, the applicant, Paris Zarrabian, submitted an application to revise Conditional Use Permit No. 206 to allow the roof structure of three existing open-air trellises attached to Buildings D, E and F to be remodeled with a solid roof/canopy and
22-3 amend the CUP to allow additional outdoor dining underneath two of the covered structures. The request required approval of a CUP Revision because the Applicant requested additional outdoor dining area, thereby potentially affecting the existing parking demand within the shopping center.
On March 8, 2011, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution 2011-13, thereby approving the requested revision to Conditional Use Permit No. 206 to modify the existing open-air trellises to solid roof structures and adding 375 square feet of outdoor dining area to the north side of Building 0 and the south side of Building F. In combination with the Revision to the Conditional Use Permit request for new outdoor dining areas, the Planning Commission also considered the operation of the overall shopping center, as required by the 6-month Review for the Trader Joe's CUP Revision. 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.
Based on public testimony, as a result of considering the established conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 206 and the associated findings for a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission included a condition of approval (Condition No. 14 of Resolution No. 2011-13) which amended pre-existing Condition No. 38 of Resolution No. 99-40 related to the solid wall along the south property line to require that the wall, which had been lowered to 3'-6" in height in 2010, be raised and maintained to a minimum height of 6'-0".
On March 22,2011, Paris Zarrabian, property owner ofthe Golden Cove Shopping Center, submitted a timely appeal regarding Condition No. 14 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2011-13. The appeal letter stated that the grounds of appeal were directed solely on Condition No. 14 of P.C. Resolution No. 2011-13, and that all other Conditions ofApproval set forth in P.C. Resolution No. 2011-13 were accepted. The Appellant requests that the City Council eliminate Condition No. 14, which modified Condition No. 38 of Resolution No. 99-40 for Conditional Use Permit No. 206. Both conditions of approval are related to a privacy wall located along the south property line.
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 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. The public comment period expired on May 5,2011. As a result of the Public Notice, Staff received fifteen (15) comment letters and one (1) petition signed by forty-five (45) residents of Villa Capri, the adjacent residential community.
DISCUSSION
The Appellant is contesting the Planning Commission's recent modification to the Conditions of Approval for the Golden Cove Center, stating that Condition No. 14 (P.C. Resolution No. 2011-13) should be eliminated for the following three reasons:
22-4 1) Requiring a solid barrier wall at a height of 6'-0" is contrary to prior approvals/requirements of the south property line wall height; and
2) A requirement to maintain a solid barrier wall at a height of 6'-0", along the south property line, was beyond the scope of the March 8, 2011 Planning Commission Agenda; and
3) Requiring a solid barrier wall at a height of 6'-0" negates the benefit of recent approvals given for outdoor dining area adjacent to the southwest side of Building A (two-story bUilding).
These points are addressed by Staff below.
1. Appellant Issue: Requiring a 6'.0" tall wall along the south property line is not consistent with priorrequirements to provide a wall along the south property line.
As noted earlier, 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 (attached) which was imposed by the Planning Commission in 1999 reads as follows:
"The property ownershall construct a solidprivacy wall, not to exceedsix (6) feet in height, along the southern property line, immediately adjacent to the rear of the structure occupied bythe AdmiralRisty. Such wall shallbe constructed andfinished with materials that resemble the existing perimeter walls. "
As discussed in the August 10, 1999 Staff Report to the Planning Commission (see last attachment of the attached March 8, 2011 P.C. Staff Report), Staff recommended said condition to address concerns raised by some Villa Capri residents at the that time, who raised noise concerns due to loitering at the back entrance to the Admiral Risty restaurant. Furthermore, there was some public testimony (see pg. 17 of attached October 12, 1999 P.C. 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. 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 prqperty line adjacent to the Admiral Risty restaurant building. A 6'_0" tall solid wall was subsequently constructed in 2000 to the satisfaction of Staff.
In 2008, the Planning Commission approved an amendment to CUP No. 206 to allow the Golden Lotus building to be demolished and replaced with a new Trader Joe's Building. As part of this project, the applicant requested that Condition No. 38 of P.C. Resolution No.
22-5 99-40 (the 6'-0" tall solid wall requirement) be modified to allow pedestrian access through the wall so that a veterinarian in the shopping center (Dr. Cassie Jones) could walk animals on the adjacent lot which she owns. In fact, at the time, a gap had been opened in the wall to allow said pedestrian access. Because of the original intent to have a solid wall and because the Villa Capri HOA had submitted a letter requesting that the solid wall be returned, Staff recommended that the wall should remain solid without a pedestrian access way. Ultimately, the Planning Commission imposed a condition on the CUP related to the Trader Joe's approval (Condition No. 20 of P.C. Resolution No. 2008-56) that allowed the installation of a door in the solid wall that would allow pedestrian access only to Dr. Cassie Jones or her staff.
In early summer of 2010, Staff was approached by the current Golden Cove Center property owner with a request to remove the wall required by Condition No. 38 of P.C. Resolution No. 99-40. Staff informed the propertyownerthatthewall could not be removed without approval of a CUP amendment that would eliminate or modify said Condition No. 38. However, the property owner pointed out to Staffthat the way the condition was written, they could lower the wall as the condition does not establish a minimum height. Staff reviewed said matter and concluded that, although the intent was to have a 6'-0" tall wall, the City could not legally prevent the property owner from lowering the wall given that the condition language establishes a maximum wall height, but no minimum wall height. However, Staff required that the wall be solid and at least 3'-6" tall in order to meet the safety rail requirements due to the steep drop off on the other side ofthe wall. As a result, the property owner lowered a portion ofthe wall from 6'-0' in height to 3'-6" in height in the early summer of 2010.
As noted earlier, on March 8, 2011, the Planning Commission conducted a 6-month review of the Trader Joe's project along with consideration of an 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. In association with this hearing, the Planning Commission received a number of comment letters and public testimony from residents in Villa Capri requesting that the solid that was reduced in the summer of 2010 be required to be increased back to 6'-0" to mitigate continuing noise impacts at the Center. Faced with the request to increase the wall height, the Planning Commission sought input from the property owner on the wall issue. Although the property owner was present at the Planning Commission meeting, he elected not to speak, but his representative did tell the Commission that the property owner was amenable to increasing the wall height to 6'-0".
As a result ofthe evidence presented to the Planning Commission by Staff in the March 8, 2011 Staff Report (attached), in conjunction with the testimony heard by residents and a representative ofthe Golden Cove Center (see March 8, 2011 P.C. Minutes), the Planning Commission agreed to replace Condition No. 38 (P.C. Resolution No. 99-40) of CUP No. 206 with Condition No. 14 (P.C. Resolution No. 2011-13) of CUP No. 206, as noted below:
"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 3'-6" in height shall be increased in height and
22-6 maintained as a solid 6'-0" tall wall that aesthetically matches the current 6'-0" tall wall portion. Said wall shall be increased to 6'-0" prior to issuance of a final certificate ofoccupancy for the new dining areas orpriorto final ofa building permit forthe conversion ofthe open airtrellis to solid coveredpatio approvedbythis CUP Revision."
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 that would mitigate noise and loitering impacts to adjacent properties and that considerable public testimony was provided that noise impacts increased due to the lowered wall. Therefore, Staff believes that the Planning Commission's action is consistent with the prior requirements regarding the construction of a wall along the Center's southern boundary line.
2: Appellant Issue: Abilityto AmendCUP No. 206 Conditions ofApprovalwas beyond the scope ofthe March 8, 2011 Planning Commission Agenda
As noted in the discussion above, the Planning Commission considered noise and loitering impacts to Villa Capri residents in 1999 when CUP No. 206 was originally approved. In order to address the impacts and concerns, the Planning Commission adopted Staff's recommendation to include a condition of approval that required a solid barrier wall along the south property line (Condition No. 38 of P.C. Resolution No. 99-40). In 2008, under a request to amend CUP No. 206 for a new Trader Joe's building, consideration ofthe south property line wall was raised again. At that time, the Planning Commission affirmed that a solid barrier wall was necessary, but added a condition of approval (Condition No. 20 of P.C. Resolution No. 2008-56) that allowed a pedestrian access door. Similarly, with the recent amendment request to CUP No. 206 to allow additional outdoor dining areas, the issue ofthe wall was again raised to the Planning Commission due to continuing concerns with noise. As a result, the Planning Commission required the wall to be raised to the height originally intended in 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 in height to help mitigate the impacts raised by the neighbors.
Therefore, Staff believes that in order to ensure that the health, safety and general welfare of the surrounding community is protected, the Planning Commission made their decision within the scope ofthe Planning Commission's authority that exists when reviewing a CUP amendment.
3. Appellant's Issues: Requiring the solidbarrierwall along the southpropertyline to be constructedandmaintainedata heightof6'·0"negativelyimpacts views asseen from potential outdoor dining area adjacent to the southwest side ofBuilding A.
The appellant notes throughout his appeal letter (attached) that the requirement of a 6'-0" tall wall along the south property line would negate the benefit of approvals given by the Planning Commission for outdoor dining areas. In his letter, the Appellant references a
22-7 previous approval for an outdoor dining area aside the southwest, first floor tenant of Building A (across the parking lot aisle from Admiral Risty restaurant). As noted in P.C. Resolution No. 2011-13, the only areas that were approved for outdoor dining areas within the Golden Cove Center were north of Building D (adjacent to Starbucks) and south of Building F (adjacent to Asaka). The applicant has not received any approval for outdoor dining areas for the southwest Tenant of Building A.
However, it should be noted that if benches or tables unrelated to any specific tenant are installed adjacent to Building A, such improvements would not require City approval. If an outdoor dining area is permitted outside of Building A for a specific tenant's use in the future, then Staff agrees that there may be some view impairment to the potential seating area from a 6'-0" tall wall.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
As noted at the March 8, 2011 Planning Commission meeting and in some of the correspondence attached to this report, the Appellant (Golden Cove Center property owner) is currently in a legal dispute with the adjacent residential community known as Villa Capri. Although the City is not a part of this legal dispute, the applicant has chosen to provide information regarding the current status ofthe dispute between both parties. Staff received a letter with attachments from the legal counsel representing the Golden Cove Center. Said letter is attached to this report under "Comment Letters on the Appeal"
ALTERNATIVE
The following alternatives are available for the City Council to consider:
1) Uphold the appeal, thereby overturning the Planning Commission's decision to require a 6'_0" tall wall along the south property line, and direct Staff to prepare and return to the next City Council meeting with an appropriate Resolution allowing the wall to be at 3'-6" in height or some other height; or
2) Identify any issues of concern with the proposed project, provide Staff and/or the applicant with direction in modifying the project, and continue the public hearing to a date certain for discussion of these issues.
FISCAL IMPACT
The appellant has paid the applicable appeal fee to cover the City costs in processing the appeal. If the City Council overturns the Planning Commission's decision to eliminate Condition No. 14, the appellant's fees ($2,275) would be refunded to the appellant. If the appeal results in a modification to the project, other than changes specifically requested in the appeal, then % of the appeal fee shall be refunded to the successful appellant. The General Fund would bear the cost of the refund if the appellant is successful.
22-8 ATTACHMENTS
• Draft Resolution No. 2011-_ • Appeal Letter from Golden Cove Property Owner • Comment Letters on the Appeal • August 10, 1999 P.C. Minutes • October 12,1999 P.C. Minutes • March 8, 2011 P.C. Minutes • March 8,2011 P.C. Staff Report o Includes the following: • P.C. Resolution No. 2008-56 (Trader Joe's Revision to CUP No. 206) • P.C. Resolution No. 99-40 (ref. to south wall - Condition No. 38) • P.C. Staff Report Section from August 10, 1999 (ref. south wall) • P.C. Resolution No. 2011-13
22-9 Draft City Council Resolution
22-10 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 0, 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 ofthe 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 0, 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 0 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
22-11 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 ofthe 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), Stafffound no evidence that the approval ofthe 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 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 ofthe 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 residents of the Villa Capri residential development. 1359742-1 Resolution No. 2011- Page 4 22-12 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 ofthe 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 ownershall construct a solidprivacy wall, not to exceedsix (6) feet in height, along the southern property line, immediately adjacent to the rear of the structure occupiedbythe Admiral Risty. Such wall shallbe constructed andfinished 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 ofthe 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 ofthe amendmentto 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 ofthe 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 ofthe south property line wall was for a 6'-0" tall wall, which would mitigate noise and loitering impacts to 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 her~by finds that the Planning Commission's action is consistent with the prior requirements of Conditional Use Permit 206 regarding the construction of a six foot high wall along the Center's 1359742-1 Resolution No. 2011- Page 4 22-13 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofapproval ofConditional 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: 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 1i h day of May 2011.
Mayor
1359742-1 Resolution No. 2011 Page 4
22-14 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
1359742-1 Resolution No. 2011 Page 4
22-15 Appeal Letter (received March 22, 2011)
GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 1 RECEIVED MAR 22 2011
31244 Palos Verdes Drive West Suite 243 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Tel: 310.750.6707 Fax: 310.750.6048 [email protected]
March 22, 2011
Mr. Joel Rojas, AICP Community Development Director City ofRancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5391
Re: Appeal ofthe Planning Commission Revision to the Golden Cove Center Conditional Use Permit new condition 140fExhibit "A" Conditions ofApproval; Case No. ZON2010 00402 (Revision to CUP) dated March 8, 2011
Dear Mr. Rojas, Mayor and Members ofthe City Council:
Please accept this as our appeal ofonly the single condition #14 ofthe P.C. Resolution No. 20lI B approved by the Planning Commission All ofthe conditions ofP.C. Resolution No. 2011-13 are accepted by Applicant except for the addition ofa new condition #14 on Page 6 of 7 ofthe P.C. Resolution No. 2011-13.
We appreciate all ofthe efforts ofthe City Staff, Planning Commission and City Council to help us make the Golden Cove Center successful. However, the action by the Planning Commission was beyond the scope of the Agenda items, contrary to prior approvals of the wall height, and effectively negates the benefit ofthe approvals given for the outdoor dining areas. Such action is wholly inconsistent with the purpose and goals of the Application and the whole of the Resolution approved. Condition # 14 is, in effect, out ofcontext and illogical.
The Applicant has spent years and enormous sums to rehabilitate the Center and to reconfigure the tenant mix to reach economic viability.
In addition, The Applicant has moved all trash enclosure areas which improves the view ofthe Villa Capri Homeowners. They no longer look at trash areas.
1
GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 2 The application before the Planning Commission on March 8, 2011 would have enabled the Applicant to rent recently reconfigured space to a gallery/restaurant with outdoor seating with a view ofthe ocean and Catalina
The new condition 14 will effectively block the view for patrons seated in the new tenants outdoor seating area. As a result, it is not feasible for the tenant to enter into a lease for the space.
The rebuilding of the wall to a fixed height of 6 feet will box in the Center and preclude any view ofthe ocean and Catalina and negatively impact the aesthetics ofthe Center and the value of the adjacent space presently for rent. In effect, it will create a boxed in feel to the adjacent space and the Center and restore the public safety risks that were avoided with the reduction of the wall height, and create an attractive nuisance for graffiti.
Please note that during the period oftime that the wall was 6 feet high, it was constantly covered with graffiti and served as a public safety risk area because of the dark areas it created and a source ofconcern and complaints by Patrons ofthe Center. As a result, the City Staffagreed that the height ofthe wall should be reduced and the wall was thereafter reconfigured to its present height. Since that time there have been no complaints ofsafety incidents adjacent to the wall.
While we understand that the Planning Commission may impose reasonable conditions on the applicant under a CUP regime, the action of the Planning Commission was an inappropriate response to the complaints ofthe Villa Capri Homeowners, who attended the meeting to ambush the Applicant. As Mr. Rojas well knows, the Applicant and the Villa Capri Homeowners are engaged in litigation they commenced to enforce the improper use by some Villa Capri Homeowners ofthe Golden Cove driveways. Although the Applicant has tried to settle with the Villa Capri Homeowners, they do not wish to settle and have pursued a slash and burn approach.
Their presence at the meeting to complain about noise from the center was just another part of their litigation strategy. Mr. Rojas and in particular, the Planning Commission Members should know that the complaints ofthe Villa Capri Homeowners cannot be valid. The applicant invites the Mayor and Council Members to visit the Center to determine for themselves whether the complaints ofthe Villa Capri Homeowners are valid. To the contrary, an objective examination of the facts will prove that they have no real basis to complain. In any event, a balancing of interests would ordinarily result in favor ofthe economic viability ofthe Center and the safety of its Patrons. This is especially true when you consider that the complaining Villa Capri Homeowners will be living with an outdoor dog enclosure area behind the newly built Veterinarian Clinic immediately in front of those homeowners, as well as barking dogs. That scenario is not comparable to the pleasant vista and minimal noise presented by the Center. Applicant suggests that they should have complained about the "Veterinarian Clinic use" when they had the opportunity. Clearly, the real goal here by the Villa Capri Homeowners is to punish the Applicant and is not an action that seeks a good faith solution to their perceived problems.
2
GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 3 The Applicant believes that it is the goal of the City to assure that the Golden Cove Center becomes economically viable and remains a safe environment. It is therefore incomprehensible that the City would allow to stand the imposition of Condition # 14 that effectively negates the benefits of the approvals given by the Planning Commission. The goal here is to enable the Applicant to rent the space that he has recently refurbished adjacent to the wall that is the subject matter ofthe new condition #14.
The applicant therefore begs the City Council to delete condition 14 on Page 6 of 7 of the P.C. Resolution No. 2011-13 and to approve the resolution subject to aU other conditions without condition #14 based on the grounds stated herein above (i.e. Public Safety & the goal ofeconomic viability ofthe Center.
Enclosed herewith is a power point presentation and video ofthe view area and panoramic ocean and Catalina view that will be destroyed ifcondition #14 is allowed to stand.
Respectfully submitted
Applicant!Appellant
3
GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 4
5 - CENTER COVE GOLDEN
no - 7 - CENTER COVE GOLDEN "::::'::~:::':':""""'" !!!ii>··U'i!!itr"""""""'.. :":,::::::,:::,,:,::::,:,,,::,:,:,::':,:<••; ..•,••••••••••:•••,•••• :,••••••'"' ,••• ';"'•,...... ,•• ,••••••••••/, ' ,••••••/,,"'"•••••••,,/ "'••••••••••, , ,•••••••••••,..,' "''',./...... ,":.,•• ',.....••••••••••••..'" ", ,"""•••••""•• ,••••••".'" , ,'•••••••""'"".','••••••""••••• ',".:'.,." :':'' "' ' ' '••• ', c.",,'•••••• "••••••••'...... r::: ••.. ,.:•..,':::m::::: , •••••••••••• r:·:: .... ,.. ·:::.... :.j·.::. :::"':::::":::~::H: GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 8 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 9 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 10 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 11 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 12 13 - CENTER COVE GOLDEN ~ 0\ Q ~ fI) ~ fI) fI) - 24 - CENTER COVE GOLDEN ()o - 27 - CENTER COVE GOLDEN t-4 0 0 rio) rio) 0 0 ~ ~ <1-'- (D tj ~ 1-'- ~ t:r:1 ~ Z e-~ 1-'- rio) n ~ 0\ 0 ~ (D -< (D f"'t- t:r:1 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 28 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 29 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 30 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 31 Comment Letters (for and against the appeal) GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 32 05-11-2011 To: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Department 30941 Hawthorne Blvd Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Subject: Golden Cove Plaza Dear City Council Members, Residing in Palos Verdes for a good amount of time, and assisting hill community as a PV specialist Real Estate consultant, I find Golden Cove a gem in the heart of Peninsula, especially after its renovations during the last couple of years. Not only has it brought lots of values and beauty to the hill, but also created convenience of shopping while enjoying the breath taking beauty of pacific ocean and Catalina island view. This is one of the major characteristics of Golden Cove that distinguishes it from other shopping centers. Based on my professional experience, I strongly disagree with constructing any kind of obstruction, which blocks this outstanding natural beauty from the businesses as well as the shoppers at Golden Cove Plaza. Golden Cove has brought numerous values to the surrounding properties that I can't imagine destroying it. I can't emphasize enough how much I am hoping to keep Golden Cove and it's view as is. I greatly appreciate your consideration. Sincerely Yours, Daniel Sobhani Real Estate Consultant Keller Williams PV Realty Residential,Commercial,Investment 310-308-8175 DRE#0171 01 09 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 33 31244 Palos Verdes Drive West Suite 243 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Tel: 310.750.6707 Fax: 310.750.6048 [email protected] May 4,2011 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Subject: Objection to Increasing Height of Solid Wall between Admiral Risty Building and Adjacent Land Dear City Council, As the current property manager for the Golden Cove Center I want to express my great objection to raising the solid wall between the Admiral Risty building and the adjacent future animal hospital land. Being physically at the Golden Cove Center on a daily basis and constantly interacting with prospective tenants and patrons, I can tell you with certainty that raising this wall is a huge detriment to the gorgeous Ocean and Catalina views that the Golden Cove Center is fortunate and very proud to offer. Please be aware that eliminating the Catalina and Ocean Views by raising this wall will make the recently renovated retail space, which directly faces this wall, much harder to lease with a negative financial impact for both: increased vacancy and much lower leasing rates. I recently attended the City's Spotlight on Achievements, where I learned that your staff very successfully improved your financial operations through grants, creative cost cutting and more. Therefore, in greatly understanding the importance of sustained financial health, I ask the City Council to please carefully consider these very negative esthetic and financial impacts and keep the wall height where it currently stands. Respectfully, ff-ek.Aa~ Property Manager GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 34 From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 7:02 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: An Appeal of Condition No. 14 of Resolution No. 2011-13 Re: An Appeal of Condition No. 14 ofResolution No. 2011-13 Dear Councilmen, I would just like to comment on three factors ofconcern with respect to the wall separating the parking lot at the Golden Cove Center from the (under construction) Point Vicente Animal Hospital next door. First the lowered height ofthe wall has made it easier for people to go over the wall- either intentionally or accidentally. This presents a safety concern because there is a pretty significant slope just below the wall and security issue as the building's roofis more accessible on that side. Either restoring the wall to its original height or placing on top ifit something like a wrought iron fence could rectify this. The wrought iron would not block the views. The second issue with the lower wall is the accumulation oftrash and debris tossed over from the people in the parking lot. Either that needs to be prevented or it needs to be kept clean. I realize that should it really become a problem in the future, I always have the option of building my own wall, but I don't really think that is going to be necessary at all. The most concerning thing about the wall, however, is that it makes a right tum at the ocean side ofthe lot where it is barely 1 foot high at the edge ofthe patio and then slopes steeply down into the fountain/waterfall along PV Drive West. I don't know ifthat is part ofthis discussion, but it sure seems dangerous, as such waterfalls are an attraction to little kids, and the slope is steep, maybe 45 degrees, and long way down to the sidewalk. Thank you, Cassie Jones, DVM Rancho Palos Verdes Cassie L. Jones, DVM Point Vicente Animal Hospital 31234 Palos Verdes Drive West Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 (310) 265-9511 phone (310) 265-9521 fax GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 35 'f RECEIVED MAY 02 2011 May 2,2011 PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT City ofRancho Palos Verdes City Council ofthe city ofRancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5391 Subject: Appeal ofcondition No. 14 ofPlanning Commission Resolution No. 2011-13 (case no. ZON201O-00402) Dear City Council: This petition which is signed by 45 residents ofVilla Capri asking the City Council to uphold the March 8, 2011 Planning Commissions decision to restore the solid six feet high privacy wall. In 1999, it was brought to City's attention that the activity associated with the operation ofthe restaurant (Admiral Risty) nearest the Villa Capri Complex, had become a nuisance to several residents because ofundesired noise and loitering around the back entrance. In an effort to mitigate the noise concerns raised by the residents ofVilla Capri, the Planning Commission imposed a condition requiring a six feet high solid privacy wall along the southern property line that matched the height ofexisting perimeter walls. For ten years the wall was six feet high until July 2010 when the owner ofGolden Cove reduced the height ofthe wall to three and halffeet. At the Planning department over the counter approval was given to the owner because the Conditions ofApproval for the wall did not convey the intent ofthe Planning Commission. It said the wall needed to be up to six feet rather than needs to be six feet. The owner could not legally be prevented from reducing the height ofthe wall. Even after the intent for the wall was explained to him, he still reduced the height ofthe wall. . The wall is one ofmany issues that have made living next to Golden Cove very stressful. Again, the residents ofVilla Capri asks the City Council to uphold the Planning Commissions March 8th decision. Respectfully, ~j2~ President Villa Capri, Home Owners Association GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 36 Villa Capri Homeowner's Signed Petition jPP I ~ -r Name Address Signature GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 37 .- Villa Capri Homeowner's Signed Petition Name Address Signature / GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 38 c:.C .' ..Joel PlOJ tij J..e,'2..4 iJ1 ;/t.,/1 &1; { {b 1"1Pi /J1(J"{V-Pc'tle Mary Lou Xenos 62 Via Capri APR 2 6 2011 '; Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 I ;""---""--'-"--"---"Aprif2~, 2011 City ofRancho Palos Verdes, City Council1--- ...... __-. _~. .-11 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 RE: ZON2010-00402 (restore wall to 6 feet) Golden Cove Shopping Center Dear City Council Members: I see that Mr. Zarrabian has appealed The Planning Commissioners reaffirmation that the wall, between Golden Cove Shopping Center and the new facility built by Dr. Jones, be restored to its original six feet height. As we all know, The Planning Commissioners required a six feet high wall back in 1999! Butsomeone at the Planning. Building. & Code Enforcement Office made a ((mistake" andsomehow, by some person at the Planning. Building. & Code Enforcement Office changed the wording from "the Planning Commission imposed a condition requiring a six (6) foot high solid wall along the southern property line thatmatchedthe height of existing perimeter walls" to "up to six feet." (see attached) Did anyone investigate who was responsible for that error? That error isjust an example ofthe perceived favor Mr. Zarrabian has been given by the City ofRancho Palos Verdes! This "mistake" has caused Villa Capri Homeowners much grief. Mr. Zarrabian was at the March 8th Planning Commission meeting. However, Mr. Christian Gulfin from CG Building Design, representing Mr. Zarrabian, when asked about the wall stated, "I completely understand Villa Capri's concerns. I myselfwouldn't want to come home and see someone smoking or throwing out trash. Mr. Zarrabian doesn't want to make enemies, wants to reconcile the relationship between neighbors and ifthe wall needs to be six (6) feet then so be it, to accommodate for their privacy." Why would Mr. ZarrabianiChristian Gulfm agree that the wall be restored to six feet high at that meeting, and then appeal the decision? Mr. Joel Rojas, Community Development Director, told my husband that he is at the Golden Cove Center everyday. May I suggest that Mr. Rojas no longer have the ability to give Mr. Zarrabian "over-the-counter permits"? I would like to thank the Planning Commission for making the decision to have the wall restored to six feet. I would also like to thank you, the City Council in advance for upholding the decision to restore the wall to six feet. This is the third time that Planning Commission and City Council will be discussing this wall. Third time's the charm! ~relyyours '/MErryotX Xenos GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 39 ,~. RECEIVED Planning Commission Staff Report . FEB 28 2C: Case No. Z0N2007-G0182 (CUP, et. al.) PLANNING. BUILDING AND May27, 2008 CODe ENFORCEMENJ With regards to the required setbacks and oth~r"Components ofa'commercial center, Staff has reviewed the appUcant's' plans. for oornpJitil):u;e with the commercial development . standards. Although the proposed location ofthe grocery.store building does not comply with the required setback from the propertY line along HawthomeBoulevard, the Variance application for a requced setback can be justified as indicated below in the Variance section ofthis StaffReport. In summaryy the new grocery store .building will-be no closer than the ·existing restaurant bUilding to·the street and Will provide a fully landscaped setback &:irea to create a visu~1 Elnd J:luc1ibleJ~.Yffer _b.etwaeR.ihe_mieetaod-fJCQPQsed building. 19~9·to In regards towallsy the waH along the southern property linewas conditioned in be a soUd privacy wall by the approv~ conditiona,J.use permit. A solid wall was eventually provided; hpwever~ aftera fairly recent accidentthatdamaged thS wall, the wan was rebuilt with a gap to proVide pedestrian access. The applicant has requested that this condition be modified to allow for pedestrian access to the adjacent vacant parcel. It is Staff's understanding that the applicant's· request stems from the owner of the existing veterinarian business that is currently located inside the Golden Cove Canter. Since the .veterinarian owns theadj8C$nt vacant parcelf and sinceanitnal·patients (namely dogs) of the'hospital must be routinely· walked, she believes that allOWing a direct'access point to her property through an opening in the waif is more· conyenient than walking through the shopping center parking lot to Palos Verdes .Drive West and around to' the adjacent property.to the south. Alti10ugh Jt is more convenient, the requirementfora sqlid w~1I wa$ based onconcerns thatwere raised bytheresidents ofthe Villa Capri cqmplex•. In 1999, it was brought to·the cnys attention that the activity.aSsociated with the operation of the restaurant (Admiral Risty) nearest the Villa Capri Complex, had become a nuisance to several residents because ofundesired noise and lo~ering around the back entrance~ In .ane'ffDr:Uomitigatethe nois9concemsEaise(H;)y·the'testdents"ofVitta>Capri.o~~Planning· Gomm~si~ imposed a condition requiring ~ six(6)-foot high solid waD alQng'1he,- .60uth~m propertyline that matchedthe hefghtofexisting perimeterwalls.. Recently~ Staff·received a . letter from' th~ Villa Capri Honieo~ners ASsociation requ.esting that ·the·...SQJid wall :be retained•.As such, Staff believes that the waD should continue·to be a saUd wall with no opening for pedestrian acce.5S asthis was the.intent ofthe condition~ ". . Based on the above discussion a~d the fact that the sUbj~ property is large in enough in size and shape to accommodatethe additional flOor a~~ while substantially complying with the development standan;ls for a eN zoning district, staffbeBe.vesthat this finding can be made, provided thatthePlanning Commission grants the vari~nce reqiJestforthe reduction ~n the setback requirements for the proposed grocery store building. GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 40 May4,2011 To: Rancho Palos Verdes City Council From: Tucson Zarrabian, Golden Cove LLC Re: Appeal of 6' Wall between Golden Cove Center & Future Veterinarian Clinic I am writing to the City Council in order to protect Golden Cove LLC's rights, to be treated fairly and equally, to be reasonable and logical in a professional manner, and to come to a solution where residents of Villa Capri and customers of Golden Cove Center could enjoy their own environments respectfully and peacefully. As a graduate from the School of Policy, Planning, and Development from the University of Southern California, I majored in Public Policy, Management, and Planning to protect and enhance the quality of life for all communities, as well as to achieve and find the best possible solution to different kinds of issues brought by residents, private businesses, and government. In my professional opinion, I implore the City Council to reconsider and review this issue since the best possible solution has not been accomplished. 6' Wall Negative Impacts The imposing of a 6' wall between Golden Cove Center and the Veterinarian Clinic burdens the Center, the residents, and the entire Palos Verdes community with a few of these negative impacts listed below: Increase in Crime/Homeless Activity - A 6' wall does not resolve the problem; it in fact creates more problems. Crime is always created behind walls where illegal activity cannot be seen. Moreover, since a wall creates a shelter, transients choose to hide behind the wall and will make it their home, where illegal substances can then be consumed. Please keep in mind that the Montessori School is a tenant of Golden Cove. Graffiti - There have been numerous accounts of gang graffiti written on the "up to 6' wall", which is a billboard to gang members sending messages to commuters on PV Dr West. Decrease in ALL Property Values - With an increase of crime activity, all residential, commercial, and other properties will decrease in value. 100% Loss of View (Ocean, Catalina Island, & Natural Reserve) - Golden Cove Center, its tenants, and its customers lose 100% of the view. Additionally, a 6' wall partially blocks the ocean view for Villa Capri residents. Non-Equal Treatment - Golden Cove is unequally forced to maintain a 6' wall that is not abutting residential land. All commercial properties, including the Veterinarian Clinic, should burden the same treatment as well as all residential properties should maintain a wall to protect their own property. Additionally, neither property should control or impose a wall regulation onto another land when that regulation can be controlled and imposed onto one's land, such as Villa Capri that has a 0' wall and only a 3' open bar fence below their patio grade. Lastly, a third party property that is between the complaining property and the blamed property should take the responsibility of the burden when improvements are made. I ask the City Council to consider these negative impacts, not just for Golden Cove, but for the residents of Villa Capri, all members of the community, and its neighboring cities. GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 41 Low Wall Benefits Having a low wall between Golden Cove Center and the Veterinarian clinic will have benefits that improve the center and provide a better experience for Golden Cove customers. Potential High Value Tenant - With a low wall, a high quality tenant will be more enticed to conduct business in the center with a beautiful ocean view rather than a plain 6' wall. Potential Restaurant - Golden Cove Center is the best area in Rancho Palos Verdes to operate a restaurant due to the ocean view, tenant mix, access to the center, and easy access to parking. o LoopNet Statistics - Within a 2 Mile Sales Volume • Restaurant Expenditures: $155,812,848, Supermarket/Conv: $115,912,854 Higher Tax Revenue - With a restaurant in place and the statistics from above, the City will earn more tax revenue compared to the number one retail category of a market. Making Use ofSpace - There is very little commercial space on the ocean side of Rancho Palos Verdes and Palos Verdes Estates. The low wall allows this space to be used for what it was intended for: ocean view and high.quality tenants. Defense against Villa Capri Residents' Public Statements On March 8, 2011, the Planning Commission held a six-month review pertaining to the Trader Joe's project at Golden Cove. A large crowd of Villa Capri residents came to the meeting; however, only five townhomes are near the wall between Golden Cove property and the Veterinarian Clinic. A few residents made public statements against the lowering of the "up to 6' wall". Some other residents chose to ignore the agenda, speak about the pending lawsuit between the two parties, provide inaccurate information, and publicly slander Golden Cove and the Zarrabian family. Since residents of Villa Capri publicly spoke about the lawsuit and provided inaccurate information, please review below the true facts at hand: 1. Golden Cove LLC owns two Grant Deed of Easements over Villa Capri Townhomes HOA property. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes has those documents on file and both easements are also recorded with the Los Angeles County Assessor. 2. The legal court is not trying to figure out which party owns the two Grant Deed of Easements. 3. Villa Capri Townhomes HOA is the plaintiff suing Golden Cove LLC to gain a Prescriptive Easement on Golden Cove Center. If successful, this will allow residents to shortcut over the Golden Cove Center to and from PV Dr West and Hawthorne Blvd, which is not part of Villa Capri's planned development. 4. Golden Cove LLC is not causing Villa Capri Townhomes to incur legal expenses since Villa Capri HOA chose to sue, become the plaintiff in the lawsuit, and has been trying to gain and devalue Golden Cove LLC's property. Because Golden Cove LLC.is protecting its interest in the lawsuit, its property, its property rights, and its property value, some Villa Capri residents ignored the agenda and publicly made self-help statements that were meant to harm and gain advantage over Golden Cove and the Zarrabian family. Furthermore, a letter was written by a Villa Capri resident about the Golden Cove Center being in violation of a fire code, which was included into the public staff report. Golden Cove LLC spoke with the Fire Captain at Station 53 about the issue. The Captain made clear that a fire code violation can only be given if it is recorded with the Los Angeles County Fire Department. To this date, Villa Capri Townhomes HOA has not provided any document that states the Fire Department has legal access over the Golden GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 42 Cove Center nor is there any document on file with the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. This was another self-help tactic to harm Golden Cove LLC in the lawsuit, which had nothing to do with the agenda of the Trader Joe's project six month review. A public email to the Planning Commission, which was attached to the staff report, falsely accuses Golden Cove LLC, the Zarrabian family, and Rancho Palos Verdes government officials. lilt appears to me that Mr. Zarrabian has found some favor with the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Where that favor comes from is not clear yet. But the elected officials and city staff should be careful if they are indeed giving favors to certain individuals. I hope this rings a "Bell." Golden Cove LLC has not received any favors from the Planning Commission and Staff, nor has conducted any illegal activity, such as the city officials from the City of Bell. This self-help statement was made to scare the Planning Commission and to harm Golden Cove LLC and the Zarrabian family. Though Golden Cove LLC is not the cause of the issue for the lawsuit, Golden Cove LLC has tried, is still trying, and will continue to try to work out issues with Villa Capri HOA. Nonetheless, the response is not up to par. Pertaining to the lowered wall, complaints were made about noise, light, trash, and unsightly view. Noise - There is on-going construction of a brand new Veterinarian building from the commercial property that is in front of and closer to the Villa Capri Townhomes. Separately, Golden Cove Center is under construction and will be completed soon. The staff report stated the noise from the center was operating under the correct level. Light -A 30' taillight pole with a 45 degree angle tilted light head use to shine into Villa Capri Townhomes. It has been removed and replaced to match the rest of the light poles in the center. These poles have downward-facing heads that do not exceed 12'. Trash - The trash area behind the Admiral Risty restaurant has been removed according to plan. Additionally, a small enclosure wall was constructed to hide cardboard boxes under the overhang. Unsightly View - The Admiral Risty building has never been remodeled since the 1960s. For the very first time, the building matches the Mediterranean architecture with surrounding buildings. Additionally, the Veterinarian clinic that is closer to the Villa Capri Townhomes has a very large non-Mediterranean flat roof in front of their homes. Solutions I truly believe that some residents of Villa Capri should have not spoken about Golden Cove LLC and the Zarrabian family in such a negative manner. The Zarrabian family has been part of the community over twenty-five years ago and Golden Cove Center has been here since the early 1960s, way before the Villa Capri development was even built. Golden Cove LLC and the Zarrabian family respect every member of the Palos Verdes community, which is why we have our investments here and why other businesses have trust in us, such as Trader Joe's. I hope Villa Capri will one day appreciate the hard work we have done to remodel the center, which has increased their home property values at no cost to them. GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 43 There are a couple easy and reasonable solutions to this matter that would work for all parties. 1. Villa Capri Builds Their Own Wall on Their Own Property a. Since Villa Capri has a 0' wall between their property and the Veterinarian clinic, there can be a 6' wall installed to achieve their goal from the non-Mediterranean flat-roof of the Veterinarian clinic in front of them and the Golden Cove Center that is on the right side. 2. Plant Low Trees between Villa Capri and Veterinarian Clinic a. The Veterinarian clinic is currently in construction and will have landscaping soon. So have the landscaping placed where it counts. b. Trees are much more beautiful and natural than a plain wall. c. Trees reduce landslides because of their long roots. After the development of Villa Capri, the original homeowners filed a lawsuit due to the land shifting around 1992. d. Trees help accomplish all of Villa Capri's goals. e. And trees accomplish even more i. No longer will Villa Capri have to see the non-Mediterranean flat roof of the Veterinarian clinic. Thank you for your time. r~1'I/ ~ti~ Tucson Zarrabian Golden Cove, L.L.c. GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 44 Joel Rojas From: Philip Browning [[email protected]] Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 8:42 PM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; claire ealy Subject: Golden Cove-ZON201 0-00402 Attachments: Golden Cove2.docx City Council Attached please find a letter requesting you to uphold the RPV Planning Commission vote to require the Owner of Golden Cove to rebuild the wall to a 6 foot height. This will help restore privacy and calm to the neighborhood. Pis contact me at 3103770852 if you have questions or need more information. Thx Philip Browning 5/2/2011 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 45 Philip L. Browning 36 Via Capri Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 April 30, 2011 Rancho Palos Verdes City Council 30940 Hawthorne Dr. