Loading...
CC RES 2015-063 RESOLUTION NO. 2015-63 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING IN PART THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING IN PART THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A FENCE/WALL PERMIT WITH A MODIFICATION THAT SECTION C BE NO TALLER THAN 4' IN HEIGHT AND BE COMPRISED OF A SOLID WOOD MATERIAL AT 29023 SPRUCEGROVE DRIVE (ZON2OI4- 00202 AND ZON2014-00415). WHEREAS, on May 22, 2014, the property owner (Darrel Hesser) obtained an approval for an after-the-fact Site Plan Review to legalize an 8' tall solid wall along the side property line between the edge of the 20' front yard setback and the applicant's rear building façade (ZON2014-00180); and, WHEREAS, on June 26, 2014, the Director approved a Fence/Wall Permit for an 8' tall combination wall along the side property line located between the applicant's rear building façade and the rear property line. Said wall consists of a 2'-6" tall framed acrylic portion on top of a 4' tall solid wood wall on top of an existing 1'-6" tall retaining wall (ZON2014-00202); and, WHEREAS, on July 11, 2014, the abutting property owners of 29029 Sprucegrove Drive (Hossein and Vicky Shahbazian) submitted a timely appeal, requesting that the Planning Commission overturn the Director's June 26th decision (ZON2014-00202) based on concerns related to the application process, view impairment, unpermitted retaining wall, and inconsistency with the Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, on August 12, 2014, the Planning Commission continued the appeal hearing to September 9, 2014 based on the impacted agenda and the applicant's availability; and, WHEREAS, on September 9, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2014-26, thereby denying the appeal and upholding the Director's decision to allow an 8' tall combination wall along the south side property line, between the applicant's rear building façade and the rear property line (ZON2014-00202); and, WHEREAS, on September 23, 2014, the abutting property owners of 29029 Sprucegrove Drive (Hossein and Vicky Shahbazian) submitted a timely appeal, requesting that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission's September 9th decision; and, WHEREAS, on October 14, 2014, the Director revoked the after-the-fact Fence/Wall Permit based on a procedural error (ZON2014-00180). More specifically, while a signed application, plans and an application fee is required at the time of application submittal, the application was processed without a signed application. Additionally, a notice of decision providing interested parties an appeal opportunity was not provided; and, WHEREAS, on October 31, 2014, a new after-the-fact Fence/Wall Permit was administratively approved to legalize an 8' tall combination wall along the south side property line between the edge of the 20' front yard setback and the applicant's rear building façade (ZON2014-00415); and, WHEREAS, on November 4, 2014, the City Council, pursuant to Staff's recommendation, remanded the appeal back to the Planning Commission so that the entire side wall (ZON2014-00202 and ZON2014-00415) could be reviewed as a single unit; and, WHEREAS, on November 17, 2014, the abutting property owners of 29029 Sprucegrove Drive (Hossein and Vicky Shahbazian) submitted a timely appeal, requesting that the Planning Commission overturn the Director's October 31st decision (ZON2014-00415) approving an after- the-fact Fence/Wall Permit; and, WHEREAS, on December 9, 2014, the Planning Commission continued the appeal hearing to February 10, 2015, to allow Staff to check with the Acting City Manager and the City Attorney about the ability to use the City's View Restoration Mediator to meet with the parties in attempt to resolve their differences; and, WHEREAS, on February 3, 2015, the City Council took no action to amend the View Restoration Mediator's contract to facilitate mediation on this project, since both the applicant and appellant stated that mediation would not be beneficial, thereby allowing the Planning Commission to continue with its consideration of the Fence/Wall Permit application appeal; WHEREAS, on February 10, 2015, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2015-05, thereby denying the appeal and upholding the Director's approval and reaffirming Planning Commission's original approval of Fence/Wall Permits with a modification that Section C be comprised of chain link material at 29023 Sprucegrove Drive (ZON2014-00202 and ZON2014-00415); and, WHEREAS, on March 19, 2015, a public notice of the April 21st City Council appeal hearing was mailed to property owners within a 500' radius from the subject property and was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News, pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code; and, WHEREAS, on April 21, 2015, the City Council held an appeal hearing and voted unanimously to continue the matter to July 21st with direction to Staff to work with both parties to achieve a consistent look between all sections of the wall (sections A, B, C and D), with a reduced maximum height of 4' for section C; 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), the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt under Class 3 (Section 