Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
CC SR 20170418 03 - 30931 Cartier Drive Fence Wall Permit
CITY OFi�RANCHO PALOS VERDES PUBLIC HEARING Date: April 18, 2017 Subject: Consideration and Possible Action to Deny an Appeal and Uphold the Planning Commission's Approval of a Fence/Wall Permit for a 6' -Tall Wall Along the Easterly Property Line of 30931 Cartier Drive (Case No. ZON2016-00475) Subject Property: 30931 Cartier Drive 1. Report of Notice Given: City Clerk 2. Request for Staff Report: Mayor Campbell 3. Staff Report & Recommendation: Associate Planner Silva 4. Council Questions of Staff (factual only, no opinions): 5. Declare the Hearing Open: Mayor Campbell 6. Public Testimony: Mayor Campbell invites brief comments from the public. Appellant: Chandru & Bina Sujan Applicant: Shigeo & Mieko Kadowaki 7. Council Questions of speakers — (factual only): 8. Rebuttal: Mayor Campbell invites brief rebuttals. 9. Declare Hearing Closed: Mayor Campbell 10. Council Deliberation: Questions of staff in response to testimony and deliberation. 11. Council Action: 1 RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 04/18/2017 AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Public Hearing AGENDA DESCRIPTION: Consideration and possible action to deny an appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's approval of a Fence/Wall Permit for a 6' -tall wall along the easterly property line of 30931 Cartier Drive (Case No. ZON2016-00475). RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: (1) Adopt Resolution No. 2017-; denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission's approval of a Fence/Wall Permit for a 6' -tall wall along the easterly property line of 30931 Cartier Drive (Case No. ZON2016-00475). FISCAL IMPACT: None Amount Budgeted: N/A Additional Appropriation: N/A Account Number(s): N/A ORIGINATED BY: Octavio Silva, Associate Planner. REVIEWED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, Director of Community Development,; APPROVED BY: Doug Wilmore, City Manager Vklj ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: A B C D E Resolution No. 2017- with Conditions of Approval (page A-1) Appeal Letter (page B-1) P.C. Resolution No. 2017-02 with Conditions of Approval (page C-1) RPVMC Section 17.76.030(B)(3) (page D-1) P.C. Staff Report (Appeal of Director's Decision), dated January 24, 2017 (page E-1) F. Updated Property Survey, dated March 20, 2017 (page F-1) G. Appellants' Additional Information (page G-1) H. Applicants' Response to the Appeal (page H-1) I. RPVMC Section 17.86.060 (page 1-1) BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: A Fence/Wall Permit is only required in cases where a proposed fence or wall may create a potential view impairment. On October 25, 2016, the Director of Community Development conditionally approved a Fence/Wall Permit for the construction of a 6' -tall solid block wall along the east side property line of the Kadowakis' property (30931 Cartier Drive) because the proposed wall would not result in a view impairment from 2 neighboring properties and the required findings in Municipal Code Section 17.76.030(B)(3) could be made (Attachment D). The Sujans, the abutting neighbors to the east (30937 Cartier Drive) filed a timely appeal of the Director's approval. On January 24, 2017, the Planning Commission held an appeal hearing and adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2017-02 (Attachment C), unanimously denying the appeal and upholding the Director's approval of the Fence/Wall Permit. More detailed background, site and project descriptions are included in the January 24, 2017, Planning Commission Staff report (Attachment E). The Sujans subsequently filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of their appeal (Attachment B). The Sujans contend that the Kadowaki Fence/Wall Permit should be revoked pursuant to RPVMC Sections 17.86.060(B) and (C) (Attachment 1), as opposed to appealed on the basis that the Kadowakis' request does not affirmatively meet all of the required findings for a Fence/Wall Permit. On March 30, 2017, a public notice was mailed to owners of property within a 500 -foot radius of the subject site and published in the Peninsula News. Other than additional information submitted by both the Applicants (the Kadowakis) and the Appellants (the Sujans), which is described in more detail below, Staff received one phone call supporting the proposed project in response to the public notice. This item is a quasi-judicial decision in which the City Council is being asked to affirm whether specific findings of fact can be made in order to support approval of a development application (Attachment D). Pursuant to RPVMC Section 17.80.070(F) (De Novo Review), the City Council appeal hearing is not limited to consideration of the materials presented to the Planning Commission. Any matter or evidence relating to the action on the application, regardless of the specific issue appealed, may be reviewed by the City Council at the appeal hearing. Bases for the Appeal The Appellants assert that the Planning Commission's denial of their appeal of the Director's approval of the 6' -tall wall should be reversed and the appeal upheld by the City Council, pursuant to RPVMC Sections 17.86.060(B) and (C) for the seven (7) reasons listed below in bold (followed by Staff's responses). 1) The approval of the Fence/Wall Permit was based on incorrect, fraudulent and inconsistent information. Staff Response: The Appellants claim that the Applicants' submitted survey is at an unreadable scale and contains inconsistent information. More specifically, the Appellants assert that the original Director -approved survey at a scale of 1 "=15' is unreadable and inconsistently depicts the Appellants' existing wall at both 0.15' and 0.12' away from the shared side property line. In response, the Applicants submitted an updated survey at a 1/8"=1" scale (Attachment F), which the Appellants acknowledge is now readable. While the inconsistent information may have been an inadvertent 3 mistake on the surveyor's part, the accuracy of the information depicting the Appellants' property is not necessary to evaluate the proposed request on the Applicants' property. Accordingly, the Applicant submitted a revised survey that removed all non -relevant information about the Appellants' property. No other changes have been made to the survey. The updated survey no longer contains any inconsistent information and it is Staff's belief that the Appellants' concern has been clarified. Since the proposed Fence/Wall Permit is for the construction of a 6' -tall wall located entirely on the Applicants' property, the City does not need nor rely upon any information regarding existing structures on the Appellants' property. 2) The Applicants have misled the City by showing that the Appellants' surcharge -bearing retaining wall is not connected to the main structure of the home on the survey. Staff Response: The Appellants indicate that the Applicants' survey does not show their existing retaining wall connected to their house (i.e., main structure). As described above, the Applicants have submitted an updated survey that removes all non -relevant information about the Appellants' property, which is unnecessary for evaluating the proposed project. 3) The Applicants' survey is not consistent. Staff Response: The Appellants claim that the original survey inconsistently showed the distance between the shared property line and their existing retaining wall as both 0.15' and 0.12'. As described above, the Applicants have submitted an updated survey that removes all non -relevant information about the Appellants' property, which is unnecessary for evaluating the proposed project 4) A Minor Grading Permit should have been required for the Applicants' previous excavation work. Staff Response: Prior to filing the Fence/Wall Permit application, an allegation was made to the City that the Applicants were conducting unpermitted work on their property. The Code Enforcement Division investigated the alleged violation and confirmed that foundation -related excavation was occurring for the construction of a future wall. The Appellants assert that the excavation required a Minor Grading Permit and exempting such work resulted in damage to the existing retaining wall on their property. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.76.040(C)(7), an excavation less than 10 feet below existing grade for the foundation or footings of a structure is exempt from the requirement for a Grading Permit. Therefore, the Applicants were not required to obtain a Grading Permit. Furthermore, the Appellants' claim for damage to the existing retaining wall as a result of the Applicants' excavation is a civil matter between the two property owners and is not germane to making the required findings for a Fence/ Wall Permit, which the City Council is being asked to affirm as part of this appeal hearing. El 5) A Major Grading Permit should have been required for the Applicants' previous excavation work. Staff Response: The Appellants assert that the excavation work that was conducted prior to the processing of the Fence/Wall application required a Major Grading Permit because the on-site drainage flow has been altered by the Applicants' placement of railroad ties that continue to damage the Appellants' existing retaining wall along the shared side property line. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.76.040(B)(2)(C), a Major Grading Permit is required when an excavation or fill encroaches on or alters a natural drainage channel or watercourse. As the Applicants' property was previously graded for the construction of the residence and related site improvements, the property no longer contains a natural drainage channel or watercourse, so a Major Grading Permit for the previous excavation work was not required. Furthermore, the Appellants' claim for continuous damage to their existing retaining wall as a result of the Applicants' excavation is a civil matter between the two property owners and is not germane to making the required findings for a Fence/ Wall Permit, which the City Council is being asked to affirm as part of this appeal hearing. 6) A Remedial Grading Permit with a soils report should have been required for the Applicants' backfill work of the previously -excavated area. Staff Response: As previously discussed, the Applicants conducted foundation - related excavation work in preparation for the construction of a future wall prior to filing the pending Fence/Wall Permit application. Since that time, the applicants have backfilled the exposed foundation trenches and returned the excavated area to what Staff believes to be the original site condition. Pursuant to Section 17.76.040(B)(3), a Remedial Grading Permit is required for excavations, fill or any redistribution of earth materials for the purpose of enhancing soil stability and reducing geotechnical hazards due to natural land movement or the presence of natural hazards. Since the Applicants' excavation was intended for the foundation of a future wall and not for the purpose of enhancing soil stability or addressing geotechnical hazards due to natural issues, a Remedial Grading Permit and a soils report was not required. 7) The Applicant's previous excavation and backfill work resulted in severe damage to the Appellant's wall and there was no penalty fee assessed for this application. Staff Response: As previously discussed, the Appellants' claim for any damage to their existing retaining wall as a result of the Applicants' excavation is a civil matter between the two property owners and is not germane to making the required findings for a Fence/ Wall Permit. As for penalty fees, the Applicants' wall was never constructed and the only work that occurred was the excavation for the foundation, which is exempt from a Grading Permit. Therefore, the requested Fence/Wall application is not considered "after -the -fact" and penalty fees do not apply. 5 Based on the foregoing discussion, Staff believes that the stated grounds for the appeal concern civil issues between the Appellants and the Applicants, which fall outside the purview of the Planning Division, the Planning Commission, or the City Council. The Appellants have not suggested or proved that the granting of the Fence/Wall Permit is not warranted based upon the required findings for approval in Municipal Code Section 17.76.030(B)(3). Therefore, Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's decision to deny the appeal and approve the requested Fence/Wall Permit. The required Findings that the proposed wall will not significantly impair a view from another property (as summarized in the attached Resolution) can be made (Attachment A). ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Correspondence from the Appellants Since the filing of the appeal, the Appellants submitted additional letters with attachments that further discuss the merits of their appeal (Attachment G). In their most recent letter dated April 6, 2017, the Appellants assert that the Applicants' submittal of revised surveys is evidence that the Applicants acknowledge submission of incorrect information to the City. As previously discussed, the revised surveys submitted by the Applicants simply changed the scale so as to be legible (as requested by the Appellants) and eliminated all non -relevant references to any improvements on the Appellants' property. No changes were made to the location, setback, and length of the Applicant's proposed wall in any of the revised surveys, which remains the same as the plan approved by both the Community Development Director and the Planning Commission. Other than this, the Appellants did not submit any new information or evidence that has not already been discussed. Applicants' Response to the Appeal In response to the Appellants' appeal, the Applicants submitted the following: a letter from John H. Riahi, the Applicants' land surveyor, attesting to the accuracy of his survey; a letter from Tony S.C. Lee, Project Engineer, which provides a geotechnical opinion of the Applicants' efforts to backfill the previously exposed trench; and photographs from the recent rain showing how the water flows from the Appellants' property directly on the Applicants' property (Attachment H). Public Comments On March 31, 2017, the Planning Division received a phone message from Dave Shimmer, a resident at 30936 Cartier Drive, who expressed support for the Applicants' proposed wall. on ALTERNATIVES: In addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternative actions are available for the City Council's consideration: 1. Approve the Appeal, thereby overturning the Planning Commission's approval of Planning Case No. ZON2016-00475 (FenceMall Permit) and direct Staff to return to the City Council with a revised Resolution at the May 2, 2017, City Council Meeting. 2. Modify the Appeal and direct Staff to return to the City Council with a revised Resolution at the May 2, 2017, City Council Meeting. This action would entitle the Appellants to a refund of one-half of their appeal fee. 3. Identify any issues of concern with the proposed project, provide Staff and/or the Applicants with direction in modifying the project, and continue the public hearing to a date certain. 7 RESOLUTION NO. 2017- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A FENCE/WALL PERMIT FOR A 6' -TALL WALL ALONG THE EASTERLY SIDE PROPERTY LINE OF 30931 CARTIER DRIVE (CASE NO. ZON2016-00475). WHEREAS, on September 28, 2016, the City's Code Enforcement Division received a complaint about the construction of a wall located at 30931 Cartier Drive. The same day, Code Enforcement Staff informed the property owners of the subject property, Shiego and Mikeo Kadowaki, that a Fence/ Wall Permit may be required for the construction of the proposed wall and that they should contact the City's Planning Division for further assistance; and, WHEREAS, on October 5, 2016, the applicant submitted a Fence/ Wall Permit application for the construction of a 6' -high freestanding solid block wall along the east side property line; and, WHEREAS, on October 25, 2016, the Community Development Director conditionally approved the Fence/Wall Permit based on a determination that there would be no significant view impacts as a result of the proposed 6' -tall wall on the Applicants' property and issued a Notice of Decision (ZON2016-00475); and, WHEREAS, on November 9, 2016, a timely appeal of the Fence/ Wall Permit (Case No. ZON2016-00475) was filed by the owners of the abutting easterly property at 30937 Cartier Drive, Chandru and Bina Sujan; and, WHEREAS, on January 24, 2017, the Planning Commission held an appeal hearing and adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2017-02, unanimously denying the appeal and upholding the Director's approval of the Fence/Wall Permit for the 6' -tall wall at 30931 Cartier Drive; and, WHEREAS, on February 8, 2017, a timely appeal of the Fence/Wall Permit (Case No. ZON2016-00475) was filed by the Sujans; and, WHEREAS, on March 30, 2017, a public notice was mailed to property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the subject property and published in the Peninsula News, pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code; 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 A-1 Substances Statement), the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt under Class 3 (Section 15303); and, WHEREAS, on April 18, 2017, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing, 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 City Council hereby denies the appeal and upholds the Planning Commission's approval to conditionally allow the construction of a 6' -tall freestanding solid block wall that extends 52' in length, as measured beyond the 20' front yard setback towards the south or rear of the subject property, along the northerly (front) and easterly (side) property lines. More specifically, the solid wall is designed to follow a "L" shape alignment, with 12 -feet of the solid fence located outside the 20 -foot front yard setback running parallel to the north (front) property line and the remaining 40 -feet of the solid fence running along the easterly (side) property line. The Applicants' request, and the Director's approval, does not include the construction of a fence within the 20'-0" front yard setback area of the subject property, whereby structures are limited to 42" in height. The proposed wall meets the findings required by Section 17.76.030 (13)(3) for the issuance of a Fence/Wall Permit as the fence would not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another property or a view from public property, which has been identified in the City's General Plan or Coastal Specific Plan, as a designated viewing area. In addition, there is no foliage on the Applicants' lot which exceeds 16' in height 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 the public property which has been identified in the City's General Plan or Coastal Specific Plan, as a city -designated viewing area. The placement and construction of the wall complies with all applicable standards and requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code and General Plan. Section 2: The City Council hereby finds that the grounds raised by the Appellants to deny the Fence/Wall Permit concern property damage claims, which are a civil matter between the two property owners and do not fall under Planning Division's, Planning Commission's or City Council's purview. Furthermore, the Appellants' claims regarding earthwork on the Applicants' property are unfounded, as the excavation of wall footings are exempt from a Grading Permit; no natural drainage channels or watercourses are affected by the proposed excavation; and the proposed excavation is not for the purpose of enhancing soil stability or addressing geotechnical hazards due to natural issues. Lastly, the Applicants have provided an updated land survey of the subject property that provides clarification and a scale detail on the distance of the proposed wall to the easterly side property line. The updated survey has also eliminated non -relevant information with respect to the Appellants' property as this information is not required for the issuance of a Fence/Wall Permit on the Applicants' property. Resolution No. 2017 - Page 2 of 5 A-2 Section 3: The City Clerk shall certify to the passage, approval, and adoption of this Resolution, and shall cause this Resolution and her certification to be entered in the Book of Resolutions of the City Council. 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 or other applicable short periods of limitation. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this th day of April 2017. Brian Campbell, Mayor ATTEST: Emily Colborn, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ) I, Emily Colborn, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2017-, was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on April 18, 2017. CITY CLERK Resolution No. 2017 - Page 3 of 5 A-3 EXHIBIT 'A' CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PLANNING CASE NO. ZON2016-00475 (30931 CARTIER DRIVE) 1. 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 Resolution. Failure to provide said written statement within thirty (30) days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void. 2. The applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other actions and proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolutions procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and other such procedures) (collectively "Actions"), brought against the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City), for or concerning the project. 3. 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. 4. 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 or administrative citations as described in Section 1.16 of the City's Municipal Code. 5. 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 180 days 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 with the Community Development Department and approved by the Director. 6. 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 Resolution No. 2017 - Page 4 of 5 shall apply. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Mondays through Fridays, and 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturdays, 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. Trucks and other construction vehicles 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. 10. This approval is for a 6'-0" high solid block fence that extends 52'-0" in length, as measured from the 20'-0" front yard setback line towards the south or rear of the subject property, along the easterly property line. 11. The applicant's request does not include the construction of a fence within the 20'- 0" front yard setback along the easterly property line. However, the construction of a fence within the subject property's front yard setback would be limited to 42" in height. 12. Construction of the approved project shall substantially comply with the plans originally stamped APPROVED on October 21, 2016 and the revised plans dated received on March 20, 2017, and with the RS -2 zoning district and site development standards of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. 