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear Sirs: Re: ZON2010-0042 Condition 14 of # 2011-13 This is to request that the RPV City Council uphold the conditions that were made by the RPV Planning Commission at their meeting on March 8, 2011. Specifically, the condition that the RPV Planning Commission made was for Mr. Zarrabian to restore the wall next to the Admiral Risty Restaurant to a height of 6 feet. The current 3 foot fence has increased noise in our community due to both vehicle and pedestrian traffic. It also appears that an adult or small child could easily fall over the wall and hurt themselves. It is also my concern that this lack of privacy and increased noise will negatively impact the value of homes in Villa Capri. One of the redeeming features of Villa Capri is the proximity to the RPV City hall and the green field filled with rabbits, birds and wildlife. Another redeeming feature is the view of the Pacific Ocean and the privacy for homeowners. Mr. Zarrabian, by appealing this order continues to ignore the concerns of neighbors and seems intent on creating controversy. I respectfully request that you require Mr. Zarrabian to comply with RPV Planning Commission order made on March 8, 2011. If you have questions, please contact me at the above address or 310-377-0852. Sincerely, Philip L. Browning cc: Villa Capri Homeowners Planning Commission GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 46 Leza Mikhail From: Osair Omar [[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 12:41 AM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Appeal of condition #14 of Planning Commission Resolution # 2011-13 (Case # ZON2010-00402) Dear Mrs. Leza Mikhail: In reference to the subject matter, I would like to ask the City Council to uphold the Planning Commission of March 8th, 2011. The six feet wall has been a minimum for not only security reason but also an essential measure ofpreventing undesired noise and loitering to Villa Capri. As it is obvious, the additional developments and various kind ofbusiness activities tremendously increased flow oftraffic and patronage in this neighborhood ever since the initial Conditions ofApproval for the wall was initialed by the Planning Commission 10 years ago. The original intent to build the wall up to six feed has been a integral part and a necessity for Vialla Capri's development in every aspect. I would appreciate the City Council's upholding the Planning Commission decision ofMarch 8th. Sire Omar Property Owner 27 Villa Capri, RPV, CA 90275 1 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 47 Leza Mikhail From: antonia [[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 5:38 PM To: [email protected] Subject: "Appeal of condition #14 of Planning Commission Resolution # 2011-13 (Case # ZON2010-00402) Please, we want the City Council to uphold the Planning Commissions decision ofMarch 8th. Thank you, Lois Daluiso 19 Via San Remo homeowner Sent from my iPhone 1 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 48 Page 1 of 1 Leza Mikhail From: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 8:49 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Appeal of condition #14 of Planning Commission Resolution #2011-13 Dear Liza Mikhail, This email is to advise you ofmy wish for the wall between the Golden Cove Shopping Center and the Via Capri Townhome Association be restored to its previous height for its entire length. The undesired noise, the incoming light, lack ofprivacy and decreased security for Via Capri homeowners were among the reasons the wall was designated at the six foot height originally. Mr. Paris Zarrabian (owner of Golden Cove) has been a very terrible neighbor, with no regards to the residents ofVia Capri. Please insist Mr. Zarrabian restore the height ofthe wall. Thank you for your consideration. Diana Hudak 38 Via Capri Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 5/4/2011 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 49 Page 1 of 1 Leza Mikhail From: Joe Freitag [[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, May 04,2011 8:21 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Appeal of Condition #14 Planning Commission Resolution #2011-8 (CASE #zon2010-00402) Dear Ms. Mikail, I am the owner of 22 Via Capri, RPVand I request that the City Council uphold the Planning commission decision of March 8. When I visit our neighbors on Via Capri and sit on their patio, I don't want to be disturbed by the activity in front of the Admiral Risty restaurant and outdoor patio restaurant that will be opened in the future. Likewise, when I visit these restaurants, I don't want the view to be my neighbors sitting on their patio. Villa Capri has been impacted by the owner of the Golden Cove Shopping Center who has blocked the rear gate, and has made outlandish requests for our homeowners to give up some of our property for his use. He has never shown a comprehensive set of plans so we don't know what to expect next. If you overturn the Planning Commission decision, I fear you will incite the owner to be more aggressive against Villa Capri. The owner, has been most inconsiderate toward the homeowners on Villa Capri. He shows no concern for the impact his actions have on our neighborhood. He has not shown the normal courtesy of a neighbor to neighbor by informing us of his plans and the inconvenience it would cause us. He has a combative attitude. In addition to upholding the March 8 decision, I request your consideration to ask the owner to provide a comprehensive plan of what else he plans to do to harass the owners of Villa Capri. Sincerely yours, Joseph Freitag. 5/4/2011 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 50 Page 1 of 1 Leza Mikhail From: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 3:50 PM To: Leza Mikhail Subject: Re: Wall Yes, my name is Suyin Liang. I live at 46 Via Capri, Rancho Palos Verdes. Thank you for your attention.. From: Leza Mikhail Hello, Do you have a name and an address for documentation purposes, or would you just like to remain anonymous? Leza Mikhail Associate Planner City ofCR,slnclio Paros o/eraes Planning Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.palosverdes.com/rpv/planning/planning-zoninglindex.cfm (310) 544-5228 - (310) 544-5293 f [email protected] From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 8:34 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Wall Please uphold the Planning Commission decision on March 18 to restore the wall back to 6 feet tall. Thank you. A Villa Capri resident 5/3/2011 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 51 Page 1 of 1 Leza Mikhail From: [email protected] Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 9:19 AM To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Case No. ZON201 0-00402 Appeal Dear Sirs: The residents of the Villa Capri community wish to object in the strongest terms to Paris Zarrabian's appeal of condition #14 of Planning Commission #2011-13, specifically, maintaining a six foot wall along the southern property line of Golden Cove. Mr. Zarrabian was instructed by the Planning Commission to maintain a 6 foot wall, but last summer he arbitrarily cut it down to a height of 3 feet 6 inches, resulting in an increase in noise, lights from cars, a decrease in privacy for homeowners and, consequently, a reduction in the value of Villa Capri homes. In addition, it is a safety hazard because it is easy to fall over the low wall and down the steep embankment. Small children have been witnessed sitting and leaning over the wall. Homeowners have been subjected to viewing Admiral Risty wait staff and strangers looking over the wall into their homes. Noise from restaurant deliveries has impacted the peace and quiet of the neighborhood. At the Planning Commission meeting on March 8, the commissioners were very clear that their intent had always been for the wall to be maintained at a height of 6 feet and the ambiguous wording had been a clerical error. Mr. Zarrabian's representative agreed that there was no reason for him not to rebuild the wall. The fact that he has chosen to appeal this single issue to the City Council is another example of the pattern of Mr. Zarrabian's bullying and harassment toward residents of Villa Capri since he purchased Golden Cove in 2007. We have had to file suit against him for blocking fire lane access and barricading our rear gate with logs, cement blocks and sandbags. He is attempting to force us to give him a piece of our property so he can build a parking garage. Because we have refused, he comes up with one bullying tactic after another and the wall is his latest action. The residents of Villa Capri respectfully urge the Council to uphold the wall height requirement and instruct Mr. Zarrabian to correct the problem within two weeks. Thank you for your consideration, Claire Ealy 36 Via Capri 4/25/2011 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 52 Page 1 of 1 Leza Mikhail From: Mary Kay [[email protected]] Sent: Monday, May 02,2011 9:27 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Appeal of condition #14 of Planning Commission Resolution #2011-13 (Case # ZON201 0-00402) Dear Ms. Mikhail, I respectfully request that the planning commission uphold the decision to insist that the wall between the Admiral Risty and the new Veterinary Building be raised back to the original six feet. I feel all of us should be able to relate to the noise and distractions at the Golden Cove and the residents of Villa Capri should not have to put up with such distractions. I will not go into further detail as I feel everyone concerned should understand the problem by now and nothing will be gained by me repeating the problems associated with this situation. Mary K Douglas 21 Via San Remo Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca. 90275 310-377-2195 310-701-2927 [email protected] 5/3/2011 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 53 Page 1 of 1 Leza Mikhail From: Mary Lou Xenos [[email protected]] Sent: Monday, May 02, 20116:13 PM To: [email protected]; Ed Shea Subject: Appeal of condition #14 of Planning Commission Resolution @2011-12 (Case # ZON2010-00402) Dear Planning Commission/City Council Members: Please uphold the March 8th decision by the Planning Commissioners to required that Mr. Zarrabian rebuild the wall to six (6) feet high. The Planning Commissioners intended that the wall be six (6) feet high back in 1999. However, because ofa "mistake" in the wording, the homeowners ofVilla Capri have had to battle it out with Mr. Zarrabian three times over this one issue. Our case has been made twice before the Planning Commissioners. Mr. Zarrabian sat at the March 8th meeting and had his representative speak on his behalfand said that he, Mr. Zarrabian, did not have a problem with rebuilding the wall. Then we get notice that Mr. Zarrabian appealed the decision!!! The people ofVilla Capri have had enough ofMr. Zarrabian's deciet and bullying. We think that he bribes or tries to bribe to get his way. He has no respect or reguard for anyone. "The people" know what was going on behind closed doors with the city of "Bell". Unfortunately, we, "the people" must look closer when things don't seem to be right. Please, let's make this the third and last time that we have to deal with restoring the wall to six (6) feet high. Sincerely, Mary Lou Xenos 62 Via Capri, RPV 5/3/2011 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 54 Leza Mikhail From: Tom Sullivan [[email protected]] Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 8:35 PM To: [email protected] Cc: 'Ed Shea' Subject: Appeal of Condition #14 RE: Planning Commission Resolution#2011-13 Case #Zon2010-0042 Dear Liza Mikhail and member ofthe Planning Commission, I am a resident ofthe Villa Capri Townhome Community behind the Golden Cove shopping Center. The owner - Mr. Paris Zarrabian -- is continuing his quest to do whatever he wants in his own time. Currently, he is trying to appeal Condition 14 Case #Zon2010-0042 which states he is to restore the wall between the Center and Villa Capri to it's original 6 Ft. height. Not only has Mr. Zarrabian challenged Villa Capri Townhomes and its use ofthe back entrance gate, his continuous construction with no end in sight is a source ofdust and noise from the early hours ofthe day, with no end in sight. Last week hammers began at 6:30 a.m. with no consideration for his neighboring property owners. I strongly urge the Planning Commission to be "VIGILANT" in its granting Mr. Zarrabian further permits for his continuing construction with no end date documented. And we call for the Planning Commission to deny his request to maintain the wall at its current - unpermitted height. Please exercise your enforcement ofthe original planning decision ofMarch 8, and support the Villa Capri Homeowners who are also tax paying citizens ofRancho Palos Verdes. Thank you for your consideration, Tom & Patty Sullivan 5 Via Veneta Rancho Palos Verdes 1 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 55 Page 1 of 1 Leza Mikhail From: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, May 03,2011 10:04 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Appeal of condition #14 of Planning Commission Resolution # 2011-13 (Case # ZON2010-00402) Dear Ms. Mikhail, We respectfully urge the City Council to uphold the Planning Commission's decision ofMarch 8th requiring Mr. Zarrabian to return the wall along the southern property line of Golden Cove to six feet. Yours truly, Susan and Wesley Greayer 5/3/2011 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 56 Page 1 of 1 Leza Mikhail From: Daniel Sobhani [[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 201111:13 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Golden Cove Plaza To: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Department 30941 Hawthorne Blvd Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Subject: Golden Cove Plaza Dear City Council Members, Residing in Palos Verdes for a good amount of time, and assisting hill community as a PV specialist Real Estate consultant, I find Golden Cove a gem in the heart of Peninsula, especially after its renovations during the last couple of years. Not only has it brought lots of values and beauty to the hill, but also created convenience of shopping while enjoying the breath taking beauty of pacific ocean and Catalina island view. This is one of the major characteristics of Golden Cove that distinguishes it from other shopping centers. Based on my professional experience, I strongly disagree with constructing any kind of obstruction, which blocks this outstanding natural beauty from the businesses as well as the shoppers at Golden Cove Plaza. Golden Cove has brought numerous values to the surrounding properties that I can't imagine destroying it. I can't emphasize enough how much I am hoping to keep Golden Cove and it's view as is. I greatly appreciate your consideration. Sincerely Yours, Daniel Sobhani Real Estate Consultant Keller Williams PV Realty Residential,Commercial,lnvestment 310-308-8175 DRE#0171 01 09 5/11/2011 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 57 31244 Palos Verdes Drive West Suite 243 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Tel: 310.750.6707 Fax: 310.750.6048 [email protected] MAY 10 2011 May 4, 2011 PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Regarding: Objection to City Council on Increasing Height of Solid Wall between Admiral Risty Building and Adjacent Parcel I am Paris Zarrabian, the Golden Cove Center Developer; I am writing the members ofthe City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes to beg you to grant my appeal of the action of the Planning Commission to permanently raise the portion of our wall separating the Golden Cove Center and the New Animal Hospital parcel. Golden Cove is now the Malaga Cove of Rancho Palos Verdes. I see new developments in the area such as Annenberg Project, Terranea Resort and others, with the same architectural design all the way through the peninsula, preserve their ocean view and keeping the conformity ofthe Mediterranean look. Unfortunately, the action of the Planning Commission damages your vision to preserve and enhance the beauty of the City. The Villa Capri homeowners who complained to the Planning Commission have done so to obtain leverage over us in their meritless lawsuit against us, that we have defeated so far in court proceedings. What they should have been complaining about is the new Animal Hospital building, which creates a substantial impairment oftheir views and quality of life. The Golden Cove Center was built before any neighboring developments were constructed, even before the City of Rancho Palos Verdes was incorporated. So, I do not understand how subsequent neighboring residential developments such as Villa Capri, could be allowed to impair the value of our center by ganging up on us at the Planning Commission hearing. All surrounding residents of the Golden Cove Center had the option to choose to live near the Golden Cove Center or choose to live anywhere else. When they chose to live near or next to the Golden Cove Center they should have understood, and it should be very evident, that they are going to be exposed to the commercial operations a shopping center, be it lighting, vehicular traffic, foot traffic and anything else. Contesting any items resulting from the operation of a shopping center is therefore a waste of City's tax monies, time and a burden to everyone involved only to in the end highlight obvious items. We have initiated a process of improvements that will allow the center to be successful. However, the destruction of our view corridor for several of our tenant spaces will irreparably damage our center. This is the goal of Villa Capri. We need to be able to pursue successful business operations at the Golden Cove Center, for the benefit ofthe City of Rancho Palos Verdes and all our neighbors. With this, I ask the City Council to leave the solid wall structure at the height it currently stands and allow the master plan of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to continue by preserving the great Catalina and Ocean views the Golden Cove Center and the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has to offer. Sincerely, Paris Zarrabian Developer p~~ Golden Cove, LLC 31244 Rancho Palos Verdes Dr. West #243 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 [email protected] GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 58 Page 1 of 1 Leza Mikhail From: Gail Hyland-Savage [[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, May 04,2011 9:52 AM To: '[email protected]' Subject: Appeal of condition #14 of Planning Commission Resolution #2011-13 (Case # ZON2010 00402) Importance: High Dear Ms. Mikhail, I am writing to you as a very concerned resident of the Villa Capri Townhomes community in Rancho Palos Verdes. I am asking that the Planning Commission uphold its decision of March 8th 2011 on this matter to restore the wall between Villa Capri and the Golden Cove Shopping Center to the required height six feet. The height of this wall has a direct impact on the property values of our homes as well as the privacy of our residents and the six foot requirement is critical to all of us. Thank you very much for your consideration, Gail Hyland-Savage Chief Operating Officer Michaelson, Connor & Boul 714.230.3658 FAX 714.230.3672 [email protected] 5/4/2011 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 59 Leza Mikhail From: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, May 05,2011 12:04 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Appeal of condition #14 of Planning Commision Resolution #2011-1 Attention: Leza Mikhail I am writing in support ofthe Planning Commission decision ofMarch 8th that requires Mr. Paris Zarrabian (owner ofGolden Cove) to reconstruct the privacy wall between the Golden Cove properties and Via Capri to height of six feet. As a former member ofthe board and past President ofthe Via Capri ROA, I vividly remember the intent ofthis wall was to act as a sound barrier and provide a level ofprivacy for our neighbors. The Commission acted properly on March 8th by ordering a rewording ofthe condition requiring the six foot high privacy wall along the southern property line to match the height ofthe existing wall. 1 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 60 RECEIVED MAY 09 2011 PLANNING, BUILDING AND e.G Building Design CODE ENFORCEMENT Residential & Commercial Design May 6, 2011 CiryofRancho Pwos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd Rancho Palos Verdes CA, 90275 Subject: Case No. ZON2010-00402 Re: Revision to Condition No. 38 ofResolution 99-40 Dear Planning Commission, Since the new ownership in 2007 the Golden Cove Center has embarked in a multi million dollar improvement resulting in a tremendous and positive impact to the surrounding neighborhood; Recent modifications have created oppositions from Villa Capri neighbors regarding a 3' wall on the southwest portions ofthe center. The owner Of Golden Cove Center and its associates, along with a number a customers that frequently visit the shopping center feel that the validiry of the ocean view and Catwina on a nice sunny day is priceless. The idea ofincreasing the height ofthis wall is a clear detriment for the following reasons. 1. A 6' obstruction to the gorgeous ocean and Catalina view would be created. 2. The purpose ofuse to the west facing newly built roofpatio for residents to enjoy the view would be lost. 3. Itwill devalue the desire for prospect clients that have based their business ofthe prized ocean view which the Golden Cove can offer. In conclusion the Golden Cove Center is willing to provide this portion with a safery wall ofto taller than 42" in height to comply with Building Code Regulations. The owner Has taken mitigated the neighbors concerns by relocating trash enclosures, provided beautiful landscaping, etc. A decade ago the This shopping center was true eyesore where the maintenance and cleanliness was way below fair. The Golden Cove Center would greatly appreciate the Ciry ofRancho Palos Verdes cooperation and consideration ofthe Approval to allow a 42" wall on subject location. Sincerely, Christian Golfm. Cg. Building Design GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 61 SHERIFF-CORONER DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF ORANGE CALIFORNIA SANDRA HUTCHENS SHERIFF·CORONER RECEIVED MAY 09 2011 PLANNING, BUILDING AND City of Rancho Palos Verdes CODE ENFORCEMENT Planning Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Subject: Objection to Increasing Height of Solid Wall between Admiral Risty Building and Adjacent Land Dear City Council, As a 30 plus year resident of Rancho Palos Verdes, I have been living and enjoying the beauty of our community and ongoing improvements over the last few decades. Since the Golden Cove Center was built, before there were any Villa Capri Houses, Church or anything else in the Palos Verdes Dr. West and Hawthorne Corner, the center did not have any great appeal nor was it considered a booming place in our community, as far as I am concerned it was just run down, mismanaged and poorly maintained. Ever since the Golden Cove changed owner hands in 2007, with all the renovations, great new shops like the Trader Joe's, outstanding maintenance and hands on management, for the first time the Golden Cove Center has turned into a location I now constantly enjoy and shop in. Today, it is definitely a great part of Rancho Palos Verdes. I enjoy being at the center because of the beautiful views of the ocean and Catalina Island, as well as the great open feel. It breaks my heart to learn that there is an interest in raising a wall at the Golden Cove Center to enclose and eliminate the beautiful views of Catalina Island and the ocean. This is what our community is known for and why it makes this center such a great destination. As part of the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Department and from my expertise, raising walls in dark, public corners where our backs will be turned do not create safe environments. As an officer of the law, I am concerned that crime such as graffiti and homeless substance abuse, could not only decrease property value, but also become a dangerous area for our community and children. I urge the City Council to continue to help our community and please leave this wall as it is. Sin~ Ji~~r~ino, Public Affairs Director Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Department 4215 Palos Verdes Drive South Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Tel:(310) 377 0295 550 N. FLOWER STREET, P.O. BOX 449, SANTA ANA, CA 92702-0499 (714) 647·1800 qllt~ wUlr.out comp'Com~e. 8R11lce dove !>elf. trr.ofu!>lon.aJ.~m in. tlr.e petr:fo'r.nuur.ce of~. !>a.f-8.u.a.~ ou.~ co~ CVi¥UCZIlC& in. GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 62 II COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE BRC Advisors ORE L1C,. 0149810 9744 Wilshire Blvd Los Angeles. CA 90210 RECEIVED eel (310) 913 2320 Office (310) 1% 9113 Fax (310)356 3622 MAY 11 2011 Email: j:ijume1i.brcadvisQrs... com May 6th, 2011 PLANNING, BUILDING AND COOE ENFORCEMENT City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear City Council, Over the last few years I've been the leasing broker for Golden Cove Plaza, at the corner of Hawthorne Blvd and Palos Verdes Dr. West, and also the Town and Country Shopping Center on Silver Spur Rd as well as numerous restaurants in the south bay and Los Angeles county I want to share my opinion on how the recently improved and renovated space at 31246 PV Dr. West inside the Golden Cove Center will be affected by any change in the benefits this space has to offer. The main benefit this space has to offer is the fabulous Catalina and ocean Views, and to block this view by any sort of permanent structure will negatively impact the lease up period as well as the potential rent collected for this space. Based on my experience, the uniqueness of the ocean views from this space, which faces directly the wall structure in question, justifies higher asking rents. I estimate that blocking this view will reduce the potential rent to by as much as 35%. Also, because of the light evening traffic, most 3000 sq ft restaurant users will demand an ocean view in order to justify a higher menu price point. At an estimated asking rent price of $3.00 per square foot of monthly rent for 3,064 square feet, would equal to $9,192.00 per month of the space as is. Increasing the wall structure and therefore eliminating the main unique benefit of this space would, by my calculations, decrease monthly rental income by as much as 3.217.00, equaling to a negative financial impact of over $38,604 of annual income I would strongly recommend keeping the views of 31246 Palos Verdes Dr. West unobstructed for any permanent structure in order to successfully compete in a diffiCUlt commercial leasing market With its unique Catalina Island and open Ocean Views. Sincerely, 1!::.ne~ Senior Leasing Advisor BRC Advisors 9744 Wilshire BlVd, Beverly Hills, CA 90210 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 63 RECEIVED MAY 11 2011 PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT ~ THE ADMIRAL RlSTY ~ STEAKS· COCKTAILS· FISH· LOBSTER (310) 377-0050 www.admiral-risty.com May 9, 2011 City ofRancho Palos Verdes Planning Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear City Council: I am writing to you regarding the wall between the Golden Cove Center and the new Veterinary Hospital south ofthe Admiral Risty Restaurant on Palos Verdes Drive West. As the current c%wner and general manager ofthe Admiral Risty, I am opposed to a wall blocking the view from the restaurant location. The view is ofgreat importance to our customers and will affect our business negatively ifblocked. Ifa wall is necessary for safety and to eliminate items from being thrown on the adjacent property, I recommend the wall be ofglass so as not to interfere with the ocean views. Sincerely, Wayne Judah Co/Owner and General Manager 31250 Palos Verdes Drive West at Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CaliforniaGOLDEN90275 COVE CENTER - 64 Page 1 of 1 Leza Mikhail From: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2011 9:51 AM To: [email protected] Subject: (no subject) Ref: Appeal of condition #14 of Planning Resolution #2011-18 (Case #ZON 2010-00402) Dear Ms Mikhail, This e-mail is an appeal to support the planning commission and deny the appeal by Mr Paris Zarrabian to leave the wall at the current height. Granting the appeal will an adverse effect on the quality of life and property values for the neighbors. The Planning Commission made the proper decision, and it should stand. yours truly, Jacques Naviaux 9 Via San Remo Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 5/10/2011 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 65 31244 Palos Verdes Drive West Suite 243 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 ED Phone 310-750-6707 Fax: 310-750-6048 [email protected] MAY 10 2011 PLANNING, BUILDING AND DearCouncilMembe~, CODe ENFORCEMENT As an owner of the Golden Cove Center I would like to express my frustration regarding the wall structure between the Golden Cove Center and the animal hospital. The city of Rancho Palos Verdes is a unique location that is recognized by the developments at the Terranea Resort, Trump Golf Course, and its oldest landmark, the Golden Cove Center. Prior to my team's acquisition of the Golden Cove, the center had numerous vacancies and was unable to compete with its neighboring developments. In order to combat this it was important to rely on the ocean view to attract a great tenant mix to the location. My management team and I have dedicated ourselves to revamping the Golden Cove Center and I believe we have done a great job creating an enjoyable experience for the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes. The redevelopment project began with the construction of the Trader Joe's building and has continued over to the Admiral Risty and two-story office buildings. Development plans for the hardscape patio area around the office building was submitted to the City Planning Department and approved. The decision to lower the wall near the animal hospital was based on the terminology of the 1999 Condition Use Permit (CUP) attached to the Trader Joe's project requiring the wall to be "up to 6 feet." The city attorney and planning department agreed that Golden Cove had the right to lower the wall so long as it was within the terminology. Golden Cove is well within its rights to lower the wall to the minimum where the center could obtain the view of the ocean and Catalina Island according to the 1999 CUP and should not be chastised for doing so. Currently, the Golden Cove team has had difficulty leasing the end-cap of the office building due to the uncertainty of the wall height. By increasing the wall to "at 6 feet" the center's most important asset, the ocean view, will be lost. The center's viability and the prospect of leasing the vacant space depend on a minimum wall height. If a wall is to be constructed to "at 6 feet" the investment made to beautify and open Golden Cove to the ocean will have been done for nothing. Originally, the Golden Cove Center was not required to have a wall structure in this area. After speaking with veteran residents of Rancho Palos Verdes I was informed that the wall structure was requested by a prior resident of Villa Capri who was not happy with looking at the old fac;ade of the Admiral Risty building and its trash enclosure. However, as part of the revamping project of the center, we have updated the look of the Admiral Risty building and moved the trash enclosure to the back of the center. Now, patrons of the Golden Cove Center can look out to Catalina Island from this corner. Also, we plan to have hanging flowers along the wall and the patio area with the hopes to open it up to approved artists to come with their easels and paint portraits and landscapes. GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 66 I ask the council members to be cautious of the complaints from the residents of Villa Capri. The recent turmoil between Villa Capri and Golden Cove regarding a trespassing issue should not factor into the council's decision. First, I would like to point out that the front five residences of the Villa Capri are the only properties affected by the decision, not the community in its entirety. Second, these front five properties can already look over the wall structure, whether it is at 3 feet or six feet, from the second-story balcony of their home. I believe that the animal hospital should be a greater concern to these five residences since they share a border with the animal hospital and not with the Golden Cove. It is important to the viability of the Golden Cove Center that the city council members do not require the Golden Cove team to construct a wall to "at 6 feet." A six-foot wall will create a closed feeling in this area of the center when there is an endless ocean in front of it. Furthermore, the homeowner's of Villa Capri and Rancho Palos Verdes will benefit from the luxurious activities the Golden Cove team plans to incorporate into the center. Aesthetically, the residents will be looking at an open environment, flowers, and murals instead of a plain six-foot wall. I believe that our work at the Golden Cove has increased the property value of homes around it. The Golden Cove team and I take great pride in revamping Rancho Palos Verdes' historical landmark. Golden Cove is entitled to the ocean view it originally had liberty to. The ocean view is an asset that should be shared amongst the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes, Villa Capri, Terranea Resort, and Trump Golf Course. I plead the council members to not punish the Golden Cove team for the wonderful work that has been accomplished over the last few years. Sincerely, \.\\ ' Vala zarra~~~ Principal Golden Cove LLC. 31244 Rancho Palos Verdes Dr. West #243 Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca 90275 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 67 GOLDEN COVE CENTER GOLDEN Objection to increasing height of COVE solid wall CENTER RECEIVED - 68 MAY 11 2011 PLANNING. BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT Objection to increasing height of solid wall between Golden Cove Shopping Center and adjacent land Dear City Council, As the current employees of the Golden Cove Center in Rancho Palos Verdes we would like to express our objection against raising the solid wall between the Golden Cove Shopping Genter and the adjacent future animal hospital land. We and our family visit the Golden Cove Center on the daily bases either to shop, work, school and even to have a moment to ourselves or spend time with our kids and other members of our family to enjoy the beauty of the God given Ocean and Catalina Island views. We have been blessed with this natural beauty that has been aworking, shopping and eating sanctuary for us, the employees of the Golden Cove Center for a long time. On the other hand by raising the wall we will invite Gang member activities, Graffiti, Etc. We also will be sending an invitation to the wrong type of characters to our low crime city that has been the center of envy and spot light in the whole State of California. We have been the witnesses of precise decision making by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council in the past and the right direction you have provided us for the beauty of Rancho Palos Verdes. We also believe the city council will make the correct decision about this wall and will make certain that as atax paying workers and consumers of Rancho Palos Verdes we will have our quiet, beautiful center to enjoy our view daily. Thank you, The Employees of the Golden Cove Center, Name: (J() 01 ') 2ecJc< f e Address: 3 l2e.tv ?\! J)) - \~jeJ± ~?V / CA- Q022l ( GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 69 Subject: Objection to increasing height of solid wall between shopping center and adjacent land. Dear City Council, As the current residents of Palos Verdes we would like to express our objection against raising the solid wall between the Golden Cove Shopping Center and the adjacent future animal hospital land. All our family visits Golden Cove Center on the daily bases either to shop, work, school and even to have a moment to our self or spend time with our kids and other members of our family to enjoy the beauty of the God given Ocean and Catalina Island views. We have been blessed with this natural beauty that has been a shopping and eating sanctuary for us, the residents of Palos Verdes for a long time. On the other hand by raising the wall we will invite Gang member activities, Graffiti, Etc. We also will be sending an invitation to the wrong type of characters to our low crime city that has been the center of envy and spot light in the whole State of California. We have been the wittiness of precise decision making by the City Council in the past and the right direction you have provided us for our beautiful city. We also believe the city council will make the correct decision about this wall and will make certain that as a tax paying residents of Palos Verdes we will have our quiet, beautiful center to enjoy our view daily. Thank you, The Residents of Palos Verdes, Name: Address: Signature: --I-W~-+'Ir~"*'MIt------ GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 70 Subject: Objection to increasing height of solid wall between shopping center and adjacent land. Dear City Council, As the current residents of Palos Verdes we would like to express our objection against raising the solid wall between the Golden Cove Shopping Center and the adjacent future animal hospital land. All our family visits Golden Cove Center on the daily bases either to shop, work, school and even to have a moment to our self or spend time with our kids and other members of our family to enjoy the beauty of the God given Ocean and Catalina Island views. We have been blessed with this natural beauty that has been a shopping and eating sanctuary for us, the residents of Palos Verdes for a long time. On the other hand by raising the wall we will invite Gang member activities, Graffiti, Etc. We also will be sending an invitation to the wrong type of characters to our low crime city that has been the center of envy and spot light in the whole State of California. We have been the wittiness of precise decision making by the City Council in the past and the right direction you have provided us for our beautiful city. We also believe the city council will make the correct decision about this wall and will make certain that as a tax paying residents of Palos Verdes we will have our quiet, beautiful center to enjoy our view daily. Thank you, The Residents of Palos Verdes, Name: Address: _/--!-?(--,,-~_r_.__\A_~--,--_g_ 7?-;-~ .g ! v - L- Signature: ~P-~~~~~~~~~~."=::::::::==:------ GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 71 Subject: Objection to increasing height of solid wall between shopping center and adjacent land. Dear City Council, As the current residents of Palos Verdes we would like to express our objection against raising the solid wall between the Golden Cove Shopping Center and the adjacent future animal hospital land. All our family visits Golden Cove Center on the daily bases either to shop, work, school and even to have a moment to our self or spend time with our kids and other members of our family to enjoy the beauty of the God given Ocean and Catalina Island views. We have been blessed with this natural beauty that has been a shopping and eating sanctuary for us, the residents of Palos Verdes for a long time. On the other hand by raising the wall we will invite Gang member activities, Graffiti, Etc. We also will be sending an invitation to the wrong type of characters to our low crime city that has been the center of envy and spot light in the whole State of California. We have been the wittiness of precise decision making by the City Council in the past and the right direction you have provided us for our beautiful city. We also believe the city council will make the correct decision about this wall and will make certain that as a tax paying residents of Palos Verdes we will have our quiet, beautiful center to enjoy our view daily. Thank you, The Residents of Palos Verdes, Name: Address: GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 72 Subject: Objection to increasing height of solid wall between shopping center and adjacent land. Dear City Council, As the current residents of Palos Verdes we would like to express our objection against raising the solid wall between the Golden Cove Shopping Center and the adjacent future animal hospital land. All our family visits Golden Cove Center on the daily bases either to shop, work, school and even to have a moment to our self or spend time with our kids and other members of our family to enjoy the beauty of the God given Ocean and Catalina Island views. We have been blessed with this natural beauty that has been a shopping and eating sanctuary for us, the residents of Palos Verdes for a long time. On the other hand by raising the wall we will invite Gang member activities, Graffiti, Etc. We also will be sending an invitation to the wrong type of characters to our low crime city that has been the center of envy and spot light in the whole State of California. We have been the wittiness of precise decision making by the City Council in the past and the right direction you have provided us for our beautiful city. We also believe the city council will make the correct decision about this wall and will make certain that as a tax paying residents of Palos Verdes we will have our quiet, beautiful center to enjoy our view daily. Thank you, The Residents of Palos Verdes, Name: ~ooss Address: Signature: GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 73 Subject: Objection to increasing height of solid wall between shopping center and adjacent land. Dear City Council, As the current residents of Palos Verdes we would like to express our objection against raising the solid wall between the Golden Cove Shopping Center and the adjacent future animal hospital land. All our family visits Golden Cove Center on the daily bases either to shop, work, school and even to have a moment to our self or spend time with our kids and other members of our family to enjoy the beauty of the God given Ocean and Catalina Island views. We have been blessed with this natural beauty that has been a shopping and eating sanctuary for us, the residents of Palos Verdes for a long time. On the other hand by raising the wall we will invite Gang member activities, Graffiti, Etc. We also will be sending an invitation to the wrong type of characters to our low crime city that has been the center of envy and spot light in the whole State of California. We have been the wittiness of precise decision making by the City Council in the past and the right direction you have provided us for our beautiful city. We also believe the city council will make the correct decision about this wall and will make certain that as a tax paying residents of Palos Verdes we will have our quiet, beautiful center to enjoy our view daily. Thank you, The Residents of Palos Verdes, Name: Address: b77?' VisTA- D12 . R- p. v-: Signature: -~~~~~~~?k~~S;:::2~==------ GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 74 Subject: Objection to increasing height of solid wall between shopping center and adjacent land. Dear City Council, As the current residents of Palos Verdes we would like to express our objection against raising the solid wall between the Golden Cove Shopping Center and the adjacent future animal hospital land. All our family visits Golden Cove Center on the daily bases either to shop, work, school and even to have a moment to our self or spend time with our kids and other members of our family to enjoy the beauty of the God given Ocean and Catalina Island views. We have been blessed with this natural beauty that has been a shopping and eating sanctuary for us, the residents of Palos Verdes for a long time. On the other hand by raising the wall we will invite Gang member activities, Graffiti, Etc. We also will be sending an invitation to the wrong type of characters to our low crime city that has been the center of envy and spot light in the whole State of California. We have been the wittiness of precise decision making by the City Council in the past and the right direction you have provided us for our beautiful city. We also believe the city council will make the correct decision about this wall and will make certain that as a tax paying residents of Palos Verdes we will have our quiet, beautiful center to enjoy our view daily. Thank you, The Residents of Palos Verdes, Name: Address: Signature: ---r--"'::::::=::::::::::J~L"'::~====:s.....::....-_------ GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 75 Subject: Objection to increasing height of solid wall between shopping center and adjacent land. Dear City Council, As the current residents of Palos Verdes we would like to express our objection against raising the solid wall between the Golden Cove Shopping Center and the adjacent future animal hospital land. All our family visits Golden Cove Center on the daily bases either to shop, work, school and even to have a moment to our self or spend time with our kids and other members of our family to enjoy the beauty of the God given Ocean and Catalina Island views. We have been blessed with this natural beauty that has been a shopping and eating sanctuary for us, the residents of Palos Verdes for a long time. On the other hand by raising the wall we will invite Gang member activities, Graffiti, Etc. We also will be sending an invitation to the wrong type of characters to our low crime city that has been the center of envy and spot light in the whole State of California. We have been the wittiness of precise decision making by the City Council in the past and the right direction you have provided us for our beautiful city. We also believe the city council will make the correct decision about this wall and will make certain that as a tax paying residents of Palos Verdes we will have our quiet, beautiful center to enjoy our view daily. Thank you, The Residents of Palos Verdes, Name: ?a..'C\l'~CY "B.q~~ \.A7QL..~ Address: \'[;)3 Guw."''cr-'61\ ~. Signature: ~~ GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 76 Subject: Objection to increasing height of solid wall between shopping center and adjacent land. Dear City Council, As the current residents of Palos Verdes we would like to express our objection against raising the solid wall between the Golden Cove Shopping Center and the adjacent future animal hospital land. All our family visits Golden Cove Center on the daily bases either to shop, work, school and even to have a moment to our self or spend time with our kids and other members of our family to enjoy the beauty of the God given Ocean and Catalina Island views. We have been blessed with this natural beauty that has been a shopping and eating sanctuary for us, the residents of Palos Verdes for a long time. On the other hand by raising the wall we will invite Gang member activities, Graffiti, Etc. We also will be sending an invitation to the wrong type of characters to our low crime city that has been the center of envy and spot light in the whole State of California. We have been the wittiness of precise decision making by the City Council in the past and the right direction you have provided us for our beautiful city. We also believe the city council will make the correct decision about this wall and will make certain that as a tax paying residents of Palos Verdes we will have our quiet, beautiful center to enjoy our view daily. Thank you, The Residents of Palos Verdes, Name: Address: C-..A· Signature~ GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 77 Subject: Objection to increasing height of solid wall between shopping center and adjacent land. Dear City Council, As the current residents of Palos Verdes we would like to express our objection against raising the solid wall between the Golden Cove Shopping Center and the adjacent future animal hospital land. All our family visits Golden Cove Center on the daily bases either to shop, work, school and even to have a moment to our self or spend time with our kids and other members of our family to enjoy the beauty of the God given Ocean and Catalina Island views. We have been blessed with this natural beauty that has been a shopping and eating sanctuary for us, the residents of Palos Verdes for a long time. On the other hand by raising the wall we will invite Gang member activities, Graffiti, Etc. We also will be sending an invitation to the wrong type of characters to our low crime city that has been the center of envy and spot light in the whole State of California. We have been the wittiness of precise decision making by the City Council in the past and the right direction you have provided us for our beautiful city. We also believe the city council will make the correct decision about this wall and will make certain that as a tax paying residents of Palos Verdes we will have our quiet, beautiful center to enjoy our view daily. Thank you, The Residents of Palos Verdes, Name: Address: GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 78 Subject: Objection to increasing height of solid wall between shopping center and adjacent land. Dear City Council, As the current residents of Palos Verdes we would like to express our objection against raising the solid wall between the Golden Cove Shopping Center and the adjacent future animal hospital land. All our family visits Golden Cove Center on the daily bases either to shop, work, school and even to have a moment to our self or spend time with our kids and other members of our family to enjoy the beauty of the God given Ocean and Catalina Island views. We have been blessed with this natural beauty that has been a shopping and eating sanctuary for us, the residents of Palos Verdes for a long time. On the other hand by raising the wall we will invite Gang member activities, Graffiti, Etc. We also will be sending an invitation to the wrong type of characters to our low crime city that has been the center of envy and spot light in the whole State of California. We have been the wittiness of precise decision making by the City Council in the past and the right direction you have provided us for our beautiful city. We also believe the city council will make the correct decision about this wall and will make certain that as a tax paying residents of Palos Verdes we will have our quiet, beautiful center to enjoy our view daily. Thank you, The Residents of Palos Verdes, Name: Address: Signat~ ~ GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 79 Subject: Objection to increasing height of solid wall between shopping center and adjacent land. Dear City Council, As the current residents of Palos Verdes we would like to express our objection against raising the solid wall between the Golden Cove Shopping Center and the adjacent future animal hospital land. All our family visits Golden Cove Center on the daily bases either to shop, work, school and even to have a moment to our self or spend time with our kids and other members of our family to enjoy the beauty of the God given Ocean and Catalina Island views. We have been blessed with this natural beauty that has been a shopping and eating sanctuary for us, the residents of Palos Verdes for a long time. On the other hand by raising the wall we will invite Gang member activities, Graffiti, Etc. We also will be sending an invitation to the wrong type of characters to our low crime city that has been the center of envy and spot light in the whole State of California. We have been the wittiness of precise decision making by the City Council in the past and the right direction you have provided us for our beautiful city. We also believe the city council will make the correct decision about this wall and will make certain that as a tax paying residents of Palos Verdes we will have our quiet, beautiful center to enjoy our view daily, Thank you, The Residents of Palos Verdes, Name: Address: Signature,, -+---"'--__---::-1-- _ GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 80 Subject: Objection to increasing height of solid wall between shopping center and adjacent land. Dear City Council, As the current residents of Palos Verdes we would like to express our objection against raising the solid wall between the Golden Cove Shopping Center and the adjacent future animal hospital land. All our family visits Golden Cove Center on the daily bases either to shop, work, school and even to have a moment to our self or spend time with our kids and other members of our family to enjoy the beauty of the God given Ocean and Catalina Island views. We have been blessed with this natural beauty that has been a shopping and eating sanctuary for us, the residents of Palos Verdes for a long time. On the other hand by raising the wall we will invite Gang member activities, Graffiti, Etc. We also will be sending an invitation to the wrong type of characters to our low crime city that has been the center of envy and spot light in the whole State of California. We have been the wittiness of precise decision making by the City Council in the past and the right direction you have provided us for our beautiful city. We also believe the city council will make the correct decision about this wall and will make certain that as a tax paying residents of Palos Verdes we will have our quiet, beautiful center to enjoy our view daily. Thank you, The Residents of Palos Verdes, Name: Address: GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 81 Subject: Objection to increasing height of solid wall between shopping center and adjacent land. Dear City Council, As the current residents of Palos Verdes we would like to express our objection against raising the solid wall between the Golden Cove Shopping Center and the adjacent future animal hospital land. All our family visits Golden Cove Center on the daily bases either to shop, work, school and even to have a moment to our self or spend time with our kids and other members of our family to enjoy the beauty of the God given Ocean and Catalina Island views. We have been blessed with this natural beauty that has been a shopping and eating sanctuary for us, the residents of Palos Verdes for a long time. On the other hand by raising the wall we will invite Gang member activities, Graffiti, Etc. We also will be sending an invitation to the wrong type of characters to our low crime city that has been the center of envy and spot light in the whole State of California. We have been the wittiness of precise decision making by the City Council in the past and the right direction you have provided us for our beautiful city. We also believe the city council will make the correct decision about this wall and will make certain that as a tax paying residents of Palos Verdes we will have our quiet, beautiful center to enjoy our view daily. Thank you, The Residents of Palos Verdes, Name: Address: Signature: ....:::::::r~~==~~~~:.::=::::~:==~==::::::::::::::=-'".:::::..._- GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 82 Subject: Objection to increasing height of solid wall between shopping center and adjacent land. Dear City Council, As the current residents of Palos Verdes we would like to express our objection against raising the solid wall between the Golden Cove Shopping Center and the adjacent future animal hospital land. All our family visits Golden Cove Center on the daily bases either to shop, work, school and even to have a moment to our self or spend time with our kids and other members of our family to enjoy the beauty of the God given Ocean and Catalina Island views. We have been blessed with this natural beauty that has been a shopping and eating sanctuary for us, the residents of Palos Verdes for a long time. On the other hand by raising the wall we will invite Gang member activities, Graffiti, Etc. We also will be sending an invitation to the wrong type of characters to our low crime city that has been the center of envy and spot light in the whole State of California. We have been the wittiness of precise decision making by the City Council in the past and the right direction you have provided us for our beautiful city. We also believe the city council will make the correct decision about this wall and will make certain that as a tax paying residents of Palos Verdes we will have our quiet, beautiful center to enjoy our view daily. Thank you, The Residents of Palos Verdes, Name: ~:ill\\ ~~'- ~j\\ cx.