15303); and, WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on July 21, 2015, 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 proposed project involves a barrier in the following heights and materials along the south side property line of 29023 Sprucegrove Drive: Resolution No. 2015-63 Page 2 of 7 A. Sections A (solid wood) — 5'-7" in height, as measured from the top of the existing retaining wall, at a length of 19' starting from the edge of the applicant's 20' front yard setback. B. Section B (solid wood) 6' in height, as measured from the top of the existing retaining wall, at a length of 37' starting from the end of Section A C. Section C (solid wood) — 4' in height, as measured from the top of the existing retaining wall, at a length of 23' starting from the end of Section B D. Section D (chain link) — 7' in height, as measured from adjacent grade, starting from the end of Section C to the rear property line. Section 2: A Fence/Wall Permit is warranted because: A. The solid wall would not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another property or a view from public property that has been identified in the City's General Plan or Coastal Specific Plans as a City-designated viewing area. More specifically, a reduced 4' tall solid wall for section C would not cause significant view impairment as only a minimal amount of the ocean view from the Appellants' viewing area (consisting of the rooms facing west along the rear facade of the Appellants' residence--living/dining room and two bedrooms and from the kitchen area) would be impaired. Additionally, when the entirety of the Appellants' view is considered, the proposed wall would be located in the far right periphery of the Appellants' view frame, and the remaining ocean and Catalina views would not be impaired from their viewing area. Additionally, from the viewing area of 29043 Sprucegrove Drive (Wang), there would be even less view impairment caused by the reduced 4' tall wall (section C) as it would be located in the right periphery of the view frame and the remaining ocean and Catalina views would not be impaired. Furthermore, there are no public properties in the vicinity that have a view across the proposed project area, and the subject property is not located within the City's coastal zone. Wall sections A, B and D, as conditioned, also do not impair protected views for the following reasons: sections A and B do not result in any view impairment because the only visible portion of the wall from the Appellants' residence is from the kitchen window. From this window, the only view available is of the Applicant's roof, sky, street of access and the adjacent manufactured slope of a neighboring property, which are not protected views under the Municipal Code. Section D also does not result in significant view impairment from the Appellants' viewing area because it is located primarily on the descending slope in the rear yard; accordingly, the majority of section D is not visible from the Appellants' viewing area and the portion that is visible is located in the far right periphery of the Appellants' view frame. Lastly, the privacy versus the view issue between the property owners appear to relate more to the Appellant's rear yard deck and the Applicant's rear yard trellis, neither of which are relevant to the fence/wall and the appeal. B. As demonstrated by the photographs that were presented to the City Council, which are part of the administrative record of this matter, there is no foliage on the Applicant's lot which exceeds 16' or the ridgeline of the primary structure, whichever is lower, that impairs a view from the viewing area of another parcel, or a view from public property that has been identified in the City's general plan or coastal specific plan as a city- designated viewing area. C. The placement or construction of the subject wall complies with all applicable standards and requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code and General Plan. More specifically, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.76.030(C)(b)(iii), "when combined, Resolution No. 2015-63 Page 3 of 7 the total height of a fence, freestanding wall or retaining wall may not exceed 8', as measured from grade on the lower side, and may not exceed 7', as measured from the grade on the higher side". The subject solidwall will not exceed 8' in height from the grade on the lower side at 29023 Sprucegrove Drive and will not exceed 7' from the abutting property's grade on the higher side at 29029 Sprucegrove Drive. Additionally, the City's General Plan, Policy No. 14 of the Urban Environment Element states the following: "Prohibit encroachment on existing scenic views reasonably expected by neighboring residents" Only the rear corner of the 4' tall section C would project into a minimal amount of ocean view at the periphery of the view frame of the abutting neighbors' (including Appellants') viewing area, while the remainder of the ocean and Catalina view would be preserved. Section 3: The Appellants submitted a letter on April 17, 2014, appealing the approval of the proposed Fence/Wall Permit for the following reasons: 1) the entire fence/wall should be considered as one unit and have the same measurements; 2) the fence/wall