13. The Director determined that the approved 6'-0" solid block fence does not cause a significant view impairment from the viewing area (main living area) of the only potentially affected property located at 30937 Cartier Drive, and thus the fence/wall permit can be approved per RPVDC Section 17.76.030.B.2.a. Resolution No. 2017 - Page 5 of 5 A-5 APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL: CONDITIONAL APPROVAL (ZON201600475) Applicant: Mieko & Shigeo Kadowaki Appellant: Chandru & Bina Sujan 30931 Cartier Drive 30937 Cartier Drive "Kadowakis" C "Sujans" (310) 251-7704 Appellants believe the city council appeal hearing is not limited to consideration of the material presented to the planning commission, and any matter of evidence may be reviewed by the city council. Appellants understand City of RPV view that: 1. Property Line Dispute is a Civil Issue. 2. Damage inflicted for work without permits by neighbors is a Civil Issue. Appellants are not addressing the City Council for these issues. As residents of RPV for 39 years, we are here to plead that the City of RPV should not rely on incorrect information by ignoring Muni Code 17.86.060 (B) (C), and give decisions "Contrary to the provisions of the Municipal Code", presented in this Appeal as 7 "Grounds For Appeal", specially after the correct information is brought before the City. r 11 1 r '10 ti �i (, [j (,'fXA',WJNH)-Y DEVELOPMENT DE;PARTMEieT 115 I. GROUND FOR APPEAL: MUNI CODE 17.86.060 (B) (C) This Code states: "The officer or body taking final action granting any permit pursuant to the provision of this title may, after following the same procedures utilized for approving such a permit, revoke or suspend the permit if the permit was issued on the basis of incorrect or fraudulent information supplied by the Applicant" or the permit was issued contrary to the provisions of the Municipal Code. " Attachment "A": Applicant submitted unreadable survey at Scale: 1" = 15' Attachment "B": We submit the revised survey at a readable Scale: 1/8" = F This result in "B " was achieved at 2 reputable Computer Aided Design Companies. We have 2 payment receipts from these 2 companies, available for your verification. SPECIFIC ACTION BEING REQUESTED We respectfully ask that City verify the incorrect/fraudulent survey in Attachment "A". The distance (0.12' + 0.10' = 2.64") between the two walls has been drawn only from a "No Scale" drawing. Words "Incorrect/Fraudulent" are from the Muni Code. The revised survey shows the same distance between the two walls as (0.5'+ 0.5'= 12 inches). This is shown in Attachments "B" & "C" for the City Council. This is proof that Applicant's survey is incorrect/fraudulent. Therefore, we respectfully request that the permit be revoked/suspended per Muni Code 17.86.060. 2/5 II. GROUND FOR APPEAL: MUNI CODE 17.86.060. Relevant Muni Code text is reproduced in item # I in this Appeal. Applicants have misled the City by showing that our Surcharge Bearing Retaining Wall is not connected to the main structure of our home. This is important, considering that the Applicants have seriously damaged our Surcharge Bearing Retaining Wall, by trying to build the wall 2.64" away instead of 12" away, as explained in item # I in this appeal. SPECIFIC ACTION BEING REQUESTED City says damage to our retaining wall is a civil matter. However, accepting incorrect/fraudulent information is cause for damages to our property, and cause to exercise Muni Code cited above and revoke/suspend Applicant's permit. Such action by the City Council will avoid any further very expensive damay_e to our property as explained in our Geotechnical Report (Attachment "D"). III. GROUND FOR APPEAL: MUNI CODE 17.86.060. The Applicants survey has contradictions: - In the "Scaled" survey, the distance between the Property Line & the wall is 0.15' In the "No Scale" survey, the distance between the Property Line & the wall is 0.12' SPECIFIC ACTION BEING REQUESTED The survey presented by the Applicant is "Incorrect." Therefore, we request that the City Council exercise the Muni Code 17.86.060, and revoke/suspend Applicants permit. 3/5 IV. GROUND FOR APPEAL: DEVELOPMENT CODE 17.76.040 Section I: Requires a Minor Grading Permit for any excavation 3-5 feet. Please see Planning Staff Report page 30. The digging in this area was between 4 & 5 feet. No Grading Permit was obtained by the Applicants (Attachment "E" refers). This exception granted by the City to the Applicants has resulted in damage to the Surcharge Retaining Wall, which has to be replaced with a new Retaining Wall. SPECIFIC ACTION BEING REQUESTED This exception is "Contrary to the provisions of the Muni Code 17.86.060" cited in item # I in this Appeal. Therefore, we request that the permit be revoked/suspended. V. GROUND FOR APPEAL: MUNI CODE 17.76.040 Section II: A Major Grading Permit is required (Attachment "E") to encroach or alter water flow channels. Please see page 106 of the City Planning Staff Report. It shows that water channels have been altered by placing 6 long railroad ties by the Applicant. This increases damage to our Surcharge Bearing Retaining Wall, every rainy day. SPECIFIC ACTION BEING REQUESTED This exception by the City is "Contrary to the provisions of the Muni Code 17.86.060" cited in item #I in this Appeal. Therefore, we request that the permit be revoked/suspended. 4/5 VI. GROUND FOR APPEAL: MUNI CODE 17.76.040 Section III: A Remedial Grading Permit with a Soils Report is required (Attachment "E") to do a refill operation. Applicants did a refill operation about November 15, 2016 with information to the City. The City made an exception, for the Applicants not to obtain a Remedial Grading Permit with a soils report. SPECIFIC ACTION BEING REQUESTED The City's exception is "Contrary to the provisions of the Muni Code 17.86.060" cited in item #I in this Appeal. Therefore, we request that the permit be revoked/suspended. VII. GROUND FOR APPEAL: MUNI CODE 17.86.080 The Applicants carried out all the work without permits, which resulted in severe damage to our property, and will need removal and replacement of the Retaining Wall. There is no fee/penalty charged. SPECIFIC ACTION BEING REQUESTED This exception by the City is "Contrary to the provisions of Muni Code 17.86.60" cited in item #I in this Appeal. Therefore, we request that the permit be revoked/suspended. Respectful Request We are concerned that the City has granted multiple "Exceptions" (7 shown in this Appeal)) to the Applicants, at the cost of destroying our property, and inflicting further damages if this permit is granted. Therefore, we request the City Council to revoke/suspend the permit to save our home. 5/5 r L f 1 0 IN who, N 68" zz' At 6&• zz' 43" IN � � o a a L ro s U M s 10_ m DD M � a f� 5* o, - 2 M - d 0 who, N 68" zz' At 6&• zz' 43" IN tl cn r c/r: Z r R� o • 'V► l Cc' o '� rh Z• 0 it �4.32' ek ` • { t( ❑ �� � = � d v s. a nJ' ch - 3 to _00 (� y1 Q Run W av t to `i n� 4 Ly% lV 61' 0,%'S4 r �S SLAVLA}r Ah 1 -` Lt '- El6•';�9���' Tr,fcc Nr 2s313, M•g• g � 9a. N lbgo2 -"C WNi' iT1fi?',;0.� !REGIS : '`� l2 q3'1(/ ni I'1 _ 1n �" t, C�+l� .oON i fi v, o in ry o ca ro '' fl C7 �y CM3n cp CSD :* 0 � �, �, © c � � � ��'� �� �ry J r, 6• f7T � � �° ��' �� � � � t o Q C7 sn r N Ofi O O y - 8 [i ¢ R•tsa �' � C y , y w � � � `� � J � ,�II�, "�i,�� '4S,�c ` ,D or •t 5 �+�ji a �i r i+ry j CD M `h • • k� C.3 -+. R► C I IA $��:,j( .�c 5,7 �. r � ,�. o �L rte' �nqy o .p, p to ����� C.0 b = t -� rL i ��w %~ + rry.r. r;- TJF� �. �t%'� i r'/ 1. �' of •sng°a• s ff1 _ •f +h r ^e 9vi iat Z -w ri: 47 v C" "L r' +Ls} .rl.., r� �,• �_it'. rod.%fin �,.r' r1V%5. u"d�'� h /! `Cy'�'!' �i8' � �Jf�G. `'✓i� � "� �"]�j A� , wrj '�? i� stair t �r ti ^. =•u7r.% zlN.gpoi3„ly 7� _ ,3� �C7 O 1 f~/) '��1 b t y �, Ch P� �' W ` 51 O 7c1v ll�{J CD 6D�' "�zr v'" 7 '1 +r'11 �,�,n �1. -1 '�1%1 y �• 4 x7 Q W O cp /DS'70 �t/ m �1AL�u �` ��Z �� ��EP l�0 4�0 iv cn ^J A; CC w CD 1�.rA' !3 DO � O o C -� c� p d Q :Dczan =: sl} O 1 ,Ir 9� \ i< .� gel' CD U,' w C-11 CDw K M : • m vA x c -► ' m � N v J . \A h.._•,. 7 55 .t roa a / yam.' �; m -',01 °i o w y ! C �, ' _ s 23. •rr o� ! RQrq �• � m w � �' a G�! my 'i, /� 1 r_ ��,° 5' [T�7 o I n -zip ["1 '� O LL` M co .b .ro W W l carJ'r/„ .r �i� fJ7 (� O ri,_ w b C7t A) CO •D V os t P 4 _ _ c CDt,, / 31co V ti t~ r ti f `^ a ro cr nC7� s• .kl u �'''� 1i 0 "!)PO LF .3 , I to LTIr� CD CDD ° r' o � W ! ` s � �,N�,�� �fc �~ •: � W cp n T R ACT NO 25313 p � `C -0 Q� � � D'�44 "0 : cam �� M.B, fi54-93-96 PARCEL MAPfn a � ® vz a rs lA� i -47—' 5—' IS Q 1 (cD a CDcZ ti=�•a ® .� f },, 6�°O'�° SSW � -, �. •�a q ..� i `� r �'LY`LtNz Cry�F ,� ii` �AS�tyt�NT ao O`�9a � �. ' '� '"` '�, S tt1TA iy rlO)ER P[!RR"r�ES: FOR •9 rah e-� � dr• � !d+ �h�`-�ti ��� � � r � � o a a L r` s U M s 10_ m DD M � f� 5* - 2 M - d E 13 n tl cn r c/r: Z r R� o • 'V► l Cc' o '� rh Z• 0 it �4.32' ek ` • { t( ❑ �� � = � d v s. a nJ' ch - 3 to _00 (� y1 Q Run W av t to `i n� 4 Ly% lV 61' 0,%'S4 r �S SLAVLA}r Ah 1 -` Lt '- El6•';�9���' Tr,fcc Nr 2s313, M•g• g � 9a. N lbgo2 -"C WNi' iT1fi?',;0.� !REGIS : '`� l2 q3'1(/ ni I'1 _ 1n �" t, C�+l� .oON i fi v, o in ry o ca ro '' fl C7 �y CM3n cp CSD :* 0 � �, �, © c � � � ��'� �� �ry J r, 6• f7T � � �° ��' �� � � � t o Q C7 sn r N Ofi O O y - 8 [i ¢ R•tsa �' � C y , y w � � � `� � J � ,�II�, "�i,�� '4S,�c ` ,D or •t 5 �+�ji a �i r i+ry j CD M `h • • k� C.3 -+. R► C I IA $��:,j( .�c 5,7 �. r � ,�. o �L rte' �nqy o .p, p to ����� C.0 b = t -� rL i ��w %~ + rry.r. r;- TJF� �. �t%'� i r'/ 1. �' of •sng°a• s ff1 _ •f +h r ^e 9vi iat Z -w ri: 47 v C" "L r' +Ls} .rl.., r� �,• �_it'. rod.%fin �,.r' r1V%5. u"d�'� h /! `Cy'�'!' �i8' � �Jf�G. `'✓i� � "� �"]�j A� , wrj '�? i� stair t �r ti ^. =•u7r.% zlN.gpoi3„ly 7� _ ,3� �C7 O 1 f~/) '��1 b t y �, Ch P� �' W ` 51 O 7c1v ll�{J CD 6D�' "�zr v'" 7 '1 +r'11 �,�,n �1. -1 '�1%1 y �• 4 x7 Q W O cp /DS'70 �t/ m �1AL�u �` ��Z �� ��EP l�0 4�0 iv cn ^J A; CC w CD 1�.rA' !3 DO � O o C -� c� p d Q :Dczan =: sl} O 1 ,Ir 9� \ i< .� gel' CD U,' w C-11 CDw K M : • m vA x c -► ' m � N v J . \A h.._•,. 7 55 .t roa a / yam.' �; m -',01 °i o w y ! C �, ' _ s 23. •rr o� ! RQrq �• � m w � �' a G�! my 'i, /� 1 r_ ��,° 5' [T�7 o I n -zip ["1 '� O LL` M co .b .ro W W l carJ'r/„ .r �i� fJ7 (� O ri,_ w b C7t A) CO •D V os t P 4 _ _ c CDt,, / 31co V ti t~ r ti f `^ a ro cr nC7� s• .kl u �'''� 1i 0 "!)PO LF .3 , I to LTIr� CD CDD ° r' o � W ! ` s � �,N�,�� �fc �~ •: � W cp n T R ACT NO 25313 p � `C -0 Q� � � D'�44 "0 : cam �� M.B, fi54-93-96 PARCEL MAPfn a � ® vz a rs lA� i -47—' 5—' IS Q 1 (cD a CDcZ ti=�•a ® .� f },, 6�°O'�° SSW � -, �. •�a q ..� i `� r �'LY`LtNz Cry�F ,� ii` �AS�tyt�NT ao O`�9a � �. ' '� '"` '�, S tt1TA iy rlO)ER P[!RR"r�ES: FOR •9 rah e-� � dr• � !d+ �h�`-�ti ��� � � r d4 4 PARTIAL. iBC3[1111DA A Y SURVEY MAP For Establishing the Easterly Boundary Lire of a Single -1 -amity Residential Property, Z Located at 30931 Cartier Drive Ra -r: ho Palos Verdes California 90275 B-6 to � � o a a L r` s U M s 10_ m DD M � - 2 E 13 d4 4 PARTIAL. iBC3[1111DA A Y SURVEY MAP For Establishing the Easterly Boundary Lire of a Single -1 -amity Residential Property, Z Located at 30931 Cartier Drive Ra -r: ho Palos Verdes California 90275 B-6 to : „ • � CD 40, z' 4.3" F+ ZIZ 101. f ��r lZf r VIO Low)"RivF IV 686 Z? 4L3 c '75OZ3 67 7 - IN CIO JV ges r #•- x.37' � ' - ' � � .2d ; ." , the �„� , .Onele • .1 . 'r • ' to .. - i •- .. _ w � ' �,�� • . ' , : ' .. . • , - .. t �c N ! u � 16-37 Al.r 1,49 N. ' Qom; ell rh tt I� ` rb 4 i K bra 'r- -. •- .- _ _-- }� - ,may 4 *ZA LJ 1 Cb •fir. x ti s•', `� ...,� •rl `q ro CA �4qL aco 44 ` r'' c tj rb�` ' . : ll� , •�_-'___."+�,�•''+' - !'� SAF r ' Ant kit 04 S4% Al B-7 �I �I ,I �I = �I i I NN I I W I I t7,7 LLI I t 1 it ^ t N rCal Engineering 4 Soils and Geotechnical Consultants 10641 Humbolt Street Los Alamitos, CA 90720 (562) 799-9469 Fax (562) 799-9459 November 9, 2016 Mr. Su Jan 30937 Cartier Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275-5633 Project Number 19235-16 RE: Temporary Excavations Along Driveway and House Area - Located at 30937 Cartier Drive, in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California Dear Mr. Jan: As per your request, this firm has performed an inspection of the recent temporary excavation along the driveway and house area at the subject site. The excavation is approximately 12 inches wide and 2 to 5 feet deep, adia1 cent to the small retaining wall along the side of the driveway. Thexisting retaining wall has been exposed and the deepest excavation of 5 feet ex a sds iigFi-tTy- beio-tiv the wall foundation, also. Backciround Information We understand that the excavation was made in September, 2016 by the neighbor with no permits, no plans and no soil reports. The excavation is open and poses a safety risk for anyone walking in the area. Conclusions The temporary excavation should be backfilled using on-site soils or a cement/slurry mixture. The area near the excavation should have a safety net and stakes to prevent people from falling in the long trench. The deepest excavation of 5 feet is near the house and undermines support for the building foundation. Lateral support is reduced and some movements of the building wall may occur. This firm should review any engineering plans and reports prepared by the neighbor, as necessary. November 9, 2016 Page 2 Project Number 19235-16 We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Respectfully submitted, NORCAL ENGINEERING i UJ ` 0. B41 �s' Mark A. Burkholder Keith D. Tucker * Exp. 2)31)16 Project Engineer �� c�P. * Project Manager Or Or R.G.E. 841 s�q4'0 F CAS NorCal Engineering IS Lei RANCHO PALOS VERDES Community Development Department GRADING PERMIT The purpose of a grading permit is to ensure that earth movement associated with the development of a property preserves the natural scenic character of the area and occurs in a manor harmonious with adjacent land so as to minimize adverse impacts and maintain the visual continuity of the area without unsightly continuous benching of building sites. According to Section 1776.040 of the ,City's Development Code, there are three types of grading permits that may be issued with this application. These are described below. i. Minor Grading Permit: required for all earthwork projects which involve any of the following: 1. An excavation, fill, or combination thereof, in excess of twenty (20) cubic yards (exclusive of footing and foundation wall excavations) in any two (2) year period on a slope of less than 35%. 2. An excavation three (3) feet or more, but less than five (5) feet below natural grade, or a fill three (3) feet or more, but less than five (5) feet above natural grade on a slope less than 35%. II. Maior_Grading Permit: required for all earthwork projects which involve any of the following: 1. An excavation or fill, or combination thereof, in excess of fifty (50) cubic yards in any two (2) year period; 2. An excavation five (5) feet or more below natural grade or fill five (5) feet or more above natural grade; 3. Any excavation or fill which encroaches on or alters a natural drainage channel or water course; and, 4. Unless otherwise exempted, an excavation or fill on an extreme slope (i.e. 35% or great). III. Remedial Grading Permit: required for excavations, fill or any redistribution of earth materials for the purpose of enhancing soil stability and/or reducing geotechnical hazards due to natural land movement or the presence of natural hazards. Grading Applications for remedial grading shall be accomoani d by_gPoloai al and/o Goil� r whi.oh justify the need for the remedial grading and indicate that the grading will not aggravate the existing soils and/or geologic conditions. Reauired Application Filing Fees _ $190 for a Minor Grading Permit $2,346 for a Major Grading Permit - Director Level Review $3,312 for a Major Grading Permit — Planning Commission Level Review $4 for Data Entry Fee $18 for Historic Data Input (one time fee per property) B-11 January 25, 2017 CITYOFILIRANCHO PALOSVERDES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT NOTICE OF DECISION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2017-02, denying an appeal and upholding the Director's approval, thereby conditionally approving a Fence/ Wall Permit for the property located at 30931 Cartier Drive (Case No. ZON2016-00475). LOCATION: PROPERTY OWNER 30931 Cartier Drive Shiego & Mikeo Kadowaki Any interested person, that is a person who the public hearing, may appeal this decision, 8, 2017. A $2,275.00 appeal fee must acc( forth the grounds for appeal and any specifi The Department hours are from 7:30 a.m. to 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Friday. submitted written comments or testified at in writing, to the City Council by February impany any appeal. The appeal shall set action being requested by the appellant. 5:30 p.m., Monday through Thursday, and If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Octavio Silva, Associate Planner at (310) 544-5234 or vie e-mail at octavios(@-rpvca.gov. Ara Mihranian, CP Community Development Director Attachment: P.C. Resolution No. 2017-02 30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD / RANCHO RALOS VERDES. CA 90275-5391 PLANNING & CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION (310) 544-5228 / BUILDING & SAFETY DIVISION (310) 265-7800 / DEPT. FAX (310) 544f5i 'P93 E-MAIL: PLANNING@RPVCA GOV / W W WRPVCA GOV l./ P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2017-02 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE DIRECTOR'S APPROVAL THEREBY CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A FENCE/WALL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 30931 CARTIER DRIVE (CASE NO. ZON2016-00475). WHEREAS, on September 28, 2016, the City's Code Enforcement Division received a complaint about the construction of a wall located at 30931 Cartier Drive. The same day, Code Enforcement Staff informed the property owners of the subject property, Shiego and Mikeo Kadowaki, that a Fence/ Wall Permit may be required for the construction of the proposed wall and that they should contact the City's Planning Division for further assistance; and, WHEREAS, on October 5, 2016, the applicant submitted a Fence/ Wall Permit application for the construction of a 52 -foot long, 6'-0" high, freestanding solid block wall that is designed to follow a "L" shape alignment, with 12 -feet of the solid fence located outside the 20 -foot front yard setback running parallel to the north (front) property line and the remaining 40 -feet of the solid fence running along the easterly (side) property line; and, WHEREAS, on October 25, 2016, based on an assessment of the site particularly as it relates to a significant view impairment from neighboring properties including the Appellant's property at 30937 Cartier Drive, the Community Development Director conditionally approved the Fence/Wall Permit and issued a Notice of Decision (ZON2016-00475) permitting the construction of the proposed wall at 30931 Cartier Drive; and, WHEREAS, on November 9, 2016, a timely appeal of the Fence/ Wall Permit (Case No. ZON2016-00475) was filed by the westerly neighboring property owners residing at 30937 Cartier Drive, Chandru and Bina Sujan; and, WHEREAS, on January 5, 2017, a Public Notice was mailed to property owners within a 500 -foot radius from the subject property and published in the Peninsula News, providing notice of a public hearing before the Planning Commission on January 24, 2017; and, WHEREAS, on January 24, 2017, the Planning Commission held a duly -noticed public hearing, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The Planning Commission hereby denies an appeal and upholds the Community Development Director's Decision to conditionally allow the construction of a 6'-0" freestanding solid block wall that extends 52'-0" in length, as measured beyond the 20'-0" front yard setback towards the south or rear of the subject property, along the northerly (front) and easterly (side) property lines. More specifically, the solid wall is designed to follow a "L" shape alignment, with 12 -feet of the solid fence located outside the 20 -foot front yard setback running parallel to the north (front) property line and the remaining 40 -feet of the solid fence running along the easterly (side) property line. The Applicant's request, and the Director's approval, does not include the construction of a fence within the 20'-0" front yard setback area of the subject property, whereby structures are limited to 42" in height. The proposed wall meets the findings required by Section 17.76.030 (13)(3) for the issuance of a Fence/Wall Permit as the fence would not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another property or a view from public property, which has been identified in the City's General Plan or Coastal Specific Plan, as a designated viewing area. In addition, there is not foliage on the Applicant's lot which exceeds 16'-0" or the ridgeline of the C-2 primary structure, whichever is lower, that impairs a view from the viewing area of another parcel, or a view from the public property which has been identified in the City's General Plan or Coastal Specific Plan, as a city -designated viewing area. The placement and construction of the fence wall complies with all applicable standards and requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code and General Plan. Section 2: The Planning Commission hereby finds that the points raised by the Appellant are not under the Planning Division's or the Planning Commission's purview because they specifically relate to property damage claims, property line disputes and civil code violations. The property damage claims and property line disputes are a civil matter between the two property owners, which the City does not regulate. Furthermore, the Appellant's concerns with neighborhood compatibility are not applicable as a Fence/Wall Permit does not require Staff to assess neighborhood compatibility for the construction of a freestanding wall. Section 3: Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or any portion of this decision may appeal to the City Council. The appeal shall set forth in writing, the grounds for appeal and any specific action being requested by the appellant. Any appeal letter must be filed within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of this decision, or by 5:30 p.m. Tuesday, February 8, 2017. A $2,275.00 appeal fee must accompany any appeal. If no appeal is timely filed, the Planning Commission's decision shall be final. Section 4: 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 denies the appeal and upholds the Director's approval, thereby conditionally approving the Fence/Wall Permit (Case No. ZON2016-00475) subject to the Conditions of Approval contained in the attached Exhibit "A". PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 24th day of January 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Emenhiser, James, Leon, Nelson, Vice Chairman Cruikshank, and Chairman Tomblin NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: None RECUSSALS: None ABSENT: Commissioner Bradley . - f Ara MthrariMa-Al.CP Community Development Director Secretary to the Planning Commission David L. Tomblin, Chairman P.C. Resolution No. 2017- 02 Page 2 of 4 C-3 EXHIBIT'A' CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PLANNING CASE NO. ZON2016-00475 (30931 CARTIER DRIVE) 1. 