~.\J\~ c\~ Address: Signature: --*"IJ-.Il~:"'-_---JII--~~----...,..------ GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 83 Subject: Objection to increasing height of solid waH between shopping center and adjacent land. Dear City Council, As the current residents of Palos Verdes we would like to express our objection against raising the solid wall between the Golden Cove Shopping Center and the adjacent future animal hospital land. All our family visits Golden Cove Center on the daily bases either to shop, work, school and even to have a moment to our self or spend time with our kids and other members of our family to enjoy the beauty of the God· given Ocean and Catalina Island views. We have been blessed with this natural beauty that has been a shopping and eating sanctuary for us, the residents of Palos Verdes for a long time. On the other hand by raising the wall we will invite Gang member activities, Graffiti, Etc. We also will be sending an invitation to the wrong type of characters to our low crime city that has been the center of envy and spot light in the whole State of California. We have been the wittiness of precise decision making by the City Council in the past and the right direction you have provided us for our beautiful city. We also believe the city council will make the correct decision about this wall and will make certain that as a tax paying residents of Palos Verdes we will have our quiet, beautiful center to enjoy our view daily. Thank you, The Residents of Palos Verdes, Name: Address: 6900 Los \Jerdeg #-7 RPV 9'o27S Signature: --l~~~~+~tt:::::!!.~!....L.:::;"L-. _ GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 84 Subject: Objection to increasing height of solid wall between shopping center and adjacent land. Dear City Council, As the current residents of Palos Verdes we would like to express our objection against raising the solid wall between the Golden Cove Shopping Center and the adjacent future animal hospital land. All our family visits Golden Cove Center on the daily bases either to shop, work, school and even to have a moment to our self or spend time with our kids and other members of our family to enjoy the beauty of the God given Ocean and Catalina Island views. We have been blessed with this natural beauty that has been a shopping and eating sanctuary for us, the residents of Palos Verdes for a long time. On the other hand by raising the wall we will invite Gang member activities, Graffiti, Etc. We also will be sending an invitation to the wrong type of characters to our low crime city that has been the center of envy and spot light in the whole State of California. We have been the wittiness of precise decision making by the City Council in the past and the right direction you have provided us for our beautiful city. We also believe the city council will make the correct decision about this wall and will make certain that as a tax paying residents of Palos Verdes we will have our quiet, beautiful center to enjoy our view daily. Thank you, The Residents of Palos Verdes, Name: Address: 2..oc> \\ ~. Signature: ~~..i::::>:tJ±;,. :. GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 85 Subject: Objection to increasing height of solid wall between shopping center and adjacent land. Dear City Council, As the current residents of Palos Verdes we would like to express our objection against raising the solid wall between the Golden Cove Shopping Center and the adjacent future animal hospital land. All our family visits Golden Cove Center on the daily bases either to shop, work, school and even to have a moment to our self or spend time with our kids and other members of our family to enjoy the beauty of the God given Ocean and Catalina Island views. We have been blessed with this natural beauty that has been a shopping and eating sanctuary for us, the residents of Palos Verdes for a long time. On the other hand by raising the wall we will invite Gang member activities, Graffiti, Etc. We also will be sending an invitation to the wrong type of characters to our low crime city that has been the center of envy and spot light in the whole State of California. We have been the wittiness of precise decision making by the City Council in the past and the right direction you have provided us for our beautiful city. We also believe the city council will make the correct decision about this wall and will make certain that as a tax paying residents of Palos Verdes we will have our quiet, beautiful center to enjoy our view daily. Thank you, The Residents of Palos Verdes, Name: Address: 3> 'Z. b'L'L (4 ---_.._--_._-_._._..__._-_._...._--~ Signature: ~~~~ GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 86 Objection to increasing height of solid wall between Golden Cove Shopping Center and adjacent land Dear City Council, As the current employees of the Golden Cove Center in Rancho Palos Verdes we would like to express our objection against raising the solid wall between the Golden Cove Shopping Center and the adjacent future animal hospital land. We and our famHy visit the Golden Cove center on the daily bases either to shop, work, school and even to have a moment to ourselves or spend time with our kids and other members of our family to enjoy the beauty of the God given Ocean and Catafinalsland views. We have been blessed with this natural beauty that has been aworking, shopping and eating sanctuary for us, the employees of the Golden Cove Center for a long time. On the other hand by raising the wall we will invite Gang member activities, Graffiti, Etc. We also will be sending an invitation to the wrong type of characters to our low cnmecity that has been the center of envy and spot light in the whole State of California. We have been the witnesses of precise decision making by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council in the past and the right direction you have provided us for the beauty of Rancho Palos Verdes. We also believe the city council will make the correct decision about this wall and will make certain that as atax paying workers and consumers of Rancho Palos Verdes we will have our qUiet, beautiful center to enjoy our view daily. Thank you, The Employees of the Golc!en Cove Center, Name: ~'tI1f!~~~~~1f1.IJ~~\ 7ifrg Address: -....L.-fb--'-q--:..-5-'-Gf---lLoI<::J.L$~lA!,...;;..:~-.!:1.~:::...L5~---Ji~"-f-IL--'<~:::...... _:#-3 Elf/; t If ~()zr5 Signature: ~ GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 87 Objection to increasing height of solid wall between Golden Cove Shopping Center and adjacent land Dear City Council, As the current employees of the Golden Cove Genter in Rancho Palos Verdes we would like to express our objection against raising the solid wall between the Golden Cove Shopping Genter and the adjacent future animal hospital land. We and our family visit the Golden Cove Genter on the daily bases either to shop, work, school and even to have amoment to ourselves or spend time with our kids and other members of our family to enjoy the beauty of the God given Ocean and Catalina Island views. We have been blessed with this natural beauty that has been aworking, shopping and eating sanctuary for us, the employees of the Golden Cove Genter for a long time. On the other hand by raising the wall we will invite Gang member activities, Graffiti, Etc. We also will be sending an invitation to the wrong type of characters to our lowcrtme city that has been the center of envy and spot light in the whole State of California. We have been the witnesses of precise decision making by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council in the past and the right direction you have provided us for the beauty of Rancho Palos Verdes. We also beJieve the city council will make the correct decision about this wall and will make certain that as atax paying workers and consumers of Rancho Palos Verdes we will have our quiet beautiful center to enjoy our view daily. Thank you, The Employees of the Golden Cove Genter, Name: _zS~~~\\..JL-l_ Address: ---=&~l\.....:..7_--'51o£---_\~."f~'f~1C-- Signature: __2_~-=_---,d~=--~--",,~ ____ c::::::::::: _ GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 88 Objection to increasing height of solid wall between Golden Cove Shopping Center and adjacent land Dear City Council, As the current employees of the Golden Cove Center in Rancho Palos Verdes we would 6ke to express our objection against raising the solid wall between the Golden Cove Shopping center and the adjacent future animal hospital land. We and our family visit the Golden Cove center on the daily bases either to shop, work, school and even to have a moment to ourselves or spend time with our kids and other members of our family to enjoy the beauty of the God given Ocean and Catalina Island views. We have been blessed with this natural beauty that has been aworking, shopping and eating sanctuary for us, the employees of the Golden Cove Center for a long time. On the other hand by raising the wall we will invite Gang member activities, Graffiti, Etc. We also will be sending an invitation to the wrong type of characters to our low crime city that has been the center of envy and spot light in the whole State of California. We have been the witnesses of precise decision making by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council in the past and the right direction you have provided us for the beauty of Rancho Palos Verdes. We also believe the city council will make the correct decision about this wall and will make certain that as a tax paying workers and consumers of Rancho Palos Verdes we will have our qUiet, beautiful center to enjoy our view daily. Thank you, The Employees of the Golden Cove Center, Name: ~\~\O, \(t~ .Address: \\\Q'-\0 l7 C\\ Q .t\'J ~ .=k?t C) \\QW\-~Yf\Q GA· C\D1J)D Sig~m: ~j GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 89 Objection to increasing height of solid wall between Golden Cove Shopping Center and adjacent land Dear City Council, As the current employees of the Golden Cove Center in Rancho Palos Verdes we would like to express our objection against raising the solid wall between the Golden Cove Shopping Center and the adjacent future animal hospital land. We and our family visit the Golden Cove Center on the daily bases either to shop, work, school and even to have a moment to ourselves or spend time with our kids and other members of our family to enjoy the beauty of the God given Ocean and Catalina Island views. We have been blessed with this natural beauty that has been aworking, shopping and eating sanctuary for us, the employees of the Golden Cove Center for a long time. On the other hand by raising the wall we will invite Gang member activities, Graffiti, Etc. We also will be sending an invitation to the wrong type ofcharacters to our low crime city that has been the center of envy and spot light in the Who.le State of California. We have been the witnesses of precise decision making by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council in the past and the right direction you have provided us for the beauty of Rancho Palos Verdes. We also believe the city council will make the correct decision about this wall and will make certain that as atax paying workers and consumers of Rancho Palos Verdes we will have our qUiet, beautiful center to enjoy our view daily. Thank you, The Employees of the Golden Cove Center, Name: :s; a V1 dyo.... Co V) +_v_t:...:-y_et_.5 _ . Address: ~S '8 4 {IV \ .::.....::/1 s +.:.._ _ 5~ ecti/'u 7"07 5/ GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 90 Objection to increasing height of solid wall between Golden Cove Shopping Center and adjacent land Dear City Council, As the current employees of the Golden Cove Center in Rancho Palos Verdes we would like to express our objection against raising the solid wall between the Golden Cove Shopping Center and the adjacent future animal hospital land. We and our family visit the Golden Cove Center on the daily bases either to shop, work, school and even to have a moment to ourselves or spend time with our kids and other members of our family to enjoy the beauty of the God given Ocean and Catalina Island views. We have been blessed with this natural beauty that has been aworking, shopping and eating sanctuary for us, the employees of the Golden Cove Center for a long time. On the other hand by raising the wall we will invite Gang member activities, Graffiti, Etc. We also WIll be sending an invitation to the wrong type of characters to our low crime city that has been the center of envy and spot light in the whole State of California. We have been the witnesses of precise decision making by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council in the past and the right direction you have provided us for the beauty of Rancho Palos Verdes. We also believe the city council will make the correct decision about this wall and will make certain that as atax paying workers and consumers ofRancho Palos Verdes we will have our quiet, beautiful center to enjoy our view daily. Thank you, The Employees of the Golden Cove Center, Name: [leCl2QC Crvc . Address: /3/1 5. Fedorq 5J AyJ.dOI I Signature: ~§{fu"-trp:.._-~---:.~~;------ GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 91 Objection to increasing height of solid wall between Golden Cove Shopping Center and adjacent land Dear City Council, As the current employees of the Golden Cove Center in Rancho Palos Verdes we would like to express our objection against raising the solid wall between the Golden Cove Shopping Center and the adjacent future animal hospital land. We and our family visit the Golden Cove Center on the daily bases either to shop, work, school and even to have amoment to ourselves or spend time with our kids and other members of our family to enjoy the beauty of the God given Ocean and Catalina Island views. We have been blessed with this natural beauty that has been aworking, shopping and eating sanctuary for us, the employees of the Golden Cove Center for along time. On the other hand by raising the wall we will invite Gang member activities, Graffiti, Etc. We also will be sending an invitation to the wrong type of characters to our low crime city that has been the center of envy and spot light in the whole State of California. We have been the witnesses of precise decision making by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council in the past and the right direction you have provided us for the beauty of Rancho Palos Verdes. We also believe the city council will make the correct decision about this wall and will make certain that as atax paying workers and consumers of Rancho Palos Verdes we will have our quiet, beautiful center to enjoy our view daily. Thank you, The Employees of the Golden Cove Center, Name: Address: \ -:ru 0 'At\:: t nSttl -fu{ ~ Signmure: k.&:2r GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 92 Objection to increasing height of solid wall between Golden Cove Shopping Center and adjacent land Dear City Council, As the current employees of the Golden Cove Center in Rancho Palos Verdes we would like to express our objection against raising the solid wall between the Golden Cove Shopping Center and the adjacent future animal hospital land. We and our family visit the Golden Cove Center on the daily bases either to shop, work, school and even to have a moment to ourselves or spend time with our kids and other members of our family to enjoy the beauty of the God given Ocean and Catalina Island views. We have been blessed with this natural beauty that has been aworking, shopping and eating sanctuary for us, the employees of the Golden Cove Center for a long time. On the other hand by raising the wall we will invite Gang member activities, Graffiti, Etc. We also will be sending an invitation to the wrong type of characters to our low crime city that has been the center of envy and spot light in the whole State of California. We have been the witnesses of precise decision making by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council in the past and the right direction you have provided us for the beauty of Rancho Palos Verdes. We also believe the city council will make the correct decision about this wall and will make certain that as atax paying workers and consumers of Rancho Palos Verdes we will have our quiet, beautiful center to enjoy our view daily. Thank you, The Employees of the Golden Cove Center, Address: __3.=..-\_~-,-6_(P:::------,~_ti\-,-,,\o:::...... :.s=--V_-e_1 ';>_-e_S__?_l"_._U_<_G'-,-t . Signature: ~__· _ GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 93 Objection to increasing height of solid wall between Golden Cove Shopping Center and adjacent land Dear City Council, As the current employees of the Golden Cove Center in Rancho Palos Verdes we would like to express our objection against raising the solid wall between the Golden Cove Shopping Genter and the adjacent future animal hospital land. We and our family visit the Golden Cove Center on the daily bases either to shop, work, school and even to have a moment to ourselves or spend time with our kids and other members of our family to enjoy the beauty of the God given Ocean and Catalina Island views. We have been blessed with this natural beauty that has been aworking, shopping and eating sanctuary for us, the employees of the Golden Cove Center for a long time. On the other hand by raising the wall we will invite Gang member activities, Graffiti, Etc. We also will be sending an invitation to the wrong type of characters to our low crime city that has been the center of envy and spot light in the whole State of California. We have been the witnesses of precise decision making by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council in the past and the right direction you have provided us for the beauty of Rancho Palos Verdes. We also believe the city council will make the correct decision about this wall and will make certain that as atax paying workers and consumers of Rancho Palos Verdes we will have our quiet, beautiful center to enjoy our view daily. Thank you, The Employees of the Golden Cove Center, Name: Address: _3_·_,ct_D--"-J.L-_~_----,tJL,,--Yl_)_cs__t>_o_"_{;v-c-=--JJ- " Signature: ----f---+--+------ GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 94 Objection to increasing height of solid wall between Golden Cove Shopping Center and adjacent land Dear City Council, As the current employees of the Golden Cove center in Rancho Palos Verdes we would like to express our objection against raising the solid wall between the Golden Cove Shopping Center and the adjacent future animal hospital land. We and our family visit the Golden Cove Center on the daily bases either to shop, work, school and even to have a moment to ourselves or spend time with our kids and other members of our family to enjoy the beauty of the God given Ocean and Catalina Island views. We have been blessed with this natural beauty that has been aworking, shopping and eating sanctuary for us, the employees of the Golden Cove Center for a long time. On the other hand by raising the wall we will invite Gang member activities, Graffiti, Etc. We also will be sending an invitation to the wrong type of characters to our low crime city that has been the center of envy and spot light in the whole State of California. We have been the witnesses of precise decision making by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council in the past and the right direction you have provided us for the beauty of Rancho Palos Verdes. We also believe the city council will make the correct decision about this wall and will make certain that as atax paying workers and consumers of Rancho Palos Verdes we will have our quiet, beautiful center to enjoy our view daily. Thank you, The Employees of the Golden Cove Center, t r t Name: StYI rJfi- Address: '7t) rv, J7aJ1 ft ~ ;)fYeo?;ro i GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 95 Objection to increasing height of solid wall between Golden Cove Shopping Center and adjacent land Dear City Council, As the current employees of the Golden Cove Genter in Rancho Palos Verdes we would like to express our objection against raising the solid wall between the Golden Cove Shopping Center and the adjacent future animal hospnalland. We and our family visit the Golden Cove Center on the daily bases either to shop, work, school and even to have amoment to ourselves or spend time with our kids and other members of our family to enjoy the beauty of the God given OCean and Catalina Island views. We have been blessed with this natural beauty that has been aworking, shopping and eating sanctuary for us, the employees of the Golden Cove Center for a long time. On the other hand by raising the wall we will invne Gang member activities, Graffiti, Etc. We also will be sending an invitation to the wrong type of characters to our low crime city that has been the center of envy and spot light in the whole State of California. We have been the witnesses of precise decision making by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council in the past and the right direction you have provided us for the beauty of Rancho Palos Verdes. We also believe the city council will make the correct decision about this wall and will make certain that as atax paying workers and consumers of Rancho Palos Verdes we will have our quiet, beautiful center to enjoy our view daily. Thank you, The Employees of the Golden Cove Center, Name: ~'(D..rr"'l1 yM'mY0cJ!"-""'-'3:0-- _ Address: __Q.--.:1,--13_i:,__D_te_01_~_':'f_1t_"e-_. _ _ ~~-----...-L..U+--~ Signature: _ v----u __ GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 96 Objection to increasing height of solid wall between Golden Cove Shopping Center and adjacent land Dear City Council, As the current employees of the Golden Cove center in Rancho Palos Verdes we would like to express our objection against raising the solid wall between the Golden Cove Shopping center and the adjacent future animal hospital land. We and our family visit the Golden Cove Center on the daily bases either to shop, work, school and even to have amoment to ourselves or spend time with our kids and other members of our family to enjoy the beauty of the God given Ocean and Catalina Island views. We have been blessed with this natural beauty that has been aworking, shopping and eating sanctuary for us, the employees of the Golden Cove Center for a long time. On the other hand by raising the wall we will invite Gang member activities, Graffiti, Etc. We also will be sending an invitation to the wrong type of characters to our low crime city that has been the center of envy and spot light in the whole State of California. We have been the witnesses of precise decision making by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council in the past and the right direction you have provided us for the beauty of Rancho Palos Verdes. We also believe the city council will make the correct decision about this wall and will make certain that as atax paying workers and consumers of Rancho Palos Verdes we will have our quiet, beautiful center to enjoy our view daily. Thank you, The Employees of the Golden Cove Center, GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 97 Objection to increasing height of solid wall between Golden Cove Shopping Center and adjacent land Dear City Council, As the current employees of the Golden Cove Center in Rancho Palos Verdes we would like to express our objection against raising the solid wall between the Golden Cove Shopping Center and the adjacent future animal hospital land. We and our family visit the Golden Cove Center on the daily bases either to shop, work, school and even to have a moment to ourselves or spend time with our kids and other members of our family to enjoy the beauty of the God given Ocean and Catalina Island views. We have been blessed with this natural beauty that has been aworking, shopping and eating sanctuary for us, the employees of the Golden Cove Center for a long time. On the other hand by raising the wall we will invite Gang member activities, Graffiti, Etc. We also will be sending an invitation to the wrong type of characters to our low crime city that has been the center of envy and spot light in the whole State of California. We have been the witnesses of precise decision making by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council in the past and the right direction you have provided us for the beauty of Rancho Palos Verdes. We also believe the city council will make the correct decision about this wall and will make certain that as atax paying workers and consumers of Rancho Palos Verdes we will have our quiet, beautiful center to enjoy our view daily. Thank you, The Employees of the Golden Cove Center, Name: J\J\()~ll_\ __\rvuJ _ Address: _ Signature: _----,1--"--\- _ GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 98 Objection to increasing height of solid wall between Golden Cove Shopping Center and adjacent land Dear City Council, As the current employees of the Golden Cove Center in Rancho Palos Verdes we would like to express our objection against raising the solid wall between the Golden Cove Shopping Center and the adjacent future animal hospital land. We and our family visit the Golden Cove Center on the daily bases either to shop, work, school and even to have a moment to ourselves or spend time with our kids and other members of our family to enjoy the beauty of the God given Ocean and Catalina Island views. We have been blessed with this natural beauty that has been aworking, shopping and eating sanctuary for us, the employees of the Golden Cove Center for a long time. On the other hand by raising the wall we will invite Gang member activities, Graffiti, Etc. We also will be sending an invitation to the wrong type of characters to our low crime city that has been the center of envy and spot light in the whole State of California. We have been the witnesses of precise decision making by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council in the past and the right direction you have provided us for the beauty of Rancho Palos Verdes. We also believe the city council will make the correct decision about this wall and will make certain that as atax paying workers and consumers of Rancho Palos Verdes we will have our quiet, beautiful center to enjoy our view daily. Thank you, The Employees of the Golden Cove Center, Name: Address: _ ~- S;9nature:]2V;l GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 99 Objection to increasing height of solid wall between Golden Cove Shopping Center and adjacent land Dear City Council, As the current employees of the Golden Cove Center in Rancho Palos Verdes we would like to express our objection against raising the solid wall between the Golden Cove Shopping Center and the adjacent future animal hospital land. We and our family visit the Golden Cove Center on the daily bases either to shop, work, school and even to have a moment to ourselves or spend time with our kids and other members of our family to enjoy the beauty of the God given OCean and Catalina Island views. We have been blessed with this natural beauty that has been aworking, shopping and eating sanctuary for us, the employees of the Golden Cove Center for a long time. On the other hand by raising the wall we will invite Gang member activities, Graffiti, Etc. We also will be sending an invitation to the wrong type of characters to our low crime city that has been the center of envy and spot light in the whole State of California. We have been the witnesses of precise decision making by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council in the past and the right direction you have provided us for the beauty of Rancho Palos Verdes. We also believe the city council will make the correct decision about this wall and will make certain that as atax paying workers and consumers of Rancho Palos Verdes we will have our quiet, beautiful center to enjoy our view daily. Thank you, The Employees of the Golden Cove Center, Name: Address: _ Signature: -H--+-;I"---+--:;I''-HTr--~_C-----_r-_r_---- GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 100 Objection to increasing height of solid wall between Golden Cove Shopping Center and adjacent land Dear City Council, As the current employees of the Golden Cove Center in Rancho Palos Verdes we would like to express our objection against raising the solid wall between the Golden Cove Shopping Center and the adjacent future animal hospital land. We and our family visit the Golden Cove Center on the daily bases either to shop, work, school and even to have a moment to ourselves or spend time with our kids and other members of our family to enjoy the beauty of the God given Ocean and Catalina Island views. We have been blessed with this natural beauty that has been aworking, shopping and eating sanctuary for us, the employees of the Golden Cove Center for a long time. On the other hand by raising the wall we will invite Gang member activities, Graffiti, Etc. We also will be sending an invitation to the wrong type of characters to our low crime city that has been the center of envy and spot light in the whole State of California. We have been the witnesses of precise decision making by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council in the past and the right direction you have provided us for the beauty of Rancho Palos Verdes. We also believe the city council will make the correct decision about this wall and will make certain that as atax paying workers and consumers of Rancho Palos Verdes we will have our quiet, beautiful center to enjoy our view daily. Thank you, The Employees of the Golden Cove Center, Name: Address: _ Signature: _ GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 101 Objection to increasing height of solid wall between Golden Cove Shopping Center and adjacent land Dear City Council, As the current employees of the Golden Cove Center in Rancho Palos Verdes we would like to express our objection against raising the solid wall between the Golden Cove Shopping Center and the adjacent future animal hospital land. We and our family visit the Golden Cove Center on the daily bases either to shop, work, school and even to have a moment to ourselves or spend time with our kids and other members of our family to enjoy the beauty of the God given OCean and Catalina Island views. We have been blessed with this natural beauty that has been aworking, shopping and eating sanctuary for us, the employees of the Golden Cove Center for a long time. On the other hand by raising the wall we will invite Gang member activities, Graffiti, Etc. We also will be sending an invitation to the wrong type of characters to our low crime city that has been the center of envy and spot light in the whole State of California. We have been the witnesses of precise decision making by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council in the past and the right direction you have provided us for the beauty of Rancho Palos Verdes. We also believe the city council will make the correct decision about this wall and will make certain that as atax paying workers and consumers of Rancho Palos Verdes we will have our quiet, beautiful center to enjoy our view daily. Thank you, The Employees of the Golden Cove Center, Name: Address: _ Signature: _ GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 102 Objection to increasing height of solid wall between Golden Cove Shopping Center and adjacent land Dear City Council, As the current employees of the Golden Cove Center in Rancho Palos Verdes we would like to express our objection against raising the solid wall between the Golden Cove Shopping Center and the adjacent future animal hospital land. We and our family visit the Golden Cove Center on the daily bases either to shop, work, school and even to have a moment to ourselves or spend time with our kids and other members of our family to enjoy the beauty of the God given Ocean and Catalina Island views. We have been blessed with this natural beauty that has been aworking, shopping and eating sanctuary for us, the employees of the Golden Cove Center for a long time. On the other hand by raising the wall we will invite Gang member activities, Graffiti, Etc. We also will be sending an invitation to the wrong type of characters to our low crime city that has been the center of envy and spot light in the whole State of California. We have been the witnesses of precise decision making by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council in the past and the right direction you have provided us for the beauty of Rancho Palos Verdes. We also believe the city council will make the correct decision about this wall and will make certain that as atax paying workers and consumers of Rancho Palos Verdes we will have our quiet, beautiful center to enjoy our view daily. Thank you, The Employees of the Golden Cove Center, Name: Address: GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 103 Objection to increasing height of solid wall between Golden Cove Shopping Center and adjacent land Dear City Council, As the current employees of the Golden Cove Center in Rancho Palos Vemes we would like to express our objection against raising the solid wall between the Golden Cove Shopping Center and the adjacent future animal hospital land. We and our family visit the Golden Cove Center on the daily bases either to shop, work, school and even to have amoment to ourselves or spend time with our kids and other members ofour famHy to enjoy the beauty of the God given Ocean and Catalina Island views. We have been blessed with this natural beauty that has been aworking, shopping and eating sanctuary for us, the employees of the Golden Cove Center for a long time. On the other hand by raising the wall we will invite Gang member activities, Graffiti, Etc. We also will be sending an invitation to the wrong type of characters to our low crime city that has been the center ofenvy and spot light in the whole State of California. We have been the witnesses of precise decision making by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council in the past and the right direction you have provided us for the beauty of Rancho Palos Verdes. We also believe the city council will make the correct decision about this wall and will make certain that as atax paying wotr~i;f~ ctrl~ consumers of Rancho Palos Ven:fes we will have our quiet, beautiful center to enjoy our view daily. Thank you, The Employees of the Golden Cove Center, Name: -J;CAr\u\ 1\AneS . Address: 6\010 \\~ne1S\vb £- .:£.\J. 1 a. 90 0 J5 Signature: -t--T-HI-7I+--rr--t-----1~f'*-_'r_-~,L.------ GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 104 Objection to increasing height of solid wall between Golden Cove Shopping Center and adjacent land Dear City Council, As the current employees of the Golden Cove Center in Rancho Palos Verdes we would like to express our objection against raising the solid wall between the Golden Cove Shopping Genter and the adjacent Mure animal hospital land. We and our family visit the Golden Cove Center on the daily bases either to shop, work, school and even to have a moment to ourselves or spend time with our kids and other members of our family to enjoy the beauty of the God given Ocean and Catalina Island views. We have been blessed with this natural beauty that has been aworking, shopping and eating sanctuary for us, the employees of the Golden Cove Center for a long time. On the other hand by raising the wall we will invite Gang member activities, Graffiti, Etc. We also will be sending an invitation to the wrong type of characters to our low crime city that has been the center of envy and spot light in the whole State of California. We have been the witnesses of precise decision making by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council in the past and the right direction you have provided us for the beauty of Rancho Palos Verdes. We also believe the city council will make the correct decision about this wall and will make certain that as atax paying workers and consumers of Rancho Palos Verdes we will have our quiet, beautiful center to enjoy our view daily. Thank you, The Employees of the Golden Cove Center, Name: Address: __3_\_,1-,-C_--,.~--,-_'VV_~__r_I\_e-__'\S_\_v_c_\_ Signalure: ~ GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 105 Objection to increasing height of solid wall between Golden Cove Shopping Center and adjacent land Dear City Council, As the current employees of the Golden Cove Center in Rancho Palos Verdes we would like to express our objection against raising the solid wall between the Golden Cove Shopping Center and the adjacent future animal hospital land. We and our family visit the Golden Cove Center on the daily bases either to shop, work, school and even to have a moment to ourselves or spend time with our kids and other members of our family to enjoy the beauty of the God given Ocean and Catalina Island views. We have been blessed with this natural beauty that has been aworking, shopping and eating sanctuary for us, the employees of the Golden Cove Center for a long time. On the other hand by raising the wall we will invite Gang member activities, Graffiti, Etc. We also will be sending an Invitation tothe wrong type of characters to our low crime city that has been the center of envy and spot light in the whole State of California. We have been the witnesses of precise decision making by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council in the past and the right direction you have provided us for the beauty of Rancho Palos Verdes. We also believe the city council will make the correct decision about this wall and will make certain that as atax paying workers and consumers of Rancho Palos Verdes we will have our quiet, beautiful center to enjoy our view daily. Thank you, The Employees of the Golden Cove Center, Name: :Jev)'()i-t.t'v LilV'J~ ) C~ill )~"'Joe 'S Address: 51 \-q-LQ ~oYN ~)\f q\ . 'R~~C\\ D '10. \oS \f.e v--c:l-e<;. ) C.-Pr 9 ot-q-s- GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 106 Objection to increasing height of solid wall between Golden Cove Shopping Center and adjacent land Dear City Council, As the current employees of the Golden Cove Center in Rancho Palos Verdes we would like to express our objection against raising the solid wall between the Golden Cove Shopping Center and the adjacent future animal hospital land. We and our family visit the Golden Cove Center on the daily bases either to shop, work, school and even to have a moment to ourselves or spend time with our kids and other members of our family to enjoy the beauty of the God given Ocean and Catalina Island views. We have been blessed with this natural beauty that has been aworking, shopping and eating sanctuary for us, the employees of the Golden Cove Center for a long time. On the other hand by raising the wall we will invite Gang member activities, Graffiti, Etc. We also will be sending an invitation to the wrong type of characters to our low crime city that has been the center of envy and spot light in the whole State of California. We have been the witnesses of precise decision making by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council in the past and the right direction you have provided us for the beauty of Rancho Palos Verdes. We also believe the city council will make the correct decision about this wall and will make certain that as atax paying workers and consumers of Rancho Palos Verdes we will have our quiet, beautiful center to enjoy our view daily. Thank you, The Employees of the Golden Cove Center, Name: bio Address: 1 ({7 & rpv, (Ar 901. 7S- ~nature~" ~ GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 107 Objection to increasing height of solid wall between Golden Cove Shopping Center and adjacent land Dear City Council, As the current employees of the Golden Cove Center in Rancho Palos Verdes we would like to express our objection against raising the solid wall between the Golden Cove Shopping Center and the adjacent future animal hospital land. We and our family visit the Golden Cove Center on the daily bases either to shop, work, school and even to have a moment to ourselves or spend time with our kids and other members of our family to enjoy the beauty of the God given Ocean and Catalina Island views. We have been blessed with this natural beauty that has been aworking, shopping and eating sanctuary for us, the employees of the Golden Cove Center for a long time. On the other hand by raising the wall we will invite Gang member activities, Graffiti, Etc. We also will be sending an invitation to the wrong type of characters to our low crime city that has been the center of envy and spot light in the whole State of California. We have been the witnesses of precise decision making by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council in the past and the right direction you have provided us for the beauty of Rancho Palos Verdes. We also believe the city council will make the correct decision about this wall and will make certain that as atax paying workers and consumers of Rancho Palos Verdes we will have our quiet, beautiful center to enjoy our view daily. Thank you, The Employees of the Golden Cove Center, Name: ~ 1&Ji"-J01lAQ ()":::' Address: --"-~_. _1I_T--;;-b_!-I_f11.i_~__E:::>_-_~__t:>_.__ R,f21/ I CA- P;1l-~ Signature: -"""--7jt;==:;f=;;;;;;;;;;ooo------ GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 108 Objection to increasing height of solid wall between Golden Cove Shopping Center and adjacent land Dear City Council, As the current employees of the Golden Cove Center in Rancho Palos Verdes we would like to express our objection against raising the solid wall between the Golden Cove Shopping Center and the adjacent future animal hospital land. We and our family visit the Golden Cove Center on the daily bases either to shop, work, school and even to have a moment to ourselves or spend time with our kids and other members of our family to enjoy the beauty of the God given Ocean and Catalina Island views. We have been blessed with this natural beauty that has been aworking, shopping and eating sanctuary for us, the employees of the Golden Cove Center for a long time. On the other hand by raising the wall we will invite Gang member activities, Graffiti, Etc. We also will be sending an invitation to the wrong type of characters to our low crime city that has been the center of envy and spot light in the whole State of California. We have been the witnesses of precise decision making by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council in the past and the right direction you have provided us for the beauty of Rancho Palos Verdes. We also believe the city council will make the correct decision about this wall and will make certain that as atax paying workers and consumers of Rancho Palos Verdes we will have our quiet, beautiful center to enjoy our view daily. Thank you, The Employees of the Golden Cove Center, Name: ---Em. McAM- Address/~ 1/ 7,b fig vk-+lito.-ne. 13 (vel Signature: _---'c;/-~~L.-::.~.-:L--=-...:::::!lo.£._ _ GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 109 Objection to increasing height of solid wall between Golden Cove Shopping Center and adjacent land Dear City Council, As the current employees of the Golden Cove Center in Rancho Palos Verdes we would like to express our objection against raising the solid wall between the Golden Cove Shopping Center and the adjacent future animal hospital land. We and our family visit the Golden Cove Center on the daily bases either to shop, work, school and even to have a moment to ourselves or spend time with our kids and other members of our family to enjoy the beauty of the God given Ocean and Catalina Island views. We have been blessed with this natural beauty that has been aworking, shopping and eating sanctuary for us, the employees of the Golden Cove Center for a long time. On the other hand by raising the wall we will invite Gang member activities, Graffiti, Etc. We also will be sending an invitation to the wrong type of characters to our low crime city that has been the center of envy and spot light in the whole State of California. We have been the witnesses of precise decision making by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council in the past and the right direction you have provided us for the beauty of Rancho Palos Verdes. We also believe the city council will make the correct decision about this wall and will make certain that as atax paying workers and consumers of Rancho Palos Verdes we will have our quiet, beautiful center to enjoy our view daily. Thank you, Name: Signature: \L~-l..L.