does not comply with Municipal Code requirements for walls; 3) uncertainty as to the location of the property boundary line should have required a determination by the Director prior to issuance of the erroneous permit and opportunity for appeal; 4) the Applicant previously had changed the pre-existing retaining wall and grade; 5) other actions by the City; and 6) an erroneous permit issued by the City was the cause of the original fence being destroyed and land taken from the Appellants by the Applicant. The City Council finds that the Appellants' grounds for appeal are not warranted, for the following reasons: A. The Appellants claim that the proposed fence/wall should be considered as a single unit and should have the same measurements. The City Council agrees with that the entire wall (wall sections A, B, C and D) should be considered as a single unit, which is why the original decision of the Planning Commission regarding wall sections A and B was remanded back to the Commission on November 4, 2014, thereby allowing a determination to be made at one time for the entirety of the fence/wall. However, the City Council disagrees with the Appellants' request to apply a uniform height to all of the sections of the proposed fence/wall because the existing retaining wall along the side yard between the applicant and appellants' property varies in height, and the view impacts to the Appellants' vary across said fence/wall, as is discussed above in Section 2A. B. The Appellants claim that the proposed fence/wall does not comply with Municipal Code requirements. More specifically, the Appellants explain in their appeal letter that the viewing area should include their living/dining room, master bedroom, second bedroom and kitchen as they all share the same view. The City Council agrees that the viewing area, as defined by Municipal Code Section 17.02.040.A.15, consists of all rooms facing west along the rear façade of the Appellants' residence (living/dining room and two bedrooms and looking west from the kitchen area) as they share the same view of the ocean and Catalina Island. The Appellants claim in their letter that wall section C (4' tall solid wood fence topped by a 2'-6" tall acrylic barrier) significantly impairs their view by destroying 100% of the Malibu and ocean view. However, wall section C was modified to be no taller than 4', and, therefore, the wall does not result in significant view impairment. The Appellants also claim that wall sections A and B significantly impair a view of the ocean and natural hillside across Sprucegrove Drive from their kitchen window. However, the only view from the kitchen window is of the Applicant's roof, sky, the street of access and the adjacent manufactured slope of a neighboring property, none of which are considered a protected view under the Municipal Code; therefore, wall Resolution No. 2015-63 Page 4 of 7 sections A and B do not result in any view impairment. The Appellants also state that the devaluation of their views cause a decrease in the value of their property. However, under the Municipal Code, property values are not considered as part of a decision whether to allow an improvement on a neighboring property. Lastly, the Appellants claim that the approvals for wall sections A, B, C, and D are inconsistent with General Plan Urban Environment Element Policy No. 14, which states: "Prohibit encroachment on existing scenic views reasonably expected by neighboring residents" As discussed above, no protected views are impacted by wall sections A, B and D and only a minimal amount of the periphery of the Appellants' ocean view is impaired by wall section C. Therefore, the wall heights for the proposed wall are consistent with the General Plan. C. The Appellants claim that uncertainty as to the location of the property line required a Director determination prior to issuance of the erroneous permit and the Appellants' opportunity to appeal. The "erroneous permit" referenced by the Appellants is the approval granted administratively for wall sections A and B in May 2014. There was a procedural error in said approval, which was subsequently revoked by the Director in October 2014. A new application was submitted for the same proposal; the City's procedures were properly followed, and it was approved again. Prior to the original approval of wall sections A and B in May 2014, the Appellants raised a concern regarding the property line location. Both the Applicant and the Appellants submitted surveys, which were prepared by the same company IWS, showing the existing retaining wall along the south side property line to be located entirely on the Applicant's property. As such, any uncertainty about the property boundary line between the Appellants' and the Applicant's properties was resolved through the submittal of surveys by both parties, which clearly demonstrate that the proposed wall is located entirely on the Applicant's property. D. The Appellants claim that the Applicant's grade and pre-existing retaining wall have been modified by the Applicant sometime in the past. Specifically, the Appellants claim that the applicant lowered the height of the pre-existing retaining wall and raised the height of the adjoining grade at the base of the retaining