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 Resolution. Failure to provide said written statement within thirty (30) days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void. 2. The applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other actions and proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolutions procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and other such procedures) (collectively "Actions"), brought against the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City), for or concerning the project. 3. 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. 4. 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 or administrative citations as described in Section 1.16 of the City's Municipal Code. 5. 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 180 days 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 with the Community Development Department and approved by the Director. 6. 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. 7. 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, P.C. Resolution No. 2017-02 Page 3 of 4 C-4 salvage materials, abandoned or discarded furniture, appliances or other household fixtures. 8. 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. 9. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Mondays through Fridays, and 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturdays, 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. Trucks and other construction vehicles 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. 10. This approval is for a 6-0" high solid block fence that extends 52'-0" in length, as measured from the 20'-0" front yard setback line towards the south or rear of the subject property, along the easterly property line. 11. The applicant's request does not include the construction of a fence within the 20'-0" front yard setback along the easterly property line. However, the construction of a fence within the subject property's front yard setback would be limited to 42" in height. 12. Construction of the approved project shall substantially comply with the plans originally stamped APPROVED on October 21, 2016, and with the RS -2 zoning district and site development standards of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. 13. The Director determined that the approved 6-0" solid block fence does not cause a significant view impairment from the viewing area (main living area) of the only potentially affected property located at 30937 Cartier Drive, and thus the fence/wall permit can be approved per RPVDC Section 17.76.030.B.2.a. P.C. Resolution No. 2017-02 Page 4 of 4 C-5 17.76.030 - Fences, walls and hedges. B. Fence/Wall Permit. Permit Required. A fence/wall permit shall be required for any fence or wall placed within the rear yard or side yard setback adjacent to any contiguous or abutting parcel (as determined by the director), except as specified below: a. Fences or walls located where the grade differential between the building pads of adjacent lots, measured perpendicular to the boundary between the two properties contiguous to or abutting the fence, wall or hedge, is two feet or less in elevation; or b. Fences or walls where the subject lot is located upslope of any property contiguous to or abutting the location of the fence, wall or hedge; or C. Fences or walls when the top of the fence or wall is at a lower elevation than that of the pad of the upslope lot. Initial Site Visit. Upon submittal of an application and a site inspection fee, as established by resolution of the city council, the director, or his/her representative, shall conduct an initial site visit in order to determine the type of application process that is required, as follows: a. If based on the initial site inspection, the director is able to determine that there will be no view impairment to an adjacent property owner caused by the proposed new fence or wall and the director can make the finding described in Section 17.76.030(B)(3)(b), the fence/wall permit shall be approved. Notice of said approval shall be sent to the property owners adjacent to the subject property, pursuant to Section 17.80.040 (Notice of Decision by Director) of this title. An adjacent property owner may appeal the director's decision to the planning commission pursuant to Section 17.80.050 (Appeal to Planning Commission) of this title. The decision of the planning commission may be appealed to the city council pursuant to Section 17.80.070 (Appeal to City Council) of this title. b. If the director is unable to determine that no view impairment will be caused by the proposed new fence or wall, the applicant shall pay the remainder of the application fee established by the city council and the application shall be reviewed as described in subsection (13)(3) of this section. Findings. A fence/wall permit may be approved only if the director finds as follows: a. That the fence or wall would not significantly impair a view from the viewing area, as defined in Chapter 17.02 (Single -Family Residential (RS) Districts), of another property or a view from public property which has been identified in the city's general plan or coastal specific plan, as a city -designated viewing area. Views shall be taken from a standing position, unless the primary viewing area is more suitable to viewing in a seated position; b. That all foliage on the applicant's lot which exceeds 16 feet or the ridgeline of the primary structure, whichever is lower, and impairs a view from the viewing area of another parcel, as defined in Chapter 17.02 (Single -Family Residential (RS) Districts) or a view from public property which has been identified in the city's general plan or coastal specific plan, as a city -designated viewing area, shall be removed prior to permit approval. This requirement shall not apply where removal of the foliage would constitute an unreasonable invasion of the privacy of the occupants of the property on which the foliage exists and there is no method by which the property owner can create such privacy through some other means permitted by this title that does not impair a view from viewing area of another property; c. That placement or construction of the fence or wall shall comply with all applicable standards and requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code and general plan; d. Notwithstanding finding (a) of this subsection (13)(3), the applicant's request shall be approved if the director determines that findings of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section listed above can be made and either: Page 1 D-1 Denial would constitute an unreasonable invasion of the privacy of the occupants of the applicant's property and there is no method by which the property owner can create such privacy through some other means permitted by this title that would not significantly impair a view from a viewing area of another property; or Denial would prevent compliance with the swimming pool fencing requirements contained in subsection (F)(3) of this section and there is no reasonable method to comply with subsection (F)(3) of this section that would not significantly impair a view from a viewing area of another property. 4. Notice of Decision. The notice of decision of a fence/wall permit made pursuant to Section 17.76.030(6)(3) shall be given to the applicant and to all owners of property adjacent to the subject property. Notice of denial shall be given only to the applicant. Any interested person may appeal the director's decision to the planning commission pursuant to Section 17.80.050 (Appeal to Planning Commission) of this title. 5. This decision of the planning commission may be appealed to the city council pursuant to Section 17.80.070 (Appeal to City Council) of this title. The director, the planning commission and city council may impose such conditions on the approval of a permit as are necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare and to carry out the purpose and intent of this section. In the case of conflict between the provisions of this section and other provisions of the development code or the building code, the most restrictive provisions apply. (Amended during 11-97 supplement; Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997: Ord. 254 §§ 24, 1990; Ord. 194 § 10 (part), 1985; Ord. 175 §§ 1418, 1983; Ord. 150 §§ 15, 16, 1982; Ord. 132 § 3 (part), 1980; Ord. 90 § 5 (part), 1977; Ord. 75 (part), 1975) (Ord. No. 510, §§ 13, 14, 16, 6-29-10; Ord. No. 540, § 6, 11-20-12; Ord. No. 546, § 1, 4-1-14; Ord. No. 559U, § 1, 6-17-14; Ord. No. 560, § 1, 7-15-14) Page 2 D-2 CITYOF STAFF REPORT tiRANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ARA MIHRANIAN, COMMUNIT DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: JANUARY 24, 2017 SUBJECT: APPEAL- FENCE/WALL PERMIT (CASE NO. ZON2016-00475) PROJECT ADDRESS: 30931 CARTIER DRIVE APPLICANT/ SHIGEO & MIKEO KADOWAKI LANDOWNER: 30931 CARTIER DRIVE RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275 APPEALLANT: CHANDRU & BINA SUJAN 30937 CARTIER DRIVE RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275 STAFF OCTAVIO SILVA COORDINATOR: ASSOCIATE PLANNER REQUESTED ACTION: OVERTURN THE DIRECTOR'S APRPOVAL OF A FENCE/WALL PERMIT THAT ALLOWS A 6'-0" HIGH BLOCK WALL THAT EXTENDS 52'-0" IN LENGTH, AS MEASURED BEYOND THE 20'-0" FRONT YARD SETBACK TOWARDS THE SOUTH OR REAR OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, ALONG THE EASTERLY (SIDE) PROPERTY LINE AT 30931 CARTIER DRIVE (CASE NO. ZON2016-00475). RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2017-_; DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE DIRECTOR'S APPROVAL THEREBY CONDITIONALLY APPROVING THE FENCE/WALL PERMIT AT 30931 CARTIER DRIVE (CASE NO. ZON2016-00475). E-1 6700 ti7a if ;, m PROJECT SITE Q ?cF W P At (!• - c _ � R a WRFC SDR � yr �•,�w U'� `�►F C-1 THOMAS GUIDE PAGE 822/H-3 TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ARA MIHRANIAN, COMMUNIT DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: JANUARY 24, 2017 SUBJECT: APPEAL- FENCE/WALL PERMIT (CASE NO. ZON2016-00475) PROJECT ADDRESS: 30931 CARTIER DRIVE APPLICANT/ SHIGEO & MIKEO KADOWAKI LANDOWNER: 30931 CARTIER DRIVE RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275 APPEALLANT: CHANDRU & BINA SUJAN 30937 CARTIER DRIVE RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275 STAFF OCTAVIO SILVA COORDINATOR: ASSOCIATE PLANNER REQUESTED ACTION: OVERTURN THE DIRECTOR'S APRPOVAL OF A FENCE/WALL PERMIT THAT ALLOWS A 6'-0" HIGH BLOCK WALL THAT EXTENDS 52'-0" IN LENGTH, AS MEASURED BEYOND THE 20'-0" FRONT YARD SETBACK TOWARDS THE SOUTH OR REAR OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, ALONG THE EASTERLY (SIDE) PROPERTY LINE AT 30931 CARTIER DRIVE (CASE NO. ZON2016-00475). RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2017-_; DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE DIRECTOR'S APPROVAL THEREBY CONDITIONALLY APPROVING THE FENCE/WALL PERMIT AT 30931 CARTIER DRIVE (CASE NO. ZON2016-00475). E-1 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2016-00475) JANUARY 24, 2017 PAGE 2 REFERENCES: ZONING: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - RS -2 LAND USE: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R 1-2 DU/ACRE) CODE SECTIONS: 17.02, 17.76.030, 17.80 GENERAL PLAN: RESIDENTIAL - 1-2 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE TRAILS PLAN: N/A SPECIFIC PLAN: N/A CEQA: EXEMPT PER SECTION 15303 (NEW CONSTRUCTION) ACTION DEADLINE: N/A PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS RESIDING WITHIN 500' OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: NONE BACKGROUND On September 28, 2016, the City's Code Enforcement Division received a complaint about the construction of a solid wall located at 30931 Cartier Drive. In response, on that same day, the Code Enforcement Division investigated the alleged complaint and found that excavation was being conducted for the construction of a wall. Specifically, excavation was being conducted at the front of the subject property, outside of the front yard setback, along the easterly property line between the subject property and the abutting property located at 30937 Cartier Drive (Appellant - Chandru and Bina Sujan). Thus, the property owners of the subject property, Shiego and Mikeo Kadowaki (Applicant), were notified that a Fence/ Wall Permit may be required for the construction of the wall, and that the City's Planning Division should be contacted for further assistance. After a site inspection, the Planning Division Staff determined that a Fence/Wall Permit was required for the new wall at 30931 Cartier Drive. On October 5, 2016, the Applicant submitted a Fence/Wall Permit application. After assessing the wall's potential impacts to views from neighboring properties, the Director determined that no view impairment would occur and a Notice of Decision (see attachment), conditionally approving Fence/Wall Permit (ZON2016-00475) at 30931 Cartier Drive, was issued on October 25, 2016. The Notice of Decision was issued to the applicant and all interested parties giving them until November 9, 2016 to appeal the Director's decision to the Planning Commission. On November 9, 2016, a timely appeal was filed by the property owners at 30937 Cartier Drive, Chandru and Bina Sujan (see attachment). On January 5, 2017, Staff mailed the public notice announcing the Planning Commission's review of the appeal hearing to 52 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, the Public Notice was published in the Peninsula E-2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2016-00475) JANUARY 24, 2017 PAGE 3 News on January 5, 2017. Staff received 7 public comments as a result of the public notice (see attachment). SITE DESCRIPTION The Applicant's (subject) property is located at 30931 Cartier Drive, which is a 15,772 square foot lot, located in the RS -2 zone. The property is currently improved with a 3,084 square foot, two-story residence and garage. The subject property is a residential pad lot with a descending slope at the rear of the property. Some properties along Cartier Drive have similar topographic conditions, which are terraced with the slope of the street. As a result of the elevation differences between the properties, the Applicant's property has a pad elevation that is lower than the neighboring Appellant's property to the east at 30937 Cartier Drive. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Director's approval permits the construction of a 6'-0" freestanding solid block wall that extends 52'-0" in length, as measured beyond the 20'-0" front yard setback towards the south or rear of the subject property, along the northerly (front) and easterly (side) property lines. More specifically, the solid block wall fence is designed to follow a "L" shape alignment, with 12 -feet of the solid block wall located outside the 20 -foot front yard setback running parallel to the north (front) property line and the remaining 40 -feet of the solid wall running along the easterly (side) property line. The Applicant's request, and the Director's approval, does not include the construction of a wall within the 20'-0" front yard setback area of the subject property, whereby structures are limited to 42" in height. DISCUSSION City Fence/Wall Requirements Pursuant to Section 17.76.030(6)(1) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC), a Fence/Wall Permit is required for any fence or wall placed within the rear yard or side yard setback adjacent to any contiguous or abutting parcel, when the grade difference of building pads between two properties is 2'-0" or greater, and the Applicant is the lower property. As there is a grade differential greater than 2'-0" between the building pad of Applicant's property and the building pad of the abutting Appellant's property at 30937 Cartier Drive, and where the Applicant's building pad is at a lower elevation, a Fence/Wall Permit is required. Section 17.76.030(6)(3) of the RPVMC identifies permit findings (see attachment) that are required to be made in order for a Fence/Wall Permit to be issued, including a finding that requires Staff to assess whether a proposed fence or wall would "significantly" impair the view from the viewing area of another property. As previously reported, as part of Staff's initial analysis of the proposed wall at 30931 Cartier Drive, a site visit to the neighboring property at 30937 Cartier Drive was conducted by Staff to E-3 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2016-00475) JANUARY 24, 2017 PAGE 4 determine if the proposed wall would impair a protected view from this property. While the Appellant enjoys a protected view of the ocean, as observed from the rear of their residence, the Director's conditionally approval was based on a determination that the required findings could be made including that the proposed solid block wall would not significantly impair the Appellant's protected view, as the wall would be constructed at the front and side of the property, where views of the ocean are not observed. Staff also determined that there is no foliage on the Applicant's lot which exceeds 16'-0" 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 the public property which has been identified in the City's General Plan or Coastal Specific Plan, as a city -designated viewing area. Further, the placement and construction of the fence wall complies with all applicable standards and requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code and General Plan. Therefore, staff believes that the findings required by Section 17.76.030(6)(3) of the RPVMC can be met. The Appellant's appeal letter (see attachment), as well as additional letters dated November 16, 2016, December 14, 2016, January 5, 2017 and January 10, 2017 (see attachment), in summary, express concerns with structural stability of an existing retaining wall and the residence from illegal grading, a property line dispute, Civil Code infractions, and a lack of neighborhood compatibility with the design of the concrete block wall. In addition, the Appellant believes that the City's Development Code requires a Grading Permit be issued by the City for the construction of the proposed wall. Lastly, the Appellant is requesting that the City issue a permit to construct a new wall on his property, regardless of the fact that a permit is not required for him. It is important to note that these points, are not subject to the Planning Department's or the Planning Commission's purview, but rather, a private or civil matter between the two property owners at 30931 and 30937 Cartier Drive. That being said, the appeal issues (in some cases combined and summarized) are shown in bold below, followed by Staff's responses. Appellant's Issues of Concern and Staff's Responses Appellant's Issue No.1: The construction of the proposed fence at 30931 Cartier Drive has caused damage to the Appellant's driveway retaining wall and house. Staffs Response: In preparing the site for the proposed wall, the Applicant removed an existing solid wood fence (considered a "wall" by the City's definitions) located at the front and side of the property and began digging the footings in the location of the proposed new block wall. After receiving notification from the City, the Applicant stopped all construction activities while the City processed the Fence/Wall Permit. The Appellant's appeal documentation includes a letter from NorCal Engineering stating that the Applicant's excavation was left "open and poses a safety risk for anyone walking in the area" and recommends safety measures be taken, and opines that the excavation has "undermined the support for the [Appellant's] building foundation" and "lateral support is reduced and some movements of the building wall may occur." The Engineer's report does not claim actual damage was observed. E-4 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2016-00475) JANUARY 24, 2017 PAGE 5 This specific concern is a civil matter between the two property owners, and is not germane to making the required findings for a Fence/ Wall Permit, which the Planning Commission is being asked to affirm as part of this appeal hearing. Nonetheless, in response to the documentation submitted to the City by the Appellant, the Applicant submitted a letter for the City's records, dated November 14, 2016 (see attachment) informing the City that the exposed trench would be backfilled as recommended by the Appellant's Engineer to address any safety concerns. A recent site inspection of the subject property by Staff found that the exposed trench had been backfilled and returned to what appears to be the original site condition. Appellant's Issue No.2: The construction of the proposed wall at 30931 Cartier Drive is encroaching onto the Appellant's property. Staff's Response: The Appellant's appeal documentation indicates that the proposed wall encroaches onto the Appellant's property. The Appellant contends that the site plan and survey (stamped by John H. Riahi, Licensed Engineer and Licensed Land Surveyor) presented to the City by the Applicant is incorrect and should not be accepted. Instead, the Appellant suggests that the City utilize their 2004 survey to determine whether the Applicant's proposed wall, which has not been installed yet, will definitively be constructed on the Applicant's property. In spite of the apparent property line dispute between the Applicant and the Appellant that is a civil matter, the Director's decision conditionally approving the Fence/VVall Permit was based on the Applicant's surveyed site plan prepared and wet -stamped by a licensed surveyor indicating that the proposed wall would be located on the Applicant's property. There is no indication on the submitted plans which suggests to Staff that the proposed wall would encroach onto the Appellant's property. Appellant's Issue No.3: The construction of the proposed wall at 30931 Cartier Drive has resulted in Civil Code violations. Staff's Response: The Appellant contends that the Applicant has denied them the opportunity to re -survey the subject property to reassess the property lines. In doing so, the Appellant claims that the Applicant has violated Civil Code Section 846.5. Civil Code section 846.5 establishes a surveyor's right to enter onto a property to survey it. Civil Code section 846.5 requires a surveyor to give the owner or tenant of a property notice "of the proposed time of entry where practicable." Based on the correspondence between the Appellant and Applicant's attorney, it appears that Applicant's attorney informed Appellant that Appellant's surveyor could survey the property. To the extent that Applicant has allegedly denied access to Appellant's surveyor, this is a civil dispute between the property owners. Appellant's Issue No.4: The construction of the proposed wall at 30931 Cartier Drive is not compatible with the neighborhood. E-5 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2016-00475) JANUARY 24, 2017 PAGE 6 Staff's Response: The Appellant indicates that the proposed construction of a solid 6'- 0" high block wall will be "unsightly" and will create a "prison environment" that is not compatible with the neighborhood. Pursuant to Sections 17.02.030(B) and 17.76.030(B)(3) of the RPVMC, the Neighborhood Compatibility finding is not a required finding for a Fence/Wall Permit. Nevertheless, Staff conducted a site survey of the neighborhood and noted the presence of existing solid block walls, retaining walls and solid decorative pilaster features throughout many of the neighboring properties. Thus, a solid block wall is not identified as a prohibited material. Under the issue of neighborhood compatibility, the Appellant also indicates that the construction of the proposed wall will impact the Appellant's use of their driveway and will create a potential for injury. The proposed freestanding wall along the easterly property line will not impact the use of the Appellant's existing driveway in that the proposed wall is not altering existing driveway conditions on the Appellant's property, such as the slope of the driveway or driveway width, and as such, the proposed wall will not impact the appellant's property. Appellant's Issue No.5: The construction of the proposed wall and associated grading for the wall foundation at 30931 Cartier Drive requires the issuance Grading Permit. Staff's Response: The appellant contends that the construction of the proposed wall requires a Grading Permit. According to Section 17.76.040(C)(7) of the RPVMC, the excavation of the foundation/footings for the proposed wall is exempt from a Grading Permit in the Planning Division. Notwithstanding, as previously reported, the Applicant has backfilled the exposed trench, essentially returning the area to its original condition. Appellant's Issue No.6: The Appellant is requesting permission from the City to construct a wood wall on their property. Staff's Response: The Appellant is requesting to construct a wooden wall/fence (wall by the City's definitions) along the westerly (side) property line of their property (the shared property line with the Applicant). The Appellant was informed that, pursuant to Section 17.76.030(B)(1)(b), the proposal to construct a new wall would not require a Fence/ Wall Permit along their westerly property line, as their property is at a higher elevation than the building pads between the Appellant's property and the westerly neighbor, and therefore a Fence/Wall Permit would not be required. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Applicant's Response to Appeal In response to the Appellant's submittal of the appeal, the Applicant submitted a letter addressing the issues raised by the Appellant (see attachment). The letter includes documentation from of one the Applicant's Attorneys, Mark T. Kawa, which describe events from June 2016 through September 2016 between the Appellant and Applicant. E-6 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2016-00475) JANUARY 24, 2017 PAGE 7 Applicant's Attorney's Response to the Appellant's Appeal Letter On January 11, 2017, City Staff received an additional letter from another of the Applicant's Attorneys, Harold J. Light, which addresses the issues raised by appellant's appeal letter (see attachment). Correspondence in Support of the Appellant's Appeal On January 16, 2017, Staff received 4 items of correspondence in support of the Appellant's appeal which request that the Planning Commission overturns the Director's decision of Fence/Wall Permit (ZON2016-00475) (see attachment). All of the 4 items of correspondence express similar concerns with that of the Appellant, regarding the construction of the proposed wall and do not introduce any new information that has not been discussed throughout his report. For clarification purposes, Item No. 4 of the submitted correspondences indicates that the Appellant has a permit to build a wood fence that is on file with the City. It should be noted that no Fence/Wall Permit has been issued for the construction of a wood fence along the westerly property line of the Appellant's property, as the Appellant's property is at a higher elevation than the building pads between the Appellant's property and their westerly neighbor. Presentation Information on Behalf of the Appellant On January 16, 2017, the Appellant requested that his presentation information be forwarded to the Planning Commission in advance of the January 24, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting (see attachment). CONCLUSION Based on the discussion contained herein, it is Staff's opinion that the issues raised by the Appellant are unwarranted in making the required findings for granting the Applicant's Fence/Wall Permit and that the Planning Commission should adopt the attached P.C. Resolution No. 2017- ; denying the appeal and upholding the Director's approval, thereby conditionally approving a Fence/Wall Permit located at 30931 Cartier Drive (Case No. ZON2016-00475). ALTERNATIVES In addition to Staff's recommendation, the following alternatives are available for the Planning Commission to act on: 1. Approve the Appeal thereby overturning the Director's conditional approval of Planning Case No. ZON2016-00475 (Fence/Wall Permit) and direct Staff to return to the Planning Commission with a revised Resolution at the February 14, 2017 meeting. This action would afford the Appellant a full refund of their appeal fee. E-7 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2016-00475) JANUARY 24, 2017 PAGE 8 2. Modify the Appeal and direct Staff to return to the Planning Commission with a revised Resolution at the February 14, 2017 meeting. This action would afford the Appellant a refund of 1/2 their appeal fee. 3. 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. ATTACHMENTS • Draft Resolution No. 2017- • Notice of Decision (Case No. ZON2016-00475) • Section 17.76.030(B) • Appeal Letter and Appellant's Supplemental Letters • Applicant's Request to Backfill • Applicant's Response to Appeal • Applicant's Attorney's Response to the Appellant's Appeal • Correspondence in Support of the Appellant • Presentation Information on Behalf of Appellant • P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2017- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE DIRECTOR'S APPROVAL THEREBY CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A FENCE/WALL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 30931 CARTIER DRIVE (CASE NO. ZON2016-00475). WHEREAS, on September 28, 2016, the City's Code Enforcement Division received a complaint about the construction of a wall located at 30931 Cartier Drive. The same day, Code Enforcement Staff informed the property owners of the subject property, Shiego and Mikeo Kadowaki, that a Fence/ Wall Permit may be required for the construction of the proposed wall and that they should contact the City's Planning Division for further assistance; and, WHEREAS, on October 5, 2016, the applicant submitted a Fence/ Wall Permit application for the construction of a 52 -foot long, 6-0" high, freestanding solid block wall that is designed to follow a "L" shape alignment, with 12 -feet of the solid fence located outside the 20 -foot front yard setback running parallel to the north (front) property line and the remaining 40 -feet of the solid fence running along the easterly (side) property line; and, WHEREAS, on October 25, 2016, based on an assessment of the site particularly as it relates to a significant view impairment from neighboring properties including the Appellant's property at 30937 Cartier Drive, the Community Development Director conditionally approved the Fence/Wall Permit and issued a Notice of Decision (ZON2016-00475) permitting the construction of the proposed wall at 30931 Cartier Drive; and, WHEREAS, on November 9, 2016, a timely appeal of the Fence/ Wall Permit (Case No. ZON2016-00475) was filed by the westerly neighboring property owners residing at 30937 Cartier Drive, Chandru and Bina Sujan; and, WHEREAS, on January 5, 2017, a Public Notice was mailed to property owners within a 500 -foot radius from the subject property and published in the Peninsula News, providing notice of a public hearing before the Planning Commission on January 24, 2017; and, WHEREAS, on January 24, 2017, the Planning Commission held a duly -noticed public hearing, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The Planning Commission hereby denies an appeal and upholds the Community Development Director's Decision to conditionally allow the construction of a 6'-0" freestanding solid block wall that extends 52'-0" in length, as measured beyond the 20'-0" front yard setback towards the south or rear of the subject property, along the northerly (front) and easterly (side) property lines. More specifically, the solid wall is designed to follow a "L" shape alignment, with 12 -feet of the solid fence located outside the 20 -foot front yard setback running parallel to the north (front) property line and the remaining 40 -feet of the solid fence running along the easterly (side) property line. The Applicant's request, and the Director's approval, does not include the construction of a fence within the 20'-0" front yard setback area of the subject property, whereby structures are limited to 42" in height. The proposed wall meets the findings required by Section 17.76.030 (13)(3) for the issuance of a Fence/Wall Permit as the fence would not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another property or a view from public property, which has been identified in the City's General Plan or Coastal Specific Plan, as a designated viewing area. In addition, there is not foliage on the Applicant's lot which exceeds 16'-0" or the ridgeline of the E-9 primary structure, whichever is lower, that impairs a view from the viewing area of another parcel, or a view from the public property which has been identified in the City's General Plan or Coastal Specific Plan, as a city -designated viewing area. The placement and construction of the fence wall complies with all applicable standards and requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code and General Plan. Section 2: The Planning Commission hereby finds that the points raised by the Appellant are not under the Planning Division's or the Planning Commission's purview because they specifically relate to property damage claims, property line disputes and civil code violations. The property damage claims and property line disputes are a civil matter between the two property owners, which the City does not regulate. Furthermore, the Appellant's concerns with neighborhood compatibility are not applicable as a FenceMall Permit does not require Staff to assess neighborhood compatibility for the construction of a freestanding wall. Section 3: Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or any portion of this decision may appeal to the City Council. The appeal shall set forth in writing, the grounds for appeal and any specific action being requested by the appellant. Any appeal letter must be filed within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of this decision, or by 5:30 p.m. Tuesday, February 8, 2017. A $2,275.00 appeal fee must accompany any appeal. If no appeal is timely filed, the Planning Commission's decision shall be final. Section 4: 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 denies the appeal and upholds the Director's approval, thereby conditionally approving the Fence/Wall Permit (Case No. ZON2016-00475) subject to the Conditions of Approval contained in the attached Exhibit "A". PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 24th day of January 2017, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: RECUSSALS: ABSENT: Ara Mihranian, AICP Community Development Director Secretary to the Planning Commission David L. Tomblin, Chairman P.C. Resolution No. 2017 - Page 2 of 4 E-10 EXHIBIT W CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PLANNING CASE NO. ZON2016-00475 (30931 CARTIER DRIVE) 1. 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 Resolution. Failure to provide said written statement within thirty (30) days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void. 2. The applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other actions and proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolutions procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and other such procedures) (collectively "Actions"), brought against the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City), for or concerning the project. 3. 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. 4. 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 or administrative citations as described in Section 1.16 of the City's Municipal Code. 5. 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 180 days 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 with the Community Development Department and approved by the Director. 6. 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. 7. 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, P.C. Resolution No. 2017 - Page 3 of 4 E-11 salvage materials, abandoned or discarded furniture, appliances or other household fixtures. 8. 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. 9. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Mondays through Fridays, and 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturdays, 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. Trucks and other construction vehicles 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. 10. This approval is for a 6'-0" high solid block fence that extends 52'-0" in length, as measured from the 20'-0" front yard setback line towards the south or rear of the subject property, along the easterly property line. 11. The applicant's request does not include the construction of a fence within the 20'-0" front yard setback along the easterly property line. However, the construction of a fence within the subject property's front yard setback would be limited to 42" in height. 12. Construction of the approved project shall substantially comply with the plans originally stamped APPROVED on October 21, 2016, and with the RS -2 zoning district and site development standards of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. 13. The Director determined that the approved 6'-0" solid block fence does not cause a significant view impairment from the viewing area (main living area) of the only potentially affected property located at 30937 Cartier Drive, and thus the fence/wall permit can be approved per RPVDC Section 17.76.030.B.2.a. P.C. Resolution No. 2017 - Page 4 of 4 E-12 Notice of Decision (Case No. ZON2016-00475) E-13 October 25, 2016 NOTICE OF DECISION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Community Development Director of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has conditionally approved a Fence/Wall Permit for the construction of a 6'-0" high solid block wall that extends 52'-0" in length, as measured from the 20'-0" front yard setback towards the south or rear of the subject property, along the easterly (side) property line and as depicted on the stamped approved plans on file with the City. The applicants' request does not include the construction of a fence within the 20'-0" front yard setback area of the subject property. The Director's decision is based upon a site inspection conducted on October 3, 2016 to the adjacent upslope neighbor's property at 30937 Cartier Drive, and the determination that there will be no view impairment caused by the proposed block wall (Case No. ZON2016-00475). LOCATION: 30931 Cartier Drive PROPERTY OWNER: Mieko & Shigeo Kadowaki Said decision is subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A). This decision may be appealed, in writing, to the Planning Commission. The appeal shall set forth the grounds for appeal and any specific action being requested by the appellant. Any appeal letter must be filed within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of this notice, or by 5:30 PM on Wednesday, November 9, 2016. A $2,275.00 appeal fee must accompany any appeal letter. If no appeal is filed in a timely manner, the Director's decision will be final at 5:30 PM on Wednesday, November 9, 2016. If you have any questions regarding this permit, please contact Octavio Silva, Associate Planner, at 77= ctavios(a)rr)vca.gov. AN4dapakln, AIC Community tXmSropment Director Attachment: Exhibit A -Conditions of Approval Certification of Acceptance of Project Conditions of Approval cc: J&S Kims Family Limited, 591 N. 131h Ave. No. 5, Upland, CA 91786 David & Debra Schinnerer, 30936 Cartier Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Chandru & Bina Sujan, PO Box 14196, Torrance CA 90503 Mostafa & Masha Rahimi, 30923 Cartier Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Permindra Chandraratna, 30932 Marne Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Tabila Family Trust, 31004 Marne Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Project File E-14 EXHIBIT 'A' CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. ZON2016-00475 (Fence/Wall Permit) 30931 Cartier Drive 1. 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 Resolution. Failure to provide said written statement within thirty (30) days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void. 2. The applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other actions and proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolutions procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and other such procedures) (collectively "Actions"), brought against the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City), for or concerning the project. 3. 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. 4. 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 or administrative citations as described in Section 1.16 of the City's Municipal Code. 5. 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 180 days 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 with the Community Development Department and approved by the Director. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall be kept E-15 30931 Cartier Drive Case No. ZON2016-00475 Page 2 of 2 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. 9. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Mondays through Fridays, and 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturdays, 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. Trucks and other construction vehicles 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. 10. This approval is for a 6'-0" high solid block fence that extends 52'-0" in length, as measured from the 20'-0" front yard setback line towards the south or rear of the subject property, along the easterly property line. The applicant's request does not include the construction of a fence within the 20'-0" front yard setback along the easterly property line. 11. The construction of a fence and/or wall within the subject property's required 20 -foot front yard setback shall be limited to 42" in height. 12. Construction of the approved project shall substantially comply with the plans originally stamped APPROVED on October 21, 2016, and with the RS -2 zoning district and site development standards of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. 13. The Director determined that the approved 6-0" solid block fence does not cause a significant view impairment from the viewing area (main living area) of the only potentially affected property located at 30937 Cartier Drive, and thus the fence/wall permit can be approved per RPVDC Section 17.76.030.B.2.a. E-16 E-17 Section 17.76.030(6) Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code E-18 17.76.030 - Fences, walls and hedges. B. FenceMall Permit. Permit Required. A fence/wall permit shall be required for any fence or wall placed within the rear yard or side yard setback adjacent to any contiguous or abutting parcel (as determined by the director), except as specified below: a. Fences or walls located where the grade differential between the building pads of adjacent lots, measured perpendicular to the boundary between the two properties contiguous to or abutting the fence, wall or hedge, is two feet or less in elevation; or b. Fences or walls where the subject lot is located upslope of any property contiguous to or abutting the location of the fence, wall or hedge; or c. Fences or walls when the top of the fence or wall is at a lower elevation than that of the pad of the upslope lot. Initial Site Visit. Upon submittal of an application and a site inspection fee, as established by resolution of the city council, the director, or his/her representative, shall conduct an initial site visit in order to determine the type of application process that is required, as follows: a. If based on the initial site inspection, the director is able to determine that there will be no view impairment to an adjacent property owner caused by the proposed new fence or wall and the director can make the finding described in Section 17.76.030(B)(3)(b), the fence/wall permit shall be approved. Notice of said approval shall be sent to the property owners adjacent to the subject property, pursuant to Section 17.80.040 (Notice of Decision by Director) of this title. An adjacent property owner may appeal the director's decision to the planning commission pursuant to Section 17.80.050 (Appeal to Planning Commission) of this title. The decision of the planning commission may be appealed to the city council pursuant to Section 17.80.070 (Appeal to City Council) of this title. b. If the director is unable to determine that no view impairment will be caused by the proposed new fence or wall, the applicant shall pay the remainder of the application fee established by the city council and the application shall be reviewed as described in subsection (13)(3) of this section. 3. Findings. A fence/wall permit may be approved only if the director finds as follows: a. That the fence or wall would not significantly impair a view from the viewing area, as defined in Chapter 17.02 (Single -Family Residential (RS) Districts), of another property or a view from public property which has been identified in the city's general plan or coastal specific plan, as a city -designated viewing area. Views shall be taken from a standing position, unless the primary viewing area is more suitable to viewing in a seated position; b. That all foliage on the applicant's lot which exceeds 16 feet or the ridgeline of the primary structure, whichever is lower, and impairs a view from the viewing area of another parcel, as defined in Chapter 17.02 (Single -Family Residential (RS) Districts) or a view from public property which has been identified in the city's general plan or coastal specific plan, as a city -designated viewing area, shall be removed prior to permit approval. This requirement shall not apply where removal of the foliage would constitute an unreasonable invasion of the privacy of the occupants of the property on which the foliage exists and there is no method by which the property owner can create such privacy through some other means permitted by this title that does not impair a view from viewing area of another property; c. That placement or construction of the fence or wall shall comply with all applicable standards and requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code and general plan; d. Notwithstanding finding (a) of this subsection (13)(3), the applicant's request shall be approved if the director determines that findings of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section listed above can be made and either: Page 1 E-19 Denial would constitute an unreasonable invasion of the privacy of the occupants of the applicant's property and there is no method by which the property owner can create such privacy through some other means permitted by this title that would not significantly impair a view from a viewing area of another property; or Denial would prevent compliance with the swimming pool fencing requirements contained in subsection (F)(3) of this section and there is no reasonable method to comply with subsection (17)(3) of this section that would not significantly impair a view from a viewing area of another property. 