~~~::::::::::::~::::::::::==------ GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 110 Objection to increasing height of solid wall between Golden Cove Shopping Center and adjacent land Dear City Council, As the current employees of the Golden Cove Center in Rancho Palos Verdes we would like to express our objection against raising the solid wall between the Golden Cove Shopping Center and the adjacent future animal hospital land. We and our family visit the Golden Cove Center on the daily bases either to shop, work, school and even to have a moment to ourselves or spend time with our kids and other members of our family to enjoy the beauty of the God given Ocean and Catalina Island views. We have been blessed with this natural beauty that has been a working, shopping and eating sanctuary for us, the employees of the Golden Cove Center for a long time. On the other hand by raising the wall we will invite Gang member activities, Graffiti, Etc. We also will be sending an invitation to the wrong type of characters to our low crime city that has been the center of envy and spot light in the whole State of California. We have been the witnesses of precise decision making by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council in the past and the right direction you have prOVided us for the beauty of Rancho Palos Verdes. We also believe the city council will make the correct decision about this wall and will make certain that as atax paying workers and consumers of Rancho Palos Verdes we will have our quiet, beautiful center to enjoy our view daily. Thank you, The Employees of the Golden Cove Center, ~_ Name: JuA J'tc,6t... Address::lll1" 4-tccw+iv.".. GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 111 Objection to increasing height of solid wall between Golden Cove Shopping Center and adjacent land Dear City Council, As the current employees of the Golden Cove Center in Rancho Palos Verdes we would like to express our objection against raising the solid wall between the Golden Cove Shopping Center and the adjacent future animal hospital land. We and our family visit the Golden Cove Center on the daily bases either to shop, work, school and even to have amoment to ourselves or spend time with our kids and other members of our family to enjoy the beauty of the God given Ocean and Catalina Island views. We have been blessed with this natural beauty that has been aworking, shopping and eating sanctuary for us, the employees of the Golden Cove Center for a long time. On the other hand by raising the wall we will invite Gang member activities, Graffiti, Etc. We also will be sending an invitation to the wrong type of characters to our low crime city that has been the center of envy and spot light in the whole State of California. We have been the witnesses of precise decision making by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council in the past and the right direction you have provided us for the beauty of Rancho Palos Verdes. We also believe the city council will make the correct decision about this wall and will make certain that as atax paying workers and consumers of Rancho Palos Verdes we will have our quiet, beautiful center to enjoy our view daily. Thank you, The Employees of the Golden Cove Center, Name: Address: Signature: i<--.... ~ GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 112 Page 1 of 1 Leza Mikhail From: Paris Zarrabian [[email protected]] Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 3:20 PM To: Leza Mikhail Subject: Draft Letter - For Upcoming Hearing Attachments: 5507-170 - Draft Letter to Homeowners.pdf Dear Leza, Attached is a draft of the letter that our counsel will be sending to Villa Capri homeowners. I am sending this to you because it is very important that Staff and the City Council is aware and clear on the main issue behind the upcoming hearing regarding the wall, Villa Capri is just using the wall as leverage for their separate agenda. The official letter should come from our Counsel's office, just sending it now to make sure this will be addressed in the upcoming hearing. Thank you, Paris P. Zarrabian GOLDEN COVE CENTER 31244 Palos Verdes Drive West, Suite # 243 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Tel: 310-750 6707 Fax: 310-750 6048 E-Mail: [email protected] 5110/2011 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 113 ANDERSON, MCPHARLIN & CONNERS LLP LAWYERS DAVID T. DIBIASE THOMAS J. KEARNEY 444 SOUTH FLOWER STREET 3602 INLAND EMPIRE BOULEVARD C-100 MICHAEL C. PHILLIPS' EDUARDO A. BRITO THIRTY-FIRST FLOOR ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA 91764 TELEPHONE (909) 477-4500 ERIC A. SCHNEIDER ARNOLD W. HOLADAY LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071-2901 JESSE S. HERNANDEZ DAVID J. BILLINGS FACSIMILE (909) 477-4505 MARK E. ARONSON MICHELLE T. HARRINGTON TELEPHONE: (213) 688-0080 MICHAEL S. ROBINSON MARK J. KRONE 4445 EASTGATE MALL, SUITE 200 TELEPHONE: (714) 669-1609 GARY J. VALERIANO VANESSA S. DAVILA SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 CARLETON R. BURCHG LISA ANNE COE FACSIMILE: (213) 622-7594 TELEPHONE (858) 812-3070 PAULA G. TRIPP MICHAEL A. VERSKA FACSIMILE (858) 812-2001 VANESSA HINDLEY WIDENER JENNIFER MUSE WWW.AMCLAW.COM COLLEEN A. DEZIEL MASAYO ALLEN 777 NORTH RAINBOW BOULEVARD. SUITE 145 D. DAMON WILLENS ROSA MARTINEZ-GENZON LAS VEGAS. NEVADA 89107 RICHARD P. TRICKER BRIAN L. BRADFORD· TELEPHONE (702) 479-1010 JOSEPH P. TABRISKY KIMBERLY M. FOSTER FACSIMILE (702) 479-1025 HENRY S. ZANGWILL JANET C. SONG SUE TRAZIG CAVACO· ELMIRA R. HOWARD NEWTON E. ANDERSON (1897-1967) STEVEN D. HUFF EMILY S. FUNGG ELDON V. McPHARLIN (1910-2002) WILLIAM J. CONNERS (1911-1986) * DENOTES PROFESSIONAL e ADMITTED IN NV ONLY CORPORATION El ADMITTED IN CA & NV IN REPLY PLEASE REFER TO FILE NO. 5507-170 WRITER'S DIRECT May 11,2011 DIAL NO. (213) 236-1636 INTERNET ADDRESS [email protected] Wesley C. Greayer William D. Rogers and Yen-Ling K. Rogers 20 Via Capri 3 Via Veneta Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5372 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5375 Neil Andrew Sweeney and Zeljko Zic Mary Louise Hong Sweeney I Via Veneta 26 Via Capri Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5375 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5372 Mark 1. Robben Bernard J. Lauhoff 28 Via Capri I Via San Remo Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5372 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5374 Janet Driskell Bernard J. Lauhoff 30 Via Capri 3590 Round Bottom Road #P167272 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5372 Cincinnati, OH 45244 Charles F. Kurtz and Julie Kurtz Paula Rene Bernstein St. Paul's Lutheran Church ofRancho Palos 3 Via San Remo Verdes Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5374 32 Via Capri Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5372 Charles Vincent Gilliland and Evelyn J. Folks Regina Lee Gilliland 5 Via San Remo 34 Via Capri Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5374 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5372 867814.1 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 114 ANDERSON, MCPHARLIN & CONNERS LLP LAWYERS Villa Capri Homeowners Our File No. 5507-170 May 11,2011 Page 2 Philip L. Browning Astrid Lundberg Naviaux 36 Via Capri 9 Via San Remo R~ncho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5372 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5374 Russell Hudak and Diana Hudak Maria Del Carmen Guerra 38 Via Capri 11 Via San Remo Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5372 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5374 Akira Sugiyama and Sumiko Sugiyama Marquita Subratie and Kecia Subratie Petrone 40 Via Capri 13 Via San Remo Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5372 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5374 Ho Seok Suh and Su Kyoung Suh Samuel W. French and Barbara A. French 42 Via Capri 17 Via San Remo Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5372 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5374 Mark O. Payne and C. Dianne Payne Lois H. Daluiso 44 Via Capri 19 Via San Remo Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5372 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5374 Mark O. Payne and C. Dianne Payne Mary K. Douglas P.O. Box216 21 Via San Remo Lake Arrowhead, CA 92352 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5374 Ting Kuei Liang and Suyin Liang Mark A. Humphrey and Missy R. Humphrey 46 Via Capri 23 Via San Remo Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5372 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5374 Syed Ahmer Raza and Sara Wazir Naqvi Joseph R. Shea and Gladys K. Shea . 48 Via Capri 25 Via San Remo Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5372 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5374 Yvonne A. Rodriguez Osair Omar 50 Via Capri 27 Via San Remo Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5372 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5374 867814.1 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 115 ANDERSON, MCPHARLIN & CONNERS LLP LAWYERS Villa Capri Homeowners Our File No. 5507-170 May 11,2011 Page 3 Charlie Young Kong and Young Hee Kong Donald G. Davis and Alexandra E. Davis 60 Via Capri 29 Via San Remo Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5372 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5374 Kevan P. Bunting and Mary Lou Xenos Donald G. Davis and Alexandra E. Davis 62 Via Capri P.O. Box 852 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5372 Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274 Myong Soon Chong Theodore G. Hibsman 64 Via Capri Timothy G. Hibsman and Tracy L. Hibsman Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5372 3 Via Capri Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5373 Deanna F. Kolbas David M. Catanzarite 66 Via Capri Francis J. Catanzarite and Maria Catanzarite Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5372 5 Via Capri Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5373 Pio B. Perez and Velaria R. Perez David M. Catanzarite 68 Via Capri 74300 Old Prospector Trail Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5372 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Pio B. Perez and Velaria R. Perez Judith Hirsch 30317 Via Cambron 7 Via Capri Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5373 Cyrous Shaygan Fatemi and Fataneh Shaygan Judith Hirsch 11 Via Veneta P.O. Box 5174 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5375 Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 Yu-Shen Ng and Hilary Somers John Liontos and Niki Liontos 9 Via Veneta 9 Via Capri Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5375 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5373 Yu-Shen Ng and Hilary Somers Kent E. Thompson 4148 Briarwood Way Guy H. Thompson and Kay E. Thompson Palo Alto, CA 94306 11 Via Capri Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5373 867814.1 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 116 ANDERSON, MCPHARLIN & CONNERS LLP LAWYERS Villa Capri Homeowners Our File No. 5507-170 May 11,2011 Page 4 John S. Price and Vivienne L. Price Myung Jong Gil and Eun Dok Gil 7 Via Veneta 13 Via Capri Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5375 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5373 Thomas J. Sullivan and Patricia M. Sullivan Jessica Cho 5 Via Veneta 15 Via Capri Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5375 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5373 Re: Facts on Villa Capri HOA 's Lawsuit against the Golden Cove Shopping Center andSuggestionsfor Settlement Our Client Golden Cove, LLC Case Villa Capri v. Golden Cove Case No. YC 062 750 (Torrance Courthouse) Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: Our law firm is defending the Golden Cove Shopping Center (Shopping Center) in the lawsuit brought against it by your homeowner's association, the Villa Capri Homeowners Association (HOA). We asked the HOA's counsel to identify those Villa Capri homeowners they represent (board members) since the Code ofEthics prevents our firm from direct contact with represented parties. Therefore, this letter is only being sent to you and the other owners who are not represented by the HOA's counsel. The goal in sending this letter is to make sure you are informed ofthe facts and the Shopping Center's positions, and to ask for your help in bringing this litigation to an end. I. OVERVIEW OF THE LAWSUIT AND THE HOA'S CLAIM AGAINST THE SHOPPING CENTER Your HOA filed the subject lawsuit against the Shopping Center. The HOA is asking the court for a judgment establishing that the HOA has the legal right to drive vehicles through the security gate ("Disputed Access Point") that separates the Shopping Center and Villa Capri, and use the Shopping Center's land as access from the Villa Capri property to Palos Verdes Drive West (P.V. Drive) and Hawthorne Blvd. In response, the Shopping Center asks the court to confirm that the Shopping Center has the right to prevent this illegal use ofits land, and that the HOA has not taken away any ofthe Shopping Center's lawful ownership rights. 867814.1 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 117 ANDERSON, MCPHARLIN & CONNERS LLP LAWYERS Villa Capri Homeowners Our File No. 5507-170 May 11,2011 Page 5 On the HOA's claims, there is no document granting or establishing any right in favor ofthe HOA to use the Disputed Access Point or the Shopping Center's property for access to the public streets. To the contrary, the City ofRancho Palos Verdes (City) has at all times denied the HOA's proposed use ofthe Shopping Center for access to the public streets. Enclosed please find documents from the City's files to support this statement. Further, the court has already found in the HOA's lawsuit that the HOA does not have a reasonable probability ofestablishing a right to use the Disputed Access Point. The judge's decision is enclosed for your convenience. In the face ofthese facts, however, the HOA rejected the Shopping Center's current settlement proposal and refuses to even discuss settlement. The Shopping Center would very much like to have the litigation ended rather than be forced by the HOA to proceed with depositions, motions, trial and appeals which will be costly for both sides. The Shopping Center does not want to be in litigation with its Villa Capri neighbors and customers. II. BACKGROUND FACTS ON VILLA CAPRI'S ACCESS TO THE PUBLIC STREETS AND SHOPPING CENTER A. The City's Access Conditions Upon Villa Capri When Villa Capri was in the planning stages, there was community opposition to the number ofunits and anticipated negative impact upon public street traffic. After years of meetings, public hearings and agreements with the developer, the City directed that "all ingress to the project would be from Hawthorne ...." (Bold added.) For egress from Villa Capri, Hawthorne Blvd. was the primary route but the City also required secondary egress to P.V. Drive via the adjoining commercial land (now being developed with the animal hospital) and City land. City Condition No. 52 imposed upon Villa Capri is stated as follows: "Developer shall post a bond equal to the cost ofproviding vehicular access to Palos Verdes Drive West across the one-acre commercial lot. Said bond to cover the costs ofproviding access to Palos Verdes Drive West through adjacent park land." Ofcourse, it was always anticipated that residents ofVilla Capri would shop at the adjoining Shopping Center. To avoid the traffic ofresidents having to drive on the public streets to access the Shopping Center, the City conditioned the Villa Capri project on Villa Capri having direct access to the Shopping Center. City Condition No. 51 was: "The developer shall provide vehicular access to the Golden Cove Shopping Center from the interior ofthe project." It is our beliefthat the owner ofthe Shopping Center consented to the use ofthe Disputed Access Point between Villa Capri and the Shopping Center for the practical reason that shopping centers 867814.1 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 118 ANDERSON, MCPHARLIN & CONNERS LLP LAWYERS Villa Capri Homeowners Our File No. 5507-170 May 11,2011 Page 6 encourage and welcome customers. However, that consent was never memorialized into a grant ofa recorded easement or other express grant ofa right ofaccess. In response to the City's access conditions, Villa Capri's developer proposed to the City that access to both P.V. Drive and the Shopping Center could be combined into one written easement from the Shopping Center to use its land for access to P.V. Drive. That idea was rejected by the City Counsel. Such proposed traffic over the Shopping Center's driveways would interfere with the Shopping Center's requirements and create obvious safety risks to visitors of the Shopping Center. Ultimately, the City proposed and Villa Capri's developer agreed that egress to P.V. Drive from Villa Capri would be to the west over City park land. Because the neighboring Church was concerned about this traffic, the P.V. Drive access was made to be "exit only," with tire damage teeth installed to prevent use ofthis path for ingress. Finally, to provide emergency access into Villa Capri from P.V. Drive, Villa Capri's developer obtained a written easement from the owner ofthe adjoining commercial property to the west (animal hospital property). This access to Villa Capri is, as was agreed between the City and developer, limited by a gate locked with a chain, with the chain to be cut by emergency personnel when access is needed. (Enclosed are copies of City Memoranda dated June 17, 1986 and July 9, 1986, and a June 20, 1986 letter from the City to Villa Capri's developer discussing these access issues.) B. Villa Capri's Proposed Changes to Access In the early 1990s, your HOA approached the City to alter the vehicular access for Villa Capri. The City confirmed to the HOA that Condition No. 51 required the opening for access to the shopping center "from the interior ofthe project," and that access condition did not involve P.V. Drive. (See copy ofOctober 23, 1990 letter from the City's Joel Rojas to your BOA, enclosed.) Use ofthe access to the Shopping Center for vehicles was apparently oflittle value to Villa Capri. In September 1993, your HOA asked the City to approve closing the "vehicular access to Golden Cove" with there to be only "pedestrian access to Golden Cove ...." (See copy of September 24, 1993 letter from your HOA to the City, enclosed.) In the late 1990s, your HOA obtained City approval to install the security gates at Hawthorne Blvd. and the Shopping Center access. In this litigation, it was discovered that the HOA never obtained the required permits to install the gates and related electrical systems. 867814.1 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 119 ANDERSON, MCPHARLIN & CONNERS LLP LAWYERS Villa Capri Homeowners Our File No. 5507-170 May 11,2011 Page 7 C. Current Ownership ofthe Shopping Center In 2007, the Shopping Center was purchased by its current owner, Golden Cove, LLC. Prior to the purchase, the Shopping Center land was reviewed and the buyer observed the closed security gate at the Disputed Access Point. Next to the gate was and is a "Knox Box" used to house keys needed for emergency access. No vehicle was observed going through the gate. It was understood that the opening and gate were for emergency vehicles needed for Villa Capri or the Shopping Center. D. The Shopping Center's Recorded Easements to Use Portions ofVilla Capri's Land Since 1988, the owners ofthe Shopping Center have had the benefit ofrecorded easements to use two strips ofthe Villa Capri property next to the Shopping Center for driveway purposes. In recent years, significant improvements have been made to the Shopping Center. In 2008, the Shopping Center approached the HOA to ask ifthe strip ofVilla Capri property between the two easements could also be subject to the same type ofdriveway easement. In return, the Shopping Center offered to install landscaping to screen Villa Capri's view ofthe Shopping Center. The HOA was not in favor ofthe Shopping Center's request. E. The HOA's Recent Claim That It Has Legal Rights to Use the Shopping Center's Land When the Shopping Center's owner recently reviewed the area near the Disputed Access Point for improvement, it was then discovered that the gate was being used by Villa Capri's owners, guests and invitees to not only shop at the Shopping Center, but to also separately use the Shopping Center's land to access the neighboring public streets. Before then, the Shopping Center had no reason to distinguish the vehicles ofthe Villa Capri residents from the vehicles ofany other customers who were invited to use the Center's driveways. At the same time, construction equipment and materials for the Shopping Center restricted the driving paths that were being used by some ofthe Villa Capri homeowners. The HOA protested the construction and, to the Shopping Center's surprise, the HOA asserted for the first time that its use ofthe Disputed Access Point and the Shopping Center's driveways gave the HOA the legal right, in the form ofa "prescriptive easement," to drive upon the Shopping Center without the Shopping Center having any say on the use ofits own land. The neighborly relationship between the Shopping Center and Villa Capri went downhill from there. 867814.1 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 120 ANDERSON, MCPHARLIN & CONNERS LLP LAWYERS Villa Capri Homeowners Our File No. 5507-170 May 11,2011 Page 8 In investigating the HOA's claims against the Shopping Center, it was confirmed that there is no recorded deed or easement establishing any legal right in favor ofVilla Capri to use the Shopping Center's land in this way. The City recently sent a letter confirming that Villa Capri never complied with City Condition No. 51 to obtain the required written authority to access the Shopping Center. The City stated that Villa Capri needs to seek City approval to remove Condition No. 51, or otherwise work things out with the Shopping Center. (See City's September 22,2010 letter, enclosed.) Further, the HOA has already brought a motion in its lawsuit asking the court to recognize a right in favor ofthe HOA to use the Shopping Center's land. The HOA's evidence included declarations by Edward Shea, Sherlye and Paul Payne, Claire Browning Lealy and Phillip L. Browning. The court denied the motion on its finding that the HOA did not establish a probability that Villa Capri has any legal right to the Shopping Center's land. (See excerpt ofAugust 26,2010 court transcript, enclosed.) III. THE SHOPPING CENTER'S SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL In 2010, the Shopping Center made a settlement proposal to the HOA. The Shopping Center offered to grant a written easement in favor ofthe HOA to use the Disputed Access Point for access to shop at the Center as is required by City Condition No. 51. In return, the Shopping Center asked that the two driveway easements that exist in favor ofthe Shopping Center upon the Villa Capri property be connected so the Shopping Center's easement can extend along the entire border. On January 27, 2011, there was a meeting at the properties between representatives ofthe Shopping Center and HOA, and their counsel. An agreement was reached for the Shopping Center to hire a surveyor to put stakes with flags upon the Villa Capri property to show the path ofthe proposed extension ofthe driveway easement. The surveyor was hired but the HOA's counsel refused to allow the surveyor to proceed. There was no counter-proposal from the HOA and the HOA is not willing to further discuss settlement. On April 20, 2011, the court ordered the parties to participate in mediation by September 2011. The Shopping Center's counsel has provided names ofproposed mediators to the HOA's counsel and is awaiting a response. It is unknown when mediation will occur. However, the court has set this lawsuit for trial in November, 2011. The trial date sets deadlines for depositions and various motions. Unless a settlement is reached in the next month or so, the Shopping Center will be forced to go forward with its defense ofits property ownership. Since the HOA's claim is based upon allegations that Villa Capri uses the Shopping Center's driveways for access to the public streets, it will probably be necessary to take the depositions ofall Villa Capri homeowners to find out 867814.1 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 121 ANDERSON, MCPHARLIN & CONNERSLLP LAWYERS Villa Capri Homeowners Our File No. 5507-170 May 11,2011 Page 9 what is known about the HOA's allegations. The Shopping Center does not want to impose this financial burden, stress and inconvenience upon you, but the HOA is forcing the Shopping Center into a comer requiring it to defend its ownership ofthe Shopping Center. We encourage you to do what you can to encourage the HOA to settle the litigation. Ifyou have questions or would like to discuss the situation with us, please contact our paralegal, Joselyn Turner, at (213) 236-1641 or [email protected], and she will do her best to answer your questions. Very truly yours, ANDERSON, McPHARLIN & CONNERS LLP By: _ Michael S. Robinson Counsel for Golden Cove, LLC MSR:085/lg Enclosures cc (w/encls.): Joel Rojas, Community Development Director, City ofRancho Palos Verdes 867814.1 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 122 , ... ,' MEtv'lCRANDUM .. , TO: CITY MANAGER FROM: ACTING DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES~ DATE: JUNE 17 ~ 1986 SUBJECT: ADDENDUM TO FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT #22 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 44239 STAFF. COORDINATOR: STEVE RUBIN~ ASSOCIATE PLANNER RECOMMENDA TI ON (1) Adopt Ordinance No. 185~ changing the zoning of th:e 6.3 acre subject property from Commet'cial Neig.hborho.od (eN) to, Residentia.l t.1ulti-Family~ 8 dwelling units/acre (RM-8) and (2) Adopt Resolution No~ 86- approving the Addendum to Final Environmental Impact Report #22 and Tentative Tract Map 44239. INTRODUCTION ,.. ... On May 6~ 1986 the City Council opened the public hearing for this project~ took testimony and continued the hearing to June 17~ 1986. ANALYSIS Please reference the attached staff report and minutes from ,the May 6th Council meeting along with the attachments listed on Page 3 of that staff report (provided on 5/06/86) for background information on this project. Following is a discussion of those items discussed at the May 6th meeting which required additional review and/or revisions: (1) Corrections to Environmental Impact Report Addendum Several corrections were noted to be made fnr typographical errors~ clarifi cation of traffic flow, acreage of the project site~ acreage of Pt. Vicente Park and inclusion of a pedestrian crossing at the signalized intersection of Hawthorne Boulevard and Palos Verdes Drive West. These items have been addressed. The corrected Addendum to Environmental Impact Report #22 is attached. \, COPIES: GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 123 Memorandum: Addendum to Final EIR #22 and TTM 44239 17 June 1986 Page 2 (2) Left-Turn Pocket on Hawthorne The project engineers have altered the left-turn pocket on Hawthorne Boulevard which provides access into the site. The Director of Public Works is working with them.to further refine its design. A condition addressing this issue has been included in the attached resolution of approval. (3) Affordable Housing The City Council and the Planning Commission held a joint workshop to further discuss this item. It was decided at that time that the City would and should proceed with affordable units in this project. The Planning Commission was to address the following issues at their meeting of May 27, 1986: (1) Income Limitation; (2) Resale Controls; (3) Length of Time an Owner May be Absent; (4) Assets Test; and (5) Windfall Profits. The following actions were taken on the above five items: (1) Income of $50,000 and initial sales price of $150,000 (2) Thirty year resale control period (3) Owner may be absent from unit no more than six consecutive months (4) A statement of assets under penalty of perjury shall be furnished (5) Fifty percent of the windfall profit would go to the City (See attached draft minutes and staff report from May 27, 1986.) Some members of the Planning Commission expressed concern ovef the use of a $50,000 income limitation. This concern focused on the basis for its use and the ability to adjust. The applicants provided some income statistics which establish a method of arriving at this figure using 1980 census median income fi gures (see attached "Affordabil ity Income Limits" sheet). Based on these figures, the $50,000 can be adjusted annually on the CPI, or whatever the Council deems most appropriate. Also attached is a letter from the applicants addressing their concerns over the number of affordable units and their sale price. The applicants suggest that, if the income level and initial sal.es price is reduced, only ten units will be designated as . affordable and lists four items which would help reduce the costs of producing those units. The applicants have expressed a willingness to meet individually with the Council members to outline the development costs of the proposed project and how this relates to the income limitation and initial sales price of the units. (Mr. Adler can be reached at either (714)835-9171 or (714)951-7344). The Council may approve the Tentative Tract Map before finalizing all details of the Affordable Housing Agreement. A condition has been GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 124 Memorandum: Addendum to Final EIR #22 and TTM 44239 17 June 1986 Page 3 included in the resolution of approval requlrlng that said agreement be finalized and recorded prior to approval of the final mapJ (4) Secondary Exit to Palos Verdes Drive West St. Paul's Lutheran Church has e~pressed concern over the 1ocati on of the proposed e~it only to Palos Verdes Drive West. Staff met with two representatives of the Church on June 9, 1986. At that time, they expressed concern over traffic noise, speed, ~afety to church goers walking from the temporary parking l..ot to the Church, and their right to use part of the twenty foot easement on the commercial lot. Staff explained that the peak hours of use would be between 6:00 and 8:00 AM, Monday - Friday (work commuters), all ingress to the project would be from Hawthorne, traffic noise should not be a problem due to the times of the peak hours, and anticipated low volume use and speed could be adequately controlled with one speed bump. Slower speeds would also reduce traffic noise. The proposed design (see attached) separates the ,exit only lane from the lanes for Church ingress and egress with an asphaltcurr;:- Tire damage teeth would prevent vehicles from entering via this driveway. Emergency vehicles would take access through a chain link gate (after cutting closure chain). (5) Fifteen Foot Wide Easement Behind Golden Cove Offices The proposed easement has been lengthened to provide a greater distance of wider access. The attached plan indicates a twenty-six foot wide clear-to the-sky access aisle. (The existing power poles sit within this drive aisle.) Proposed plans for the shopping center's renovation would eliminate the outer walkways on this bUilding, resulting in even greater clear space. These applications are expected by June 20,.1986. Lastly,. the end unit on that cul-de-sac would be fifteen feet from the proposed easement (the RM-8 requirement for interior side setbacks is ten feet). (6) Underground Utilities: Telephone Lines and Cable TV Conditions have been revised according to Council recommendation. (7) Site Drainage During Construction Added to conditions of approva1. (8) Bluff Drainage Added to conditions of approval. GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 125 Memorandum: Addendum to Final EIR #22 and TTM 44239 17 June 1986 Page 4 (9) Clarification of Dirt Hauling Route This condition has been further clarified. (10) Safeway Ramp The applicant1s engineers have developed a plan to reduce the ramp grade to either twenty percent or fifteen percent. Either grade would require construction of retaining walls which would block access of the large trucks into the existing loading dock (see attached plan). The renovation plans for the shopping center propose to relocate the loading facilities to the north side of the market (below Hawthorne Boulevard). If this is accomplished, the applicant's proposal is ~uite feasible. A condition has been included to address this matter. CONCLUSION The applicants and/or staff (and the Planning Commission) have attempted to address the issues raised at the May 6th meeting (as identified in the minutes). The most complex issue is that of affordable housing. As noted earlier, the Council does not have to resolve all of these issues immedi·ately; however, the basic issues of the income limitation and initial sales price have the greatest impact on the project as a whole, and would best be resolved prior to approval of the tentative map. ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt Ordinance No. 185, but not Tentative Tract Map 44239, pending further refinements/revisions per Council direction. 2. Deny Tentative Tract Map 44239, directing staff to bring back a resolution of denial, and do not adopt Ordinance No. 185. (If this courSe is taken, the Council should also take the necessary steps to change the General Plan land use designations back to Commercial.) APPROVED: Donald F. Guluzzy, City Manager GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 126 Memorandum: Addendum to Final EIR #22 and TTM 44239 17 June 1986 Page 5 . ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 86- Letter from Howard Adler Re Affordable Units and Income Statistics Plans (2nd Exit, 15' Easement and Safeway Ramp) Draft Minutes and Staff Report from 5/27/86 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes and Staff Report from 5/06/86 Council Meeting GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 127 Mayor DOUGLAS M. HINCHLIFFE RANCHO PALOS VERDES Mayor Pro Tem MELVIN W. HUGHES Councilwoman JACKI BACHARACH Councilman JOHN C. MeTAGGART June aD, 1986 Councilman ROBERT E. RYAN City Manager DONALD F. GULUZZY Mr. Howard Adler 505 N. Tustin Avenue, Suite 246 Santa Ana, CA 92075 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 44239 Dear Howard: As you know, at the June 17th meeting the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 185 changing the zoning of the s.ubject property from Commercial Nei'gh borhood(CN) to Residential Multi-Family, 8 dwelling units/acre (RM-8). This ordinance will become effective 30 days from that date. The Council also adopted Resolution No. 86-40 approving the Addendum to Final EIR #22 and Tentative Tract 'Map 44239. The following changes/revisions were required by the Council: (1) The secondary egress across the vacant commercial lot was changed to emergency access only. Furth~r exploration into a route through the Cityls parkland is to be pursued. Yo~ will also have to post a bond for a future secondary egress. (2) The secondary extt i'ssue is- to be taken to the Traffic Committee for their review and comment. (3) Vehicular access to the Golden Cove Shoppi~g Center is to be prOVided. Revised sHe plans will be necessary. (4) e.e. & Rls are to be review'ed by the City Council. (5) A ca~h deposit, bond or combination th€reof shall be posted with the City to ensure i'mprovement of that portion of the Safeway driveway ramp on the subject property. (6) Ten (10) uni.ts shall be des.ignated as. "Affordable Housing ll units with an initial sales'price of $135,000.00. Further refinements to the Affordable Housing agreement will be made prior to approval of the fi'nal map. \ 30940 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD / RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90274 / (213) 377-0360 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 128 Mr. Howard Adler Tentative Tract Map 44239 June 20, 1986 Page -2- The issue of the air conditioning is subject to CUP No. 100. A minor amendment would be required to change the requirement for air conditioning installation in all units. This would have to go before the Planning Commission. Please let me know' how you wish to proceed on this matter. I would like to thank you, your associates and staff for all of your patience and cooperation over the past several years. It has been greatly appreciated. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, ~ Steve Rubin Associate Planner SR:ml cc: Larry Lazar Sanchez Talarico Associates 359 San Miguel Drive, Suite 200 . Newport Beach, CA 92660 Van Dell &Associates 17801 Cartwright Road Irvine, CA 92714 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 129 MEMORANDUM TO: TRAFFIC COMMITTEE FROM: ASSISTANT DIREC~OR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE: JULY 9, 1986 SUBJECT: SECONDARY EGRESS FROM GOLDEN COVE DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATION That the committee recommend to the Planning Commission that the developer pursue obtaining a secondary exit to their ptojectonto Palos Verdes Drive South and support granting of an access ease ment across lower Pt. Vicente Park•. INTRODUCTION The City Council has made ita condition of approval that the developers of the Golden Cove Housing Project not use their ease ment across the commercial property to Palos Verdes Drive South. This creates the problem of once again reducing the number of access points to this project tOI one on Hawthorne Boulevard. -----ANALYSIS This project has come before the Committee on several occasions. It has always been the consensus that an egress onto Palos Verdes Drive South was very important. Staff still believes that much of the traffic leaving the project onto Hawthorne Blvd. will want access to Palos Verdes Drive South. Since left turns out of the project are prohibited, these vehicles will make u-turns at loca tions which are at best, questionable. The proposal that staff favors is egress with emergency ingress across the lower section of the civic center site. In exchange for this easement, the developer·should make all necessary median improvements and in stall roadways wide enough for two-way traffic and perpendicular parking for park goers. CONCLUSION That a secondary exit to this project is desirable and that the Lower Civic Center site is a reasonable location for this exit providing that City gets improvements which will benefit future park development. ks/kz GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 130 Mayor MELVIN W. HUGHES Mayor Pro Tem 'JOHN C. McTAGGART Councilman DOUGLAS M. HINCHLIFFE October 23, 1990 Councilman ROBERT E. RYAN Councilwoman JACKI BACHARACH Ms. Astrid Naviaux, President The Board of Directors Villa Capri Townhomes Homeowners Association #9 San Remo Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90274 Dear Ms. Naviaux: The Director of Environmental Services has reviewed your request to examine the feasibility of altering the present vehicular circulation pattern in and out ot' the Villa Capri Townhomes site and has assigned the project to me. I a~ available to meet with you and your staff to discuss this matter as well as to provide you with any requested information. As I'm sure you'ieaware, the access from Via Capri to the Golden Cove Shopping Center exists because of a specific condition of the approved Tract Map (Tract No. 44239), as approved on June 17, / 1986. Condition No. 51 specifically states that, "the developer shall provide vehicular access to the Golden Cove Shopping Center from the interior of the Eroject." As you can see, the issue is access from Villa Capri to the Shopping Center not Palos Verdes Drive West as stated in your letter. Upon review of your request and the existing tract conditions of appr-oval, the Director has determined that the most feasible solution to the "access problem" would be the installation of some sort of access control device at the current tract boundary line. This solution is considered the most feasible because it would be consistent with the intent of Condition No. 51 and would not necessitate an amendment to the original tract conditions. However, a revision to the original Conditional Use Permit would be required. Please contact me at 377-6008 to schedule a meeting with you or your staff to discuss this solution or to explore other options regarding this matter. I look forward to meeting with you and your representative; and I apologize for not contacting you sooner about this matter. JHR:pg 30940 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD I RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90274·5391 I (213) 377-0360 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 131 JAMES A. HAYES LAWYER PENINSULA CENTER TELEPHONE (310) 541-6029 734 SILVER SPUR ROAD. SUITE 302 FAX (310) 544-3276 ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CALIFORNIA 90274-3604 September 24, 1993 t • ~_J. f.)itIC~,. ·CEI\IF""["""..'I l.o'" Bret Bernard, Director RE Environmental Services SEP 2 '71993 City of Rancho Palos Verdes 20940 Hawthorne Boulevard ENVIRONMENTM. SEfW!CE~; Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90274 Re: Villa Capri Townhomes Dear Mr. Bernard: As Vice President of the Villa Capri Townhomes Homeowners Association, I have been asked by the Board of Directors to proceed with the needed action to obtain a change in Condition No. 51 of the Conditional Use Permit for the Villa Capri Project from ". . vehicular access to Golden Cove.. "to "pedestrian access to Golden Cove. "A U-turn has now been approved by the City Council at the Golden Cove exit on Palos Verdes Drive South, which will provide.a safer way to drive south than has been the case. The second request is that a wall be built within development standards with a locked gate for pedestrian access by our homeown~rs. Landscaping. along the inside wall would, of course, be essential to complete the project. Please advise me as to what applications we will need, the fee(s) involved, and whether it is necessary to have a professional plan produced at this time. With the heavy litigation costs our homeowners are bearing in our suit against the developer and others, we would prefer to work with staff and a contractor to obtain this approval. Enclosed are copies of snapshots which speak for themselves as to the need for the wall. Sincerely, H~ JAMESA. JAH/js Enclosures GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 132 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING, BUILDING, & CODE ENFORCEMENT September 22,2010 Robert B. Parsons 3424 Carson Street, Suite 500 Torrance, Ca 90503 SUBJECT: TITLE REPORT FOR GOLDEN COVE SHOPPING CENTER Dear Mr. Parsons, As you are aware, the Community Development Director requested that your office provide a current copy of the Title Report for the Golden Cove Shopping Center in order to allow Staff and the City Attorney time to review the easement language identified in the Title Report. The purpose of this research was to see if an easement was ever recorded on the Golden Cove Shopping Center property to allow Villa Capri residents legal access to Palos Verdes Drive West from a driveway near the rear of the Golden Cove Shopping Center. After reviewing the Title Report, Staff and the City Attorney have agreed with your determination that an easement is not recorded on the Golden Cove Shopping Center property. As such, the City Attorney agrees that there is no documented legal requirement to provide access in favor ofVilla Capri residents, and Condition No. 51 of Resolution No. 86-41 for the Villa Capri property should be amended. It is important to note, however that access should be maintained, if required by the Fire Department as a Fire Lane. Staff is aware that the Golden Cove Shopping Center and Villa Capri are currently making efforts to civilly resolve a legal dispute regarding access rights. The City would encourage a resolution to this matter before proceeding with an amendment to Condition No. 51 of Resolution No. 86-41. It should also be noted that in a letter sent to your office dated May 6, 2010, Staff noted that building permits were not able to be found on file for the gate separating Golden Cove Shopping Center and Villa Capri. Although this statement was correct (no Building Permits found), after further research at a later date, Staff was able to find "planning entitlements" for the construction of the gate. These planning entitlements are documented in P.C. Resolution No. 99-63. ' ifyou should have any questions, or would like further assistance, please feel free to contact me at (310) 544-5228. If you would like to review any documents that Staff has gathered, feel free to contact me. . cc: 1) Paris Zarrabian /31244 Palos Verdes Drive West #243 / Rancho Palos Verdl7s, CA 90275 2) Carol Lynch, City Attorney 3) Joel Rojas, Community Development Director 4) Swedelson & Gottlieb / Attn: Sandra Gottlieb / 11900 W. Olympic Blvd, Suite 700/Los Angeles, CA 90064 30940 HAWTHORNE BI.VD. / RANCHO PAI.OS VmDES, CA 90275-5391 PLANNING/CODE ENFORCEMENT (310) 544-5228/ BUILDING (310) 265-7800 / DEPT. FAX (310) 544-5293 / E'MAIL [email protected] GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 133 1 SUPBRIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 3 DEPARTMENT SOUTHWEST B HON. ANDREW C. KAUFFMAN, JUDGE 4 5 VILLA CAPRI TOWNHOMES, 6 PLAINTIFF, 7 VS. NO. YC 062750 8 GOLDEN COVE, LLC, 9 DEFENDANT. 10 11 12 REPORTERrs TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS 13 THURSDAY, AUGUST 26, 2010 14 15 16 17 18 APPEARANCES: 19 FOR THE PLAINTIFF: SWEDELSON & GOTTLIEB BY: DAVID C. SWEDELSON, ESQ. 20 JOAN E. LEWIS-HEARD, ESQ. 11900 WEST OLYMPIC BOULEVARD 21 SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90064 22 (310) 207-2207 23 FOR THE DEFENDANT: ROBERT BRUCE PARSONS, ESQ. 3424 CARSON STREET 24 SUITE 500 TORRANCE, CA 90503 25 (310) 214-1477 26 PAGES 1 THROUGH 14, INCL. 27 DENISE K. NAGAO, CSR NO. 7722 28 co v OFFICIAL REPORTER GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 134 1 1 CASE NUMBER: YC 062750 2 CASE NAME: VILLA CAPRI TOWNHOMES VERSUS 3 GOLDEN COVE, LLC 4 TORRANCE, CA THURSDAY, AUGUST 26, 2010 5 DEPARTMENT SW B HON. ANDREW C. KAUFFMAN, JUDGE 6 REPORTER: DENISE K. NAGAO, CSR NO. 7722 7 TIME: 9:44 A.M. 8 APPEARANCES: (AS SET FORTH ON TITLE PAGE.) 9 10 11 THE COURT: I BELIEVE THIS IS NO.2, VILLA CAPRI 12 TOWNHOMES VERSUS GOLDEN COVE, LLC 13 MR. PARSONS: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. 14 I'M ROBERT PARSONS, AND I REPRESENT GOLDEN 15 COVE, LLC. 16 MS. LEWIS-HEARD: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. 17 JOAN LEWIS-HEARD, OF SWEDELSON AND ·18 GOTTLIEB, ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF VILLA CAPRI TOWNHOMES 19 HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION. 20 MR. SWEDELSON: DAVID SWEDELSON APPEARING FOR THE 21 SAME PARTY, YOUR HONOR. 22 THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. 23 YOU CAN ALL BE SEATED. THIS MIGHT TAKE A 24 FEW MINUTES. 25 THIS IS A MOTION ON BEHALF OF THE TOWNHOMES 26 ASSOCIATION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. I REVIEWED THE 27 MOVING PAPERS, THE OPPOSITION, THE REPLY. 28 I HAVEN'T CONSIDERED THE SURREPLY SINCE I GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 135 13 1 WE DO NOT KNOW WHY THERE IS AN IRREPARABLE INJURY 2 BECAUSE THERE IS NONE. THEY HAVE OTHER MEANS OF INGRESS 3 AND EGRESS. 4 THEY DO NOT NEED TO BURDEN OUR PROPERTY, 5 THEY DO NOT NEED TO CREATE A MENACE TO OUR PATRONS, OUR 6 EMPLOYEES, AND PEOPLE WHO ARE LAWFULLY ON THE PROPERTY. 7 WE SHOULD NOT BE SANCTIONED IN CONTINUING A 8 TRESPASS. THEY COME BEFORE THE COURT WITH UNCLEAN HANDS 9 AS A -- AS A FOLLOW-UP ARGUMENT. 10 THE COURT: WELL, YOU DONIT HAVE TO PURSUE THAT 11 ARGUMENT. 12 MR. PARSONS: OKAY. 13 THE COURT: AND KEEP IN MIND THE COURT HAVING 14 SUSTAINED ALL THE HEARSAY OBJECTIONS, THERE IS NO 15 EVIDENCE AS TO WHETHER THE GATE IS PERMITTED OR NOT. 16 MR. PARSONS: ALL RIGHT. 17 I THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. 18 THE COURT: I THINK YOU BOTH MADE YOUR POSITIONS 19 CLEAR. 20 AS YOU KNOW, THE COURT HAS TO MAKE A 21 DETERMINATION BASED ON TWO INTERRELATED FACTORS. FIRST, 22 THE LIKELIHOOD IF THE MOVING PARTY WILL ULTIMATELY 23 PREVAIL -- AND I DONIT KNOW THAT THAT'S BEEN 24 ESTABLISHED -- AND, NO.2, THE RELATIVE INTERIM HARM TO 25 THE PARTIES. 26 GIVEN THE FACT THAT THERE ARE TWO OTHER 27 ENTRANCES AND EXITS, liM UNABLE TO DETERMINE -- UNABLE 28 TO FIND THAT THERE IS RELATIVE INTERIM HARM TO THE GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 136 14 1 TOWNHOME ASSOCIATION IS GREATER THAN THE INTERIM HARM TO 2 GOLDEN COVE. 3 SO THE MOTION IS DENIED. 4 IS NOTICE WAIVED, COUNSEL? 5 MR. SWEDELSON: YES. 6 MS. LEWIS-HEARD: YES. 7 MR. PARSONS: NOTICE WAIVED, YOUR HONOR. 8 THE COURT: IN ORDER TO SAVE ADDITIONAL EFFORT, I 9 WOULD BE UNLIKELY TO ISSUE AN INJUNCTION ON BEHALF OF 10 GOLDEN COVE INASMUCH AS THIS ACTIVITY HAS BEEN GOING ON 11 FOR 20 YEARS. 12 MR. PARSONS: THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED AND TAKEN 13 TO HEART, YOUR HONOR. 14 THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. 15 THANK YOU. 16 17 (AT 10:00 A.M., THE PROCEEDINGS 18 WERE CONCLUDED.) 19 --000-- 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 137 Planning Commission Minutes (August 10,1999 P.C. Meeting) *Wall mentioned Pg. 14 of Minutes GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 138 Before the Commission considered Agenda Item No.3, Chairman Cartwright as Attorney Wiener to comment on Proposition No. 208 pertaining to restrictio on Commission/Committee members for making contributions to City Co II campaigns. City Attorney Wiener stated that Proposition No. 208 was a ed in November 1998 and that one of the provisions provided in the propositi ndicated that Commissioners could not make campaign contributions to Council mbers who appointed the Commission/Committee members. City Attorney Wiener informed the Co. /' Is~ion that Proposition No. 208 was challenged in court and that the Federal Distri" ourt found that certain provisions in this proposition were unconstitutip ,'. Therefore, the Federal District Court stated that all provisions in Proposition"'. 208 were not enforceable and that this ruling would be appealed through th~~ ,t' Circuit Court of Appeals. Because of the Federal District Court's ruling, C9 "II members are free to solicit Commission/Committee members for campaign con . utions and vise versa. mission 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 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 139 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 anyon-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 fagade 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 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 140 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 fayades 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 fayade of the center it would be reserved for the Napa Planning Commission Minutes August 10, 1999 Page 10 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 141 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 project 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 wHi 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 plans. 