wall. However, the Municipal Code does not prevent a property owner from making such changes. To prevent future alteration of the existing retaining wall affecting the approved wall heights, a condition of approval has been added to attached Exhibit 'A', requiring Planning Division review for any future alterations to said wall. E. The Appellants claim that the City made false representations as to applications that were filed. The submittal requirements for a Fence/Wall Permit include a completed application signed by the property owner, plans and a fee. When the Applicant originally sought approval of wall sections A and B, the Applicant submitted plans and a fee, but not a completed application. Due to this procedural error, the Director revoked this approval and the Applicant was required to file a new "application," which included a completed application signed by the property owner, plans and fees. Subsequently, this application for wall sections A and B was approved by the Director and is part of the pending appeal. Because the Director revoked the prior approval, and the current application complies with the City's requirements, the prior procedural error has been corrected. F. The Appellants claim that the proposed wall cannot be considered an after-the-fact wall because the Applicant's pre-existing white-lattice fence was still in place. The term "after-the-fact" is used to describe applications for projects that have been initiated Resolution No. 2015-63 Page 5 of 7 without City approval. The application for wall sections A and B is considered an after- the-fact application, because portions of the Applicant's new wood fence already were constructed at the time of the submittal of the application. The review process for "after- the-fact" applications is exactly the same as for non-"after-the-fact" applications, except that the Applicant had to pay an additional penalty fee (double the application fee). Additionally, no City permits are needed for the demolition/removal of walls. G. The Appellants claim that the Planning Division knew about the Applicant's grading activities and ignored enforcing Municipal Code provisions thereby causing damage to the Appellants' drainage on their property. More specifically, the Appellants allege that the existing retaining wall between their property and the Applicant's property was modified without permits, approvals, and/or inspections. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.76.040 (Grading Permit) subsection C, grading approval is not required for: 1) an excavation, fill or combination thereof, less than 20 cubic yards; 2) an excavation or fill less than 3' in depth of natural grade; or 3) an excavation less than 10' below existing grade for the foundation or footings of a structure on a slope less than 35% and not involving a caisson foundation. The existing retaining wall that supports earth between the two abutting properties with an average building pad elevation difference of 2' does not require approval of a Grading Permit, especially given the existing height of the alleged modified retaining wall (ranging between 1'-6" and 2'-5"). Additionally, the minimal quantity of earth movement and the depth of cut or fill to modify the existing retaining wall at the current height (ranging between 1'-6" and 2'-5"), would not have required a Grading Permit, Building Permit or inspections by the City. Furthermore, any damage as a result of the alleged retaining wall modification is a civil matter to be resolved between the two parties. H. The Appellants claim that the City had knowledge that the pre-existing white-lattice fence had been constructed by them and that administrative approval of wall sections A and B in May 2014 caused the removal of the fence and land to be taken from Appellants by the Applicant. However, the City approval that was issued in May 2014 was for the installation of new wall sections A and B and not for the demolition or removal of any pre-existing fence. As is discussed in Paragraph G above, no City approval was required under the Municipal Code for the removal of said fence. Lastly, the approved wall sections A and B are located entirely on the Applicant's property, consistent with the surveys submitted by both the Applicant and the Appellants. 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 Procedures and other applicable short periods of limitation. Section 5: For the foregoing reasons, and based on all of the information in the administrative record and the findings of fact included in the Staff Reports, Minutes and other records of these proceedings, as reflected above, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby denies the appeal in part and upholds in part the Planning Commission's approval of a Fence/Wall Permit for the installation of a barrier along the south side property line of 29023 Sprucegrove Drive, subject to the modified conditions set forth in the attached Exhibit 'A' (Case Nos. ZON2014-00202 and ZON2014-00415), which is incorporated herein and made a part hereof by this reference. Resolution No. 2015-63 Page 6 of 7 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of July 2015. et Attest / /' City Clerk State of California ) County of Los Angeles )ss City of Rancho Palos Verdes ) I, Carla