4. Notice of Decision. The notice of decision of a fence/wall permit made pursuant to Section 17.76.030(6)(3) shall be given to the applicant and to all owners of property adjacent to the subject property. Notice of denial shall be given only to the applicant. Any interested person may appeal the director's decision to the planning commission pursuant to Section 17.80.050 (Appeal to Planning Commission) of this title. This decision of the planning commission may be appealed to the city council pursuant to Section 17.80.070 (Appeal to City Council) of this title. 6. The director, the planning commission and city council may impose such conditions on the approval of a permit as are necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare and to carry out the purpose and intent of this section. 7. In the case of conflict between the provisions of this section and other provisions of the development code or the building code, the most restrictive provisions apply. (Amended during 11-97 supplement; Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997: Ord. 254 §§ 2-4, 1990; Ord. 194 § 10 (part), 1985; Ord. 175 §§ 1418, 1983; Ord. 150 §§ 15, 16, 1982; Ord. 132 § 3 (part), 1980; Ord. 90 § 5 (part), 1977; Ord. 75 (part), 1975) (Ord. No. 510, § § 13, 14, 16, 6-29-10; Ord. No. 540, § 6, 11-20-12; Ord. No. 546, § 1, 4-1-14; Ord. No. 559U, § 1, 6-17-14; Ord. No. 560, § 1, 7-15-14) Page 2 E-20 Appeal Letter and Appellant's Supplemental Letters (ZON2016-00475) E-21 APPEAL RE: CONDITIONAL APPROVAL FENCEIWALL PERMIT CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA (CASE NO. ZON201600475) Applicant: Mieko & Shigeo Kadowaki Appellant: Chandru & Bina Sujan 30931 Caber Dive 30937 Cartier Drive " Kadowakis" " Sujans" c- 4 Appellant has presented Four "Grounds For Appeal' as listed below: 1. Severe Damage To Appellant House Il. Fraudulent Properety Line III. Civil Code Violations IV. Neighborhood Compatibility For Community Development. L GROUND FOR APPEAL: SEVERE DAMAGE'1*0 APPELLANT 1-1DUSE 1. The Sujans do not know if the City allowed the Kadowakis without agreement to dig up portion of The Sujans house, totally shaving off the soil which supported the Sujans Retaining Wall. This Retaining Wall was built originally with the house, and is attached to the house and holds in place a mass of soil with "Surcharge" which is the Sujans house. At Cartier Drive, houses are mostly built with Retaining Walls with soil (dirt) on the other side as support. Sujans believe that the City does not allow changes in topography on the hillside. 2. When rainwater seeps into soil/dirt, the weight of the "Surcharge" increases significantly. Without the supporting soil, on the other side, the Sujan house will slide off its foundation, or develop cracks and damages over time. 3. The illegal dug up condition has remained open for over a month, which is sufficient time to inflict damage to the Sujans house. 4. A Licensed Contractor/Kadowakis, willfully defied the City Codes by digging up the soil. 5. The risk of damage to the house will increase gradually with repeated cycles of yearly rains. 6. The level of dug up retention soil on the Kadowakis side is below the foundation of the Retaining Wall a few feet away from the Sujans house. 7. After forcible deep digging started, in the presence of The Kadowakis and their newly hired surveyor, Sujans informed the City. The intensity and speed of the digging operation accelerated. 8. Sujans have experience of the consequences of unsupported Retaining Wall over time. We have lived in RPV for several decades, and have been surprised with Kadowakis destructive actions. RECEIVED E-22 SPECIFIC ACTION BEING REQUESTED BY APPELLANT 10. Suians )raLthat the City ask The Kadowakis to replace the dug up soil, and compact it immediately, to avoid further damage to The Sujan house. 11. Hold The Kadowakis accountable for damages to The Sujan house, to the extent of rebuilding the house. "Phis rcc nest is similar to the City's protective Notice of Decision, Exhibit A, item 2. 12. Attachment 1 is Sujans letter dated October 17, 2016, addressed to the City with 3 photos. These photos show the bare retaining wall, and the length, breadth and depth dug up by Kadowakis. Sujans request,the City to take action against the Licensed Contractor/Kadowakis for this dire activity, without permits or agreements. 13. Attachment 1A is a professional Soil, Geoteh. Safety letter dated November 9, 2016. Sujans request that as an alternative to Kadowakis cooperation or delay, the City please fill up the deep trench at the Retaining Wall at Kadowakis expense, to save the Sujan house. 14. Attachment 2 is Sujans Uniform Planning Application to build a wood fence with a permit after the City takes action to secure the Sujan house, by asking Kadowakis to replace the illegally dug up soil and denying the building of a concrete wall by the Kadowakis. Keeping open the bared Retaining Wall is a hazard which the Sujans should not be subjected to any more. Sujans will pay Planning Application fee immediately on City's confirmation of this requested safer course of action to Retain the Sujan house. Suians_cequest that the City approve Sujans Application. 0 E-23 II. GROUND FOR APPEAL: FRAUDULENT PROPERTY LINE 1. Attachment 3 shows a photograph of Applicant (Kadowaki) & Appellant (Sujan) at the original decayed wood fence, which the Kadowakis destroyed in March 2016. For over 20 days the Kadowakis & the Sujans cooperated and built a replacement wood fence. 2. After completion of the replacement wood fence, the Kadowakis asked us to remove the fence which we built together for over 20 days. In the spirit of Community Development, Sujans removed that fence, and invited Kadowakis in a written letter, to meet and make adjustments. 3. Instead of meeting with us, Kadowakis brought in an attorney, and violated the City approved Victor Piai Survey in the Sujans file, by relying on only one misrepresented number "2.9 Feet", and discarded the entire existing position of the 180.93 Feet, in favor of the misrepresented number "2.9 Feet". Sujans did not know that Victor Piai's signed survey was sucontracted. 4. Attachment 4 is an enlarged portion of the Victor Piai survey in the City file for clarity. The dotted line, placed between points (A) and (B) show that the property line is no more a straight line. This is contrary to the L.A. County records. To solve the problem, the Kadowakis surveyors (plural) have now come up with a defective property line by moving the entire 180.93 Feet to conform to the misrepresented "2.9 Feet" mark. Physically measured, the "2.9 Feet" mark actually meets the perpendicular portion of the Sujans Fixed Retaining Wall. This defective moving of the property line is a Civil Code Violation. 5. Sujans invite the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to come and verify the exact measurement "2.9 Feet" (i.e. 2 Feet and 10.8 inches) existing between the corner of the house and the Fixed Retaining Wall, because it is a mathematical impossibility to measure this number to the property line. 6. The City can verify Attachment 4 details not from just one but from, multiple approved surveys in the Sujans file. The City can make mathematically infinite number of measurements and confirm that the distance between the Fixed Retaining Wall and where the Kadowakis wall/wood fence intersects, is 1 Foot. The Kadowakis surveyors should not reduce that measurement to 0.12 Feet to contain the manipulation shown in Attachment 4. 7. Attachment 5 is Kadowakis Attorney letter dated June 3, 2016, where they insisted on Sujans presence on June 10, 2016, under the threat of waiving our rights, and UNILATERALLY put an arbitrary rope showing a faulty property line, which they then had it surveyed on September 20, 2016, about 3 months later! SPECIFIC ACTION BEING REQUESTED BY APPELLANT 8. Sujans request the City to compare several/all approved Sujan surveys in City file with the manipulated and flawed survey presented by the Applicant. City should not accept incorrect flawed data in making their decisions, after we have brought it out to the City. 9. Sujans request that the City not approve Application ZON201600475, and approve Sujans Application to build a wood fence as shown in Attachment 2. 0 E-24 III. GROUND FOR APPEAL: CIVIL CODE VIOLATION 5. Attachment 6, shows that The Kadowakis repeatedly denied The Sujans access to re -survey the property line for 4 months. TI►is is an offence under Civil Code Section $46.5. The Sujans have already borne financial losses, for this offence by The Kadowakis, and have informed Kadowakis that Sujans have sufficient confirmation of the property line from the 3 approved surveys in City records. 6. As basis for the Su an property line, 3 City approved plans have been provided to the Kadowakis, since the Kadowakis fraudulently blocked us access. SPECIFIC ACTION BEING REQUESTED BY APPELLANT 7. The Sujans request that The City of Rancho Palos Verdes honor consequences of abuse of Civil Codes, including Section 846.5 by Kadowakis and not accept Kadowakis Application in Case No. ZON201600475. 8. The Sujans request that City recognize "Waiving our rights" shown in attachment 5, and the resulting unilateral trespass which allowed the Kadowakis to forcibly dig Sujans property at the crucial "Surcharge" bearing retaining wall. 9. The Sujans request that City should honor the data from the L. A. County Recorder's Office, that the property line is a straight line as shown in all 3 Sujans surveys in the City file, and not allow Kadowakis to deviate the entire property line to the "2.9 Feet" mark (Please refer to Attachment 4). 10. The Sujans request the City to accept 3 approved surveys, in City's possession, as the basis of the property line, considering denials for survey by Kadowakis. 11. The Sujans request that the City should not accept Kadowakis fraudelent property line, borne out of manipulation and violation of Civil Codes. 12. The Sujans request that the City deny building of the Concrete Block Wall as specified in Case No. ZON201600475, and allow building of a wood fence as shown in Attachment 2. tf E-25 IV. _GROUND FOR APPEAL: NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. Attachment 7_is Sujans letter dated September 28, 2016 with information to the City, at the time Kadowakis were digging out our Retaining Wall. 2. The Sujans reemphasize that building a concrete wall in unsi Ily in our environment. 3. Building of an unsightly awkwardly shaped concrete wall will reduce the value of our property. 4. Sujans have a relatively narrow front yard, which is only about one third (1/3) drivevable, which is close to the disputed property line. 5. Sujans safety on the narrow restricted driveway will be compromised, if the City allows building of a Concrete wall placed at the incorrect property line adjacent to the Sujans house. 6. A wood fence as shown in our Application placed as Attachment 2, with foliage will improve the values in our community, and improve the property values 7. If the Kadowakis want a prison environment of a concrete wall, then they can build a concrete wall two feet away from the Sujans property line to allow the Sujans to make their own improvements. 8. RPV often exercises Neighborhood Compatible practices SPECIFIC ACTION BEING REQUESTED BY APPELLANT 10. Sujans request that the City enforce Neighborhood Compatibility requirements 11. Sujans request that the City, specifically in this case, not allow a Concrete Block Wall which creates a prison environment. 12. Sujans believe that precedence exists that concrete wall has been moved some feet inside the Applicant's property. Sujans request that City exercise this action, as explained in Attachment 7 13. Sujans request that Kadowakis not deflect the property line to the flawed "2.9 Feet" mark and distort the straight line, as also shown in certified copy in L. A. County Records. 14. Sujans request the City to help Community Development, by inculcating courtesy, and remove encounter by neighbors who take unilateral actions, and commit violations of Civil Codes, and threats of waiving civil rights and therefore approve Sujans Application shown in Attachment 2. 5 E-26 _10117116 t. ROY ATrAe-O MetT 1 E-27 Hand Delivered uCr17Z016 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Mr. Ara Michael Mihranian, AIP Director of Planning, Building & Code Enforcement City of Rancho Palos Verdes Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5391 C. & B. Sujan 30937 Cartier Drive RPV, CA 90275 October 17, 2016 (310) 251-7704 Construction of a Fence/Wall by Mr. & Mrs. Kadowaki,�30931 Cartier Drive, RPV, CA Presented Respectfully: Dear Mr. Mihranian, Undermining our House Foundation Subsequent to our letter dated September 28, 2016, about the subject of Undermining our House Foundation we are enclosing 3 recent photos taken with a tape measure, relating to the surcharge bearing Retaining Wall. #l: Shows that Kadowakis (our neighbors) have dug the support to the retaining wall by digging at the block wall surface. You can see the blocks exposed on the Kadowakis side. We counted about 7 pieces of blocks vertically joined by concrete mix. #2: The digging is about 5 feet deep, close to our house. We think that this depth could be below the base of the Retaining Wall. 43: The "exposed" length of the Retaining Wall (North-South) is about 16 feet. This is a portion of the entire Retaining Wall. This size of original wall is of significant consequences. We are concerned about the earth and water pressures on the Retaining wall, due to (a) sloping soil, (b) structure footing loads and (c) vehicle loads, besides other unknown unpredictable events. Their licensed contractor should have been careful before digging out the compacted soil. For public safety we request that the City deny Kadowakis this wall project, and replace the old existing fence (demolished by Kadowakis) as shown in our letter dated September 28, 2016, placed away from the Retaining Wall. With Best Regards, Respectfully, C andru Sujan E-28 OIL m 7�-IPA` I k Tv., 4� I rl Sk n OIL. MEN -2 Xnow- -9 It as 196 6 7 '166 1B9 .190 sr s o ,j LAI- SAW f, [� /,4� E-32 NorCal Engineering Soils and Geotechnical Consultants 10641 Ilumbolt Street Los Alamitos, CA 90720 (562)799-9469 Fax (562)799-9459 Mr. Su Jan 30937 Cartier Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, California 50275-5633 Project Number 19235-16 RE: Temporary Excavations Along Driveway and House Area - Located at 30537 Cartier Drive, in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California Dear Mr. Jan: As per your request, this firm has performed an inspection of the recent temporary excavation along the driveway and house area at the subject site. The excavation is approximately 12 inches wide and 2 to 5 feet deep, adjacent to the small retaining wall along the side of the driveway. The existing retaining wall has been exposed and the deepest excavation of 5 feet extends slightly below the wall foundation, also. Background Information We understand that the excavation was made in September, 2016 by the neighbor with no permits, no plans and no soil reports. The excavation is open and poses a safety risk for anyone walking in the area. Conclusions The temporary excavation should be backfilled using on-site soils or a cement/slurry mixture. The area near the excavation should have a safety net and stakes to prevent people from failing in the long trench. The deepest excavation of 5 feet is near the house and undermines support for the building foundation. Lateral support is reduced and some movements of the building wall may occur. This firm should review any engineering plans and reports prepared by the neighbor, as necessary. E-33 November 9, 2016 Page 2 Project Number 19235-16 We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Respectfully submitted, NORCAL ENGINEERING E qN. 0 -7 .' 4 �c - I (v (.. e,(( No. 841 Keith D. Tucker E,op,1V31na Project Engineer R.G.E. 841 s��rF ), Cg1tF�P� NorCal Engineering zv(/ a�--O Mark A. Burkholder Project Manager E-34 AITAcHheHT Z E-35 �IE PALOS VERDES Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Phone: (310) 544-5228 Fax: (310) 544-5293 Website: www.rpvca.gov Email: planning@rpvca.gov UNIFORM PLANNING APPLICATION Planning Case No: (To be assigned by city staff) Project Address: 9 Q g 3 7 cad r t E R A.- R P V, CA o 2`' _x APPLICATIONS Please check all that a I ❑ Site Plan Review Major ❑ Grading Permit ❑ Height Variation ❑ Extreme Slope Permit 53"Fende, Wall and Hedge Permit ❑ Revision/Amendment ❑ Coastal Permit Appealable or Non -appealable? ❑ Minor Exception Permit ❑ Variance ❑ Landslide Moratorium Exception 70Ge7olo c Investigation Permit [❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Other Application: Additional Reviews: (1*Neighborhood Compatibility Analysis ❑ Foliage Analysis Kwumquasla Uynnou PROPERTY OWNER: Name c IiANZ Ru S. 81 NA QtTA N APPLICANT: Name 04 ",/,E Address 30 37_ C4RT16k DAI✓E Address 3P.137 C,AATIER JiRIVC City bac do iALas 1/eF1►)E'5State Ca Zip - o'2'7 CityRANci+oPA�s EADC!; StateCAZip 9o -27S Telephone (31 `7`701 Telephone C 31 )_ 2 S J- 7 `7'D Email �- City Business License No. (Required for architects and design professionals) PROJECT (DESCRIPTION Use additional paper, if needed) Rev. 6/16/15 E-36 INFORMATION TO DETERMIN9 IF A FOLIAGE ANALYSIS IS NECESSARY 1. Does the proposed project involve an addition or structure which is 120 square feet or more in size ;which can be used as a gathering space viewing area (i.e., decks, covered patios)? Yes ❑ No ❑ 2. Does the proposed project invoivc an addition or structure which consists of 120 square feet or more of )imitable space (i.e., room expansions, additions, conversions)? Yes ❑ No ❑ If the answer is "yes" to either question, a foliage analysis must be conducted by staff to determine if any existing foliage on the applicant's property which exceeds 16 feet or the ridgeline of the primary residence, whichever is lower, impairs a view from any surrounding properties. PROJECT SILHOUETTE WAIVER (Required for Neighborhood Compatibility Analysis & Height Variation) am the owner of property located at (property owner) (project address) in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and wish to apply to the City for permission to construct: (brief project description) I understand that, pursuant to Section 17.02.040(C)(1)(d), I must construct and maintain a temporary frame as a visual aid for evaluating the impacts of the proposed structure. I hereby waive any claim against the City of Rancho Palos Verdes for any damage or injury caused by the construction of the frame or by any subsequent failure of the frame. Property Owner Signature: HAZARDOUS WASTE & SUSSTANCE STATEMENT (REQUIRED FOR ALL PROJECTS) Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65962.5(f), before a city can accept as complete an application for any development project which will be used by any person, the applicant shall consult the lists sent to the appropriate city or county and shall submit a signed statement to the city indicating whether the project and any alternatives located on a site that is included on any of the lists compiled and shall specify any list. The California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) has compiled lists of Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites for the entire State of California, which identifies the following site in Rancho Palos Verdes (as of 8/22/2012): 31501 Palos Verdes Dr W Pt Vicente Interpretive Ctr I Envirostor ID 19970023 —] I have consulted the most current lists compiled pursuance to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code and hereby certify that the development project and any alternatives proposed in this application are not contained on these lists. Property Owner Signature: R PROPERTY OWNER'S CERTIFICATION (REQUIRED) I hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, that the information and materials herein and submitted with this application are true and correct. I also understand that projects involving new construction and additions or tear -down rebuilds will require approvals from the Los Angeles County Fire Department. Property Owner Signature �— NN\ Date it 1 ? 16 E-37 NEW 6' HIGH WOOD FENCE 133, TRACT No. 25313 t�kTY l ' l � LOT 132 TRACT NO, 25313 FE -NCE DETAIL PROPOSED F�ryCE EXISTING/C/pNC. BLOCK WALL NCVY +,\4 Q I @ 6'-a" O.C. NEW IX WOOD FENCE IEW 2X4 BOTTOM RAIL IEW 1/2" DIA. X 9" L. OLT SET IN EXPDXY XISTING CONC. _OCK WALL E-38 NEW 6'HIGHW�o�on� FENCE 133, TRACT 1Vo. 25313 v .LOT 132 T / �� NO.2S313 NEIVV 4X4 PAST @ 6'-01, O.C. NEW 1X WOOD FENCE IEW 2X4 BOTTOM RAIL IEW 1!2" DIA. X 9" L. OLT SET IN EXpOXy XISTING CONC. -OCK WALL FENCE DETAIL PROPpgED F�CE EXISTINGXONC. BLOCK WALL E-39 qsT*c)f "trxT 3 y E-40 E-41 EMAIL IM TEXT CHECK KEEP AS NEWREPLY REPLY AU I FORWARD I ACTION DFLEf E I SPAM �j, Fence pictures From Sherry Sujan sherrysujanl@9mail.com hide details Today on AOL To sahntl sahntr®aol.com show image slideshow Naw Mail 9791 Old Mail Drafts Sent Spam Recently Delet.. Contacts Calendar My Folders Saved Mail Saved Chats. IMG_1353.JPG IMG -1359 JPG E-42 ��- Lim 4rr6cHMex� q TOPOGRAPHIC V! U LEGEND -/ � r. Bartow uexs sw.x ox nasrw>:R.vwc umtr .._... ,xaarzs nxsxeD suvrc �////J\� � � mrw�rED mox srRDar s+r cu +raxr rxE r rcax.2s ra+ ar cuxe / +c¢ RnrcscuE rcarwem . Rvn,.marEtr rxE . a rxaGrEs rixSN£D cRnD aamrcs sram nett cwccrza xc a' +ccwRcr � i is _aro roor oOxC 1NO�� `�"�'E ! / � I 1 P. SREDYIC ELENIiKKS wRE R[OVW¢ iNE VYER AIODlO I \ cavnrer Rrrr arareYrexa Rr.. E t� Nm wrr roR ! / � ">r•Jr.r \ y � s�wrxr eE mvE�na�-aaxce R°Porm�sT.ND.Rs I y rsxwnatmrc vR+cn r wvo urea .marrrouonv , LOT tyJ, )WILT lb. 25J1J I r III i i N / 11 fill, Iv 4 4� ,h z it _ I b n� max« I 197 QY I Ii for rJz raAcr ko. 25JIJ l I�I w ✓ V A a•4rs �1: i Pi n �n r z ifko�" 'I y �_ R �.0 I � w+o�.ueE ' �(.•oe—�.''T_ —� t--an� � ae�i�` a oszs00sr ti .om;anre' e — .- I LEGAL DESCRIPTIONLOT u(, %40T eD 2 SURVEY CERTIFICATION N ' 5313 UR ! '- \� � _ LOT & TOPOORMW SURVEY ' , rrReer aRr mrr r w x REasrERm rn+ eti'cevreR t0I lit rRw.v xo YY.11: AS RER rtW RfY0ROE0 YI li a' GIi1FwxM TNr rM5 mAr COxS/5'I OF E YnfE%�S �� M bWR dH. RRefS' R! >nev 9C Of YNS Rr rnE a�liCE Df rxf' CURleORY R(PR6YEMs R SVRVtY 1IIOE VxOER SURFfr SIOx xv r' RFnSED 6-]r0, COVxlY RECD.®!F O! ,0Y alDL1EY GtlUNiv.RRLM lPp R(l eDRWENiY SxCW HL%0 K'rW(LY fa �: iV.E :IAItE: 1115TL5 340 ENGINEERING. INC. OATS: 04 -7 B--2001 r' wm' EAffxExr far awr«,:< v„Re-o�Es x[�C.w'... 340 24TH STREET SCncE r/B'�Y-a" HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 L1T011Exr lM RICnr-a'-Rer WRROSEY f SCALE 1/9"=1' -0• lyr., (310) 379-4941 _ rpWti PROJECT 51TE: I0H N0. 11157 reiDR e:E..2our ♦ Deq DRAMN BY 30837 CARTHiR DRNE --- v.0 O,/R.J C. n4NCHo PALO s vermes. CA SHtiBT I OF 1 E-44 MEASUREMENTS FROM VICTOR PIAL SURVEY DISTANCES BETWEEN PROPERTY LINE AND RETAINING WALL CLUSE'i'0 kAf10N'AIs�S FEt�cE rueg�(,• rN r TflE �'R(IFFRTf' t fNF= ��, CLOSE TO CORNER OF SUDAN HOUSE= 0.58' E-45 NOT TO SCALE iu � �� s : s Points "A" to "B" (Dotted Line does not ;tp� �) �.