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 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 142 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 Alberio 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 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 143 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 Ortner, 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 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 144 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 Staff's 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. I 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 Staffs 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 10,1999 Page 14 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 145 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 thatthe 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 CO AUGUST 24. 1999. Commission None. Planning Commission Minutes August 10, 1999 Page 15 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 146 Planning Commission Minutes (October 12,1999 P.C. Meeting) *Wall mentioned Pgs. 17 and 19 of Minutes GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 147 Assistant Planner Louie answered that the motion as presented thereby utilize Option NO.2 of the staff report which is to approve the pr sed enclosure of the easement subject to the condition stated on page he staff report. Therefore, as a result of the motion, the fence in the easem ould be approved. Vice Chairman Lyon repeate motion, seconded by Commissioner Alberio. The motion was approv ,5-0). At 8:5 .m. the Commission took a brief recess until 9:00 p.m. at which time they nvened. CONTINUED BUSINESS 3. Conditional Use Permit No. 206. Variance No. 446. Grading No. 2135 and Environmental Assessment No. 711: Hannibal Petrossi, Petrossi & Associates (applicant), Golden Cove Center, LLC (landowner), 31100-31176 Palos Verdes Drive West. Associate Planner Mihranian presented the staff report. He briefly described existing conditions of the site and recapped the background of the proposed project. He explained the staff report which analyzed the modifications made to the project based on the direction of the Commission and staff from previous public hearings and the August 14, 1999 site visit, and used the revised silhouette as a guide. Mr. Mihranian displayed on an overhead projector the project as originally proposed and the modifications that have been made. He explained that there were no modification to the plans in terms of the site plan, since the building footprints have not been modified. The slides showed that the towers on the proposed grocery store had been removed as well as the pitched roof f,acade and the revised proposal showed parapets and facade improvements that were reduced in height. The existing two-story office building was not modified per staff recommendations, but staff felt the proposed modifications were sufficient in that they significantly mitigated potential view impairments by eliminating towers and reducing the overall height of the parapet walls. The next slide showed the modifications to the Golden Cove Restaurant. It illustrated the original proposal and the modification proposed which showed the addition had been moved over the existing building footprint. The three new building off of Palos Verdes Drive West had the height reduced as per Planning Commission recommendations. Explaining the environmental assessment, Mr. Mihranian mentioned that in the preparation of the initial study staff determined that the proposed project may have potential impacts on the surrounding environment, however the potential impacts were at a level that could be mitigated to a level of compliance. Therefore a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and attached to the staff report. Since the changes proposed to the project do not adversely impact the project, but rather enhance the Planning Commission Minutes October 12, 1999 Page 10 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 148 mitigation measures, an addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration was attached to the staff report. In regards to view impairment, Mr. Mihranian distributed a photo board showing the new flagging and the views from five properties, two on Via Del Mar and three properties within the Villa Capri complex. Staff believes that the height modifications addressed the major concerns with view impairment, and believes the applicants have complied with the direction of the Planning Commission. Staff recommended condition that existing foliage in excess of 16 feet in height be trimmed or removed to open up and enhance certain views. Conditions have also been included that address lighting and noise concerns. Another item of concern had been that of circulation on and off-site. A revised traffic study was submitted to the City's Traffic Engineer and conditions were added as a result of the review. Mr. Mihranian explained the applicants were proposing a joint use parking program which is a program that, based on the different hours of operation and different uses within the center there are different peaks of demand for parking stalls. He distributed a modified parking program to the Commission. Staff also recommended that the construction be done in phases, phase one being the grocery market, phase two the addition to the Golden Lotus as well as the improvements to the existing two-story office building, and phase three being the three buildings along Palos Verdes Drive West. The purpose of the phasing will enable staff to conduct an accurate assessment of the parking impacts after each phase. Regarding the utilities, staff indicated that there were 6 utility poles on the property, the only kind of its nature within the immediate neighborhood. In doing an assessment of the surrounding area, all utility poles are underground except these 6 poles. According to the Development Code, any new development that exceeds 25% of the existing floor area requires the utilities be placed underground. The applicants are only proposing an increase in floor area of 16%, therefore the utilities do not have to be placed underground unless the Planning Commission finds that there is a nexus undergrounding the utilities to some type of adverse impact. Staff believes there is a connection between the utility poles and view impairment, and utilities should be placed underground. Staff had contacted Edison and received an estimate of $10,000 to $12,000 per pole to underground the utilities. Based on staff's assessment of the project and the Commission's direction, staff is recommending approval of the proposed project based on the modifications presented. Commissioner Alberio stated that he felt there was a safety issue regarding the utility poles. Associate Planner Mihranian stated that there is one pole that is leaning and there is another pole in the middle of the driveway between Villa Capri and the Golden cove Center. Staff recommended requiring location of these poles. Commissioner Alberio asked about a vacant piece of land mentioned in the staff report that could possibly be purchased and used for parking. Planning Commission Minutes October 12, 1999 Page 11 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 149 Associate Planner Mihranian showed on the overhead projector the location of the vacant land, which is immediately adjacent to the southern property line, near the Admiral Risty. Commissioner Alberio stated in the staff report there was an option to relocate the bus stop to allow for off-site parking. He questioned where the bus stop would be relocated. Associate Planner Mihranian answered that the City's Traffic Engineer suggested it could be moved in front of the vacant lot on Palos Verdes Drive West or near the church. Commissioner Slayden asked staff if, in calculating additional floor area for parking, the mezzanine was included in the calculations, and if so why. Associate Planner Mihranian responded that the mezzanine had been included in the calculations because it is considered additional floor area by the standards set forth in the Development Code. Commissioner Slayden asked staff if the three restaurants proposed along Palos Verdes Drive West had adequate setbacks from the road. Associate Planner Mihranian responded that the setbacks were adequate and in compliance with the 30 foot requirement for the CN zoning district. Commissioner Paris had concerns with the steep driveway behind the buildings in regards to safety and noise. He wondered if speed bumps had been considered to discourage the speed used to go up the driveway. Associate Planner Mihranian answered that speed bumps had been discussed with the City's Traffic Engineer, who felt speed bumps might encourage some type of racing up the driveway and didn't adequately address safety concerns. Commissioner Paris did not agree with splitting the construction into three phases. He felt it would be imperative for the market to have the office buildings at full capacity. He did not think the market should be modified without changing anything else. Associate Planner Mihranian stated that the phasing proposal was an option for the Commission to consider. Commissioner Paris discussed the joint driveway suggested between the shopping area and the Unocal Station. He asked if staff was concerned that by establishing a joint use driveway that would encourage people to use the driveway through the Unocal Station as a shortcut to get onto Hawthorne Boulevard rather than use the intersection. Planning Commission Minutes October 12,1999 Page 12 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 150 Associate Planner Mihranian responded that some drivers may do that, however the driveway in question was not a part of the application and staff could not require the owner of the Unocal Station to make modifications to their driveway. The owner of the Unocal Station must agree the joint use of the driveways as well. If the property owner of the Unocal felt that by creating a joint use driveway, that would create an adverse impact upon his station and he may not agree to it. Staff then recommended building a wall or landscaping the area if that were to happen. Vice Chairman Lyon questioned the wording of Condition No. 54. He felt that the way this condition had been worded, seemed to encourage motorists to use the service station to access Palos Verdes Drive West when, in fact, the intent was the opposite. He advised staff to revise this condition. Associate Planner Mihranian stated that the intent of the condition was to create an ingress only driveway that discourages motorist from using the service station if the privacy wall is put into place. He felt the condition, as written may have to be modified. Vice Chairman Lyon commented that the driveway in the back of the grocery store has been there for many years. He felt that making the exit a right turn only would make the area safer and did not see any other safety issues in that area. Commissioner Alberio asked what the status was on the requested car wash at the Unocal station. Associate Planner Mihranian answered that the Conditional Use Permit for the car wash has expired, due to a lapse in time in the plan check process. Chairman Cartwright asked, if the bus stop were relocated further down on Palos Verdes Drive West, how many parking spaces would that potentially create. Associate Planner Mihranian responded that staff had not yet determined how many spaces that would create. Chairman Cartwright asked about the utilities. He wondered why the two poles that were safety issues were not being worked on now, rather than waiting for this application to be approved. Associate Planner Mihranian responded that Edison has been notified regarding the leaning pole, however the one at the center of the driveway was not mentioned. Chairman Cartwright questioned the noise restrictions. He asked if 65 decibels was a fair standard to set and what the current noise level was at the center now. Associate Planner Mihranian stated that staff had not done an assessment of the current noise level, however 65 decibels is a common standard for outdoor made in residents. Planning Commission Minutes October 12,1999 Page 13 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 151 Chairman Cartwright asked staff about the lighting restrictions and how these restrictions compared to those at Peninsula Center or Lunada Bay. Associate Planner Mihranian responded that staff had not contacted Peninsula Center or Lunada Bay. Chairman Cartwright asked staff if there is any evidence that the driveway behind the market has been a safety issue in the past. He felt that kids might be playing behind the market now only because there was no business activity in the area. Associate Planner Mihranian answered that there is no evidence that staff obtained that indicates there has been a safety issue at that site in the past. Associate Planner Mihranian reminded the Commission that the public hearing did not need to be reopened, as it had been open since the August 10 meeting. Kathy Berg 26621 Hawkhurst Drive, representing Golden Cove Group and Napa Valley Farms, stated that after meeting with the community over the last several months plans have been to scaled down for a few of the upscale programs at Napa Valley Farms and instead to put the emphasis on quality, variety, and value pricing. She felt the community had stated that value pricing was their primary concern. She stated that the applicants have, in good faith, addressed all of the issues as requested by the Planning Department, the Planning Commission, the neighbors, and all interested parties. The shopping center has been redesign to have the same look throughout the center. All of the structures and facades have been lowered, and the site was voluntarily reflagged to display the new silhouette. She stated many people have expressed their pleasure with the new proposal. Ty Hitt 1248 Watson Center Road, Carson stated he was the Senior Vice President and CFO for KB Mart, owner of Napa Valley Farms market. He felt that the majority of residents around the Golden Cove Shopping Center are now very positive about the proposed project. He stressed to the Commission that Napa Valley Farms was committed to bringing a high quality product at value pricing. He wanted to make sure that members of the community would shop at this market rather than leave the city to go to a comparable market that may have a better price. He stated that he has a concern over the phasing of the project. He stated that the economic and viability of the center is dependent upon the entire center being developed. They could not proceed with phase one not knowing if phase two or three would be approved. He questioned Condition No. 15 regarding the hours of operation. He felt that put his market at a distinct disadvantage with competition in the area. Ralph's, for example, is open from 6 a.m. to midnight. He stated that Napa Valley Farms has to be able to compete with surrounding markets, and being forced to close at 9:00 when other stores were open to midnight would not allow them to compete. He also felt that Condition No. 30, restricting delivery hours from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. was also too restrictive. Planning Commission Minutes October 12, 1999 Page 14 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 152 Chairman Cartwright asked Mr. Hitt what hours he would like to have the store open. Mr. Hitt answered that he would like to be open 6 a.m. to midnight, the same as Ralph's. Commissioner Paris stated that he understood the concern over the phasing of the project, but wondered if constructing the market, office building, and Golden Lotus in phase one would be more acceptable. At the review period it could then be determined if parking was adequate and the decision then made about the three restaurants along Palos Verdes Drive West. He felt that if the parking was inadequate and the restaurants were allowed to be built, it may conceivably cut into the profitability of the market if customers could not find a place to park. Mr. Hitt responded that based on their estimates parking was not anticipated to be an issue. He asked that all phases be done together. Commissioner Paris commented that perishable products are generally delivered to the stores very early in the morning. He wondered if that was another reason the applicant was requesting the store be open early, so they could accept their deliveries. Mr. Hitt responded that it was true that these deliveries are made early and they would need to be open to accept these deliveries. Mr. Hitt also commented that if the store were to be open until midnight, he was requesting that the lights stay on in the parking lot one hour after closing to give employees and customers time to reach their cars in the safety of the night lighting. Finally he questioned the condition requiring a full time security person at the site. He felt that this center did not require a full time security employee and requested the Commission reconsider the condition. Hannibal Petrossi (applicant) 3700 Campus Drive Newport Beach stated he has worked closely with the staff to develop this project. He stated that they have done everything they could to reduce the height and mass of the structure. He stated that he had received his staff report and conditions of approval on Friday and wanted to discuss the conditions that he had questions or objections to. Condition No.2 stated there was a maximum of 2 years for completion of the project. Mr. Petrossi requested a two-phase project. The first phase would consist of three years, the second phase for five years. The first phase would consist of the market, office buildings, and three new restaurants. The second phase would be the Golden Lotus Restaurant. Condition NO.6 discusses reviewing the project 6 months after issuance of occupancy. He felt that once one phase was built and in operation, the next phase may be deleted or put on hold for further review. Mr. Petrossi questioned what "minor modifications" were in reference to Condition No.8. He discussed the hours of operation and also requested they be changed to 6 a.m. to midnight to be competitive with other markets in the area. Regarding the lighting, he explained that he has a lighting plan and has stayed within the wattage for the site throughout the parking lot. Staff recommends the light poles be no more than 10 feet in height. Mr. Petrossi requested the light poles be 16 feet in Planning Commission Minutes October 12, 1999 Page 15 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 153 height to accommodate the wattage proposed. Regarding the utilities, it was his understanding and from past work that he had done, that undergrounding the utilities would be between $400 to $600 per foot. This would bring the cost of undergrounding to close to $500,000. Staff stated that Edison had quoted them $10,000 - $12,000 per pole which he found acceptable. He stated that his company could post a bond not to exceed $70,000 for the underground of the utilities. Regarding Condition No. 38 to replace trees over 16 feet in height, he suggested trimming the existing trees to 16 feet and stay at or below 16 feet at all times. Mr. Petrossi questioned Condition No. 48 and the need to remove 4 parking spaces by the Admiral Risty Restaurant. Regarding Condition No. 50, he did notobjecting to the condition but wanted to know if the truck access would be adequate for what was being suggested. He did not think it would be accessible for the trucks to enter. Condition No. 51 discusses the lone parking space and asked for clarification as to where the parking space was located. Associate Planner Mihranian stated that stall was eliminated in the modifications. Mr. Petrossi continued with Condition No. 56 regarding the removal or relocation of the bus stop. He stated he did not know the procedure to have this done or who to talk to begin the procedure. Condition No. 57 deals with a two-month review of occupancy and tenants in the center for parking purposes. Mr. Petrossi did not feel two months was an ' adequate time frame. He presented a chart for parking that took into account the different peak hours of the different businesses in the center. The remaining conditions were technical which he had no problem with except possibly the condition which would confine him 1220 cubic yards of dirt removal. He questioned the condition if his geologist recommended removal of more than 1220 cubic yards of soil for recompaction. Vice Chairman Lyon commented that he was disappointed that the developers had not received these conditions of approval earlier and had the chance to sit down with staff to resolve many of the questions raised. Commissioner Paris asked Mr. Petrossi why, if he was in a hurry to complete the project, would he want up to five years to complete the project. Mr. Petrossi answered that the second phase would be the Golden Lotus Restaurant and he felt that time frame was necessary to do all of the studies necessary requested by the Planning Commission and the city staff. Commissioner Paris stated that the parking was not dramatically affected by the Golden Lotus, but more by the three new restaurants in the front, as they would not only be bring in customers but the actual buildings would be taking up parking spaces. He did not feel the Golden Lotus should be put into phase 2 when the biggest impact on parking was from the three proposed restaurants. Mr. Petrossi stated that the developer told him that the three pads along Palos Verdes Drive West were the key for them to go ahead with the project. Planning Commission Minutes October 12,1999 Page 16 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 154 Commissioner Paris stated that Mr. Petrossi had stated he did not want a parking review by staff on a phase by phase basis and felt that he was trying to eliminate any type of parking assessment by staff. Mr. Petrossi stated he did want a parking review done by staff but it has to come before' any plans for buildings have been prepared. Associate Planner Mihranian clarified that the way the current condition reads is that staff is recommending three phases, not three approval phases of the project. Staff is recommending the Planning Commission approve the entire project this evening, however staff is asking the construction take place in three phases. After the first phase is completed staff will conduct an assessment of the parking to verify that the demand is accurate based on the parking plan. If the Commission finds the parking is deficient, there are slight modifications that can be made to the floor areas, but not eliminated from the proposal. Chairman Cartwright clarified that what the applicant was requesting was the construction being done in two phases and the review take place after the first phase. If it were found the parking projections are incorrect, then there would be the option of not modifying the Golden Lotus. Chairman Cartwright asked staff how to best address the proposals before the Commission, Director/Secretary Rojas explained that there are some items before the Commission, such as hours of operation, that the Commission could show some discretion on. However, there were some items that were specifically addressed in the Development Code, such as delivery hours and mechanical equipment operation. Sonya Hayes 64 Via Capri stated that on August 4 she had sent a letter requesting the construction of a buffer wall between Villa Capri and the Admiral Risty. Currently the residents look down at the delivery vehicles and garbage trucks, as well as the lights from the cars of people parking there. She stated the city needs this grocery store and requested that the Commission approve the project. Commissioner Paris asked if there would be a problem in terms of glare at Villa Capri if the light fixtures were raised to 16 feet in height. Ms. Hayes responded that she did not think there would be a problem. Paul Payne 52 Via Capri stated he was here to speak in support of the project and felt that all of their issues had been addressed in the recommendations made by staff. However if the recommended business or delivery hours were to change they may have some additional comments. He stated he would very much like to see the power poles Planning Commission Minutes October 12, 1999 Page 17 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 155 put underground and felt that with the increased traffic there would be an increased potential for problems. Commissioner Alberio asked Mr. Payne if he felt there would be any problem if the light poles were raised to 16 feet in height. Mr. Payne responded that he felt it was a non-issue. Charles Hugan 21 Via San Remo stated that he though that what was out at the site did not reflect the parapet that was going to surround the perimeter of the office building to screen the mechanical equipment. Associate Planner Mihranian responded that when the revised plans were submitted and the silhouette was modified the applicant did not have the parapet on the drawings. Therefore, when the silhouette was modified it did not include the parapet. Subsequently, staff informed the applicant that a condition would be included to add the parapet. The plans were modified to show the parapet, however the silhouette was not modified accordingly. Mr. Hugan then stated that he was not prepared to make the concession that the extended hours and lighting would have an impact and asked the Commission to carefully consider these issues. Finally he felt that in regards to the steep driveway behind the market, it was a good idea to make that exit a right turn only. He felt the area was a safety issue and should be considered as such. John Safyurtlu 31055 Via Rivera complimented the staff on their very thorough staff report. He commented that his property looks right over the roof of the market. He stated that staff had studied the view impact from surrounding properties, but did not do one from his property. He felt it was important that the view study be performed from his property prior to a decision being made. He felt the view from his property was different from the views shown from the surrounding properties. In looking at the plans, he felt that the structures in his view were not so much functional as they were cosmetic. He wondered if that type of a difference merited taking away a major portion of a resident's view. He felt with the outstanding questions from the developer as well as his concerns over his view, that approval of the project at this meeting was premature. Commissioner Paris asked Mr. Safyurtlu if he was aware of what the original proposal encompassed and how the project has been scaled back. Mr. Safyurtlu answered that he was aware of the original proposal and appreciated how the developer has scaled the project back. However, his view will still be impaired for what he felt were purely decorative purposes. Planning Commission Minutes October 12, 1999 Page 18 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 156 Commissioner Paris stated that he felt most of the cosmetic treatments had been removed. Some type of facade was needed to modernize the structure or the building would look like a bowling alley. Chairman Cartwright stated it would be helpful to the Commission if he could be very specific about what view impairment he was particularly concerned about. Mr. Safyutlu responded that he realized there had already been a lengthy process involved with the neighbors, however he had only closed escrow last week and was not aware of the issues until recently. The specific view in question was the view of Catalina Island. The features obstructing the view are the features that have the flags that are raised above the current existing roofline of the grocery store. Vice Chairman Lyon sympathized with Mr. Safyutlu but felt that since he had only closed escrow last week, he bought the property knowing that the shopping center was being improved, with the flags already erected. He did not feel he had any rights in the matter since he bought the property after public notice had been given and the process had begun. Lois Laure 3136 Barkentine Road commented that she had a conversation with the owner of the Unocal station and he was convinced that the car wash will be built and his application has not expired. She stated that she did not agree with some of the responses on the environmental checklist prepared for the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Chairman Cartwright requested Mr. Petrossi return to the podium and stated that at a past meeting he had agreed to erect a wall between Villa Capri and the Admiral Risty. He asked Mr. Petrossi if he was still willing to do so. Associate Planner Mihranian stated that building this wall was included in the original conditions of August 10. Chairman Cartwright discussed the undergrounding of the utilities and how best to handle the problem of the utilities. Associate Planner Mihranian stated that the condition of approval could be modified that if the underground exceed a specific cost then an amendment could be made to the approval. Mr. Petrossi stated that he will relocate the pole that is in the middle of the driveway as it is a safety issue. He also would be willing to allocate $70,000 for the undergrounding of the utilities. Director/Secretary Rojas stated that the Edison had provided a figure of $10,000 to $12,000 per pole. The Commission could use this figure to make a decision of whether they want to require the undergrounding, or if there are some unusual circumstances Planning Commission Minutes October 12, 1999 Page 19 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 157 that raises the cost, the applicant can return to the Commission and request the condition be amended or deleted. Commissioner Slayden moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Vice Chairman Lyon. There being no objection, the public hearing was closed. A discussion followed between the Commissioners on how best to proceed with the discussions regarding the project. It was the consensus of the Commission to discuss point by point the objections and questions raised by Mr. Petrossi earlier in the meeting. Chairman Cartwright began with Condition NO.2 which addresses phasing of the project. He asked staff if they agreed to break the project into two phases, the second one being Golden Lotus. He also asked staff how that affected the parking review. Director/Secretary Rojas responded that the Golden Lotus produces a need for 36 parking spaces while the three new buildings would produce a need for 32 spaces, but eliminate 32 spaces. Nonetheless, placing the Golden Lotus into phase 2 does give the Commission some leeway in the parking situation. He stated that the reason staff would like to see the projected phased was because there are certain assumptions in the parking plan and staff wants to be able to test the assumptions after a period of time. He suggested, if the Commission were to allow everything but the Golden Lotus be done in phase 1, do a six-month review after the certificate of occupancy is issued for phase 1. Commissioner Paris had concerns over allowing everything to be built at one time and putting the Golden Lotus into phase 2. Commissioner Slayden responded that the developer felt the project depended on the three additional buildings and if they are not approved the project may not get off the ground. Chairman Cartwright summarized that what was being suggested was the project being divided into two phases, which the staff does not object to. Staff recommended a parking review be done six months after the certificate of occupancy is issued for phase 1. If parking is then an issue the Commission can explore options to deal with the situation at that time. Commissioner Slayden moved to revise the language in Condition No.2 read the project shall be divided into two phases. The first phase will consist of everything but the Golden Lotus Restaurant, which will be phase 2. This approval will be valid for 3 years from the date of the date of Certificate of Occupancy of phase 1. There will be a 6-month parking review conducted after the certificate of occupancy is issued for all buildings in phase 1, seconded by Commissioner Alberio. The motion was approved, (5-0). Planning Commission Minutes October 12,1999 Page 20 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 158 Director/Secretary Rojas stated that Conditions of Approval Nos. 5 and NO.6 will be modified to reflect the changes and the decisions made in Condition No.2. Chairman Cartwright stated that the applicant had asked for a definition of "minor modifications" stated in condition NO.8. Director/Secretary Rojas stated that this is a standard condition and minor modifications would be approved at his discretion. The Commission agreed that the condition would remain as written. Chairman Cartwright next addressed condition No. 13, hours of operation. Commissioner Slayden suggested that all new uses in the center have the operating hours of 6 a.m. to midnight, which is comparable to the hours at Ralph's. Director/Secretary Rojas reminded the Commission that the hours set would apply to the entire shopping center, not just the market. Associate Planner Mihranian pointed out that there is a clause written that all existing uses may continue to operate under established hours. After discussion the Commissioners agreed that it may not be fair to restrict the hours of the existing tenants and allow different hours for the new businesses. The Commission agreed that the language would be changed to read that all existing and new uses would have the maximum hours of 6 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. Director/Secretary Rojas stated that he did have some concerns over the hours but there is a 6-month review process where changes could be made if needed. Chairman Cartwright opened the public hearing. Mr. Kendall 21250 Hawthorne Blvd Torrance, speaking on behalf of the developer, stated that he did not know if there was presently any kind of restrictions on the existing tenants in terms of hours of operation. He understood the concerns of the Commission but did not feel the existing tenants should be subject to the new hours. He thought the liquor store and restaurants may currently be open past midnight on the weekends. Director/Secretary Rojas suggested language to read that all uses in the center would have the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. All existing uses that are currently operating beyond these established hours may continue to do so. Chairman Cartwright closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman Lyon moved to accept Condition of Approval No. 15 as revised, which sets the maximum hours of all uses within the center be as follows: Planning Commission Minutes October 12, 1999 Page 21 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 159 Sunday through Saturday 6 a.m. to 12 a.m. All existing uses may continue to operate under current established hours, seconded by Commissioner Slayden. There being no objection, it was so ordered by the Chairman. Director/Secretary Rojas discussed Condition No. 20 relating to the security guard. He stated that at a past Planning Commission meeting two of the Commissioners had expressed concerns with safety and the idea of looking into a security guard for the property. Staff felt that since there were comments a condition should be put into the approval. Commissioner Slayden withdrew his request for a security guard and the Commission unanimously agreed. Discussing Condition No. 21, Director/Secretary Rojas stated that condition could be eliminated and the Commission agreed. Condition of Approval No. 25 dealt with the height of the light poles. After a brief discussion the Commission asked staff if they were satisfied with a 16-foot height limit for the light poles. Director/Secretary Rojas stated that 10 feet was rather low and did not have an issue with a 16-foot light pole. The Commission agreed on a 16-foot high light pole. Condition of Approval No. 26 discussed the hour the lights needed to be turned off. The Commission agreed the wording should state that the outdoor lighting should be turned off by 1:00 a.m. everyday. The Commission then discussed Condition No. 30 regarding hours of delivery. Director/Secretary Rojas stated that the Development Code specifies that hours of delivery are to be 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. The Commission agreed not to change the condition as written. Condition No. 34 discussed the utilities. Vice Chairman Lyon felt the wording should read that the City requires the removal of the one pole in the driveway, require the repair of the pole that is broken, and encourage the utilities to be underground. Commissioner Paris felt that since the applicant had agreed to spend up to $70,000 to underground the utilities they should be required in the conditions of approval to underground the utilities ifthe cost does not exceed $70,000. If the cost does exceed that limit, the applicant can return to the Planning Commission for a revision to that condition of approval. Planning Commission Minutes October 12, 1999 Page 22 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 160 Director/Secretary Rojas stated that staff preferred a dollar amount not be put on the requirement to underground the utilities. He felt that if the amount to underground went over the cap there would be too much ambiguity as to what would happen next. Chairman Cartwright re-opened the public hearing. Mr. Petrossi suggested requiring the two utility poles in question be relocated and underground the remaining poles if the cost does not exceed $70,000. Vice Chairman Lyon asked if they would go as high as $80,000. Mr. Petrossi agreed. Chairman Cartwright closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman Lyon moved to require the applicant to relocate the utility pole that is on the driveway, repair or remove the utility pole that is currently leaning, and require placing all of the remaining utility poles underground providing the cost to do underground all of the poles does not exceed $80,000, seconded by Commissioner Slayden. The Commission unanimously approved the motion, (5 0). The Commission discussed item No. 38 regarding the removal and replacement of the trees to a height of 16 feet, and the idea of cutting the existing trees to a height of 16 feet. Director/Secretary Rojas stated that his recollection of the trees was that they were mostly Eucalyptus and if trimmed to a height of 16 feet would leave nothing. He felt the trees would probably die if trimmed that far down. A condition could be added that the trees be trimmed to 16 feet, however if the tree dies it must be removed and replaced with foliage not to exceed 16 feet in height. The Commission unanimously agreed with the condition being reworded to require the trees be trimmed to a height not to exceed 16 feet. If the trees subsequently dies, it must be removed and replaced with something not to exceed 16 feet in height. Commissioner Slayden suggested eliminating conditions 48 and 49. Commissioner Paris requested input from staff on the elimination of these conditions. Director/Secretary Rojas displayed on the overhead projector the four parking spaces in question and stated all of the conditions regarding parking removal came from the traffic consultant. The Commission did not have to follow these recommendations. He stated that these parking spaces could be re-addressed at the 6-month review. Planning Commission Minutes October 12, 1999 Page 23 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 161 Vice Chairman Lyon agreed that the conditions should be eliminated with the exception of the last sentence of condition no. 49 which states that adjacent to Building A the parking spaces shall be orientated at a 90 degree angle to maintain a two-way driveby. Staff and the Commission agreed. Chairman Cartwright re-opened the public hearing in order for the applicant to explain his concern with Condition No. 50. Mr. Petrossi wanted to verify that by having the aisleway behind the two-story building a one-way aisleway it would be accessible to trucks making delivery and picking up garbage. Director/Secretary Rojas did not see a conflict and assured Mr. Petrossi that there would not be a problem Chairman Cartwright closed the public hearing. The Commission agreed to leave Conditions No. 50 and 51 as written. Vice Chairman Lyon questioned condition No. 54. Associate Planner Mihranian clarified that Conditions 53 and 54 should be combined and read the northern most driveway shall be reconfigured to an ingress only driveway. Condition No. 56 discussed the relocation of the bus stop. Director/Secretary Rojas clarified that staff did not feel the bus stop needed to be relocated, the Traffic Engineer however suggested that there must be adequate site distance 8 feet back from the curb. What might have to happen is the red curb where the busses park would need to be moved away from the driveway. The end result may be that the parking for buses may be shortened a bit. The Commissioners questioned whether that was something the developer should have to deal with. Director/Secretary Rojas stated that it may happen through the Public Works Department. He felt the developer could work with the Public Works Department to adjust the red curb. Chairman Cartwright suggested the wording that the applicant make a good faith effort to work with the Public Works Department to adjust the red curb. The Commission agreed. Conditions 62 and 63 were then discussed. Director/Secretary Rojas stated that the grading quantities listed were intended to reflect what the applicant indicated they were going to do. These can be modified to reflect whatever the applicant is proposing. It can also reflect any remedial or other grading necessary for improvements. Planning Commission Minutes October 12, 1999 Page 24 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 162 Chairman Cartwright summarized by stating the view impairment issues have been sufficiently mitigated, the noise issue has been addressed, the circulation issues have been addressed, parking has been discussed, mechanical equipment, utilities, and architectural features have all been discussed. Associate Planner Mihranian clarified that Condition No. 43 will be modified to reflect the two phases under the noise condition and the Commission has made the findings to increase the height for the light posts to 16 feet. Commissioner Slayden moved to adopt the accept the staff recommendations as modified thereby adopting P.C. Resolution No. 99-39 approving, with conditions, Conditional Use Permit No. 206, Variance No. 446, Grading Permit No. 2135 and Environmental Assessment No. 711, seconded by Commissioner Alberio. Approved, (5-0). ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 6. Pre-Agenda for the Planning Commission meeting of October 26. 1999 The Commission had no comments regarding the Pre-Agenda. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Slayden moved to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Paris. The meeting was adjourned at 12:38 a.m. to the next regular meeting on October 26,1999. Planning Commission Minutes October 12,1999 Page 25 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 163 Planning Commission Minutes (March 8, 2011 P.C. Meeting) GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 164 Commissioner Lewis stated he was able to make all of the findings, but noted is sympathetic to the appellant as he felt there most likely will be an economi mpact caused by the construction of this residence. However, he noted this c not be considered under the city's code. Because he was able to make th ecessary findings, he stated he would vote in favor of the motion. Commissioner Leon stated that to uphold the appeal, the R nning Commission must find that this residence is compatible with the surroundi neighborhood, and he did not feel the Commission was given the data usually prov.· ed to make a determination whether this house is compatible with the neighb ood. Director Rojas noted the neighborhood co atibility analysis that was in the Director's report, which was included in the Comm' ion's staff report. Commissioner Lewis stated that thi home is similar to others the Commission has approved in regards to the fact t t the house is tucked onto the lot and not visible from the street. Chairman Tomblin also mpathized with the appellant, however he agreed with Commissioners Knig and Lewis in that he can make the required findings to approve the house. In refe nce to the view, he acknowledged there will be an impact to the appellant's view ut he did not think it would be a significant impact. He also agreed with the Dire r's decision that this is a sloping lot rather than a pad lot. With that, he also was e to uphold the Director's decision. The otion to deny the appeal and thereby uphold the Director's decision and c ctitionally approve the project as recommended by staff, thereby adopting PC esolution 2011-12 was approved, (5-0-1) with Commissioner Gerstner abstaining. 2. Six month review and Conditional Use Permit Revision (Case No. ZON2010 00402): Golden Cove Center Chairman Tomblin stated that he will only be staying for a portion of this item and then he would recuse himself from the remainder of the meeting. Therefore, Commissioner Gerstner stepped in as acting Chairman. Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, giving a brief background of the approval of the Conditional Use Permit and its revision. She referred to finding No.6, explaining staff would modify the original condition of approval to allow the requested trellises to have a solid roof and to allow additional dining area under two of the trellises. She also explained that the applicant requested staff couple this particular request with the six-month review of the Trader Joe's project. She noted there is a revised Resolution included with the late correspondence where staff has added a condition of approval that requires the applicant to provide the necessary required parking spaces prior to the final of the bUilding permit for the Admiral Risty improvement and prior to Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 2011 Page 6 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 165 issuance of the building permits for the covered patios and dining area. In response to the public notice for the six month review, neighbors from the neighboring Villa Capri development have submitted letters to staff regarding a wall that was constructed along the south property line. She explained the conditions of approval required a wall be built up to six feet in height, and with that the owner lowered the wall to 3 ~ feet in height. In order to address the concerns of the neighbors, staff has provided three options in the staff report to address this particular issue. She noted that in researching the issue of the wall staff found reference in a staff report that the wall, which was to be a privacy wall, was intended to be built to six feet in height however was not stated as such in the condition of approval. Finally, she noted in the late correspondence an added condition that requires the applicant to provide the City with an updated tenant list every time a new tenant is added to the site or a tenant leaves the site. Commissioner Lewis discussed the proposed new dining area, noting that currently one can walk freely around the dining area at the rear of these businesses. He asked if the applicant was proposing to allow walled off sections between the businesses so that each area will be exclusive. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that in speaking with the applicant it was her understanding that was not the intention of the applicant to section off the dining areas, however the conditions would not prohibit that from happening. Commissioner Lewis asked if there is a sufficient nexus between what is before the Commission and the wall issue. Associate Planner Mikhail answered there is a sufficient nexus in that part of the item before the Commission is the six-month review of the Trader Joe's approval, and the conditions of approval for Trader Joe's addresses the wall. Chairman Tomblin asked if there was a continuous six month review or if this will be the only review. Associate Planner Mikhail answered this is the only review, however the Commission can add another review if they feel it's necessary. Commissioner Emenhiser discussed what he felt was a dangerous situation in attempting to turn left out of Golden Cove onto Palos Verdes Drive West. He asked staff if there was anything staff or the Commission could do regarding that situation. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that the Planning Commission could request that an updated traffic study be conducted now that the use is in place. Director Rojas added thatthese types of issues are usually the purview of the Public Works Department or the Traffic Safety Commission. Therefore the Planning Commission could make a recommendation that staff get input and a recommendation from the Public Works Department regarding the situation. Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 2011 Page 7 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 166 Commissioner Knight agreed with Commissioner Emenhiser's concerns. He also noted that the trellises are already built and asked staff for clarification. Associate Planner Mikhail stated that the trellises are already built, however the original condition of approval requires open air, and therefore the applicant is applying to modify that condition to allow for a solid covered structure and adding a dining area. Commissioner Knight had a concern with the walkway and stairs at the side of Asaka and how that access be affected by this proposal. Director Rojas stated that as part of the building permit review staff will have to look into the access issue to ensure compliance with code required accessibility. Commissioner Gerstner opened the public hearing. Christian Golfin (representing the applicant) explained the 385 square feet of dining area actually exists and they are asking to accommodate that area by covering it to protect it from the sun and rain. In regards to the existing access areas, he explained that would not change. Commissioner Lewis asked Mr. Golfin if he would object to the Commission adding a condition that said if any area were to be walled off or if the areas were to be made exclusive areas then the applicant would have to come before the Planning Commission to amend the Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Golfin stated he would not have any issue with such a condition. Commissioner Gerstner asked Mr. Golfin if he had any comments on the six foot / three foot wall. Mr. Golfin explained that when the Admiral Risty did their recent improvements they lowered the wall in accordance with the conditions of approval which state that the wall could be up to six feet in height. He noted that the wall at the current height allows for a view of the ocean from a potential tenant space, and he would like to request that the height of the wall remain as is. He explained that all of the other walls along the property are privacy walls, however this wall is not. Philip Browning stated he is a resident of Villa Capri. He hoped the Planning Commission would adopt staff's recommendation No. 1 in the staff report in regards to the current 3 % foot wall. He explained that this 3 % foot wall impacts the residents of Villa Capri, particularly the residents who live directly across from the last building at Golden Cove. He was concerned that this lower wall could reduce their property values. He felt that this wall was only a symbol to try to appease home owners at Villa Capri with no regards to their privacy concerns. Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 2011 Page 8 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 167 Commissioner Leon asked the speaker, to address the Villa Capri privacy concerns specifically, if the wall's height would need to be increased all of the way to the Admiral Risty or could it stop short at some point. Mr. Browning answered that he hoped the wall would be brought up to the same height along the entire wall length. He noted that people sit on this lower wall and when cars drive by their headlights shine into the Villa Capri development. Mary Lou Xenos stated that Mr. Zarrabian, the owner of Golden Cove, is her neighbor and she wished they could get along better, however she felt that she and the Homeowners Association were constantly being bullied by Mr. Zarrabian and constantly did things on the property with no concern for the neighbors. She noted that the current 3 % foot tall wall was six feet tall up until a few months ago when Mr. Zarrabian decided he wanted to lower it. She stated that the applicant is requesting a permit to put up solid trellises, but noted that the work has already been done. She was concerned that in order to get more parking, that Mr. Zarrabian was going to construct a multi-level parking structure at the back of the property close to the Villa Capri homes. Commissioner Emenhiser asked Ms. Xenos to elaborate on her claim that Mr. Zarrabian has bullied her and the HOA. Ms. Xenos explained how Mr. Zarrabian used construction materials to block the gate between their properties and when she moved the materials to use the gate Mr. Zarrabian videoed her and put the video on youtube. Chairman Tomblin stated that before leaving he would like to suggest the Commission consider another six-month review of the Golden Cove Center in their deliberations. The Chairman then left the meeting. Claire Ealy stated she is a resident of Villa Capri, and explained that until 2007 Villa Capri and Golden Cove had a harmonious, good neighbor relationship. However, since Mr. Zarrabian purchased Golden Cove there has been a never ending barrage of baseless complaints and demands that have required Villa Capri to spend considerable funds on attorney fees. She stated that lowering this once six foot tall wall has resulted in less privacy, more noise, more lights, and safety concerns for the Villa Capri residents, especially those living on lower Via Capri. She stated that, despite the language in the staff report, the parking lot lighting does spill over onto the Villa Capri property since the wall was lowered. She also felt there was a liability issue, as it would be easy for someone to fall over this wall and into the animal hospital property below. She also noted that even though the staff report says there are enough parking spaces, Mr. Zarrabian wants Villa Capri to give him part of their property so he can build a two story parking structure in the rear of the shopping center. She added her concerns over the way the fire lanes and rear gate are blocked at Golden Cove, noting the Fire Department has warned Mr. Zarrabian repeatedly regarding this issue. She felt that Mr. Zarrabian's actions and failure to comply with City requirements and restrictions are having a detrimental affect on Villa Capri property values and the moral of the residents. Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 2011 Page 9 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 168 She urged the Planning Commission to enforce the restrictions set on Golden Cove and to protect the interests of the residents at Villa Capri. She noted the many Villa Capri residents in the audience who share her concerns. Kevan Bunting stated his is one of the main homes affected by the lowering of the wall at Golden Cove. He explained that he has lived in his home at Villa Capri for one year, and it has been one of the most tumultuous years he has ever spent in a home. He felt this was mainly because of Mr. Zarrabian. He explained that before he could sit out on his deck and have no noise or light nuisances, however once this wall was lowered he can now hear workers taking out the trash, see and hear vehicles going down the driveway, and see and hear Domino's Pizza delivery vehicles coming and going. He also requested that the gate that was installed for Dr. Jones and the Animal Hospital be considered this evening and not put on a six-month review. In addition to the request to cover the trellises and increase the seating capacity, he noted that Mr. Zarrabian has already built a new covered trellis area across from the Admiral Risty, which has increased the seating capacity of the area. He hoped the Planning Commission would take into consideration that as the Golden Cove business increases the Villa Capri property values decrease. Commissioner Knight asked staff if the covered patio area next to the Zask Gallery has been permitted by staff. Director Rojas stated that the covered patio area was an over-the-counter approval. He clarified that the issue that needs Planning Commission approval is the additional dining area under the covered patio area, as new dining areas create additional parking demand. He explained that while there are permits to build covered patios, there are no approvals to convert the area to dining areas, and this is one of the reasons for the condition of approval that establishes a process to ensure all future tenants are reviewed by staff to make sure the parking demand of the entire center doesn't increase over the demand identified by the previous parking study. Commissioner Gerstner asked staff if there was a permit for demolition of the six-foot tall wall. Director Rojas explained that because the condition of approval was written to require the wall to be up to six feet in height, staff could not legally compel the property owner to keep the wall at six feet. However, because of safety reasons, staff required that the wall not be lowered to a height of less than forty-two inches. Commissioner Gerstner recalled the Planning Commission discussion of the wall at the time it was approved and the Commission's intention was that the wall be six feet in height. He asked if the Commission can reaffirm that intention and require the wall be brought back up to six feet. Director Rojas agreed and noted the Commission can require the wall to be brought back up to six feet if they so desire. Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 2011 Page 10 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 169 Christian Golfin (in rebuttal) understood the speakers concerns and if the wall needs to be six feet in height it will be done. He noted that Mr. Zarrabian wants to be a good neighbor and work with the residents. He noted that the gate dispute is a separate issue from what is before the Commission. Commissioner Lewis asked Mr. Golfin he would object if the Commission asked that, once the vet office closes, that the existing gate in the wall be converted to a solid wall so there is no more access through to the neighboring property. Mr. Golifn stated that would make sense and he would have no objections. Commissioner Lewis asked staff if the applicant will have to come back before the Commission with an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit if he decides to build a parking structure. Director Rojas answered that was correct and added that no application for a parking structure has been submitted to the City. Commissioner Lewis moved the following: 1) To approve the conversion of the open-air trellises to solid roof covered patios and allow the requested outdoor dining activities; 2) To add an additional condition that if the dining areas are to be walled off and made exclusive or impede pedestrian access that the resolution be clear that an additional amendment to the Conditional Use Permit be required; 3) Modify condition No. 38 as recommended by staff to explicitly require a six-foot privacy wall; 4) Refer to the Public Works Department, and if Public Works deems it appropriate, to the Traffic Safety Commission to study the issue of the left turn and the parking visibility issue when leaving the Golden Cove Center onto Palos Verdes Drive West; 4) In the event that the animal hospital ceases operation and vacates the premises that the owner be given sixty days to return the existing gate portion in the wall to a solid wall; and 5) That the operations at Golden Cove Center be reviewed in one year. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Commissioner Knight felt that a mistake was made in the original Conditional Use Permit whereby the Villa Capri owners expressed concerns to the Planning Commission and requested a six-foot tall wall and somehow that did not get translated accurately into the Conditional Use Permit. He felt that the motion will correct that mistake and establish what was originally intended. He agreed with all of the conditions set forth in the motion. The motion was approved, and PC Resolution 2011-13 was thereby adopted, (5-0). 3. Conditional Use Permit Revision C 10-00433 : 5640 Crestridge Ro~ad9-_--- Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 2011 Page 11 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 170 March 8, 2011 Planning Commission Staff Report Includes the following attachments: • P.C. Resolution No. 2008-56 (Trader Joe's) • P.C. Resolution No. 99-40 (ref. to south wall Condition No. 38) • P.C. Staff Report Section (ref. to south wall) GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 171 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES STAFF REPORT TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ( FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN~\~6\ DIRECTOR '--f- DATE: MARCH 8, 2011 SUBJECT: CASE NO. ZON2010-00402 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION) &CASE NO. ZON2008-00541 (6-MONTH REVIEW OF TRADER JOES) PROJECT ADDRESS: 31100 - 31176, AND 31212 31246 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST (COMMONLY KNOWN AS GOLDEN COVE SHOPPING CENTER) THOMAS GUIDE MAP COORDINATES: 824-94 LANDOWNERJ:PARIS ZARRABIAN APPLICANT/-_ STAFF COORDINATOR: LEZA MIKHAIL, ASSOCIATE PLANNER( if REQUESTED ACTION: A REQUEST TO APPROVE A REVISION T~NDIITONAL USE PERMIT NO. 206 (CASE NO. ZON2010-00402) TO ALLOW A REMODEL OF EXISTING 459 SQUARE FOOT TRELLISES LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BUILDING D, THE EAST SIDE OF BUILDING E AND THE SOUTH SIDE OF BUILDING F, ALLOW 375 SQUARE FEET OF OUTDOOR DINING UNDERNEATH TWO OF THE COVERED PATIOS, AND A REQUEST TO CONDUCT A 6-MONTH REVIEW OF OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR RESOLUTION NO. 2008-56 (CASE NO. ZON2008-00541) FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RELATED TO THE NEW TRADER JOE'S LOCATED AT GOLDEN COVE SHOPPING CENTER. RECOMMENDATION: 1) ADOPT P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2011-_, THEREBY APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION (CASE NO. ZON2011-00402) FOR THE REMODEL OF THREE EXISTING OPEN-AIR TRELLISES TO INCLUDE A SOLID ROOF/CANOPY STRUCTURE, EACH WITH A MAXIMUM OF 459 SQUARE FEET, GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 172 Golden Cove CUP Revision & Trader Joe's 6-Month Review Page 2 ALLOW 375 SQUARE FEET OF DINING AREA UNDERNEATH TWO OF THE COVERED PATIOS AND 2) DETERMINE THAT THE PROJECT IS OPERATING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONDITONS OF APPROVAL ASSOCIATED WITH RESOLUTION NO. 2008-56 (CASE NO. ZON2008-00541) FOR THE TRADER JOE'S PROJECT AND APPROVE VIA MINUTE ORDER. REFERENCES: ZONING: CN (COMMERCIAL - NEIGHBORHOOD) LAND USE: COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER CODE SECTIONS: 17.12,17.50,17.60,17.64,17.76.040 GENERAL PLAN: COMMERCIAL TRAILS PLAN: N/A SPECIFIC PLAN: N/A CEQA STATUS: SECTION 15301 - EXISTING FACILITIES ACTION DEADLINE: MARCH 21, 2011 P.C. MEMBERS WITHIN 500' RADIUS: NONE BACKGROUND On October 12, 1999, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 99-40, approving Conditional Use Permit No. 206 for the construction ofthree buildings (referred to as Buildings D, E and F) located adjacent to Palos Verdes Drive West. In addition to the construction of the three buildings, open-air trellises were permitted to be constructed (Condition No. 20 of P.C. Resolution No. 99-40) surrounding the three buildings. 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 a Trader Joe's (Case No. ZON2008-00541). When the Trader Joe's project was approved by the Planning Commission, Condition of Approval NO.7 $pecified that a 6-month review for compliance with the associated conditions of approval and operation ofthe Golden Code Shopping Center be reviewed by the Planning Commission after a Certificate of Occupancy was issued for the Trader Joe's facility. A Certificate ofOccupancy was issued for Trader Joe's in April 2010. The 6-month review hearing did not occur at the end of 2010 because the applicant was contemplating other improvements to the center which would require the approval of another CUP revision and so Staff agreed to wait and combine these items together so that all of the issues could be addressed at one public hearing. 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 requires GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 173 Golden Cove CUP Revision & Trader Joe's 6-Month Review Page 3 approval of a CU P Revision because the Applicant wants to add additional outdoor dining area. After submittal of required information, the project was deemed complete for processing on January 20, 2011. On February 14, 2011, Staff mailed notices to 108 property owners within a 500-foot radius from the subject property. The public notice was also published in the Peninsula News on February 17,2011. SITE DESCRIPTION The subject property is developed with a retail shopping center, known as the Golden Cove Center, which is located at the southeast corner of Hawthorne Boulevard and Palos Verdes Drive West. The subject site is generally level with an average slope of five percent (5%), and descends from east to west. The project site has a gross lot area of 6.34 acres and is improved with commercial uses that are mixed in nature, varying from office and retail, to service and restaurant uses. The existing structures consist ofthe Montessori Children's Academy (27,770 square feet) located at the eastern portion of the site, a two-story office/retail building (38,056 square feet) located along the southern portion of the property, the Admiral Risty Restaurant (6,000 square feet) located along the southeastern portion of the property, three restaurant buildings (5,250 square feet) located along the southern portion of the property, adjacent to Palos Verdes Drive West and a Trader Joe's grocery store (12,200 square feet) located along the western portion of the property, adjacent to Hawthorne Boulevard. The subject property is located within the Commercial Neighborhood (CN) Zoning District, which according to the Development Code permits limited uses including, but not limited to, convenience goods and service businesses, retail services and administrative uses. In terms of the surrounding neighborhood, the subject property is located in an area that is surrounded by a variety of uses ranging from commercial to multi-family. The subject property is accessed via two driveways located along Hawthorne Boulevard and one driveway located along Palos Verdes Drive West. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Staff has reviewed the proposed application for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Categorical Exemptions are projects, which have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and have been exempted from the requirements of the CEQA. Staff determined that the proposed project and conducting a 6-month review 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, thus this project is categorically exempted from CEQA, pursuant to Guideline Section No. 15303 (additions to existing facilities). CODE CONSIDERATIONS AND ANALYSIS FOR REVISION TO CUP NO. 206 (CASE NO. ZON2010-00402 Project Description As noted in the Background section of this report, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit No. 206 (Resolution No. 99-40) to allow the construction of 12,600 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 174 Golden Cove CUP Revision & Trader Joe's 6-Month Review Page 4 square feet of new building area to the Golden Cove Center. Of the 12,600 square feet of new building area, 5,250 square feet were dedicated toward three new buildings located along Palos Verdes Drive West, which are now occupied by multiple restaurant/food service restaurants. As a part of the construction of these three buildings, referred to as BUildings D (north), E (center) and F (south), a trellis structure was built along the north side of Building D, the east side of Building E and the south side of Building F. Each existing trellis is 459 square feet in area. The applicant is proposing to convert each existing open-air trellis to a solid covered patio and allow 375 square feet of outdoor dining area below the canopy, adjacent to Building D and F. The square footage, location and height of each existing trellis would not be modified and would remain at 459 square feet in area for the three trellises. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISIONS FINDINGS In considering a revision to a previously approved Conditional Use Permit, Development Code Section 17.60.050 requires that Planning Commission to make six (6) findings in reference to the property and uses under consideration. The Development Code also allows the Planning Commission the discretion to grant a conditional use permit (or revision) with conditions and limitations as deemed necessary to protect health, safety and general welfare. (Development Code findings are shown in bold text, followed by Staff's analysis in normal text.) 1. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate said use and for all ofthe yards, setbacks, walls or fences, landscaping and other features required by this title [Title 17 "Zoning"] or by conditions imposed under this section [Section 17.60.050] to adjust said use to those on abutting land and within the neighborhood. The subject property is located at the southeast intersection of Hawthorne Boulevard and Palos Verdes Drive West. The project site encompasses 6.34 acres that gradually slopes from east to west. The center was originally developed under the guidelines of Los Angeles County; however, in 1999, under authority ofthe City of Rancho Palos Verdes, a Conditional Use Permit was approved for 12,600 square feet of additional floor area, including new buildings and ancillary site improvements. The Golden Cove Center currently contains 307 parking spaces (296 spaces required) and maintains ingress/egress driveways along Hawthorne Boulevard and Palos Verdes Drive West. The proposed project includes the renovation of three trellises that were constructed when the three bUildings, known as Buildings D, E and F, were constructed. The applicant is proposing to alter the existing open-air trellises to become solid roof structures and to allow outdoor dining underneath two of these structures. The renovation of the three existing trellises intensifies the use of the site due to the additional outdoor dining area. However, there are 11 extra parking spaces on the site, which is sufficient to cover the 10 additional parking spaces required for the increase in use on the property. Due to the fact that the existing site has sufficient parking for the expanded use and the improvements would only serve to cover an existing trellis, the site is adequate in size and shape and this finding can be made. 2. The site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways sufficient to carry the type and quantity of traffic generated by the subject use. The proposed project includes the modification ofthree existing trellises attached to Buildings D, GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 175 Golden Cove CUP Revision & Trader Joe's 6-Month Review Page 5 E and F, along Palos Verdes Boulevard to be converted from open-air trellises to solid roofed covered patios and 375 square feet of new dining area underneath two of the covered patios. The additional outdoor dining area requires 10 total parking spaces (375 square feet x 2 areas / 75 square feet per parking space =10 required parking spaces). Staff feels that the additional traffic generated is minimal and will not affect the existing traffic and this finding can be made. 3. In approving the subject use at the specific location, there will be no significant adverse effect on adjacent property or the permitted use thereof. Conditional Use Permit No. 206, approved in 1999, allowed major fagade improvements to the center, the three new buildings along Palos Verde Drive West (Buildings 0, E and F), and a second story dining room addition over the Golden Lotus restaurant. During the review ofthese improvements, there were view concerns expressed by the residents on Via Del Mar, whom are located across Hawthorne Boulevard to the east and are at a higher elevation than the shopping center. However, it was determined at the time that the view concerns were caused by the proposed second story addition over the Golden Lotus restaurant and not the three structures located along Palos Verdes Drive West or the associated trellises. The open trellis areas permitted along the west side of BUildings 0, E and F will be required to remain open-air in order to preserve the aesthetics and open-air feeling as seen from Palso Verdes Drive West. The proposed covered patios along north side of Building 0 and the south side of Building F may be permitted to be covered, as opposed to open-air, as they will not be as easily visible from Palos Verdes Drive West. These changes to Condition No. 20 of P.C. Resolution No. 99-40 have been memorialized in the Resolution for this project. As such, converting the proposed trellises will not cause any significant adverse effect on adjacent properties or the permitted use thereof, and this finding can be made and adopted. 4. The proposed use is not contrary to the General Plan. The subject property is located in an area designated by the City's Land Use Policy Map as a commercial zone. According to the General Plan, commercial zones are designated to accommodate services that serve the immediate neighborhood, while preserving the character of the Peninsula. The General Plan states that commercial activities comprise approximately 1.7% of the total land area within the City. The Urban Element of the General Plan states that the Golden Cove Shopping Center should be redesigned and revitalized based on convenience and need of the immediate community. Furthermore, any improvements should be designed to create a more cohesive connection between the existing bUildings, while incorporating design elements that serve the center and are designed in a manner that is sensitive to the surrounding residences. As proposed, Staff believes that the architectural style for the proposed renovation to the existing trellises that would be converted to solid roof covered patios is generally consistent with the architectural style of the shopping center and further produces a cohesive connection with the existing buildings. Additionally, the additional outdoor seating areas proved convenience and serve the needs of the community and patrons of the Golden Cove Center. Therefore, Staff believes that the proposed project is consistent with the intent of the General Plan, and this finding can be made and adopted. GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 176 Golden Cove CUP Revision & Trader Joe's 6-Month Review Page 6 5. If the site of the proposed use is within any of the overlay control districts established by Chapter 17.40 (Overlay Control Districts) of this title [Title 17 "Zoning"], the proposed use complies with all applicable requirements of that chapter. The subject property is not within an overlay control district. Therefore, this finding is not applicable to the project. 6. Conditions regarding any of the requirements listed in this paragraph, which the Planning Commission finds to be necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare, have been imposed [including but not limited to]: setbacks and bUffers; fences or walls; lighting; vehicular ingress and egress; noise, vibration, odors and similar emissions; landscaping; maintenance ofstructures, grounds or signs; service roads or alleys; and such other conditions as will make possible development of the City in an orderly and efficient manner and in conformity with the intent and purposes set forth in this title [Title 17 "Zoning']. Due to the fact that the applicant was permitted to construct three 459 square foot open-air "trellises" adjacent to each of the subject buildings (Building 0, E and F), in order to modify the trellises so that they can be converted from trellis structures to solid roofed covered patios and two of the covered patio areas are proposed to accommodate up to 375 square feet of outdoor dining areas, a revision to the original CUP is required to clarify the proposed improvements. In order to address the request, Staff has amended Condition No. 20 to be modified as follows: "The outdoor dining area on the west side and adjacent to the three ReW bUildings off Palos Verdes West shall remain uncovered and open to the sky, with the exception of-a an open trellis. The outdoor dining areas on the north side ofBuilding 0 and the south side of Building F may be covered with a solid roof and shall be permitted to have a maximum of 375 square feet of outdoor dining underneath each roof. All trellis areas, whether they are covered or not covered, shall respect all City setbacks and shall not exceed a maximum height of 12'-0". " Therefore, Staff believes that all relevant conditional use permit findings can be made in a positive manner to warrant approval for the proposed revisions to Conditional Permit No. 206 for the conversion of three existing 459 square foot trellises to solid roofed covered patios and to allow two additional dining areas underneath two of them. Thus, this finding can be made. DISCUSSION OF TRADER JOE'S PROJECT (CASE NO. ZON2008-00541) 6-MoNTH REVIEW As noted in the Background section of this report, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit (Resolution No. 2008-56) to allow the demolition of the Golden Lotus Restaurant (Building C) and the construction of a new Building C to be occupied by Trader Joe's. This approval was granted in December 2008 with a condition of approval that required a review of the project conditions and operation of the Golden Cove Center six (6) months after the Certificate of Occupancy was granted to Trader Joe's. GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 177 Golden Cove CUP Revision & Trader Joe's 6-Month Review Page 7 Based upon the conditions of approval previously adopted by the Planning Commission for the Trader Joe's project, as part of this review, the Planning Commission can consider the applicant's compliance with all conditions of approval and shall consider the parking conditions, circulation patterns, hours of operation, lighting, and noise impacts, in addition to other concerns raised by the Commission and/or interested parties. If necessary, the Planning Commission may impose more restrictive standards/conditions to ensure that any impacts resulting from the operation of the use are eliminated or reduced. Thus, the Planning Commission may add, delete, or modify the conditions of approval as deemed necessary and appropriate. This portion of the Staff Report is structured such that the major components of the conditions of approval are discussed under each sub-heading below. Parking Base on a Site visit, Staff found that the applicant has provided more than the minimum number of required parking spaces, as required by Condition No. 16 and 17 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2008-56. Specifically, the applicant was required to provide 296 parking spaces; however after reconfiguring and restriping the parking lot, the applicant was able to provide a total of 307 parking spaces, of which 52 are compact stalls. The parking stalls were configured at a 90-degree angle and are clearly marked with 25-foot driveway aisles. Additionally, Staff did not notice any parking problems on site. Therefore, Staff does not find any issues regarding the existing parking availability throughout the day at the Golden Cove Center. Hours of Operation The Planning Commission originally approved the Trader Joe's to be open to the public from 9:00 am to 9:00 pm every day, as noted in Condition No. 14 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2008-56. However, at the time of occupancy, Staff noted that a grand opening sign stated that the store was open from 8:00 am to 9:00 pm. Acknowledging the Trader Joe's business model, Staff allowed the grocery store to remain open from 8:00 am to 9:00 pm with the understanding that the operation of the site would be monitored and addressed in the required 6-month review. Staff also verified that the earlier opening ofthe store would not conflict with the original conditions ofthe Golden Cove Center which allow business to operated from 6:00 am to midnight. After monitoring the property, Staff does not feel that opening the store creates a negative impact to the operation of the property. Furthermore, to Staff's knOWledge, no complaints have been received and Staff does not find issues with regard to the hours of operation. Lighting During the course of the renovation to the Trader Joe's building and new parking lot, the applicant installed new parking lot light standards to match the original parking lot light standards. The applicant also installed one new light standard near the Admiral Risty building. All light standards are adequately shielded to avoid spill over to other properties. Furthermore, Staff has not received any complaints regarding the new parking lot light standards. Additionally, Staff reviewed all exterior building lights for Building C and determined that these lights are adequately shielded and do not spill over onto adjacent properties or the public right-of-way. Staff has not received complaints regarding the building lighting for Building C. As such, based on a site visit, staff found that all exterior light fixtures have been arranged and shielded to prevent direct illumination of surrounding properties, to prevent distraction of drivers ofvehicles on public rights-of-way, and installed at appropriate locations and heights. GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 178 Golden Cove CUP Revision & Trader Joe's 6-Month Review Page 8 Noise Impacts Staff has not witnessed any excessive noise impacts that would result from the operation of the Trader Joe's grocery store that was approved by the Planning Commission in Resolution No. 2008-56. Furthermore, Staff is not aware ofany complaints received from members ofthe public regarding excessive noise from the operation of the Trader Joe's or deliveries. As such, Staff does not find issues with any noise impacts that result from the construction of or operation of the Trader Joe's grocery store. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Public Notice As indicated above, the City mailed a notice of public hearing to 108 property owners within a 500-foot radius from the subject property. As a result of the public notice, Staff received three letters from residents within the adjacent Villa Capri development and one "petition" signed by 26 Villa Capri residents. All correspondence is attached to this report. Each letter and the petition relay concerns with the north property line wall that was recently reduced from 6'_0" to 3'_0" in height by the property owner. The concerned residents of the Villa Capri residential neighborhood are requesting that the north property line wall be returned to its originally intended height of 6'_0" to reduce impacts of undesired noise and loitering around the back of the Admiral Risty restaurant. Although the 6'_0" tall wall along the north property line is not directly related to the Trader Joe's project, Condition NO.6 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2008-56 (Trader Joe's CUP) states, "All other conditions of approval contained in PC Resolution Nos. 99-39, 99-40 and 2001-08 shall remain in full force and effect. In the event of a conflict in the conditions of approval between the aforementioned PC Resolutions and the conditions ofapprovedcontained in .. PC Resolution No. 2008-56 [for Trader Joe's], the conditions contained herein shallprevail and apply." Therefore, in response to the concerns related to the north property line wall, Staff researched previous conditions of approval regarding the property line wall. After conducting the research, Staff found that Condition No. 38 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 99-40 addresses the north property line wall. The condition specifically states, "the property ownershall construct a solidprivacy wall, notto 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 wall." Further research of the August 10, 1999 Planning Commission Staff Report (see Staff Report section addressing wall attached) indicated that the purpose of the solid wall was to mitigate undesired noise and loitering around the back entrance of Admiral Risty. The Staff Report further explains that a condition of approval to require a six (6) foot high solid wall would be imposed. As noted above, the condition states that the property owner was to construct a solid privacy wall "not to exceed" six (6) feet in height instead of specifying an exact height the wall should be. As such, the property owner of Golden Cove reduced the wall to a height of 3'_6". Staff is now seeking the Commissions direction on how to address the neighbors' concerns regarding the height of the south property line wall near the Admiral Risty. As such, the Commission may consider the following options regarding this issue: GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 179 Golden Cove CUP Revision & Trader Joe's 6-Month Review Page 9 1. Modify Condition No. 38 of Resolution No 99-40 to read as follows (deleted words are depicted by strikethrough and new words are depicted by underline): . "The property owner shall construct and maintain a solid privacy wall, ROf--to exceed gLsix (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. 2. Leave the conditions as is. 3. Modify Condition No. 30 of Resolution No. 99-40 to require a wall at an alternative specific height, not to exceed 6'-0". CONCLUSION Based on the analysis above, Staff believes that the conditional use permit findings can be made to allow the existing open-air trellises on the north, south and east sides to be converted to solid roofed covered patios, and that additional outdoor dining may be permitted under the covered patios along the north side of Building D and south side of Building F. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2011-_, conditionally approving the revisions. Additionally, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission receive and file via minute order the 6-month review of the Trader Joe's CUP as required by Planning Commission Resolution No. 2008-56. ALTERNATIVES In addition to Staff's recommendation, the following alternatives are available for consideration by the Planning Commission: 1. Identify any issues of concern with the proposed project, provide Staff and/or the applicant with direction in modifying the project, and continue the public hearing to a date certain for discussion of these issues; or 2. Deny a revision to Case No. ZON2010-00402, and direct Staff to prepare and return to the next Planning Commission meeting with the appropriate Resolution. Please note that in the event that this item is continued beyond the March 8, 2011 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant must agree to a one-time 90-day extension ofthat deadline, and extend the time limits of the Permit Streamlining Act. ATTACHMENTS • Draft P.C. Resolution No. 2011- • Public Comment Letters • P.C. Resolution No. 2008-56, adopted by the Planning Commission on December 11, 2008 (Trader Joe's CUP) • P.C. Resolution No. 99-40, adopted by the Planning Commission on October 12, 1999 (additional square footage, including Buildings D, E and F, and reference to ~ ~I..l-rn. GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 180 Golden Cove CUP Revision & Trader Joe's 6-Month Review Page 10 property line wall) • August 10, 1999 P. C. Staff Report Section Referencing ~ Property Line Wall ~l-l.-\'h GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 181 Draft P.C. Resolution No. 2011- GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 182 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2011- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A REVISION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 206 TO ALLOW A CONVERSION OF THREE EXISTING TRELLISES INTO SOLID ROOFED COVERED PATIOS LOCATED ON BUILDINGS 0, E AND F, AND ADDITIONAL DINING AREAS NOT TO EXCEED 375 SQUARE FEET EACH UNDERNEATH THE COVERED PATIOS ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF BUILDING 0 AND SOUTH SIDE OF BUILDING F, AT THE PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS GOLDEN COVE CENTER (31100 - 31176, AND 31212 31246 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST). WHEREAS, on November 10, 2010, the applicant, Paris Zarrabian, submitted a Conditional Use Permit revision request to the Community Development Department for review and processing requesting approval to convert three existing trellises into solid roofed covered patios along the north side of Building 0, the east side of Building E and south side of Building F and allow additional dining areas underneath two of the covered patios. On December 9, 2010, Staff completed the initial review ofthe application, at which time the application was deemed incomplete due to missing information on the project plans; and, WHEREAS, after the submittal of multiple revisions to the project, Staffdeemed the application complete on January 20, 2011; and, WHEREAS, on February 14, 2011, Staff mailed notices to 108 property owners within a 500-foot radius from the sUbject property, providing a 15-day time period for the submittal of comments and concerns. In addition, a Public Notice was published in the Peninsula News on February 17, 2011; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions ofthe 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 ofthe 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, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 183 on March 8, 2011, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and, NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The project site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed modifications without interfering with the parking configuration· or traffic circulation patterns on the site. This is due to the fact that the existing site has sufficient parking for the expanded use and the improvements would only serve to cover an existing trellis. The applicant is proposing to alter the existing open-air trellises to become solid roof structures and to allow outdoor dining underneath two ofthese structures. The renovation of the three existing trellises intensifies the use of the site due to the additional outdoor dining area. However, there are 11 extra parking spaces on the site, which is sufficient to cover the increase in use on the property. Section 2: The site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways is sufficient to carry the type and quantity of traffic generated by the proposed project. The proposed project includes the modification of three existing trellises attached to Buildings D, E and F, along Palos Verdes Boulevard to be converted from open-air trellises to solid roofed covered patios and 375 square feet of new dining area underneath two of the covered patios. The additional outdoor dining area requires 10 total parking spaces, however Staff feels that the additional traffic generated is minimal and will not affect the existing traffic and this finding can be made. Section 3: There will be no significant adverse effect on adjacent properties orthe permitted use since the project does not include new uses to the Golden Cove Center. Specifically, The open trellis areas permitted along the west side of Buildings D, E and F will be required to remain open-air in order to preserve the aesthetics and open-air feeling as seen from Palso Verdes Drive West. The proposed covered patios along north side of Building D and the south side of Building F may be permitted to be covered, as opposed to open-air, as they will not be easily visible from Palos Verdes Drive West. Section 4: The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan's Land Use Policy Map as a commercial zone. According to the General Plan, commercial zones are designated to accommodate services that serve the immediate neighborhood, while preserving the character of the Peninsula. The General Plan states that the Golden Cove Center should be redesigned and revitalized based on convenience and need of the immediate community and improvements should be designed to create a more cohesive connection between existing buildings. The architectural style for the proposed renovation to the existing trellises that would be converted to solid roof covered patios is generally consistent with the architectural style of the shopping center. Additionally, the additional P.C. Resolution No. 2011 Page 2 of6 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 184 outdoor seating areas provide convenience and serve the needs of the community and patrons of the Golden Cove Center. Section 5: Conditions which the Planning Commission finds to be necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare, have been imposed. Specifically, Condition No. 20 of Resolution No. 99-40 has been modified to clarify the need to maintain an open air feeling along the west sides of Buildings 0, E and F, and permitting covered patios for dining purposes north of Building 0 and south of Building F. Condition No. 20 is modified to read as follows: "The outdoor dining area on the west side andadjacent to the three new buildings offPalos Verdes West shall remain uncovered and open to the sky, with the exception ofe an open trellis. The outdoor dining areas on the north side o(Building D and the south side of Building F may be covered with a solid roo(and shall be permitted to have a maximum o( 375 square feet o(outdoor dining underneath each roof All trellis areas. whether they are covered or not covered. shall respect all City setbacks and shall not exceed a maximum height 0(12 '-0". " Section 6: Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or by any portion of this decision may appeal to the City Council. Pursuant to Sections 17.02.040(C)(1)(g) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, any such appeal must be filed with the City, in writing, setting forth the grounds of the appeal and any specific actions requested by the appellant, and accompanied by the appropriate appeal fee, no later than fifteen (15) days following March 8, 2011, the date of the Planning Commission's final action. Section 7: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the Planning Commission ofthe City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby conditionally approves a Revision to Conditional Use Permit No. 206 (Planning Case No. ZON2010-00402) to allow the conversion of open-air trellises along Buildings 0, E and F to be converted to solid roofed canopy structures and outdoor dining areas to be permitted under two of said structures. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 8th day of March 2011, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: RECUSSALS: ABSENT: P.C. Resolution No. 2011 Page 3 of 6 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 185 David L. Tomblin Chairman Joel Rojas, AICP Community Development Director P.C. Resolution No. 2011 Page 4 of 6 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 186 EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval Case No. ZON2010-00402 (Revision to CUP 206) GENERAL 1. Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, the applicant and/or property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have read, understand and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this approval. Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void. 2. The approval shall become null and void after one year from the date of approval, unless approved plans are submitted to the Building and Safety Division to initiate the "plan check" review process. 3. The proposed project, including site layout, the building heights, and signage throughout the site, shall be constructed and maintained in substantial compliance with the plans reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on March 8, 2011, as submitted by the applicant. 4. The Approval of Case No. ZON201 0-00402 (Revision to Conditional Use Permit No. 206) allows a remodel of three existing 459 square foot trellises located along the north side of Building D, east side of Building E and south side of Building F to be converted from open-air trellises to solid roofed covered patios. In addition two of the covered patios are permitted to be used for outdoor dining. 5. The Community Development Director is authorized to approve minor modifications to the approved plans or any of the conditions if such modifications achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with said plans and conditions. Otherwise, all other modifications shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission. 6. In the event that a Planning requirement and a Building & Safety requirement are in conflict with one another, the stricter standard shall apply. 7. The hours of construction shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. No construction shall be permitted on Sundays or on legal holidays. Further, trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining public rights-of-way before 7:00 AM, Monday through Saturday, in accordance with the permitted hours of construction stated above. 8. The construction site shall be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that material used for immediate construction purposes. Such P.C. Resolution No. 2011 Page 5 of6 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 187 excess material may include, but is not limited to: the accumulation of debris,' garbage, lumber, scrap metal, concrete, asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or discarded furniture, appliances or other household fixtures. 9. Condition No. 20 of P.C. Resolution No. 99-40 shall be revised as follows: The outdoor dining area on the west side and adjacent to the three buildings off Palos Verdes West shall remain uncovered and open to the sky, with the exception of an open trellis. The outdoor dining areas on the north side of Building D and the south side of Building F may be covered with a solid roof and shall be permitted to have a maximum of 375 square feet of outdoor dining underneath each roof. All trellis areas, whether they are covered or not covered, shall respect all City setbacks and shall not exceed a maximum height of 12'-0" (modified from Condition No. 20 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 99-40). 