Morreale, the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2015-63 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on July 21, 2015. iC / //1C__ City Clerk Resolution No. 2015-63 Page 7 of 7 RESOLUTION NO. 2015-63 - EXHIBIT 'A' CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ATF FENCE/WALL PERMIT (ZON2014-00202 and ZON2014-00415) 29023 SPRUCEGROVE DRIVE 1. This approval is for a solid wood a barrier along the south side property line consisting of the following sections, materials and heights: i. Sections A (solid wood) — 5'-7" in height, as measured from the top of the existing retaining wall, at a length of 19' starting from the edge of the applicant's 20' front yard setback. ii. Section B (solid wood) —6' in height, as measured from the top of the existing retaining wall, at a length of 37' starting from the end of Section A iii. Section C (solid wood)—4' in height, as measured from the top of the existing retaining wall, at a length of 23' starting from the end of Section B iv. Section D (chain link) — 7' in height, as measured from adjacent grade, starting from the end of Section C to the rear property line. Any future alterations to the existing retaining wall shall require Planning Division review and approval. 2. Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, the Applicant and the 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 decision. Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void. 3. Prior to conducting any work in the public right of way, such as for curb cuts, dumpsters, temporary improvements and/or permanent improvements, the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works. 4. Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws and regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code shall apply. 5. The Community Development Director is authorized to make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions of approval if such modifications will achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with the approved plans and conditions. Otherwise, any substantive change to the project shall require approval of a revision by the final body that approved the original project, which may require new and separate environmental review. 6. The project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards contained in these conditions of approval or, if not addressed herein, shall conform to the residential development standards of the City's Municipal Code, including, but not limited to height, setback and lot coverage standards. 7. Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be cause to revoke the approval of the project pursuant to the revocation procedures contained in Section 17.86.060 of the City's Municipal Code. 8. If the applicant has not submitted an application for a building permit for the approved project or not commenced the approved project as described in Section 17.86.070 of the City's Municipal Code within one year of the final effective date of this decision, approval of the project shall expire and be of no further effect unless, prior to expiration, a written request for extension is filed and approved by the Community Development Director. 9. In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations and/or requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter standard shall apply. 10. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be completed in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the City with the effective date of this decision. 11. The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets 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 not be 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. 12. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, 9:00AM to 5:00PM on Saturday, with no construction activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section 17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. During demolition, construction and/or grading operations, trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining street rights- of-way before 7AM Monday through Friday and before 9AM on Saturday, in accordance with the permitted hours of construction stated in this condition. When feasible to do so, the construction contractor shall provide staging areas on-site to minimize off-site transportation of heavy construction equipment. These areas shall be located to maximize the distance between staging activities and neighboring properties, subject to approval by the building official. 13. All grading, landscaping and construction activities shall exercise effective dust control techniques, either through screening and/or watering. 14. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly manner, to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official. All construction waste and debris resulting from a construction, alteration or repair project shall be removed on a weekly basis by the contractor or property owner. Existing or temporary portable bathrooms shall be provided during construction. Portable bathrooms shall be placed in a location that will minimize disturbance to the surrounding property owners, to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official. Resolution No. 2015-63 Exhibit A Page 2 of 2