10. All other conditions of approval contained in PC Resolution Nos. 99-39, 99-40, 2001-08,2008-55 and 2008-56 shall remain in full force and affect. In the event of a conflict in the conditions of approval between the aforementioned PC Resolutions and the conditions of approval contained in this PC Resolution No. 2011-_, the conditions contained herein shall prevail and apply. P.C. Resolution No. 2011 Page 6 of 6 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 188 Public Comment Letters GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 189 Mary Lou Xenos 62 Via Capri Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 City ofRancho Palos Verdes Planning Commissioners 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA90275 February 28,2011 Dear Planning Commissioners: Please find signed petitions from homeowners ofthe Villa Capri Homeowners Association. The homeowners want the southern property line wall ofthe Golden Cove Shopping Center, restored to the original six (6) feet high wall that matched the height ofthe existing perimeter wall. Mr. Zarrabian, reduced that wall just months ago to approximately three (3) feet high. In 1999, it was brought to the City's attention that the activity associated with the operation ofthe Admiral Risty Restaurant nearest the Villa Capri Complex, was a nuisance to several residents because ofundesired noise 'and loitering around the back entrance ofthe restaurant. The undesired noise, loitering, deliveries, trespassers and lack ofprivacy, continues to be a nuisance since Mr. Zarrabian lowered the wall to approximately three (3) feet high. Our property values are in danger ofdecreasing due to this problem. In addition to the height restoration ofthe wall, the homeowners want the same southern property line wall restored to a solid wall. Due to an accident, part ofthe wall was damaged. Since the veterinarian, Dr. Jones, owns the adjacent property, she was permitted to use that opening to walk animals that are in her care, onto her own property. Now that the veterinarian is building a new facility on her own property, the wall opening needs to be restored to the original solid wall. The homeowners do not want to have a .pedestrian walkway from Dr. Jones' animal facility to the Golden Cove Shopping Center and vice versa. Such an opening will leave our homeowners exposed to more noise, loitering, and undesired activity in our own backyards. IfMr. Zarrabian wants to use Dr. Jones' animal facility parking lot for his customer parking, they can easily access the public sidewalk on Palos Verdes Drive West. There are multiple, well lit, and spacious stairways that lead up to the shopping center. Thank you in advance for your assistance regarding the above matters. Sincerely, Mary Lou Xenos And the Villa Capri Homeowners Association GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 190 Petition Villa Capri Homeowners REcel D February 2011 FEB 28 :~':j pLANNING. BUILOING }\NO .• CODE..!=NFORCEMENT Re: Restore the wall, along the southern property lIne 01 the Golden Cove Center, to a solid six (6) foot high wall with no pedestrian access. 1. Restore wall to 6 feet high. 2. Close the opening for pedestrian access after Veterinarian's construction is completed. May 27th 2008 Planning Commission Case No. ZON2007-00182 "In 1999, it was brought to the City's attention that the activity associated with the operation ofthe, restaurant (Admiral Risty) nearest the Villa Capri Complex, had become a nuisance to several residents because of undesired noise andloitering around the back entrance. In an effort to mitigate the noise concerns raised by the residents ofVilla Capri, the Planning Commission . imposed a condition requiring a six (6) foot high solid wall along the southern property line that matched the height ofexisting perimeter walls." Mr. Zarrabian ofthe Golden Cove Center has reduced the size ofthe wall to approximately three (3) feet high during the summer of201O. Since this time, the residents of GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 191 RECE D Planning Commission Staff Report FEB 28 2f.':: Case No. ZON2007-00182 (CUP, et. al.) PlANNING, BUILDING ANti May 27, 2008 CODe ENFORCEMENT With regards to the required setbacks and othercomponents ofa commercial center, Staff has reviewed the applicant's plans for oomp.liance with the commercial development standards. Although the proposed location ofthe grocerystore building does not comply with the required setback from the property Une along HawthorneBoulevard, the Variance application for a reduced setback can be justified as indicated below in the Variance section ofthis Staff Report. In summary, the new grocery store building will be no closer than the 'existing restaurant building to·the street and will provide a fully landscaped setback area to create a visual and audible buffer between the street and proposed bUilding. In regards to walls, the wall along the southern property line was conditioned in 1999to be a solid privacy wall by the approved conditional.use permit. A solid wall was eventually provided; however, aftera fairly recent accidentthatdamaged the wall, the wall was rebuilt with a gap to prOVide pedestrian access. The applicant has requested that this condition be modified to allow for pedestrian access to the adjacent vacant parcel. It is Staff's understanding that the applicant's request stems from the owner of the existing veterinarian business that is currently located inside the Golden Cove Center. Since the .veterinarian owns the adjacent vacant parcel1 and since animal patients (namely dogs) of thehaspital must be routinely walked,she believes that allowing a directacces$ point to her property through an opening in the wall is more convenient than walking through the shopping center parking lot to Palos Verdes Drive West and around to the adjacent propertyto the south. Although it is more convenient, the requirement fora sQlid wall was based on concerns that were raised bythe residents ofthe Villa Capri cQmplex•. 10 1999, it was brought to ·the City's attention that the activity.associated with the operation of the restaurant (Admiral Risty) nearest the Villa Capri Complex, had become a nuisance to several residents because ofundesired noise and loitering around the back entrance.. In an effortto mitigate the noise concerns raised by the residents ofVilla Capri, tile P'anning Gommission imposed a condition requiring a six (6) foot high solid wall alon.gjhesouthern property line that matched the heightofexisting perimeterwalls. Recently, Staffreceived a letter from the Villa Capri Homeowners Association requ~sting thatthe··,solfd wall ·be retained. As such, Staff believes that the wall should continue -to be a saUd wall with no opening for pedestrian access as this was the' intent of the condition~ Based on the above discussion and the fact that the subject property is large inenoligh in size and shape to accommodate the additional floorarea while substantially complying with the development standards for a CN zoning district, Staffbelieve,s that this finding can be made, provided thatthe Planning Commission grants the vari~nce request forthe reduction in the setback requirements for the proposed grocery store building. GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 192 REceiVED Villa Capri Homeowner's Signed Petition FEB 28 2011 PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT Villa Capri Complex has endured undesired noise and loitering around the back entrance. We demand that the 1999 Planning Commi~sions' condition requiring a six ~ foot high solid wall along the southern property line, that match the height ofthe existing peritpeter wall be enforced. "After damage to the wall, the veterinarian requested a gate for access to her adjacent vacant property to walk dogs. Now that the veterinarian is constructing an animal clinic on her adjacent property, the Villa Capri Homeowners want the wall restored with no opening for.pedestrian access." Villa Capri Homeowner's Signed Petition Name Address GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 193 RECEIVED Villa Capri Homeowner's FEB 28 2:~i Signed Petition PLANNING. BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT Villa Capri Complex has endured undesired noise and loitering around the back entrance. We demand that the 1999 Planning Commi~sions'condition requiring a six ® foot high solid wall along the southern property line, that match the height ofthe existing peri1.neter wall be enforced. "After damage to the wall, the veterinarian requested a gate for access to her adjacent vacant property to walk dogs. Now that the veterinarian is constructing an animal clinic on her adjacent property, the Villa Capri Homeowners want the wall restored with no opening for.pedestrian access." Villa Capri Homeowner's Signed Petition Name GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 194 RECEI D Villa Capri Homeowner's FEB 28 ::~~ Signed Petition PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT Villa Capri Complex has endured undesired noise and loitering around the back entrance. We demand that the 1999 Planning Commi~sions' condition requiring a six @ foot high solid wall along the southern property line, that match the height ofthe existing periJpeter wall be enforced. "After damage to the wall, the veterinarian requested a gate for access to her adjacent vacant property to walk dogs. Now that the veterinarian is constructing an animal clinic on her adjacent property, the Villa Capri Homeowners want the wall restored with no opening for. pedestrian access." Villa Capri Homeowner's Signed Petition Name Address GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 195 Villa Capri Homeowner's RECEIVED FEB 28 r,,,,,, Signed Petition {,.w ~ i PlANNING, BUilDING AND . CODe ENFORCEMENT Name Address SIgnature ,I\({\;J, \'\ GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 196 RECEIVED FEB 23 2011 Philip L. Browning PLANNING, BUILDING AND 36 Via Capri CODE ENFORCEMENT Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 February 21, 2011 Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Staff 30940 Hawthorne Dr. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear Sir/Madam: Re: ZON2010-00402 and Resolution 2008-56 This is to request that the RPV Planning Commission adhere to the conditions that were imposed in the Planning Commission Staff Report Case No. ZON2007-00182, dated May 27,2008, regarding the height of a wall separating the Golden Cove Center from the Villa Capri Homeowners. In that staff report lithe Planning Commission imposed a condition requiring a six (6) foot high solid wall along the southern property line that matched the height of existing perimeter walls". It is my understanding that the current owner of the Golden Cove Center has, in violation ofthis condition, during the summer of 2010 cut the wall down to approximately 3 feet high. This has created to an increased noise level due to both vehicle and pedestrian traffic. This has both increased noise to homeowners and created to an unnecessary violation of our privacy. It is my concern that this lack of privacy and increased noise will negatively impact the value of homes in Villa Capri. One ofthe redeeming features of Villa Capri is the proximity to the RPV City hall and the green field filled with rabbits, birds and wildlife. Another redeeming feature is the view ofthe Pacific Ocean and the privacy for homeowners. Mr. Zarrabian, by ignoring your planning order, I believe has negatively affected all homeowners of Villa Capri and this will be seen in increased noise, lack of privacy and a drop in home values. I respectfully request that you require Mr. Zarrabian to comply with your previous Planning and Zoning orders. If you have questions, please contact me at the above address or 310-377-0852. Sincerely, cc: Villa Capri Homeowners GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 197 -----Original Message----- From: Mary Lou Xenos [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, February 21,2011 7:17 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Golden Cove Shopping Center Dear Planning Commission; RE: ZON2010-00402 (Conditional Use Permit Revision and Six-month Review): Mr. Zarrabian has reduced the wall along the southern property line from six (6) feet to three (3) feet. According to a meeting held May 27, 2008, the RPV Planning Commission imposed a condition requiring a six (6) foot high solid wall along the southern property line that matched the height ofexisting perimeter walls. This was due to nuisance to several residents because ofundersired noise and loitering around the operation of the Admiral Risty Restaurant. We want that wall restored to six (6) feet high. Also, Due to an accident, there was a gap in the wall and the veterinarian, who owns the adjacent parcel, was allowed direct access to her property to walk dogs, thus a gate was put in the gap. Now that the veterinarian is building her own facility with a physcial fitness fenced in area, the gate should be removed and the wall should be restored to a solid wall with no opening for pedestrian access as this was the intent ofthe condition. We want the wall restored to a solid wall with no pedestrian access. Thank you for your consideration regarding the above matter. It appears to me that Mr. Zarrabian has found some favor with the City ofRancho Palos Verdes. Where that favor comes from is not clear yet. But the elected officials and city staffshould be careful ifthey are indeed giving favors to certain individuals. I hope this rings a "Bell." Sincerely, Mary Lou Xenos 62 Via Capri, RPV GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 198 -----Original Message----- From: Claire [maHto :[email protected]] Sent: Monday, February 21, 2011 9:28 AM To: [email protected] Subject: ZON2010-00402 Dear Sirs: I am in receipt ofthe notice about the review ofZON2010-00402 to be held on March 8. I am unclear why the Planning Commission is not enforcing its policies. The structures that Mr. Zarrabian is "requesting" have already been built. He has blocked emergency fire lanes in the rear ofhis property despite warnings by the Fire Department. He is in violation of ZON2007-00182 which requires a six foot high fence along his southern property line. He arbitrarily cut that down by three feet this summer, causing an increase in noise, lights from cars, a decrease in privacy for homeowners and, consequently, a reduction in the value ofour homes. He does not seem to feel that rules apply to him. Why is Mr. Zarrabian allowed to flout city rules and regulations at will? Will you please address these issues in the March 8 hearing? Thank you, Claire Ealy 36 Via Capri GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 199 P.C. Resolution No. 2008-56 (Trader Joe's CUP - adopted December 11,2008) GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 200 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2008·56 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING CASE NO. ZON2008·00541 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VARIANCE, GRADING PERMIT, AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT), FOR A NEW TRADER JOE'S GROCERY STORE BUILDING AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS TO THE GOLDEN COVE CENTER LOCATED AT 31100 - 31176 HAWTHORNE BLVD., AND 31212 - 31246 PV DRIVE WEST (COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE GOLDEN COVE CENTER. WHEREAS, on October 12, 1999, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 99-33 making certain environmental findings associated with Mitigated Negative Declaration/Environmental Assessment No. 711, and adopted P.C. Resolution No 99-40 conditionally approving Conditional Use Permit No. 206, Grading Permit No. 2135, and Variance No. 446 for the construction of a 12,600 square foot addition to an existing 77,500 square foot shopping center, for exterior fayade improvements, and for 1,220 cubic yards of associated grading and a Joint Use Parking Program; and, WHEREAS, on April 24, 2001, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2001-08 conditionally approving Conditional Use Permit No. 206 Revision "A" to allow the operation of the Peninsula Montessori School at the Golden Cove Shopping Center; and, WHEREAS, on May 27,2008, the Planning Commission considered Case No. ZON2007-00182 for improvements at the Golden Cove shopping center. The project under consideration at that time was to demolish the existing restaurant building (Golden Lotus) and construct a new Trader Joe's grocery store building with a gross floor area of 16,474 square feet of gross floor area; construction of a new subterranean parking structure under the new market building and re-striping of the existing parking lot to increase the overall number of parking spaces in the shopping center from 275 spaces to 356 spaces; and construction of additional courtyards and upgrades to the center. Lastly, part ofthe proposal was to allow a pedestrian access gap in the wall between the shopping center and the adjacent vacant property to the south; and, WHEREAS, after hearing public testimony and discussing the merits ofthe project, the Planning Commission echoed Staff's concerns with the view impairment resulting from the height ofthe proposed building, and raised additional concerns with the project and the project's proposed parking, and continued Case No. ZON2007-00182 to June 24, 2008 to allow the applicant time to address the issues discussed by the Planning Commission; and, WHEREAS, on June 24, 2008, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to August 12, 2008, at the applicant's request; and, WHEREAS, on July 30,2008, the applicant withdrew Case No. ZON2007-00182; and, P.C. Resolution No. 2008-56 Page 1 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 201 WHEREAS, on October 8, 2008, the property owner submitted new Variance, Conditional Use Permit, Grading Permit and Environmental Assessment applications for processing (hereinafter referred to as Case No. ZON2008-00541 ) with a modified project and design; and, WHEREAS, after review ofthe project applications, plans and traffic/parking studies, and construction of the temporary silhouette, the project was deemed generally complete for processing on November 12, 2008; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions ofthe California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulation, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), the City of Rancho Palos Verdes prepared an Initial Study and determined that with appropriate mitigation, there is no substantial evidence that the approval ofZON2008 00541 would result in a significant adverse effect upon the environment and, therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and notice of same was given in the manner required by law; and, WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on December 11, 2008, atwhich time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the intended uses since it measures 6.34-acres in area and the site already functions as a commercial center. Further, the site is relatively flat and large enough in area to sustain the new construction, the proposed parking meets the peak parking demands evidenced in the parking and traffic reports that were reviewed and approved by the City's consulting Traffic Engineer, who also found that the project will not result in an adverse situation with regards to parking, and on-site and off-site circulation. Section 2: The site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways properly designed to carry the type and quantity of traffic generated by the subject use because a traffic impact study that was reviewed and approved by the City's Traffic Engineer, indicates that it is not anticipated that the proposed project would degrade future traffic conditions beyond acceptable levels and will not adversely impact off-site traffic patterns. Section 3: There will be no significant adverse effect on adjacent property orthe permitted use because mitigation measures have been incorporated that reduce the potential impacts of Aesthetics, Geology and Soils, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, and Transportation/Traffic. Further, additional conditions have been incorporated that reduce the potential impacts ofthe building and other improvements. Further, the revised P.C. Resolution No. 2008-56 Page 2 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 202 project includes a building height limited to 3'-3" above the highest ridgeline as established by the Planning Commission and determined to not significantly impair views, and conditions in the surrounding area have not changed since 1999 to warrant a lower height that would address any changes. As such, the current project will have a less than significant impact on views. Section 4: The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan's Commercial Retail land use designation ofthe site, and with the types of land uses permitted within the Development Code's Commercial-Limited zoning district. Further, the General Plan states that commercial activities comprise apprqximately 1.7% of the total land area within the City; thus, this project will result in an over-abundance of such sites and uses. Furthermore, the proposed project is consistent with the Urban Element of the General Plan in that the improvements will strengthen the established cohesiveness of the commercial center and enhance the connection between commercial and civic activities, since the project site is near the City's Civic Center. Section 5: The subject property contains exceptional circumstances and conditions that do not apply to other properties, which limits the ability to provide for the required 30-foot setback from Hawthorne Boulevard and the required 20-foot setback from the southern property line (abutting the 7-Eleven site), due to the configuration of the property and the existing development of the site. The property is not a typical square or rectangular shaped parcel that impacts the design layout of a structure while simultaneously providing for sufficient parking. This is further exacerbated by the existing built structures on site. Section 6: The variance would not grant a special privilege not enjoyed by others in the area or zone. The Golden Cove Center is the only parcel with a CN (Commercial Neighborhood) Zoning designation. Further, other commercial retail properties in the City do not contain irregular shapes, in that they are either rectangular or square in shape. Furthermore, the new building will not encroach any further than the existing building; and, lastly, due to the property configuration and the existing site layout, this is the only location on the property that can accommodate a new building, which results in a new grocery store within the required setback area. Section 7: The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the residences upslope nor to the public. The existing restaurant building maintains a non conforming setback from the western property line (adjacent to 7-Eleven) and the northern property line along Hawthorne Boulevard, and neitherwill be further reduced as a result of this project. Additionally, the City's consulting Traffic Engineer has reviewed the proposal and has found the proposed building location to not create an impact to traffic existing or entering the Golden Cove Center. Lastly, although the current proposal will result in a wider footprint (east/west) than what currently exists, the building footprint depth (north/south) will be maintained so that the building does not encroach farther north towards the street nor farther south, thereby allowing for a more efficient redesign in the on-site traffic circulation. As such, the current project will not be materially detrimental. P.C. Resolution No. 2008-56 Page 3 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 203 Section 8: The project is consistent with the General Plan's Commercial Retail land use designation of the site, and with the types of land uses permitted within the Development Code's Commercial-Neighborhood District, and the reduced setback does not result in a project that contradicts the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan. The proposed project accommodates services that serve the immediate neighborhood while preserving the character of the Peninsula. Further, Consistent with the Urban Element ofthe General Plan, the project is integrated with the Golden Cove Center. Lastly, the development re-introduces a grocery store use that existed at the center for years. Section 9: The total grading is necessary for the permitted primary use ofthe lot, and is necessary for the ultimate development of the structures and improvements on the site. The underlying zoning designation permits commercial development that consists of retail and office uses that serve the surrounding neighborhood, such as the existing shopping center. Construction of the proposed Trader Joe's grocery store building will re introduce a use that previously existed on site; and the proposed grading will largely accommodate construction ofthe new building. The quantity of grading does not exceed that which will enhance the use of the site in that the grading is to build the structure and other physical improvements at the Golden Cove Center, and will serve the center by providing for additional patio and seating areas, which are amenities that benefit customers of the center. Section 10: The grading will not adversely impact any views from surrounding properties since the requested earth movement will prepare the site for development ofthe building and additional courtyard and patio areas. The grading will not affect the maximum ridgeline height of the new bUilding, and will not raise the grade of the site. The new building will comply with the established height limitation of 3'-3" above the existing roof height, which was determined to be a height that does not adversely affect views from neighboring properties. Section 11: The subject property was graded when the Golden Cove Center was originally constructed prior to the City's incorporation, which voided the site of any natural slopes and contours. As such, there is no concern with disturbance to the natural contours. Section 12: The grading is consistent with all other grading criteria, since the project does not include grading and construction on slopes over thirty-five (35%) percent, no finish slopes greater than 35% will be created; no fill or cut will occur on a slope exceeding fifty (50%) percent; and exposed upslope and downslope retaining walls will not exceed 8'-0" and 3'-6" high, respectively. Section 13: Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or by any portion of this decision may appeal to the City Council. Pursuant to Chapter 17.80 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, any such appeal must be filed with the City, in writing and with the appropriate appeal fee, no later than January 7,2009. Section 14: For the foregoing reasons and based on information and findings contained in the Staff Reports, minutes, and records of the proceedings, the Planning P.C. Resolution No. 2008-56 Page 4 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 204 Commission hereby approves Case No. ZON2008-00541 for a Conditional Use Permit, Variance and Grading Permit, subject to the conditions of approval contained in the attached Exhibit "B", attached hereto and made a part hereof, which are necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 11 th day of December 2008 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Knight, Perestam, Ruttenberg, Tomblin, Tetreault NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: Gerstner, Lewis RECUSALS: None &f~ Step en Perestam Chairman P.C. Resolution No. 2008-~6_' Page 5 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 205 Exhibit "B" Conditions of Approval Case No. ZON2008·00541 (Golden Cove Center Improvements, 2008) GENERAL 1. Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, the applicant and/or property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have read, understand and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this approval. Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void. 2. The approval shall become null and void after one year from the date of approval, unless approved plans are submitted to the Building and Safety Division to initiate the "plan check" review process. 3. All mitigation measures contained in the approved Mitigation Monitoring Program contained in P.C. Resolution No. 2008-55 for the Mitigated Negative Declaration, shall be incorporated into the implementation ofthe proposed project and adhered to, and are incorporated herein by reference. 4. The proposed project, including site layout, the building and appearances, shall be constructed and maintained in substantial compliance with the plans reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on December 11, 2008. 5. The approval of Case No. ZON2008-00541 allows for the following project at the Golden Cove Center: a) Demolish the existing restaurant building measuring 6,815 square feet (formerly knows as the "Golden Lotus"), and construct a new Trader Joe's grocery store building. The approved grocery store building is limited to 11,000 square feet of ground-floor retail area and 1,200 square feet of mezzanine storage area above (12,200 square feet oftotal gross floor area). The height of the proposed grocery store building is limited to an overall height of 26'-3" (a maximum ridgeline elevation of 287.55'). b) The sale ofgeneral alcohol for off-site consumption (ABC Type 21 License). c) Restriping and reconfiguring the existing parking lot from angled parking to 90° parking with 2-way drive aisles. d) An increase in the overall number of parking spaces in the shopping center to 296 spaces. e) A courtyard area along the front of the existing two-story building. f) Closure ofthe enter-only driveway from Palos Verdes Drive West to provide additional common space to the area adjacent to Starbuck's Coffee. g) Relocation of the existing trash enclosure as depicted on the site plan approved by the Planning Commission. h) A new pedestrian entry feature between the parking lot and the restaurants P.C. Resolution No. 2008-56 Page 6 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 206 along the western portion of the site. i) An outdoor, walk-up ATM. 6. All other conditions of approval contained in PC Resolution Nos. 99-39, 99-40 and 2001-08 shall remain in full force and effect. In the event of a conflict in the conditions of approval between the aforementioned PC Resolutions and the conditions of approval contained in this PC Resolution No. 2008-56, the conditions contained herein shall prevail and apply. 7. The Conditions of Approval co~tained herein shall be subject to review and modifications, as deemed necessary and appropriate by the Planning Commission, six months after issuance of a final Certificate ofOccupancy to review the applicant's compliance with the conditions of approval. At that time, the Planning Commission may add, delete or modify any conditions of approval as deemed necessary and appropriate. Notice of said review hearing shall be published and provided to owners of property within a 500' radius, to persons requesting notice, to all affected homeowners associations, and to the property owner in accordance with Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code Section 17.80.090. At that time, the Planning Commission may add, delete, or modify the conditions of approval as deemed necessary and appropriate. As part of the six month review, the Planning Commission shall consider the parking conditions, circulation patterns, the hours ofoperation, lighting, and noise impacts, in addition to other concerns raised by the Commission and/or interested parties. If necessary, the Planning Commission may impose more restrictive standards and conditions to mitigate any impacts resulting from the operation of the shopping center. 8. The Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement is authorized to approve minor modifications to the approved plans or any of the conditions if such modifications achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with said plans and conditions. Otherwise, all other modifications shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission. 9. In the event that a Planning requirement and a Building & Safety requirement are in conflict with one another, the stricter standard shall apply. 10. The hours of Demolition, grading and construction activities shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. No construction shall be permitted on Sundays or on legal holidays. Further, trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining public rights-of-way before 7:00 AM, Monday through Saturday, in accordance with the permitted hours of construction stated above. 11. The construction site shall be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that material used for immediate construction purposes. Such excess material may include, but is not limited to: the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap metal, concrete, asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or discarded furniture, appliances or other household fixtures. P.C. Resolution No. 2008-56 Page 7 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 207 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 12. The new Trader Joe's grocery store building shall be limited to a maximum of 11,000 square feet of retail floor area, with a maximum 1,200 square foot mezzanine above. Thus, a maximum gross floor area of 12,200 square feet is approved. SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, STRUCTURE SIZE CERTIFICATION IS REQUIRED BY A LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR OR ENGINEER PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT FINAL OF THE GROCERY STORE BUILDING. . 13. The maximum overall height ofTrader Joe's grocery store building is limited to 26' 3". In no case, however, shall the maximum ridgeline elevation of the building be higher than elevation 287.55'. SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, A RIDGE HEIGHT CERTIFICATION IS REQUIRED BY A LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR OR ENGINEER PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ROOF MATERIALS. 14. Hours of operation ofthe Trader Joe's grocery store is limited to 9:00am to 9:00pm, Monday through Sunday. 15. Deliveries to the Trader Joe's grocery store building are permitted Monday through Sunday, only between the hours of 5:00am to 7:30am and 9:00pm to 11 :OOpm. 16. A minimum of 296 parking stalls shall be provided on-site. Verification of the 296 parking stalls is required prior to building permit final for the Trader Joe's grocery store building. 17. Of the 296 parking stalls provided, a maximum of 52 compact stalls is allowed. 18. The pedestrian feature approved in condition 5h above, shall be limited to a· maximum height of 12-feet in overall height. 19. The trash enclosure shall maintain a trellis over the enclosure. ,.. 20. The existing gap in the wall is allowed to remain; however, a solid door must be .., installed and maintained that must remain closed and locked. The key to the lock shall be kept and used by Dr. Cassie Jones, DVM, or her staff to access the adjacent parcel. Said solid door shall be installed prior to submittal of "plan check" for the improvements to the Golden Cove Center. ..J 21. A parking program shall be developed and enforced by the property owner that mandates parking by employees in the Golden Cove Center to park in the stalls located along the eastern property line and to the rear of Building A (the existing two-story building). P.C. Resolution No. 2008-56 Page 8 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 208 22. Signage shall be posted throughout the parking lot limiting parking to no longer than four hours. Said signage shall comply with the regulations ofthe California Vehicle Code. The owner shall be required to obtain the necessary approvals from the Sheriff's Department prior to building permit final for the grocery store building. The owner and/or property manager shall be responsible for monitoring and enforcing the time limitations. 23. A construction phasing plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the City's Building Official and City Traffic 6ngineer prior to issuance of a building and/or grading permit. 24. The applicant shall provide the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement with alternate locations and a reduced height for the outdoor walk-up ATM. The Director will determine the final location and/or height of the outdoor walk-up ATM prior to building permit issuance. GRADING 25. A total of 1,835 cubic yards of grading is approved for the construction of the new grocery store building, courtyards and the expansion of the patio area adjacent to Starbucks. 26. The existing garden walls and landscaping between Palos Verdes Drive West and the restaurants along the western portion of the site, shall be extended to close the entry-only driveway to provide the additional patio area adjacent to Starbucks VARIANCE 27. The proposed Trader Joe's grocery store building shall maintain a 15'-0" setback from the northerly property line along Hawthorne Boulevard, and a 6'-6" setback from the southerly property line that is shared with 7-Eleven. SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, SETBACK CERTIFICATION IS REQUIRED BY A LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR OR ENGINEER PRIOR TO POURING OF FOOTINGS. P.C. Resolution No. 2008-56 Page 9 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 209 P.C. Resolution No. 99-40 (Buildings 0, E and F and ref. to north property line wall) (Adopted October 12, 1999) GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 210 ,/:>:':':::,;:. ~ P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 99-40 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING, WITH CONDITIONS, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 206, VARIANCE NO. 446, AND GRADING PERMIT NO. 2135 TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 12,600 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 77,550 SQUARE FOOT SHOPPING CENTER. THE PROPOSED ADDITION CONSISTS OF 5,250 SQUARE FEET OF NEW FLOOR AREA, WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THREE NEW BUILDINGS, A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT SECOND FLOOR OUTDOOR DINING TERRACE TO THE STRUCTURE OCCUPIED BY THE GOLDEN LOTUS RESTAURANT AND A 2,350 SQUARE FOOT MEZZANINE TO THE EXISTING GROCERY MARKET. FURTHERMORE, THIS APPROVAL SHALL INCLUDE EXTERIOR FACADE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURES, 1,220 CUBIC YARDS OF ASSOCIATED GRADING AND A JOINT USE PARKING PROGRAM ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 31100-31176 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD AND 31212-31246 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST (GOLDEN COVE SHOPPING CENTER). WHEREAS, on February 9, 1999, applications for Conditional Use Permit No. 206 and Environmental Assessment No. 711 were submitted to the Planning Department on behalf of the Property Owners of the Golden Cove Shopping Center to allow the construction of a 12,600 square foot addition; and, WHEREAS, the Commercial Neighborhood (CN) zoning district in which the subject property is located allows for the expansion and continued use of the subject property as a mixed-use shopping center and, WHEREAS, Staff completed an initial review of the applications and plans submitted to the Planning Department and determined that as proposed, the project would require a variance and a grading application. Furthermore, the applicants were informed of some potential Staff concerns pertaining to views, noise, lighting, circulation, and aesthetics. Subsequently, Staff deemed the applications incomplete on March 10, 1999: and, WHEREAS, on May 27, 1999, revised plans were submitted to the Planning Department addressing Staff's concerns, in addition to submitted applications for Variance No. 446, to allow an encroachment into the required setback, and Grading Permit No. 2135, to allow 1,220 cubic yards of associated grading for the preparation of a bUilding pad for the construction of three (3) new buildings; and, P.C. Resolution No. 99:'40 Page 1 of 8 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 211 i. ..~ WHEREAS, pursuant to the provIsion of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et.seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulation, Title 14, Section 15000 et.seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(F) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), the City of Rancho Palos Verdes prepared an Initial Study and determined that, by incorporating mitigation measures into the Negative Declaration and project approval, there is no substantial evidence that the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 206, Variance No. 446 and Grading Permit No. 2135 would result in a significant adverse effect on the environment. Accordingly, a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and notice of that fact was given in the manner required by law; and, WHEREAS, the Initial Study was prepared on July 14, 1999 and distributed for circulation and review on July 19, 1999 through August 9, 1999; and, WHEREAS, in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, a Mitigation Monitoring program has been prepared, and is attached to the Environmental Assessment No. 711 and Resolution as Exhibit "A"; and, WHEREAS, on July 26, 1999, the Traffic Committee reviewed the applicant's proposal to construct a 12,600 square foot addition with modifications to the existing parking lot and driveways, and recommended approval, provided that the modifications identified by the City's Traffic Engineer are implemented; and, WHEREAS, On August 9, 1999, the subje.ct applications were reviewed by Staff and deemed complete for processing; and, WHEREAS, after issuing notices pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code and the State CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on August 10, 19~9, at which all ir:lterested parties were given the opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and, WHEREAS, at the August 10th Commission meeting, it was determined by the Commissioners that the public hearing should be continued to the subject property to assess the potential view impacts identified by Staff and concerned residents; and, WHEREAS, on August 14, 1999 the Commission held the continued public hearing on the subject property and were able to tour the site and observe the proposed project from seven surrounding residences. At the conclusion of P.C. Resolution No. 99-40 Page 2 of 8 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 212 the site visit, the Commission directed the applicants to revise the plans and continued the public hearing to the August 24th meeting; and, WHEREAS, during the course of revising the plans for the August 24th meeting, it was mutually agreed between the applicants and Staff that additional time would be needed to adequately address the concerns raised by the public and the Commission. Therefore the applicants requested a continuance to the September 14th meeting, while Staff encouraged the Commission to use the August 24th meeting for further discussion; and, WHEREAS, on August 24, 1999, the Commission continued hearing public comments and discussion on the proposed project and continued the public hearing to the September 14th meeting, with further direction; and, WHEREAS, on August 27, 1999, Staff was informed by the applicant's public relations representative that additional time would be needed to beyond the scheduled September 14th meeting to continue preparing the architectural drawing and revising the silhouette. After a brief discussion at the September th th 14 meeting, the Commission continued the public hearing to September 28 ; and, WHEREAS, on September 23, 1999 a ninety day time extension request was submitted to the Planning Department to continue reviewing the proposed project beyond the action deadline date along with Staffs recommendation to continue the public hearing to the October 12th meeting, due to the lack of time to adequately assess the revised plans for consideration at the September 28th meeting. The Commission subsequently continued the public hearing to October th 12 ; and, WHEREAS, on October 12, 1999 the Planning Commission heard all public testimony and evidence from interested parties. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The site for the proposed 12,600 square foot addition and intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate said use and for all yards, setbacks, walls, or fences, landscaping or other features required by this title or by conditions under this section to integrate said use with those on adjacent land. The subject property is 6.34 acres and contains a 77,500 square foot shopping center with 353 parking spaces. As proposed, the 12,600 square foot addition to the sUbject site is in substantial conformance with the development standards for the CN zoning district in that it is large enough to sustain the increased f10qr area in that a Joint Use Parking Program will provide adequate parking for the center based on the type of use and the time of the day. P.C. Resolution No. 99-40 Page 3 of 8 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 213 .. 'C\ Therefore, provided that a variance for the reduction in the required 20' setback for improvements to the structure occupied by the Golden Lotus Restaurant is approved, the Planning Commission finds that the subject site will be adequate in size and shape to sustain the proposed development. Section 2: The subject site for the proposed use, as it relates to streets and highways, is sufficient to carry the type and quantity of traffic generated by the subject use in that a study was conducted by a licensed traffic engineer evaluating the current off-site conditions surrounding the subject property and at the intersection of Hawthorne Boulevard and Palos Verdes Drive West. Based on the study, it was determined that the intersection in question is more than adequate to serve the projected increase in trips generated by the proposed addition. Furthermore, in considering anticipated development, such as the SUbregion 1 and Ocean Trails residential projects, it was also determined, in accordance with the Trip Generation, Sixth Edition prepared by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, that the proposed project will not adversely impact traffic patterns. , , Section 3: In conditionally approving the subject use at the specific location, there will be no significant adverse effect on adjacent property or the permitted use thereof in that Staff required that the applicants erect a silhouette outlining the proposed addition to address potential view impairment from surrounding properties. Based on site visits conducted by Staff and the Commission to surrounding properties within the Villa Capri complex and homes on Via Del Mar, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed addition will not significantly impair ocean views from surrounding properties. In regards to the anticipated impacts the proposed addition will have on surrounding properties, as it pertains to lighting, noise and traffic, the Planning Commission requires that conditions be imposed on the subject property that will regulate the hours of use, the maximum levels of noise generated by the center, and implement conditions recommended by the City's Traffic Engineer and the City's Traffic Committee for improved on-site and off-site circulation. Section 4: The proposed use is not contrary to the General Plan in that the subject property is located in a commercial zone, designated by the Land Use Policy Map, which permits the subject use and the proposed improvements and that the Urban Element of the General Plan encourages renovations to the Golden Cove Shopping Center that result in a cohesive center that connects commercial uses with nearby civic activities. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed project will create a cohesive center between the existing and proposed structures, while aesthetically connecting the shopping center with surrounding public uses. Section 5: Conditions regarding the requirements in the Development Code, which the Planning Commission finds to be necessary to protect health, P.C. Resolution No. 99-40 Page 4 of8 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 214 safety and general welfare have been imposed by the Planning Commission as shown herein as attachment Exhibit "A" pertaining to setbacks, setback buffers, fences and walls, lighting, ingress and egress, noise, vibrations, odor, landscaping, the maintenance of the structures and grounds that will ensure safeguards are incorporated into the project that will allow development in an orderly and efficient manner and in conformity with the intent and purposes set . forth in the Development Code. Section 6: In assessing the subject property, the Planning Commission found that the six (6) existing utility poles located along the south property line immediately behind the existing retail/office building and the Admiral Risty may add to the potential view impacts caused by the proposed project to the surrounding properties. In order to compensate portions of views that are still impaired by the proposed project, the Commission finds that the existing above ground utility lines and poles should be placed underground. By placing the utilities underground, the Commission feels that the overall view impairment resulting from the proposed project can be reduced. Furthermore, one utility pole is located in the center of the driveway from the Villa Capri Complex which may create a potential hazard to motorists. Section 7. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved, or to the intended use of the property which do not apply generally to other property in the same zoning· district in that the proposed upper level outdoor dining terrace over the existing lower level restaurant (the Golden Lotus) will require the installation of a secondary acce·ss staircase pursuant to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code and the Los Angeles County Fire Department. As such, the requirements state that the secondary access shall not intervene with other spaces so that unobstructed emergency access may be provided. The Planning Commission finds that the subject structure is located in an area that is limited in size to accommodate the proposed staircase and hereby finds that there are exceptional characteristics that warrant a variance to allow a reduction in the required twenty (20) foot setback. Section 8: The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, which right is possessed by other property owners under like conditions in the same zoning district in that the subject center is similar in size and shape to other commercial centers within the Peninsula. As proposed, the improvements to the structure occupied by the Golden Lotus require a variance to allow a reduction in the required setback. Pursuant to the Uniform Building Code and the Los Angeles County Fire Department requirements, a commercial establishment, such as the Golden Lotus Restaurant, shall maintain an unobstructed secondary access from an upper level dining area. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed improvements to the Golden Cove Center are necessary for the benefit of the community and the property owners, and that a variance is warranted for the P.C. Resolution No. 99-40 Page 5 of 8 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 215 ~.. ... construction of a 176 square foot stair case within the required setback abutting a nonresidential property. Furthermore, the Planning Commission finds that a reduction with the required setback will not create a special privilege in that the proposed improvements are to an existing shopping center that is zoned for commercial use adjacent to other properties zoned and developed with similar uses and that the proposed improvement is a minor addition to an established building footprint. As such, the reduction in the setback,' will maintain a three (3) foot" setback from the property line abutting the Unocal Service Station, for which the Commission finds is adequate. Section 9: The granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public's welfare or injurious to property and improvements in the area in which the property is located in that there will be approximately forty-six (46) feet in distance separating the proposed addition from the service station and that the Development Code requires that improvements' to service stations, including canopies, shall be at least ten (10) feet from any property line. Since the service station is adequately setback from the proposed improvements to the structure occupied by the Golden Lotus Restaurant and that the two properties are separated by a four (4) foot high retaining wall, the variance will not be detrimental to the public's welfare nor the character of the surrounding properties. Section 10: The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan or the policies and requirements of the Coastal Specific Plan in that the project consists of improvements that are routinely approved in commercial zones, provided that unique conditions exists that warrant a variance and that the subject property is not located within the City's Coastal Zone. , Section 11: The Commission finds that granting a variance to allow the proposed parking lot light fixtures to exceed the Development Code's height limit of ten (10) feet to a height of sixteen (16) is warranted in that the height increase provides adequate lighting over a larger surface area, without requiring additional light fixtures. Additionally, the Commission finds that the height increase will provide outdoor lighting fixtures that are comparable to other shopping center parking lot light fixtures throughout the Peninsula and that the height increase will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan in that conditions have been placed on the project that limit th,e hours of lighting and require that shielding devices be incorporated into the design of the light fixtures to mitigate any adverse impacts to surrounding properties. Section 12: The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted use of the lot in that the subject property is located in a CN zoning district which permits improvements, such as the proposed project. Additionally, the 1,220 cubic yards of associated grading is required to prepare the site for the building pad of the three (3) proposed structures along Palos Verdes Drive West, p.e. Resolution No. 99-40 Page 6 of 8 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 216 , which will be used to create an outdoor dining area that is at a similar elevation as the proposed structures. to avoid having to construct steps and/or handicap ramps, to meet the requirements of the American Disability Act (ADA). Section 13: The grading and/or related construction does not significantly adversely affect the visual relationships nor the views from surrounding properties in that the proposed grading will be in an area that is significantly lower in elevation than the surrounding properties to the north, south and east. Furthermore, the proposed grading will not impact views from these prop~rties in that the grading will require excavation of approximately 145 cubic yards of earth to lower the building pad and 1,075 cubic yards of fill, to create a level pad along Palos Verdes Drive West. Since the proposed grading is at the lowest point of the subject property, which descends from the east to the west, and that the surrounding residences immediately adjacent to the project site, Villa Capri Townhomes are separated by transitional slopes that are apprOXimately twenty-five (25) feet in height, the Planning Commission finds that views maintained by units with the Villa Capri Complex, laterally over the subject property" shall be protected by imposing conditions, as shown in Exhibit "A." Section 14: The nature of the grading minimizes disturbance to the natural contours and finished contours are considered reasonably natural in that the proposed grading will occur in an area that was previously disturbed at the time the center was originally constructed and that the proposed fill will be retained by a five (5) foot high retaining wall that has been designed to break the massing of the depth of fill by creating steps in the retention that will be landscaped to screen the project site from Palos Verdes Drive West. Furthermore. the sUbject site does not maintain any natural topographic features that require land sculpturing as to blend the man-made or manufactured slopes into the natural topography. Section 15: The subject grading will not be located on any natural topographic feature that maintains any natural landscape or wildlife habitat that has not already been disturbed at the time the site was developed. Section 16: The subject grading conforms with the Development Code's requirements for grading on slopes, the height of cut and fill and retaining walls in that the proposed grading will be located on a slope that is approximately five percent and that the height of the proposed fill will not exceed five (5) feet, which is permitted on lots created prior to November 25, 1975. Furthermore, the proposed fill will be retained by an eight (8) foot high combination wall that consist of a five foot high retaining wall and a three foot high guard rail. Section 17: Any interested party may appeal this decision or any portion of this decision to the City Council. Pursuant to Section 17.02.040.C.1.j of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, any such appeal must be filed with the P.C. Resolution No. 99-40 Page 7 of 8 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 217 £ ~ city, in writing, and with the appropriate appeal fee, no later than fifteen (15) days following the date of the Planning Commission's final action. Section 18: For the foregoing reasons, and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes, and other records of proceedings, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 206, Variance No. 446 and Grading Permit No. 2135, thereby approving the construction of a 12,600 square foot addition to an existing shopping center and exterior facade improvements to the existing buildings on the subject property, at a proposed height that exceeds the maximum permitted height of sixteen (16) feet, and approving 1,220 cubic yards of associated grading and a Joint Use Parking Program, all subject to the conditions of approval in Exhibit "A". PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 12th day of October, 1999, by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Cartwright, Vice-Chairman Lyon, Commissioners Paris, Alberio, and Slayden NOES: None ABSTENTION: None ABSENT: Commissioners Clark and Vannorsdal on S. Cartwright Chairman P.C. Resolution No. 99~40 Page 8 of 8 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 218 ".. c EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 206, VARIANCE NO. 446, GRADING PERMIT NO. 2135, AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 711 GENERAL 1. Prior to the submittal of plans into BUilding and Safety plan check, the applicant and/or property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have read, understand and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this approval. Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void. 2. The approval shall become null and void after one year from the date of approval, unless approved plans are submitted to the Building and Safety Division to initiate the "plan check" review process. Phase I (see Condition No.5) shall remain valid for a period of three years from the date of approval (Octob~r 12, 1999) and Phase II (see Condition No.5) shall remain valid for a period of five years from the date of approval (October 12, 1999). 3. All mitigation measures contained in the approved Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 711, shall be incorporated into the implementation of the proposed project and adhered to, and are incorporated herein by reference. 4. The proposed project shall be constructed in substantial compliance with the plans dated and received by the Planning Department on September 24, 1999 by Hannibal Petrosis. 5. The proppsed project shall be constructed in two phases, as shown below: Phase I: Improvements to the existing grocery market, facade improvements to the existing retail/office building and the construction of the three new bUildings off Palos Verdes Drive West. Phase II: The construction of an upper level dining area to the Golden lotus Restaurant. 6. The Conditions of Approval contained herein shall be subject to review and modifications. as deemed necessary and appropriate by the Planning GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 219 /'" , CONDITIONS OF APP.AL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 206 VARIANCE NO. 446 GRADING PERMIT NO. 2135 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 711 GOLDEN COVE CENTER OCTOBER 12, 1999 PAGE 2 Commission, six (6) months after issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for each of the two phases, to review the applicant's compliance with the conditions of approval. At that time, the Planning Commission may add, delete or modify any conditions of approval as deemed necessary and appropriate. Notice of said review hearing shall be published and provided to owners of property within a 500' radius, to persons requesting notice, to all affected homeowners associations, and to the property owner in accordance with Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code Section 17.80.090. At that time, the Planning Commission may add, delete, or modify the conditions of approval as deemed necessary and appropriate. As part of the six month review, the Planning Commission shall consider the parking conditions, circulation patterns, the hours of operation, lighting, and noise impacts, in addition to other concerns raised by the Commission and/or interested parties. If necessary, the Planning Commission may impose more restrictive standards and conditions to mitigate any impacts resulting from the operation of the shopping center. 7. A time schedule for information purposes, indicating when construction is to begin, the anticipated rate of development and the approximate completion date, for the two phases of construction shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to issuance of building permits for Phase I. 8. The Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement is authorized to approve minor modifications to the approved plans or any of the conditions if such modifications achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with said plans and conditions. Otherwise, all other modifications all be sUbject to review and approval by the Planning Commission. 9. In the event that a Planning requirement and a Building & Safety requirement are in conflict with one another, the stricter standard shall apply. 10. The hours of construction shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. No construction shall be permitted on Sundays or on legal holidays. 11. The construction site shall be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that material used for immediate construction purposes. Such excess material may include, but is not limited to: the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap metal, concrete, asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materipls, abandoned or discarded furniture, appliances or other household fixtures. GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 220 .0' (. CONDITIONS OF APPI(,AL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 206 VARIANCE NO. 446 GRADING PERMIT NO. 2135 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 711 GOLDEN COVE CENTER OCTOBER 12, 1999 PAGE 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 12. The proposed addition shall not exceed 12,600 square feet, as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department on September 24, 1999. Of the 12,600 square foot addition, 5,250 square feet shall be for the three new structures off Palos Verdes Drive West, 4,552 square feet shall be for the upper level dining area above the existing structure occupied by the Golden Lotus Restaurant, and 2,798 square feet shall be for the mezzanine within the existing grocery market. 13. The lot coverage shall not exceed 61%, without first obtaining approvals from the Planning Department. 14. The three (3) proposed new structures shall maintain a minimum setback of thirty (30) feet from the abutting street (Palos Verdes Drive West) and the first fifteen (15) feet, as measured from the property line, shall be landscaped. 15. The maximum hours of operation for all uses and tenants within the center shall be as follows: Mondays through Sundays 6:00 a.m. - midnight All existing uses that are operating beyond these hours on the effective date of this approval may continue to operate under their current established hours. General 16. Approvals shall be obtained by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, for all proposed restaurants, prior to issuance of building permits. 17. Pursuant to the recommendations of the South Central Coastal Information Center, a "stop work" order shall be issued by the City in the event that cultural resources are encountered during the construction, until an archaeologist has assessed such finds. 18. Prior to issuance of building permits, a hydrology study and drainage plan, prepared and wet-stamped by a licensed engineer, shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval by the City. Such plan shall indicate all drainage patterns and mitigation measures that will prevent on-site flooding. GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 221 CONDITIONS OF APP.AL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 206 VARIANCE NO. 446 GRADING PERMIT NO. 2135 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 711 GOLDEN COVE CENTER OCTOBER 12,1999 PAGE 4 19. Prior to issuance of building permits, the property owner shall submit an Urban Stormwater Plan in conformance with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) for review and approval by the City. 20. The outdoor dining area adjacent to the three new buildings off Palos Verdes Drive West Shall remain uncovered and open to the sky, with the exception of a trellis, that shall respect all City Setbacks. Lighting 21. Within ninety (90) days of the adoption of this resolution, a lighting plan prepared by 'a lighting contractor shall be submitted to the City. The lighting plan shall include the location, height, number of lights, wattage and estimates of maximum illumination on site and spill/glare at property Jines and shall be reviewed and approv,ed by the Planning Director. After sixty (60) days from the date of installation, all lighting shall be tested for conformance with the Planning Director's approval. 22. No one fixture shall exceed 1,200 watts and the light source shall not be directed toward or result in direct illumination of a parcel of property or properties other than that upon which such light source is physically located. All exterior lighting shall be arranged and shielded as to prevent direct illumination of abutting properties and to prevent distraction of drivers of vehicles on public rights-of-way. -23. No new outdoor lighting shall be permitted where the light source or fixture, if located on a building, is above the line of the eaves. If the light source or fixture is located on a building with no eaves, or if located on a standard or pole, the light source or fixture shall not be more than sixteen (16) feet above existing grade, adjacent to the building or pole. 24. All outdoor lighting shall be turned off by 1:00 a.m. Mondays through Sundays, except for lighting used for security. The applicant shall provide the Planning Department with a lighting plan for review and approval by the planning director that indicates the lights that will remain lit throughout the evening for security. 25. Prior to issuance of building permits for Phase I, a Master Sign Program shall be reviewed and approved' by the Planning Commission. GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 222 (, ,', .. ; CONDITIONS OF AP.AL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 206 VARIANCE NO. 446 GRADING PERMIT NO. 2135 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 711 GOLDEN COVE CENTER OCTOBER 12,1999 PAGES Maintenance 26. All existing and proposed roof top mechanical equipment shall be adequately screened from adjacent private properties and the public and private right-of-ways. Furthermore, the roof top mechanical equipment for the existing two-story office/retail building shall be Visually screened with a three foot high parapet wall around the perimeter of the exiting roof, as shown on the plans dated September 24,1999. 27. All hardscape surfaces, such as the parking lot and walkways, shall be properly maintained and kept clear of trash and debris at all times." The property owners shall provide weekly sweep cleaning and leaf blowing that shall be permitted Mondays through Fridays from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., on Saturdays from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and at no time on Sundays and national holidays 28. All deliveries of commercial goods and supplies; such as, but not limited to, trash pick-Ups, trash sweepers, and delivery trucks, shall be conducted between the hours of 7:00 a.m."and 7:00 p.m., Mondays through Sundays. 29. All mechanical equipment and the operation of machinery shall not exceed noise levels in excess of sixty-five (65 dBA) decibels, as measured from the closest property line adjacent to the mechanical equipment and shall operate between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. 30. The storage of all good, wares, merchandise, produce and other commodities shall be housed in permanently, entirely enclosed structures, unless being transported. 31. All trash receptacles shall be fully enclosed and visually screened from the public's view. Utilities 32. The six (6) utility poles along the southern property line shall be removed from the subject property and all existing utility lines shall be placed underground, provided that the total cost does not exceed $80,000. Documentation of the cost as calculated by Southern California Edison shall be provided to the City. If the cost to underground the existing utility poles exceeds $80,000, then the property owners shall repair th~ leaning utility pole adjacent to the Admiral Risty and relocate the utility pole located in the middle of the existing driveway. All costs incurred with GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 223 /<"~>":-:.\ CONDITIONS OF APaVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 206 VARIANCE NO. 446 GRADING PERMIT NO. 2135 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 711 GOLDEN COVE CENTER OCTOBER 12, 1999 PAGE 6 implementing either of these options shall be paid for by the property owner. All work shall be performed prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for Phase I. 33. All new utility lines shall be placed underground. Landscaping 34. Prior to issuance of building permits, a detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department, indicating the types and sizes of plants to be used, for review and approval by the Planning Director. The landscape plan shall indicate how all trash receptacles will be screened. 35. The existing parking lot shall be improved with planters that will contain vegetation not to exceed sixteen (16) feet in height at maturity. 36. All on-site foliage that exceeds sixteen (16) feet in height shall be trimmed to a height no higher than sixteen (16) feet or entirely removed from the root system and replaced with foliage that does not exceed sixteen (16) feet in height at maturity. If the foliage is trimmed to sixteen (16) feet and sUbsequently dies, such foliage shall be removed and replaced with foliage that does not exceed sixteen (16) feet in height at maturity. 37. The perimeter of the subject property shall be landscaped with foliage that does not exceed sixteen (16) feet in height at maturity, as measured fifteen (15) feet in from the property lines abutting a street. ,... 38. 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. J 39. The existing perimeter walls enclosing the subject property shall be improved with a stucco finish resembling the color and texture used for the structures on the subject property. 40. The area between the proposed retaining wall and garden wall adjacent to the western property line, along Palos Verdes Drive West, shall be landscaped. GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 224 CONDITIONS OF APPIvAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 206 VARIANCE NO. 446 GRADING PERMIT NO. 2135 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 711 GOLDEN COVE CENTER OCTOBER 12,1999 PAGE 7 Noise 41. All noise levels generated by the subject center shall not exceed a maximum level of sixty-five (65dBA) decibels. Two months after a certificate of occupancy has been issued for each of the two phases of development, a certified noise consultant, commissioned by the City, shall monitor noise levels generated by the center from five points (68 Via Capri, 11 Via Veneta, 11 San Remo, 29 San Remo, and 7100 Via Del Mar) for compliance with the maximum noise level of sixty-five (65 dBA) decibels for a period of two weeks during the noon and evening (7-8 p.m.) hours on a Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. If it is determined that levels of noise generated by the center exceed sixty-five (65 dBA) decibels, the applicant shall incorporate design elements into the layout of the center that buffers noise levels, such as water features and/or landscaping. If it is determined that the center is stilt generating noise levels in excess of the maximum sixty-five (65 dBA) decibels, the property owner may apply for an amendment to this condition of the Conditional Use Permit, to allow an increase in the maximum noise levels. The property owner shall pay for all costs incurred by the noise monitoring by establishing a trust deposit determined by Staff. 42. No amplified sound, including but not limited to, loud speakers, stereo speakers, and microphones, shall be permitted throughout the center, including all outdoor dining areas. For special events, temporary amplified sound may be permitted provided that the applicants obtain a Special Use Permit from the Planning Department. Any amendment to this conditions shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as a Conditional Use Permit amendment. Off-Site and On-Site Circulation 43. "Do Not Enter, Wrong Way" signage shall be installed at the back of the existing Building "A" (as shown on the site plan) to reduce the possibility of motorists traveling westbound into the eastbound one-way drive aisle adjacent to adjacent Building "E". 44. The proposed one-way westbound drive aisle along the north side of Building "A" shaH be designated as a two-way drive aisle by instaliing two way directional pavement arrows at each end of that drive aisle. 45. Two-way directional pavement arrows shall be installed at each end of each two-way directional aisleway. One-way directional pavement arrows shall be installed at each end of each one-way directional aisleway. GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 225 i CONDITIONS OF APAI~AL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 206 VARIANCE NO. 446 GRADING PERMIT NO. 2135 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 711 GOLDEN COVE CENTER OCTOBER 12,1999 PAGE 8 46. The parking spaces adjacent to Building "En shall be oriented at a 90 degree angle to maintain a two-way drive aisle. 47. One-way eastbound pavement arrows shall be installed at each end of the aisleway located behind Building "An. Additionally, the trash bins at the back of Building "An shall be relocated to provide increased aisleway width and relocated to the indented corner in the back of Building "A". 48. The lone parking space at the back of Building "A" shall be reoriented so that an eastbound motorist on the one-way aisleway at the back of Building "A" can enter the parking space. 49. The curb returns at the end of each on-site aisleway shall have a minimum radius of 5 feet. This will provide an appropriate turning radii for motorists turning from one aisleway to another. 50. The northernmost project driveway on Palos Verdes Drive West, adjacent to the Unocal Service Station, shall be reconfigured as an inbound and outbound driveway by combining the two driveways into one driveway so that the centerline of the driveway runs along the property line. In order to implement this driveway improvement requirement, the property owners shall provide the City with a written agreement signed by the property owners of the Golden Cove Center and the Unocal Service Station agreeing to such a proposal. If, after the property owner has shown the City that all reasonable and good faith efforts were made with the property owner of the Unocal Service Station as determined by the City, and that an agreement could still not be made, then the applicants shall landscape or construct a wall, not to ~xceed 42" in height, along the shared property line and the northern most driveway shall be reconfigured to an 'in only' driveway. 51. A sign shall be posted at the driveway behind the existing grocery market requiring that only a right turn can be made. 52. Appropriate corner sight distance from 8-feet behind curb face shall be provided at the driveways accessing Palos Verdes Drive West and Hawthorne Boulevard. The corner sight distance on Palos Verdes Drive West shall be 550 feet based on a 50 mph 85th percentile speed and. the corner sight distance on Hawthorne Boulevard shall be 495 feet based on a 45 mph 85th percentile speed. Based on the ultimate location of the northernmost driveway on Palos Verdes Drive West, the bus stop on Palos Verdes Drive West shall be relocated/modified to ensure GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 226 CONDITIONS OF AP.~AL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 206 VARIANCE NO. 446 GRADING PERMIT NO. 2135 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 711 GOLDEN COVE CENTER OCTOBER 12, 1999 PAGE 9 appropriate corner sight distance from both driveways on Palos Verdes Drive West. The applicant shall make a good faith effort to work with the Director of Public Works to relocate and/or modify the bus stop. 53. According to the Joint Use Parking Program, the Center shall maintain at least 314 parking spaces at all times, which shall include handicapped spaces as required by the Uniform Building Code. The Planning Director shall assess the parking conditions, six (6) months after issuance of the certificate of occupancy for each of the two phases, prior to acceptance to . "plan check" for the next phase. If after review, the Joint Use Parking Program requires modifications, the parking plan shall be reviewed and modified, as deemed necessary, by the Planning Commission. 54. In order to ensure that adequate storage length is provided for vehicles making left-turns from the southbound median turn pocket on Palos Verdes Drive West at Hawthorne Boulevard, the proposed Golden Cove Center Project shall post a bond for extending the pocket in an amount determined by the Director of Public Works. Monitoring should occur during the next five (5) years to evaluate the vehicle storage capacity and the pocket should be extended if monitoring shows a need to extend the pocket. VARIANCE 55. The proposed 176 square foot addition located within the required setback, shall be constructed in compliance with plans submitted to the Planning Department on September 24, 1999. GRADING 56. The proposed grading shall not exceed 1,220 cubic yards of earth excavation, of which 145 cubic yards shall be used as cut and 1,075 cubic yards as fill, in addition to remedial grading. 57. A grading plan, indicating the quantities of earth movement, shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works and the Division of Building and Safety for review and approvals, prior to the issuance of building permits. 58. Prior to issuance of building or grading permits, the property owner shall submit geotechnical and soils reports to the City for review and approvals by the Building Official and the City's Geotechnical Consultant, to ensure that all conditions specified in the geotechnical and soils reports are GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 227 CONDITIONS OF AP'VAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 206 VARIANCE NO. 446 GRADING PERMIT NO. 2135 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 711 GOLDEN COVE CENTER OCTOBER 12, 1999 PAGE 10 incorporated into the project. 59. The maximum depth of cut shall not exceed 5' in height. 60. The proposed retaining wall shall not exceed 5' in height, with an additional 3' high guard rail on top of the retaining wall, for a combined wall height of 8', as measured from grade on the low side and 6' in height as measured from grade on the high side. 61. Any additional grading determined to be necessary by the City's Geotechnical Consultant to prepare the site for the proposed improvements shall be permitted as remedial grading. GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 228 Section of August 10, 1999 P.C. Staff Report (ref. to north property line wall) GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 229 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT . CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 206 \. VARIANCE NO. 446 GRADING PERMIT NO. 2135 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 711 GOLDEN COVE SHOPPING CENTER AUGUST 10, 1999 PAGE 21 5. That, if the site of the proposed use is within any overlay control districts established by the development code, the proposed use complies with all· applicable requirements of that chapter. According to the City's Zoning Map, the subject property which is located within a designated CN zoning district, is not within any of the established overlay control districts. Therefore, this finding does not apply. 6. That conditions regarding any of the requirements listed in the development code, which the planning commission finds to be necessary . to protect health, safety, and general welfare, have been imposed: As previously mentioned in this report, the Initial Study prepared by Staff determined that the proposed project may potentially impact the surrounding environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared, which includes mitigation measures to avoid significant adverse impacts to the environment. Furthermore, ...--...... conditions recommended by Staff are identified throughout this report, that will ensure that the proposed project is regulated so that the surrounding properties, in addition to the SUbject property, is developed in a manner that preserves the character of the community while creating an aesthetically pleasing environment that benefits the community. The following discussion pertains to conditions recommended by Staff to protect public health, safety, and general welfare: A. Setback and Buffer - As proposed. the new structures along Palos Verdes Drive West comply with all of the setback requirements stated in the Development Code for the CN zoning district. The new structures comply with the minimum setback requirement of thirty (30) feet from abutting streets (Palos Verdes Drive West), while maintaining a fifteen (15) foot landscape setback from the abutting street. In regards to the proposed improvements to the structure occupied by the Golden Lotus restaurant, the applicants request a variance for relief from the strict interpretation of the setback requirement. A further discussion relating to the variance will be covered in the next section of this report. B. Fences and Walls - As proposed, the applicants are not requesting to construct any new perimeter fences or walls, other than a planter and retaining wall required to prepare the site for the construction of the three new buildings along Palos Verdes Drive West. However, it was brought to Staffs attention that the ctivit associated with the 0 eration e r ant Admiral Rist nearest the Villa Capri Complex, has become a nuisance to severa residents because of GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 230 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT . CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 206 VARIANCE NO. 446 GRADING PERMIT NO. 2135 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 711 GOLDEN COVE SHOPPING CENTER AUGUST 10, 1999 PAGE 22 undesired noise and loitering arollnd the back entrance. In order to mitigate the Q9ise concerns raised by the residents of Yilla Capri. Staff recommends ~. gondition be imposed that requires a six (6) foot high solid wall be constructed aJ.ong the southern property line that matches the height of existing perimeter w . r walls shall be finished in an earthtone stucco that resembles the finish of the structures within the cen er. e C. Lighting - The Golden Cove Center currently contains lighting throughout the property that are in the form of lamp posts and light fixtures attached to the building facades. Pursuant to the Environmental Protection section of th~. Development Code, a lighting plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval by the Planning Director. As such, the lighting plan shall indicate all existing and proposed fixtures, their height, the type of light used, and its wattage. Staff shall review the plan to assure that light and glare does not project onto neighboring properties. After a period of ninety (90) days from the date of installation, all lighting shall be reviewed for conformance with the approvals by the Planning Director. Furthermore, in order to assure that the character of the neighborhood is maintained, a condition is recommended all on-site lighting be turned off by 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursdays and 11 :00 p.m. Fridays and Saturdays, except lighting deemed necessary for security. D. Vehicular Ingress and Egress - In order to better understand the circulation patterns on-site and off-site, Staff relied on the City's Traffic Engineer for recommendations. As result of the Traffic Engineer's review of the project, a Traffic Study was prepared by the applicant's Traffic Consultant which has been reviewed by the City. Furthermore, the City's Traffic Committee on July 26, 1999 reviewed the proposed project and made recommendations to Staff addressing their concerns with traffic patterns anticipated by the proposed expansion. Based on the Traffic Committee's recommendations and the City's Traffic Engineer's review of the proposed project and the traffic stUdy, the following are some of the conditions recommended to mitigate any potential concerns regarding on-site and off-site circulation impacts: 1. The parking spaces along the eastern most driveway along Palos Verdes Drive West shall be removed and relocated due to unsafe access. 2. The western most driveway along Palos Verdes Drive West shall be reconfigured to an 'in only' driveway, to discourage motorists from utilizing --",.. the existing service station to access Palos Verdes Drive West. GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 231 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2011-13 (for March 8,2011 P.C. Meeting) GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 232 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2011·13 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A REVISION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 206 TO ALLOW A CONVERSION OF THREE EXISTING TRELLISES INTO SOLID ROOFED COVERED PATIOS LOCATED ON BUILDINGS D, E AND F, AND ADDITIONAL DINING AREAS NOT TO EXCEED 375 SQUARE FEET EACH UNDERNEATH THE COVERED PATIOS ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF BUILDING D AND SOUTH SIDE OF BUILDING F, AT THE PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS GOLDEN COVE CENTER (31100 - 31176, AND 31212 - 31246 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST - CASE NO. ZON2010·00402). WHEREAS, on November 10,2010, the applicant, Paris Zarrabian, submitted a Conditional Use Permit revision request to the Community Development Department for review and processing requesting approval to convert three existing trellises into solid roofed covered patios along the north side of Building D, the east side of Building E and south side of Building F and allow additional dining areas underneath two ofthe covered patios. On December 9, 2010, Staffcompleted the initial review of the application, at which time the application was deemed incomplete due to missing information on the project plans; and, WHEREAS, after the submittal of multiple revisions to the project, Staff deemed the application complete on January 20,2011; and, WHEREAS, on February 14, 2011, Staff mailed notices to 108 property owners within a 500 foot radius from the subject property, providing a 15-day time period for the submittal of comments and concerns. In addition, a Public Notice was published in the Peninsula News on February 17, 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, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a dUly-noticed public hearing on March 8, 2011, at wHich time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and, NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The project site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed modifications without interfering with the parking configuration or traffic circulation patterns on the site. This is due to the fact that the existing site has sufficient parking for the expanded use and the GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 233 improvements would only serve to cover an existing trellis. The applicant is proposing to alter the existing open-air trellises to become solid roof structures and to allow outdoor dining underneath two ofthese structures. The renovation ofthe three existing trellises intensifies the use ofthe site due to the additional outdoor dining area. However, there are 11 extra parking spaces on the site, which is sufficient to cover the increase in use on the property. Section 2: The site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways is sufficient to carry the type and quantity of traffic generated by the proposed project. The proposed project includes the modification of three existing trellises attached to BUildings D, E and F, along Palos Verdes Boulevard to 'be converted from open-air trellises to solid roofed covered patios and 375 square feet of new dining area underneath two ofthe covered patios. The additional outdoor dining area requires 10 total parking spaces, however Staff feels that the additional traffic generated is minimal and will not affect the existing traffic and this finding can be made. Section 3: There will be no significant adverse effect on adjacent properties or the permitted use since the project does not include new uses to the Golden Cove Center. Specifically, The open trellis areas permitted along the west side of BUildings D, E and F will be required to remain open-air in order to preserve the aesthetics and open-air feeling as seen from Palso Verdes Drive West. The proposed covered patios along north side of Building D and the south side of Building F may be permitted to be covered, as opposed to open-air, as they will not be easily visible from Palos Verdes Drive West. Section 4: The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan's Land Use Policy Map as a commercial zone. According to the General Plan, commercial zones are designated to accommodate services that serve the immediate neighborhood, while preserving the character of the Peninsula. The General Plan states that the Golden Cove Center should be redesigned and revitalized based on convenience and need ofthe immediate community and improvements should be designed to create a more cohesive connection between existing buildings. The architectural style for the proposed renovation to the existing trellises that would be converted to solid roof covered patios is generally consistent with the architectural style of the shopping center. Additionally, the additional outdoor seating areas provide convenience and serve the needs of the community and patrons of the Golden Cove Center. Section 6: Conditions which the Planning Commission finds to be necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare, have been imposed. Specifically, Condition No. 20 of Resolution No. 99-40 has been modified to clarify the need to maintain an open-air feeling along the west sides of Buildings D, E and F, and permitting covered patios for dining purposes north of Building D and south of Building F. Condition No. 20 is modified to read as follows: "The outdoordining area on the west side and adjacent to the three Rewbuildings offPalos Verdes West shall remain uncovered and open to the sky, with the exception ofa an open trellis. The outdoor dining areas on the north side of Building 0 and the south side of BUilding F may be covered with a solid roof and shall be permitted to have a maximum of 375 square feet ofoutdoor dining underneath each roof. All trellis areas, whether they are covered or not covered, shall respect all City setbacks and shall not exceed a maximum height of 12'-0". " P.C. Resolution No. 2011-13 Page 2 of? GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 234 Section 6: Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or by any portion of this decision may appeal to the City Council. Pursuant to Sections 17.02.040(C)(1)(g) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, any such appeal must be filed with the City, in writing, setting forth the grounds ofthe appeal and any specific actions requested by the appellant, and accompanied by the appropriate appeal fee, no later than fifteen (15) days following March 8, 2011, the date of the Planning Commission's final action. Section 7: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the Planning Commission ofthe City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby conditionally approves a Revision to Conditional Use Permit No. 206 (Planning Case No. ZON2010-00402) to allow the conversion of open-air trellises along Buildings 0, E and F to be converted to solid roofed canopy structures and outdoor dining areas to be permitted under two of said structures. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 8th day of March 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Emenhiser, Gerstner, Knight, Leon and Lewis NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: None RECUSSALS: None ABSENT: Vice Chairman Tetreault and Chairman Tomblin P.C. Resolution No. 2011-13 Page 3 of? GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 235 ~J~ Chairman P.C. Resolution No. 2011- 13 Pages· of 7 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 236 EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval Case No. ZON2010-00402 (Revision to CUP 206) GENERAL 1. Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, the applicant and/or property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have read, understand and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this approval. Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days following the date ofthis approval shall render this approval null and void. 2. The approval shall become null and void after one year from the date of approval, unless approved plans are submitted to the Building and Safety Division to initiate the "plan check" review process. 3. The proposed project, including site layout, the building heights, and signage throughout the site, shall be constructed and maintained in substantial compliance with the plans reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on March 8, 2011, as submitted by the applicant. 4. The Approval of Case No. ZON201 0-00402 (Revision to Conditional Use Permit No. 206) allows a remodel of three existing 459 square foot trellises located along the north side of Building 0, east side of Building E and south side of Building F to be converted from open air trellises to solid roofed covered patios. In addition two ofthe covered patios are permitted to be used for outdoor dining. 5. The Community Development Director is authorized to approve minor modifications to the approved plans or any of the conditions if such modifications achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with said plans and conditions. Otherwise, all other modifications shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission. 6. In the event that a Planning requirement and a Building & Safety requirement are in conflict with one another, the stricter standard shall apply. 7. The hours of construction shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. No construction shall be permitted on Sundays or on legal holidays. Further, trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining public rights-of way before 7:00 AM, Monday through Saturday, in accordance with the permitted hours of construction stated above. 8. The construction site shall be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that material used for immediate construction purposes. Such excess material may include, but is not limited to: the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap metal, concrete, asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or discarded furniture, appliances or other household fixtures. 9. All remaining parking stalls approved through Resolution 2008-56 (Trader Joe's) and the Admiral Risty improvements (Case No. ZON2009-00276) shall be completed prior to P.C. Resolution No. 2011-13 Page 5 of 7 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 237 issuance of a Building Permit for the new outdoor dining areas and covered patios approved through this CUP Revision. 10. The total parking spaces in the shopping center shall not be less than 307 spaces per the approved parking plan on file with the City. With the addition ofthe new outdoor dining areas approved through this CUP Revision, the Center's total parking demand has been determined to be 296 parking spaces. This demand is based on assumptions of the November 4,2008 Traffic Impact Study which was prepared as part ofthe Trader Joe's CUP Revision (Resolution No. 2008-56) and the Tenant List dated March 7, 2011 (presented to the Planning Commission on March 8, 2011). To ensure that the Center's overall parking demand does not exceed the available total number of parking spaces (307 spaces), all future tenants shall obtain approval by the Director prior to occupancy and/or issuance of a Building Permit for tenant improvements. In order to obtain Director approval, all future tenants shall present an updated tenant list that demonstrates to the Director that adding said tenant to the Center will not exceed the overall parking demand of 296 space. 11. Condition No. 20 of P.C. Resolution No. 99-40 shall be revised as follows: The outdoor dining area on the west side and adjacent to the three buildings off Palos Verdes West shall remain uncovered and open to the sky, with the exception of an open trellis. The outdoor dining areas on the north side of Building D and the south side of Building F may be covered with a solid roof and shall be permitted to have a maximum of 375 square feet of outdoor dining underneath each roof. All trellis areas, whether they are covered or not covered, shall respect all City setbacks and shall not exceed a maximum height of 12'-0" (modified from Condition No. 20 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 99 40). 12. All other conditions of approval contained in PC Resolution Nos. 99-39, 99-40, 2001-08, 2008-55 and 2008-56 shall remain in full force and affect. In the event of a conflict in the conditions of approval between the aforementioned PC Resolutions and the conditions of approval contained in this PC Resolution No. 2011-13, the conditions contained herein shall prevail and apply. 13. All outdoor dining areas shall remain open and shall not be allowed to be sectioned off or barricaded in a manner that restricts free passage by pedestrians. Any proposal to section off or barricade outdoor dining areas for the exclusive use by tenants shall require an approval of a CUP Revision by the Planning Commission pursuant to a duly noticed public hearing. 14. 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 3'·6" in height shall be increased in height and maintained as a solid 6'·0" tall wall that aesthetically matches the current 6'·0" tall wall portion. Said wall shall be increased to 6'·0" prior to issuance of a final certificate of occupancy for the new dining areas or prior to final of a building permit for the conversion ofthe open air trellis to solid covered patio approved by this CUP Revision. 15. Within 60 days of the current veterinarian tenant at 31236 Palos Verdes Drive West vacating P.C. Resolution No. 2011-13 Page 6 of 7 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 238 the premises,- the pedestrian access gate required by Condition No. 20 of Resolution No. 2008-56 shall be removed and the access gate replaced with a solid barrier wall to match the 6'-0" tall wall on either side. 16. No sooner than one (1) year after this approval, a review of the Golden Cove Center's operations shall be held by the Planning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing. At that time, conditions of approval related to the operation of the center may be added, deleted or modified. P.C. Resolution No. 2011-13 Page 7of7 GOLDEN COVE CENTER - 239