+�.�'�7'ti` follow straight line of the Property Line. L D % 1.3.3, 7f?�4 CT 1 VQ• 25313 Kadowakis are moving a entire 182.13 Feet of the remaining propertyline to fabricate a straight line and dig up Sujans property. Lill 97. i3 B �. �0 / (44 s 3 C�tr 7B / f A:T o s 1 � E-46 sr4-lEMcNT S 4h -r A,�,"d jt� E-47 I -AViv (-)I'I'IC F'S 01' t LARK T. KAW.Ei June 3, 2016 t� rillro Duct Pial I- atuil. 310.318.3198 mkawa@intkiaw.com It, I'r O4u I do Ao Chandru Suiar 30937 Cartier Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Re: Property Line Fence Dispute Dear Mr. Sujan: I am responding to you letter dated May 29, 2016. "There are numerous inaccuracies and misrepresentations in your letter. I will not waste my time responding to them. 7 My clients and I have concluded that you have no desire to resolve this matter in a reasonable and efficient manner. Your unwillingness to meet in person or even provide your phone number so that I can contact you is compelling evidence of your refusal to act in good faith. Accordingly, my clients will move forward unilaterally based on their independent survey. 7 This Friday at 2:00 p.m. my clients and I will meet at the property with an individual who will establish a physical line along the property line. My clients will thereafter build a fence along the property line. If you have any objections to the physical location of the property line, we demand that yoL(r them next Friday, otherwise we will consider them waived. W og ve vv - cc: Shigeo Kadowaki cldad 6� 11 Sincerely, Mark T. Kawa MA • kA-b6W4krs REPEA-rEDt�EN1E_p Nr- t4 Rc - Sm Q vE y �v su res E-49 I . A I\ 1 11 ' f °I `+ C?I NVU11K T. KAWA June 17. 2016 310.318.3 198 mkawa@,mtklaw.com Chandru Sujan 30937 Cartier Drive Rancho Palos 1' rdcs, ` ".'JC275 Re: Property Line Dispute Dear Mr. Sujan: 1 am responding to your letter dated June 15, 2016. Thank you for notifying me that you intend to have your property re -surveyed. Please be advised, however, that Kadowakis decline to grant both you and your surveyor permission to enter their propel. While the Kadowakis previously would have granted your request, the fact that you called the Sheriff's Department to come to the property on June 10, 2016 while the Kadowakis were establishing the property line has elevated matters to a different level. Unless and until you apologize in writing for your uncalled for conduct, please do not ask the Kadowakis to grant you any favors. Sincerely, Mark T. Kawa cc: Shigeo Kadowaki E-50 t lti' tl1 t If T'`+ LSP' MARK T. KAWA June 28, 2016 ,... ' 1'ii Y.1 (..11 1 Nad 310.318.3198 mkawa@mtklaw.com Chandru Sujan 30937 Cartier Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Re: Pool Equipment Enclosure Dear Mr. Sujan: I am responding to your letter dated June 23, 2016, which is filled with so many inaccuracies and outright lies that 1 will not bother responding to them. Suffice it to say that there are numerous individuals who witnessed all that transpired on June 10`h, and I am confident they will contradict every false statement contained in your letter. On June 27, 2016, I advised you in writing that neither you nor any of your agents are permitted to enter upon the Kadowakis' property, and that any such action will be considered a trespass. Your most recent request for access to the Kadowakis' property on July 11, 2016 is likewise denied. Sincerely, Mark T. Kawa cc: Shigeo Kadowaki E-51 I,A\ � �I ! .1 1 lel 'vIr\KK T. KAWA July 15. 3016 310-318.3 198 mkawa(t mtklaw,com Chandru Sujan 30937 Cartier Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Re: Survey Dear Mr. Sujan: 1 am responding to your letter dated July S. 2016. My clients do not believe that any structure belonging to them is on your property. The survey you refer to and rely upon does not show any encroachment either.] With regard to our request to conduct a new survey. m clients have neer prevented you from �..__iY � �' y � doing so. They see no reason why your surveyor would need to access their property in order to do so. since he can access and mark the property line from your property. Nevertheless, to the extent your stu-veyor believes otherwise, he is hereby granted limited permission to enter onto my clients' property for the sole purpose of performing his survey. You, however, are not granted such permission, and your entry onto my clients' property will be considered a trespass. Pursuant to Ovil Code §846.5. please notify me in writing of the date and time that your surveyor will perform his survey. Sincerely, IIIA j-\- Y',.._ Mark T. Kawa cc: Shigeo Kadowaki E-52 Hand Delivered Express Mail US Mail 1. Mr. Mark T. Kawa 101 North Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 100 Redondo Beach, CA 90277 2. Mr. & Mrs. Shigeo & Mierko Kadowaki c/o Mr. Mark T. Kawa Redondo Beach, CA 90277 C. & B. Sujan 30937 Cartier Drive Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 September 23, 2016 Dear Mr. Kawa, Mr. &Mrs. Kadowaki, Your letter dated September 9, 2016 was in response to our 3 letters, aft r 50 day of remindlers. We are not asking for excuses. But let this be in the records. I. Your Second Survey Provides Preponderance of Evidence This letter addresses your second survey by Mr. John Riahi on September 16, 2016. When he rang our doorbell, we invited him in and gave him due respect. He promised to provide the surveyto o us. The second survey has prompted us to attach two more surveys for our property as follows: II. Our 3 Surveys Provide Prel2onderance of Evidence 1. Survey by Victor Piai, Civil Engineer, is already in your possession. 2. Survey done by Harvey Goodman, approved by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes on 7/28/92. 3. Survey done by R. Gould, approved by City of Rancho Palos Verdes on 10/12/05. "Kadowakis" were involved in this survey, when the City provided documents to all neighbors in the vicinity. III. Survey Lines And Scales Are Meaningful Our house was built with the existing_ retaining wall in or about 1960s. All 3 of our surveys show that distance from the property line to the existing wall, where "Kadowakis' wall meets with the property line, is at least a foot away from the existing retaining wall. IV. Provide Us The Survey Done by Mr. John Riahi On 9/16/16 As Promised We ask that you provide us an official copy of your second survey, as promised, for us to decide, if it is similar to our 3 surveys provided to you, and then address need for another survey. V. Reminder: Tresnassing Is A Serious Offence If You Build A Wall Without Our Agreement. Sincerely, E-53 • Complete items 1, 2, and 3, ■ Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can retura the card to you. ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailplece, or on the front if space penults. 1. Article Addressed to: lily. ( 7. KA. AGt 2-7-12 C104 4f..t`7 _ YC-RMaS4 -REACH II �� 9oz5'A 9590 9402 1580 5369 Al t 1 A 2. A ELOS8981942US PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053 ■ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. ■ Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. • Attach this card to the back of the mailplece, or on the front If space permits. t. Article Addressed to: "lam ,- �'J-m 101 k t-� ` Qe�A Std J� B�to�o, Crq 962-77 9590 9402 1580 5362 6113 03 2. Artir EL058981939US PS Form 0011, July 2015 PSN 7530.02-000-9053 a s ---- 0 Agent 0 Addre B. eceived by (Pri ed Name) Date of Dell D. Is delivery addrM differont from Item 17 O'Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: 0 No 3. Service Type Pdod Mail Ex b parosa� • Adult Signature 0 eglsterod Moll 0 Adult Signature Restricted Deli Y ❑ Certified 0 � iiat red Mail ReaWcted Mol(® OV 0 Certiffed Mag Ft"Utcted Delivery 0 Retunn Rsoeipt for 0 Collect on Delivery Merctttandles 0 Collect on Delivery RGWmvd Delivery 0 Signature ConftwdonTM ❑ insured Me1I 0 Signature ConMnadon 0 insured Mail Restricted Delivery Restricted DWhwy Domestic Return Receipt ; r A. SI !� ,-� _0 Agent - B. Received by D. is delivery address different from Rem t? U Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: 0 No 3. Service Priority Mail ExpresA 0 Adult Signature leered Melllm 0 Adult Signature Restricted Delivery Certlfled Mall® 0 Rogleered sldcted tMail Re*MW 09 ry 0 Certified Mall Restricted Delivery 0 Return Receipt for • Collect on Delivery Merchandise 0 Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery 0 Signature ConfimiatlonTM 0 Insured Mail 0 Signature Conlinnatlon 0 Insured -Mail ResWed Delivery Restricted Delivery Domestic Return Receipt . E-54 A.rw.*P*6*f 7 tG.H-Go RH-00 CahPRTIBILI Y FVe C-ONtlutg)ry �EyELoI�f?ENT 1ZEFER -5Rs6N LES rEk : ��ig�l6 E-55 Hand Delivered RECEIVED SEP Z 8 2016 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN? Mr. Ara Michael Mihranian, AIP Director of Planning, Building & Code Enforcement City of Rancho Palos Verdes Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5391 Dear Mr. Mihranian, C. & B. Sujan 30937 Cartier Drive Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 September 28, 2016 Construction of a Fence/Wall Without a Permit By Mr. & Mrs Kadowaki, 30931 Cartier Dr., RPV, CA. Our neighbors Mr. & Mrs. Kadowaki kept denying our surveyor access as required by Civil Code Section 846.5. We gave them 3 existing surveys approved by RPV. On September 27, 2016, after they started digging for a Fence/Wall, they gave us a copy of their survey. We are requesting that although there is no agreement between the neighbors on the location of the property line, we would like the City to enforce Building and Safety practices to safeguard our property. I. The Contractor refuses to give us his name or Business Card We asked information directly from him, but he refused, and will not communicate with us. II. Undermining our house Foundation The digging they have started is very close to our house Retaining Wall, which was built with our house. Therefore digging next to the wall will remove retaining wall support for our house, (the wall is surcharge support for the house). III. City gave us the attached Fence/Wall Application Process Our house pads slope appear to be #3 in this documents. We request that the City check this detail on site. We think that the Kadowakis should proceed with the Formal Fence/Wall Permit process. A permit exempt process is not likely to give protection. Over 7 foot wall may require footings, which could further encroach on our property, and undermine our foundation. Replacement of existing fences or walls We are enclosing a photograph showing the original wood wall which was destroyed early this year by the Kadowkis. The picture shows a 42 inch wall largely placed away from the crucial retaining wall which supports our house. Any new targe Kadowakis concrete wall digging process will undermine support of the existing retaining wall for our house. 1/2 E-56 We believe that Kadowakis want to build a concrete wall We oppose building of a concrete wall for following reasons: 1. It is unsightly in our environment. 2. It will reduce the value of our house. 3. We have a relatively narrow front yard, which makes it difficult to maneuver cars. 4. We have a slope which is only one third drivable. And that portion in mainly near the disputed property line with the Kadowakis. With a concrete wall a mishap could be injurious for us. S. If the City does consider a concrete wall, then we request the City to move the wall 1.5 - 2 feet towards the Kadowakis house, to allow us to put foliage for safety reasons. We request that the City consider any restrictions posed by CRC (California Residence Code) Section R105.1 We believe that permit is required for any alteration (old fence) to a structure as per this code, depending on Kadowakis processes. We have lived in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes for several decades. We thank the City for making improvements to our surroundings. With Best Regards, Respectfuilty, C (Canti- dru SujG n) 2/2 E-57 Hand Delivered F-,,�C, I V E 0F=PilR,I§` E.NF Mr. Ara Michael Mihranian, ALP Director of Plannuing, Building & Code Enforcement City of Rancho Palos Verdes Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Re: Our Appeal to Case No. ZON201600457 Dear Mr. Mihranian C. & B. Swan 30937 Cartier Drive Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 November 16, 2016 (310) 251-7704 We filed our Appeal on November 9, 2016. Having lived in RPV for about 40 years, we came to the City respectfully with our properly compiled Appeal with a ready to pay Check for the process. We have carefully read all 4 elements of the Appeal detail several times, and feel that it is proper. The City Code says that the Director, Planning Commission and City Council will protect Public Health, safety, and welfare of RPV citizens. L Severe Damage to Appellant House: The process of potentially, severely damaging and moving our house off of its foundation, by Applicant's actions, to obtain a conditional permit from RPV, is offensive. We have enclosed a specialist's soils and geotech report (Attachment IA) in our Appeal. This is a hazardous Building & Safety issue, a "finding" overlooked by the City. It is directly connected with building a fence/wall. 2. Fraudulent Property line: This is a detail presented to the City in our Appeal document, considering that this is the main reason that the Applicants shaved off support from our Retaining Wall. This wall is also attached to our house foundation. We have given clear detail of this fraudulently derived data (e.g. Attachment 4) in our Appeal, a finding City should not ignore, in the interest of Public Safety. 3. Code Violations: Code violations like Civil Code Section 846.5 and threats to waive our Civil Rights allowed the Applicants to start digging without Permits and City approvals. Our evidence to you is not as simple as someone calling to say that the neighbors are hanging their laundry in our view. Applicants are represented by their supporters, who hung a rope (Attachment 5 dated June 3, 2016) claiming as their property line and then later obtained several surveys to match that fictitious line on September 20, 2016, under a threat to waive our civil rights. The City, should not ignore such findings. E-58 4. Neighborhood Compatibility For Community Development. This section contains clear and detailed "Grounds For Appeal and Specific Action Being Requested by Appellant" to the building of a concrete wall, with descriptions like creation of a prison environment, restrictions and risks to Appellant's house with potential for injury within Appellant's restricted drivable space. This is contrary to acts of Community Development. Therefore, we respectfully request that our Appeal submitted on November 9, 2016 be accepted, and to please give us procedures to follow our requirements in a timely manner. Respectfully. Z -V �• ___-- C. Sujan E-59 Hand Delivered Mr. Ara Michael Mihranian, AIP Director of Planning, Building & Code Enforcement City of Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Purpose and Compliance of Grading Permits Section 17.75.040 of Development Code Re: Grading Permits by our neighbors, "The Kadowakis". Dear Mr. Mihranian, C. & B. Sujan 30937 Cartier Drive Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 December 14, 2016 (310) 251-7704 RECEIVED Grading Permit ensures that the earth movement occurs in a harmonious manner with adjacent land and without unsightly benching. The Kadowakis grade had a visual continuity to our surcharge bearing Retaining wall. The attached Photograph No.l with the old fence (which was destroyed by the Kadowakis), demonstrates this feature. We request that the City disapprove all fence/wall building activities of The Kadowakis, since all three (Minor, Major, Remedial) Grading Permit requirements have been grossly abused by the Kadowakis, and these affect building and safety requirements of our house and the RPV community. We reproduce the 3 grading permit -requirements applicable to the Kadowakis: 1. Minor Grading Permit (Subpara 2) " 2. An excavation three (3) feet or more, but less than five (5) feet below natural grade, or a fill three (3) feet or more, but less than five (5) feet above natural grade on a slope less than 35%." 11. Major Grading Permit (Subpara 3) " 3. Any excavation or fill which encroaches on or alters a natural drainage channel or water course" III. Remedial Grading Permit required for excavations, fill or any redistribution of earth materials for the purpose of enhancing soil stability and/or reducing geotechnical hazards due to natural land movement or the the presence of natural hazards. Grading Applications for remedial grading shall be accompanied by geological and/or soils reports which justify the need for the remedial grading and indicate that the grading will not aggravate the existing soils and/or geologic conditions." Cont: P2 E-60 M We respectfully explain each of the 3 requirements applicable to the Kadowakis in the same sequence shown on page I:- 1. Minor Grading Permit (Subpara 2) This is a requirement for all earthwork projects. We request that the City impose this requirement on The Kadowakis to minimize any further adverse impacts, in addition to the damage sustained on our property. Photograph No. 2 shows the depth of excavation done by Kadowakis. It. Maior Grading Permit (Subpara 3) We believe that changing the slope of the natural drainage and course of the water flow, without grading permits, and without supervision, is very dangerous for our house and on the hill of Rancho Palos Verdes. The Kadowakis excavations without Grading Permits have encroached and altered natural drainage channel and the course of the water flow. Photograph No. 3 shows dried foliage roots on the surface of the Retaining Wall. This indicates the level of earth which existed before the Kadowakis dug it out. Our front yard was built with the house, as is. The Kadowakis rearranging or removal/addition of earth has materially changed the way water will seep to the foundation of our surcharge bearing Retaining Wall, now without proper footing, which has been dug out. We have shared with the City a sample photograph of the footing/foundation material which was jack hammered out by The Kadowakis in our letter dated December 13, 2016. Without the footing, water will seep under the Retaining Wall easier, and result in further damage to our property. Photograph No. 4 shows a sample picture of the slurry poured by The Kadowakis. The slurry is cracked in several places, and not supporting our Retaining Wall. Water will seep under the extracted footing and cause further damage to our property. We respectfully request that the City withdraw the Conditional Permit ( Case No. ZON2016-00475) to build a Wall/Fence by The Kadowakis in a wrong location, to prevent any further damage to our property. Ill. Remedial Grading Permit By unilateral fill and redistribution of earth material, without a Remedial Grading Permit (therefore without supervisions) after our Soils Engineer pointed out the need to protect the Retaining Wall, The Kadowakis have increased the geotechnical hazards due to natural land movement, presence of natural hazards, and water damage. The Remedial Permit required geological and/or soils reports, indicating that the Remedial Grading will not aggravate the existing soils and/or geologic conditions. Cont: P3 E-61 It appears that The Kadowakis want to illegally flatten their side yard, at the cost of severe damage to our property by eliminating support to our Retaining/Foundation Wall, specially close to our house. The City can see the rearrangement of earth with several Railroad ties, and temporarily placed stones, to change the contour of the harmonious slope of earth, and create benching at the southern portion of our Retaining Wall, to get their illegal flat side yard. We respectfully request that the City withdraw Conditional Approval (Case No. ZON2016-00475) and not allow Kadowakis to further aggravate the geological condition surrounding our house. We respectfully request that the City have geological conditions restored, and have remedial measures taken by the Kadowakis, now leading to the damage to our house. ELEMENTS AFFECTING CONDITIONAL PERMIT/APPROVAL 1. The Kadowakis Application has a name of a Licensed Contractor (Should have known requirements of permits?). 2. Kadowakis trench work commenced without any construction permit on September 27, 2016. 3. There are no Architectural or Engineering Design documents in the Application. 4. There is no soils/geology report as required in City's documents: (1) Steps for Obtaining City Approval for Residential Construction, and (2) Grading Permits. 5. There is no Grading Permit for this project, which required 3 Grading Permits, now resulting in damage to our property. 6. For no reason, our Surcharge bearing Retaining Wall has been stripped off of support, and damaged. 7. The illegal grading by The Kadowakis has altered the natural drainage channel which will impact our property adversely. 8. The illegal trench was fully exposed to weather and rainy environment for 54 days (Not 30 days as claimed by The Kadowakis). After 54 days, the fill is still faulty, as explained in item "III Remedial Grading Permit" on page 2. Considering details in this letter, we respectfully request the City to withdraw Conditional Approval No. ZON2016-00475. Enc: 4 Photos Respectfully, C. 4c�aa I E-62 do .jw at 4' IL 1.6 Vp rlN �_ 1^p�, tt r w ,.M rte .'i, �'" �: R. �� �l _ 1 A ,�� e • �I 'i 'k - �� � � •� t :.r :1 <,� • ,f .. c/.t ,, f Cr. ' .. .. . �...� '. c. . } l �K ., err "�': f '+�y� J ! � .�_ T 1: ' '/,: � _ , � J!f r'� • S' Ay � , Y . +' � Hand Delivered Mr. Ara Michael Mihranian, AIP Director of Planning, Building & Code Enforcement City of Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5391 C. & B. Sujan 30937 Cartier Drive Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 December 13, 2016 (310) 251-7704 Violation of Chapter 17.8, Ord 320 Section 7 (part) 1997 Damai,e Done By Our Neighbors (The Kadowakis) During The "Stag" Period Dear Mr. Mihranian, The violation mentioned above says, "The filing of a notice of appeal pursuant to this chapter stays all activity on the project until a final decision on the appeal." We filed an appeal on November 9, 2(716. "Fhe Kadowakis poured inadequate amount of Slurry on November 20, 2016, which did not cover or support our retaining wall. However, on November 21, 2016, (when all activity was staved) "rhe Kadowakis dug out the footing of our Retaining Wall by using a jackhammer and cutting tools, specially in close proximity to our house. The dug out footing was then concealed with loose dirt. We have photos of dug out footing materials. We feel that The Kadowakis want to illegally flatten and re- grade their side yard. One sample piece of the dug out material is shown in the attached photograph. As a result, our Retaining Wall is sustaining damage. This wall is an L -Shaped Retaining Surcharge Wall connected to our house. We have kept record of several pieces of footing materials. We respectfully request that the City not condone severe damage to our house, under the pretext of a conditional permit to put a Wall/fence at an incorrect place. We respectfully request that the City please recognize that all digging work done by the Kadowakis has been done without pert -nits, and illegal operations, resulting in damage to our property. We respectfully request the City to have foundation to our )retaining Wall properly restored, at the cost of The Kadowakis. Respectfully, C , . Enc: 1 Photo E-67 y� Y .r �( fir ♦ , •f� rt . y14 f • ' r 40' l � i s ,r Oil �� a Chandru & Bina Sujan 30937 Cartier Dr. Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 January 5, 2017 (310) 251-7704 The Community Development Director Mr. Ara Michael Mihranian, AIP City of Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Permission To Replace Old Damaged Deteriorated Fence Dear Mr. Mihranian, We tried to make a formal application to replace the old fence shown in the attached photo. The City staff told us that replacing this fence to a height of 6 feet is permitted without any approvals or fees by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes according to Municipal Code 17.76.030. We are therefore submitting for our file and for City Records: 1. The architectural detail to replace this fence at the property line. 2. A copy of our Survey filed with the City. 3. A letter from the City confirming that this Survey is a copy of the "Original filed with the City." We thank you and the City for your patience and processes you have conducted for us, during about 4 decades of our residence in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. With best regards, Respectfully, Chandra§ ° 9E1) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEMT DEPARTMENT E-69 E-70 REPLACEMENT OF OLD DILAPIDATED FENCE SHOWN IN ATTACHED PHOTOGRAPH 133, TRACT No. 25,.313 LOT I32 T' RACT NO.2�z1 1 NEW 4X4 @ 6'-0 O.0 pOSTS SET IN STANDARD 2'CONCRETE RETE HOLES NEW 1 X WOOD FENCE NEW 2X4 RAILS LESS THAN 6' HEIGHT FENCE DETAIL PROPOSED Fdl�E EXISTING/i�ONC. BLOCK WALL E-71 -:-ti(s J 4i p Of E-72 Jam' Q (a E-72 CITY0 or. ANCHO PALOS VERDES (UMML-fill l IJF\/EL(-)IIMFN F DUARTMEN I June 22, 2016 Hello Mr. & Mrs. Chandru, This letter serves to confirm that the "Lot and Topographic Survey" completed by Piai Engineering, Inc., of your property at 30937 Cartier Drive, is a copy of the original filed with the City. SincIerely, Amy Seeraty Associate Planner 'W' 1-10 M It 1k )1,,'NL, i § IV D i 4 1 00) 1 1 !0) 'b:;-] I i1j,fif & V t 1 ki E-73 Hand Delivered Chandru & Bina Sujan 30937 Catrier Drive Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 January 10, 2017 (310) 251-7704 Mr. Octavia Silva Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 Ref: ZON2016-00475 Submittal of communications by Jan. 17, 2017 Dear Mr. Silva, Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit communications in writing in the Notice dated January 5, 2017. As advised by the City several times, and also allowed by the Municipal Code 17.76.030, we submitted our permission for fence documents in a letter form dated January 5, 2016, since a formal application is not required. To comply with the deadline of Tuesday, January 17, 2017, for submittal, we request you to kindly include our documents entitled "Permission To Replace Old Damaged Deteriorated Fence" filed on January 5, 2017, in the Report which will be available for viewing on January 18, 2017. Thank you & with regards, Rcpectful l y, Chandru Swan 1 0 RUIJ ,3() Y' MUT,jj,Ty p�VFLC?PMEN i DEPARWENT E-74 Applicant's Request to Backfill (ZO N 2016-00475 ) E-75 November 14, 2016 Mr. Octavio Silva Planning Division City of Rancho Palos Verdes Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 RE: Backfilling Existing Trench located at 30931 Cartier Dr. RPV, CA Dear Mr. Silva: We would like to backfill the existing trench for the proposal wall which will be built located at 30931 Cartier Dr. RPV, CA 90275. The trench has been exposed more than 30 days and we would like to fill it for safety purpose. This would be advisable pending appeal process. Best Regards, Shigeo Kadowaki E-76 i;' E-77 Applicant's Response to Appeal (ZON2016-00475) E-78 11/15/16 Mr. Octavio Silva Planning Division City of Rancho Palos Verdes Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 RE: Block Fence Application Dear Mr. Silva 101 COMM NtTY DENELOPMENT DEPARTMENT We are very disapoointed to read our neighbor's (Mr. Sujan) letter to the City by many inaccuracies and lies in his statements. We here attached some letters corresponded with our neighbor during last several months as a reference. We think the neighbor tries to take our land because he wants to expand his driveway for his convenience. However nobody can change the boundary line. People should be honest. Although we currently performed two different certified surveys and yet neighbor's old surveyor admitted his mistake on his 15 years old survey drawing, the neighbor still doesn't accept the result. Also we gave his surveyor our permission to enter our property but he had never done resurvey against his words. Since last several months neighbor kept giving hard time, breaking our peaceful retirement life, wasting our precious time and making us mental sickness by tremendous pressure. We hope that he accept the truth and stop bothering us. Best Regards, Mieko Kadowaki E-79 LAW OFFICES OF MARK T KAWA September 9, 2016 ,,,ritc,, D, -4t n:,,i IF ".,:� 310.318.3198 mkawa@mtklaw.com Chandru Sujan 30937 Cartier Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Re: Survey Dear Mr. Sujan: 1 am responding to your letters dated July 21, August 12, and August 31, 2016. As I previously advised you on July 15, 2016, my clients see no reason why your surveyor would need to access their property in order to conduct a boundary line survey. However, if your surveyor does need to access my client's property, he and his crew are hereby granted permission to enter onto my clients' property for the sole purpose of performing the survey. Neither you. your wife, your children, nor anyone else may enter my clients' property. Doing so will be considered a trespass. Accordingly, the "No Trespass" signs on my clients' property will not be removed, even though they do not apply to your surveyor and his crew for the purpose of conducting his survey. Since July 15`h, there has been no blockage to access my clients' backyard. Pursuant to Civil Code §846.5, please notify me in writing of the date and time that your surveyor will perform his survey. On a final note, we suggest that you stop finding excuses why you cannot conduct your survey. If you want to conduct one, then please do it. Also, once you schedule a survey and notify my clients of its date and time, please do not cancel it. Just recently, your surveyor, Chris Vassallo of Pacific Land Consultants, informed my clients that he would survey the boundary line on August 10`h or 11 h. My clients waited for him both days, but he never showed because you presumably cancelled his engagement. My clients rearranged their schedules on both days to be at home for the survey to take place. Sincerely, Mark T. Kawa cc: Shigeo Kadowaki • L 1V,V OFFICES OF MARK r KAWA July 15. 2016 310.318.3198 mkawa@mtklaw.com t Chandru Sujan 30937 Cartier Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Re: Survey Dear Mr. Sujan: I am responding to your letter dated July 8, 2016. My clients do not believe that any structure belonging to them is on your property. The survey you refer to and rely upon does not show any encroachment either. With regard to your request to conduct a new survey, my clients have never prevented you from doing so. They see no reason why your surveyor would need to access their property in order to do so, since he can access and mark the property line from your property. Nevertheless, to the extent your surveyor believes otherwise, he is hereby granted limited permission to enter onto my clients' property for the sole purpose of performing his survey. You, however, are not granted such permission, and your entry onto my clients' property will be considered a trespass. Pursuant to Civil Code §846.5, please notify me in writing of the date and time that your surveyor will peTfonm his survey. Sincerely. Mark T. Kawa CC' Shigeo Kadowaki E-81 Lp.w OFFICES OF MARK T. tcwwA June 13, 2016 310,318.3198 mkawa@mtklaw.com Chandru Sujan 30937 Cartier Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Re: Property Line Dispute Dear Mr. Sujan: I am in receipt of your June 10. 2016 letter that was delivered to my office earlier today. I am disappointed, but not surprised, by the patently false representations contained in your letter. It is abundantly clear from your most recent communication that you have (and likely never had) any desire to resolve the property line issue with the KadowWds in a reasonable manner. Rather, it is apparent that your intent is and has been to object to everything, raise issues that do not exist, &castrate and ultimately prevent the Kadowakis from doing what they are legally entitled to do - construct a block wall on their side of their property. The Kadowakis have no further desire to attempt to reason with someone who is unreasonable, and therefore from this point forward will construct their block wall based on the March 24, 2016 survey prepared by John Ruff of Uniplan Engineering, Inc. (hereinafter, the "Ruff Survey"). Because your most recent letter contains so many false and inaccurate statements. I am compelled to set the record straight. On April 25, 2016, 1 wrote you on behalf of the Kadowakis. I provided you with a 24" x 36" copy ai the Ruff Survey as you had previously asked the Kadowakis to provide. My letter notified you that your recently -constructed fence encroached on my clients' property by as much as 1.8 feet, and that your recently -planted bamboo stalks were also on my clients' property. I suggested that instead of escalating this matter beyond the point where it already was, that we have a face-to-face mating to see if we could amicably resolve the property lino -issue. On April 27, 2016, you responded to my letter. You stated that you had removed the fence and plantings, and accepted my suggestion to resolve the matter -amicably. You included an 8 1/3" x 11" copy of a document which you stated was your property line survey. On May 2, 2016, I wrote and thanked you for removing your encroaching fence and plantings. I noted, however, that the 8 1/1" x 11" document you provided appeared to be a portion of a larger LAW OFFICES OF MA" T KAWA Chandru SuJan Ame 13, 2016 Page 2 document, I pointed out that the document you provided bore no Lcrfificd-fion starnp, and therefore was unreliable for purposes of cWlen ging the accuracy of the Ruff Survey. On May 7, 2016', you sent me a lettcidsing a 24" x 36" copy of an April 16, 2001 survey prepared by Piai Engineering, Inc. (the "Piai" Survey"). On May 10, 2016, 1 acknowledged receipt of the full-sized Piai Survey, and noted that '"the property line on both surveys appears to be the same." (I am not an expert at interpreting surveys, and therefore used the appropriate qualifier). I advised you that since my clients intended to build a wall on their side of the property, and you were considering making improvements to your side, that we should meet at the property and physically string a line along the property line, using the surveys as a guide, to avoid any fiAture confusion. I suggested we schedule a time for the following week. I told you that I would bring someone familiar with reading surveys to string the line. I asked you to provide me with some available dates when you could meet. Rather than agreeing to meet in person to mark the property Hm (and address any dire pancies betw"n the two surveys, to the extent they existed), you instead sent me a letter on May 17, 2016 insisting that my clients agree in writing to your imprecise interpretation of the Piai Survey. Specifically, you insisted that my clients agree, among other things, that "(c]loso to where the 'Kadowakis' [sic] fence mecu ow property line fence, our property line extends about 1 foot from the L shaped rexaming wall, towards the 'Kadowulds' (sic] midence," On May 23, 2016, 1 responded to your May 17, 2016 letter byde -dining to sign your agreernent, Rather than argue with you over why your proposed written agreement was unworkable, I reiterated my suggestion that we meet at the property and string a physical line, I again pointed out to you that a meeting at the property would permit us to address any concerns or disagreements in an efficient manner, rather then going back aW forth with letters, Finally, I asked that you provide me with your phone number so that we could speed up the process of resolving the issue. On Way 29, 2016, you sent me a convoluted letter which was apparently intended to respond to a May 28, 2016 letter from me. Since I never sent you a letter dated May 28", 1 assume you were referring to my May 23`a letter. In any event, your letter made clear that you had no desire to meet at the propeity and work things out, Nor were you willing to give me your telephone number so we could at least have a conversation, 2 Phrases such as "close to where the Xklowakis' (sic] kmt nieets our property line" and `abouY I foot" are vague NW ambiguous. E-83 LAw OFFicFs OF MARx T. KAwA Chandru Sujan June 13, 2016 Page 3 On June 3, 2016, 1 responded to your letter, notifying you that in fight of your rebisal to meet, my clients and I would meet at the property on Friday, June 10 at 2;00 p.m, with an individual who would establish a physical line between the two properties, I told you that if you had any objections to the physical location of the prooerty line, you should raise them then, offiemise we would consider them waived, On June 8, 2016, you sent me another letter, arguing for a written agreement and warning us not to trespass onto you pr® On Friday, June 10, 2016 at approximately 2:15 the Kadowskis begm the process of establi&hing a physical property line, Their survey crew did this by referring to both surveys where necessary, You and your daughter were physically present, watching and taking pictures of everything we did, hex Ae" physical property line was established accordingto the surveys, the workers and I left the property, with an assurance from you that you would not move or remove the string that identifies the property line. LAW OMCES OF MARK T KAwA Chandru SuJan June 112016 Page 4 As to your second point, at no time did anyone ever trespass onto your property, Your false accusation to the contrary is shameful, given that I was physically present during the entire time and observed that nobody ever stepped foot onto your property without first obtaining your pertnfission. There is not a single stake orlstring thm ever encroached on your property. Be advised that to the extent you remove the stakes or string that we placed, you do so at your peril, Third, I newr made the statements attributed to me regarding the Ruff Survey, So that we are crystal cleav (1) 1 never told you that the Ruff Survey was copied from Just one borrowed measurement from the Piai Survey; (2) 1 never told you that the Piai Survey markers were too much trouble for me to go through, Both statement am patently false, I am offended that you would even attempt to attribute such words to me that I never said, What I did tell you is that we are confident to a 100*,'* certainty that the physical property line we strung accurately reflects the boundary line. The ow 's therefore intend to move forward with constructing their block wall on their side of the property line. They do not need your agreement to do so, and are not king for it. You arc of course free to do whatever you choose to do on your side of the property. Do not, however, remove the existing property line marker. Finally, in physically establishing the property line last Friday, we note that several of your PVC irrigation pis that run above ground along your block wall encroach onto the .ow is' property, We also noticed that some of your driveway paving stortes encroach as well, Demand is made that you remove the pipes and paving stones immediately. If your workers need access to the Kadowakis' property to do so, they will gmt your workers permission provided it is cleared with them in advance. Sincerely, Mark T, Kawa M Shigeo Kado E-85 Express Mail U. S. Mail C. & B. Sujan 30937 Cartier Dr. Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 April 27, 2016 Mark T. Kawa 2212 Pacific Coast Highway Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Mr. Kawa: This is in response to your letter dated April 25, 2016. Kadowakis participated in removing and replacing the fence at the location where the original fence existed. Mr. Kadowaki was not misled. Our pictures show markers of the original fence and his participation. However, we accept "Resolving this matter amicably" as stated in your letter dated April 25, 2016. We suggested similar meetings in our letter dated April 14, 2016 to Kadowakis, which they did not accept. We initiated removal of the fence on April 12, 2016 in full view of Kadowakis after receiving their tetter dated April 8, 2016. The entire fence, the vegetation, and dispute have now been eliminated. We feel that this has been sad, expensive and unnecessary encounter for us, coming to us at a time with a death and bereavement processes in our family. Enclosed is our survey relating to the relevant property line. This was filed and approved with the City, and Kadowakis, when inspections were carried out for our project and presented to Kadowakis. We continuously asked for survey on a scale (see our letter dated April 14, 2016) which allows us to make measurements on the ground. This is the first time in your letter dated April 25, 2016, that you have given us a survey (for Kadowakis property) on a scale which can compare differences between our survey and Kadowaki's survey. We have now'mbt with your demand of a positive reply by April 29, 2016. In reciprocation, we request you to please ask Kadowakis not to damage or encroach on our property, or interfere with choices of our property improvements, as much as they would like to chodse their own property improvements. Thank you. Sincerely, (C. ujan Applicant's Attorney's Response to the Appellant's Appeal (ZON2016-00475) E-87 LAW OFFICES OF HAROLD J. LIGHT 11355 WEST OLYMPIC BOULEVARD, SUITE 300 RECEIVED LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90064-1614 TELEPHONE (310) 473-2233 n y@ !( FAX 1310) 473-0077 COMMUNITY DEVEL)PMENi" DEPARTMENT January 10, 2017 Our File No. 2302.01 Via Overnight Delivery Members of the Planning Commission Octavio Silva, Associate Planner Community Development Department City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Re: Planning Clearance of Fence/Wall Permit -- 30931 Cartier Shigeo and Mieko Kadowaki Appeal of Chandru Sujan and Bina Sujan Dear Mr. Silva and Honorable Members of the Planning Commission: This office represents Shigeo and Mieko Kadowaki (the "Kadowakis") who own the property located at 30931 Cartier, Rancho Palos Verdes ("30931 Cartier"). I am submitting this letter in opposition to the appeal submitted by the Kadowakis' neighbors, Chandru Sujan and Bina Sujan (the "Sujans") who own the property at 30937 Cartier, Rancho Palos Verdes (the "Sujan Property"). The Sujans' complaints about the fence/wall the Kadowakis plan to construct on their property (the "Wall") has nothing to do with a purported problem with the Wall's height, length and/or any potential impact on privacy. Instead, the Sujans appear to base their challenge on a specious argument that the Wall was being constructed on the Sujan Property and such construction might cause damage to that property. On November 28, 2016 I sent a letter to the Sujans on behalf of the Kadowakis in which, among other things, I corrected certain of the inaccurate statements they had made, pointed out several concerns related to their actions, and demanded that they cease their campaign of harassment against the Kadowakis. We are enclosing for your information and file a copy of my November 28, 2016 letter to the Sujans. As of this date, neither I nor my clients have received any response to my letter from the Sujans and/or from any person purporting to act on their behalf. Members of the Planning Commission Octavio Silva, Associate Planner Community Development Department City of Rancho Palos Verdes January 10, 2017 Page 2 It has come to the Kadowakis' attention that the Sujans have submitted several letters to the City which state inaccurate and irrelevant information. The claims made by the Sujans in their correspondence to the City are completely without basis and are, in any event, not relevant to the issue before the Commission. Accordingly, other than to the extent addressed in the enclosed copy of my letter to the Sujans and above, I will not in this letter seek to correct the record and/or otherwise address the baseless issues the Sujans have sought to raise in their letters to the City. The Sujans' appeal is without any basis and has been brought in an effort to further harass the Kadowakis and to delay their construction of a fence/wall on 30931 Cartier along the property line with the Sujan Property. On behalf of the Kadowakis I respectfully request that the Sujans' appeal be denied and that my clients be allowed to construct the fence/wall for which they properly sought and received a permit. In the meantime, if you require any additional information and/or if the Kadowakis can otherwise be of any further assistance in connection with this matter, do not hesitate to contact my office. Sincerely, OFFICES OF HAROLD J. LIGHT J. LIGHT HJL:akb Enclosure • LAW OFFICES OF HAROLD J. LIGHT 11355 WEST OLYMPIC BOULEVARD, SUITE 300 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90064-1614 TELEPHONE (310) 473-2233 FAX (310) 473-0077 November 28, 2016 Our File No. 2302.01 Via Overnight Delivery Mr. Chandru Sujan Mrs. Bina Sujan 30937 Cartier Dr. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Re: Kadowaki vs. Sujan 30931 Cartier Dr. and 30937 Cartier Dr. Rancho Palos Verdes California Dear Mr. and Mrs. Sujan: This office represents Shigeo and Mieko Kadowaki (the "Kadowakis"). This letter responds to your November 10, 2016 letter, corrects at least part of the false record you have sought to create, and raises serious concerns about your conduct toward my clients and their property. Please advise me if you have an attorney and whether you would prefer that I communicate directly with legal counsel. In the meantime, any further communication related to my clients and the referenced matter should be directed to this office. In your November 10, 2016 letter you suggest that the Kadowakis' excavation -- to construct a block wall which would have been 100% on their property (the "Block Wall") -- could somehow cause damage to your house. This allegation is specious. More importantly, it was your baseless and unsupportable effort to stop construction of the Block Wall which caused the excavation to remain open for an extended period of time. It is clear from the report prepared by NorCal Engineering accompanying your November 10, 2016 letter (the "NorCal Report") that even your own engineering consultant knows full well that construction of the Block Wall in the location of the excavation would have presented no risk whatsoever to your property. Rather, the NorCal Report, misstated facts (eg. suggesting a maximum depth of 5 feet when the actual maximum depth was 3 feet) and suggested that the open excavation reduced lateral support and "some movements of the building wall may occur. E-90 Mr. Chandru Sujan Mrs. Bina Sujan November 28, 2016 Page 2 It was your improper efforts to stop construction of the Block Wall, and nothing else, which had resulted in the purported risk(s) identified in the NorCal Report. Notwithstanding the utter baselessness of the position stated in your letter and in the NorCal Report, because of the extended delay your improper conduct caused for the project, as you are no doubt aware the Kadowakis have decided to backfill the trench as your engineer had suggested. In improperly seeking to stop the Kadowakis from constructing the Block Wall, you have repeatedly made false assertions. Chief among those untrue claims is the apparent contention that the retaining wall on your property (the "Retaining Wall") is located between seven (7) and twelve (12) inches from the property line. The surveys obtained by the Kadowakis show that the Retaining Wall is at its furthest point from the property line only between 1.8 and 2.4 inches from the property line. Based on a survey created for you in 2001 (the "Sujan Survey"), you appear to claim that the Retaining Wall is between seven (7) and twelve (12) inches from the property line, a contention that is demonstrably false. You also baselessly suggest that other preexisting surveys show the Retaining Wall further from the property line. A fundamental problem with the documents on which you apparently seek to rely is the undeniable fact that the Retaining Wall is not accurately shown on any of those drawings. Even though the Retaining Wall is not accurately placed, the Sujan Survey does place the wall of the building on your property at 2.9 feet from the property line. As you are well aware, one of the Kadowakis' surveys includes that identical measurement (2.9 feet) and the other shows the distance as 2.85 feet. Simple measurements from that building wall establish with certainty that the Retaining Wall is dramatically closer to the property line than you claim. The Kadowakis had been living a peaceful existence for sixteen years until you decided in February of this year to try to take real property that does not belong to you. Evidently because the Kadowakis are not willing to let you run roughshod over their property rights, you have embarked on a campaign of harassment which is outrageous and unacceptable. On behalf of the Kadowakis I demand that (1) all such harassment immediately cease; and (2) you stop your attempt to change the location of the boundary line between the two properties. When the Kadowakis had a soils engineer out to evaluate the situation at their property, they learned, among other things, that the footing of the Retaining Wall encroaches onto the Kadowakis' property and the expansion of your driveway has created a runoff problem. On the runoff issue, the decision to enlarge your E-91 Mr. Chandru Sujan Mrs. Bina Sujan November 28, 2016 Page 3 driveway -- which you did without consultation with the Kadowakis (and apparently without expert advice) -- has created a situation where rainwater runoff from your property will pour directly onto the Kadowakis' property. This action creates liability for both trespass and nuisance and the Kadowakis demand that you immediately take steps to mitigate the impact on their property. In this regard, you must install a drainage system in the driveway in the area where it runs along the Kadowakis' property or, at the very least, install an intercept block on the surface to redirect flowing water from the Kadowakis' property onto your own property. With respect to the footing of the Retaining Wall about which the Kadowakis were previously unaware, it constitutes a clear trespass and the Kadowakis have the right to demand removal and relocation of the retaining wall. That said, at this time, the Kadowakis will not insist on removal of the wall and will allow it to remain. However, if you continue your campaign of harassment against the Kadowakis and/or otherwise seek to challenge the location of the property line, among other things, the Kadowakis will pursue their rights in this regard. I insist on behalf of the Kadowakis that you stop falsely asserting the right to use property that belongs to my clients and which unquestionably is not owned by you. In addition, I demand that all harassment of the Kadowakis immediately cease. Finally, the Kadowakis demand that you immediately take action (as discussed above) to ameliorate the risk to their property caused by the expansion of your driveway. While I hope and expect that you will realize the impropriety of your actions, stop the harassment of the Kadowakis, and take action to mitigate negative impacts on the Kadowakis' property, in the meantime, all of my clients' rights and remedies as relates to these subject matters are expressly reserved. Sincerely, OFFICES OF HAROLD J. LIGHT J. L GHT HJL:akb E-92 Correspondence in Support of Appellant's Appeal (Case No. ZON2016-00475) E-93 Octavio Silva From: Richard Advani <advanirichard@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 11:42 AM To: Octavio Silva Subject: ZON2016-00475 - Written Comments Please refer to the RPV City Notice dated January 5, 2017. I support the Appeal and request the City Planning Commission to overturn the Conditional Approval for the following reasons: 1. A concrete wall creates a prison environment, and does not conform to the neighborhood compatibility, considering the space between these relatively small sloping front yards. Concrete wall therefore decreases the property value. 2. City should not accept faulty data, in that the survey for the project relies mainly on the written words of the surveyor, not on the measured data, due to a deliberately chosen congested scale. 3. Appellant's retaining wall, which is connected to their house, has been damaged. Unless that wall is repaired or replaced, the Appellant's house can move significantly, as cited by a Licensed Geologist and specially in unforeseen events. 4. The Appellants have a Permit to build a wood fence with architectural details, on record with the City in their submission dated January 5, 2017, per City Municipal Code. 5. The City's Conditional Approval as per ZON2016-00475 amounts to trespass on the Appellant's property. Respectfully submitted, Richard Advani 01/16/2017 Warm Regards, Richard Advani Cell: 949/294-0435 Fax: 866/944-6252 advanirichard(@Rmail.com www.richardadvani.corr) E-94 Octavio Silva From: Sherry Sujan <sherrysujanl@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 11:30 AM To: Octavio Silva Subject: ZON2016-00475 - Written Comments Please refer to the RPV City Notice dated January 5, 2017. I support the Appeal and request the City Planning Commission to overturn the Conditional Approval for the following reasons: 1. A concrete wall creates a prison environment, and does not conform to the neighborhood compatibility, considering the space between these relatively small sloping front yards. Concrete wall therefore decreases the property value. 2. City should not accept faulty data, in that the survey for the project relies mainly on the written words of the surveyor, not on the measured data, due to a deliberately chosen congested scale. 3. Appellant's retaining wall, which is connected to their house, has been damaged. Unless that wall is repaired or replaced, the Appellant's house can move significantly, as cited by a Licensed Geologist and specially in unforeseen events. 4. The Appellants have a Permit to build a wood fence with architectural details, on record with the City in their submission dated January 5, 2017, per City Municipal Code. 5. The City's Conditional Approval as per ZON2016-00475 amounts to trespass on the Appellant's property. Respectfully submitted, Sherry Sujan 01/16/2017 E-95 Please refer to the RPV City Notice dated January 5, 2017. I support the Appeal and request the City Planning Commission to overturn the Conditional Approval for following reasons: 1. A concrete wall creates a prison environment, and does not conform to the neighborhood compatibility, considering the space between these relatively small sloping front yards. Concrete wall therefore decreases the property value. 2. City should not accept faulty data, in that the survey for the project relies mainly on the written words of the surveyor, not on the measured data, due to a deliberately chosen congested scale. 3. Appellant's retaining wall, which is connected to their house has been damaged. Unless that wall is repaired or replaced, the Appellant's house can move significantly as cited by a Licensed Geologist and specially in unforeseen events. 4. The Appellants have a Permit to build a wood fence with architectural details, on record with the City in their submission dated January 5, 2017, per City Municipal Code. 5. The City's Conditional Approval as per ZON2016-00475 amounts to trespass on the Appellant's property. Respectfully submitted. Jeffrey Newman 1/16/17 E-96 Please refer to the RPV City Notice dated January 5, 2017. I support the Appeal and request the City Planning Commission to overturn the Conditional Approval for following reasons: 1. A concrete wall creates a prison environment, and does not conform to the neighborhood compatibility, considering the space between these relatively small sloping front yards. Concrete wall therefore decreases the property value. 2. City should not accept faulty data, in that the survey for the project relies mainly on the written words of the surveyor, not on the measured data, due to a deliberately chosen congested scale. 3. Appellant's retaining wall, which is connected to their house has been damaged. Unless that wall is repaired or replaced, the Appellant's house can move significantly as cited by a Licensed Geologist and specially in unforeseen events. 4. The Appellants have a Permit to build a wood fence with architectural details, on record with the City in their submission dated January 5, 2017, per City Municipal Code. 5. The City's Conditional Approval as per ZON2016-00475 amounts to trespass on the Appellant's property. Respectfully submitted. Sheena Newman 1/16/17 E-97 Presentation Information on Behalf of the Appellant (ZON2016-00475) Appellants: Applicants: Chandra & Bina Sujan Shigeo & Mieko Kadowaki 30937 Cartier Dr., R -PV 30931 Cartier Dr., RPV R E CE I V EC) f) PRF,SENTATION BY THE APPELLANT FOR HEARING ON JANUARY 24, 2017 DEPARTMENT Appellants respectfully present overlooked findings by the City which have damaged Appellant' home. Appellants pray that the Planning Commission consider our presentation to "Facilitate an orderly analysis of evidence and issues". IN !ii T17 I L tv 61 1 City should not accept seriously flawed documents to approve an application. Th's Applicant's survey has following problems: Attachment 1 is Applicant's original survey detail with a scale of 1" = 15 feet Attachment 2 is the same survey detail at a standard scale of 1/8" = I foot. Attachment 3 shows: - (a) t design distance from the Property Line to i "EXIS CONC. RETAINING WALL" is 6 inches. i (b) The CAD design distance from Property Line to Applicant's "PROPOSE4 CONC. WALL" is 6 inches. 2. Considering the above items (a) + (b) drawn from Applicant's own survey, the City's findings should have included an additional 12 inches distance for the footing for Applicants wall. This will place the Applicant's wall (6" + 6" + 12") 2 feet away from the now severely damaged Surcharge Bearing Retaining Wall. 1/4 E-99 3. A surveyor, should not be allowed to corrupt a straight line by fictitious "No Scale" words to conceal a real measurement. 4. The Applicant's surveyor came inside the Appellant's home and observed the Retaining Wall connected to Appellant's home, but appears to waive his liabili!J by eliminatine the connection of the now damaged Appellant's Retaining Wall to the Appellant's home (Attachment I also shows absence of this connection). 5. The Appellant's multiple surveys on record with the City, have "Survey Certification". The Applicant's survey does not have a Survey Certification. Therefore, Applicant's survey is not a "Certified Document", and is defective. 111151,111 .1 11 11 1 1 1 (Attachment 4) 1. Applicants had no right to shave off the entire surface of the Appellant's "Surcharge Bearing" Retaining Wall. 2. Applicants had no right to dig out concrete grout between the concrete blocks. 3. Applicants had no rights to jackhammer out the foundation footing to the Appellant's "Surcharge Bearing" Retaining Wall. 4. The Applicant's conditionally approved permit cannot be executed unless the damaged foundation wall to the Appellant's home is restored. 5. This is a prayer to each commissioner, to the Chairman and to the Vice -Chairman to choose between the Applicant's Conditional Approval vs. Destruction of the Appellant's home. 1. Attachment 5 is a photo of deliberate earth movement, which violates rain water flow channels on the Applicant's property, by placement of at least 6 long Railroad Ties, close to the Appellant's property. These changes also alter rainwater flow, and cause damage to Appellant's Retaining Wall and home foundation. 2/4 E-100 2. The Applicants have also stacked 4 layers of Gravity Stones, and altered the water flow channels, which will affect Appellant's retaining wall adversely, and interrupt harmonious sloping layout of earth. 3. To protect Appellant's Retaining Wall, and their home, we respectfully reproduce portions of Gradinj! Permit Section 17.76.0 40 and relevant subparagraphs for City to ask the Applicants to comply for safety to Appellants home. The 3 grading permit requirements, overlooked by the Cily for the Applicants: (a) Minor Grading Permit (Subpara 2): "An excavation three (3) feet or more, but less than five (5) feet below natural grade, or a fill three(3) or more, but less than five (5) feet above natural grade on a slope less than 35%." (b) Major Grading Permit (Subpara 3): "Any excavation or fill which encroaches *n or alters a natural drainage channel or water course." I' Remedial Grading Permit: "Required for excavations, fill or any redistributico *f earth materials for the purpose of enhancing soil stability and/or reducing geotechnical hazards due to natural land movement or the presence of natural hazards. Grading Applications for remedial grading shall be accompanied by geological and/or soils reports which justify the need for the remedial grading and indicate that the grading will not aggravate the existing soils and/or geologic conditions". Attachment 6: Shows depth of digging. The earth level at the Retaining Wall on thj-;,, Applicant's side was about I - 1.5 feet I 'ower from the top of the Retaining Wall, in keeping with harmonious slope of earth. Some of 4 layer stacked Gravity Stones, mentioned in item (2) above are also visible in this Attachment. Attachment 7: The Remedial action was initiated by Appellant's Geotechnical Report as shown in this attachment. Applicants did not obtain the required Grading Permit, with Soils Reports. 3/4 E-101 1. A concrete wall is unsightly, in these closely but prestigiously built homes. 2. It will reduce Appellant's property value significantly. 3. The sloping front yard is drivable for only 1/3 of the width specially when it rains. 6. This Property Line has emerged out of Denials, out of violations of Civil Code, and "Waiving of Civil Rights" for Appellants, and resulted in severe damages to Appellants property. 7. Appellants have demonstratively established by buying services from Computer Aided Design specialists, that Applicant's own survey is deliberately manipulated as explained with proven data in item "No I" of this presentation. 8. Appellants pray that the Planning Commission not accept the faulty and flawed information which directly relate to Conditionally Approved Permit. A "No Scale" drawing is no substitute for "To Scale" measurements. 9. The Appellants respectfully understand that the City did not have information presented in item "No. I" in this presentation. 10. The Planning Commission now has the information in item "No. I" in this presentation. Therefore, we request that the Planning Commission, reverse the Conditional Approval ZON2016-00475. Enc: 7 Attachments. Respectfully, Chandru Sujan 4/4 E-102 ?100 1 LOT 132 EX/ -5 mq cone. ge�alnmy GWa c 8llwd) ®lb � 1 I ZCT :., LOT 133 ICA i t} n � =S; �'-Y%S'h CcI,C. �ir.6H�ra�y •.1A,J c/ .-%',. - `! • .,: , ,,...i• i.'`"1. Irl t,�✓ :7` - - -3 _ ,f � ~ Y b� •'„ v !._..._.� _ _'�'D� �a"�'`'' �' t..� v✓+L'. n[. �� _ �' . -x .. s.7:• S'r.--:. � ..oma.. -.,..a. --P.. ,. .- - ^-:� v, iw q rv, Y +?fs aen Cit r � .wJ,"}f'�!'N" � •��,�,lr ?7`�.+� _ sv<'M � �?�.—•-.•,ter-�r.ax 9?—, i�x _! ZY�4 3. M. 65 v ,y� �St31.... air - 007 Mm a.' E-103 t �t1 aOas rV pa tilll�4 yo kg P, yau o B. r T -0" { i 'y ` C e ® I E— 11 04 mi , 49 A uo 0 E-105 AM- I 4 � 0 1 E-107 Dor al Engineering Soils and Geotechnical Consultants 10641 Humbolt Street Los Alamitos, CA 90720 (562) 7999469 Fax (562) 799-9459 Mr. Su Jan 30937 Cartier Drive ZMAI Att&ci mt a RE: Temporary Excavations Along Driveway and House Area - Located at 30937 Cartier Drive, in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California Dear Mr. Jan: As per your request, this firm has performed an inspection of the recent temporary excavation along the driveway and house area at the subject site. The excavation is approximately 12 inches wide and 2 to 5 feet deep, adjacent to the small retaining wall along the side of the driveway. The existing retaining Wall has been exposed and the deepest excavation of 5 feet extends slightly below the wall foundation, also. Background Information We understand that the excavation was made in September, 2016 by the neighbor with no permits, no plans and no soil reports. The excavation is open and poses a safety risk for anyone walking in the area. Conclusions The temporary excavation should be backfilled using on-site soils or a cement/slurry mixture. The area near the excavation should have a safety net and stakes to prevent people from failing in the long trench. The deepest excavation of 5 feet is near the house and undermines support for the building foundation. Lateral support is reduced and some movements of the building wall may occur. This firm should review any engineering plans and reports prepared by the neighbor, as necessary. E-108 We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. NORCAL ENGINEERING E LU cc Keith D. Tucker Exp. 1nV16 Mark A. Burkholder Project Engineer Project Manager R,G,E. 841 CO) CAI. �9 NorCal Engineering E-109 CARTIER 4g lei '•'Y i`� �Y' w f , ry' 1 -91 o Y ..f t n , I•h � - -. R Ini I N ce'zz d rem lan. 8.97' ;ateilg _.•3i:�i� Gu/�,� � I LAJ,IV TAl 2! Z 43 4' •y a 31 "' :.,� ° t r�\f a r .p 14 ch n +mobi i, T ' 4 <" Ch Q. rN LA P to 3 I � o � �� � �' /y7(} Fri yi V CQ- ` � � � `� � y � � v 1: � �" � i^ � � _ .... _ � 14.32' C�r• S4 n Oy c/© O f ez w , p 4P 60 % GN j f. N EV 6Z' G= u �17r, ` "' *c `tq •zl a-, •ice rl)j- Al j1 ti Zb C X a � n 1 ;� I 1 �t• O Mz Ql o h va ca DRIVE tQ rQ 5,zr i M z 75•z3 Lno N G a' ZZ' d3 ' P C? tJ Z m D 1 tom' -t2 '•'Y i`� �Y' w f , ry' 1 -91 o Y ..f t n , I•h � - -. R Ini I N ce'zz d rem lan. 8.97' ;ateilg _.•3i:�i� Gu/�,� � I LAJ,IV TAl 2! Z 43 4' •y a 31 "' :.,� ° t r�\f a r .p 14 ch n +mobi i, T ' 4 <" Ch Q. rN LA P to 3 I � o � �� � �' /y7(} Fri yi V CQ- ` � � � `� � y � � v 1: � �" � i^ � � _ .... _ � 14.32' C�r• S4 4 n Oy c/© O f ez w � C 9yd p 4P 60 % GN j _ O ` "' 9b •ice rl)j- Q � �i ti Zb C X a � n 1 ;� I 1 �t• O Mz Ql o h va ca Z, tQ rQ 5,zr i M z w Lno to C? tJ Z m D 1 tom' (gyp 1i „ Q �z 4 Tc•� Z] �j n Oy c/© O f ez w � C 9yd p 4P 60 % j _ O r�3 9b Q � ti Zb C X a c n CIO 6 b Mz Ql o h va ca Z, tQ rQ 5,zr i M z w Lno to C? tJ Z m D 1 tom' (gyp Cy Q �z (0 © ^� o 06 .4. .. 0 Tc•� Z] �j n n j O �� W 9b Q � co ` o 0 Zb C X a = /M rn CIO 6 MM 0 Mz 'z 0 C) M z m a Lno to C? tJ Z m D 1 tom' (gyp Cy Q �z (0 © ^� o 06 .4. .. O O 1'YPr II '� ` C7 4 CD i+'J Zv d CU "I z 111 W c m = L' 14 `;' Q � Irl �iZn Zr a I cn .y� (b n kJ ro CD w ly CD m -r3 Ny co W Q It 0' ' ' (❑n rte•• -Q W Iv 0 --i CD o a- o (D c (0 a / ayest,3 n all j O �� W 9b 4 co ` o 0 Zb C a B n all j O �� W 9b k C CIO 6 'z 0 C) I m a Lno to C? tJ Z m D 1 M (gyp Cy �z (0 © m o m O 1'YPr II '� o CD i+'J •00 � 1 d � z L c m = L' 14 `;' sn Irl �iZn Zr a I cn .y� © kJ ro CD w ly rt, rarer4"1YSewer 64(* p4t • S ¢': cr3 S�4 p(Fh 3 r n all j O �� W 9b k C CIO to 'z 0 ro C? (gyp Cy O (0 © m O 1'YPr II '� CD i+'J •00 � 1 •W � L c z = L' 14 `;' sn R �iZn Zr a I cn o © in ro CD w ly CD m -r3 C9 ❑ ' ' (❑n rte•• -Q W Iv � 1b --i CD o a- o (D c (0 a —, -CD U, ❑ C as (D b w C� C) D ° ro ° a �` @ z ❑ c7 y n cro' C„ rn a �03 n + CD �, I O ❑ � m O o c3 i7 (D �_ O {17 +T CCD CD CD CD nQ 0, C � � �` (D °q (�i� R ( v�, a- m tz CL5 (a cna o ❑4 ❑ CD r ❑ [� Z o z (U to O - cn a Z O Ca cuzz � C7 014 CO 0 CD En rn w CD � (D cn `C 3 r r all j O 01 ,p ),Z rd8 3 4 4S 40 c) �6o `moo At 7Q."vo PARTIAL. BOUNDARY SURVEY MAP For Establishing the Easterly Boundary Line of a Single -Family Residential Property, Located at 30931 Cartier Drive, Rancho Palos VerdesCalifornia 80275 i i TRACT NO. 25313 M.B. 654 -93-96 PARCEL MAP P. M. 116-82 1 5q l�0 1,0". �p �N W ti r all rel• O �� W k C • a C? At 7Q."vo PARTIAL. BOUNDARY SURVEY MAP For Establishing the Easterly Boundary Line of a Single -Family Residential Property, Located at 30931 Cartier Drive, Rancho Palos VerdesCalifornia 80275 i i TRACT NO. 25313 M.B. 654 -93-96 PARCEL MAP P. M. 116-82 1 5q l�0 1,0". �p �N W ti r rel• O �� W k • C? O 1'YPr II '� if •00 � 1 •W � L C R w� ,. cn o w r At 7Q."vo PARTIAL. BOUNDARY SURVEY MAP For Establishing the Easterly Boundary Line of a Single -Family Residential Property, Located at 30931 Cartier Drive, Rancho Palos VerdesCalifornia 80275 i i TRACT NO. 25313 M.B. 654 -93-96 PARCEL MAP P. M. 116-82 1 5q l�0 1,0". �p �N W ti Chandru & B ina Suj an 30937 Cartier Drive Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 April 6, 2017 (310) 251-7704 Mr. Octavio Silva Associate Planner City of R.P.V., CA 90275 Ref: ZON 2016-00475 Submissions by Thursday April 6, For City Council Response to Citv Notice dated March 30, 2017 Dear Mr. Silva, We are submitting comments with following 5 subjects (13 pages plus Cad West Company's survey at a scale of 1/8" = 1.0'), for consideration by the City Council. 1. Applicants knowledge: Conditional Permit was obtained with Incorrect Information. 2. Muni Code 17.80.080: "Action by the City Council" vs. Planning Commission Minutes (see page 5 of the minutes). 3. City Council can prevent more structural damage to Sujans property. 4. Incorrect Information was created by violation of Civil Code 846.5(a) repeatedly for over 80 days, which resulted in abrupt excavation done without permits. 5. Explanation of Incorrect Information provided by the Applicants, for a permit. We hope that with your knowledge, you will provide clear and correct information to the City Council. Thank you and Best Regards. Respe tfull- �cx"r' RE Chan an RECEIVED APR 0 6 2017 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPJGTAENT APPLICANTS ACKNOWLEDGE THAT CONDITIONAL PERMIT: ZON 201600475 WAS OBTAINED WITH INCORRECT INFORMATION (a) The Kadowakis' submitted survey dated 09/20/16 to obtain above permit. (b) That survey is the only basis for the Sujans' Appeals. Checks below show the dates of Appeals: Check number: - - I Amount: $2,275.00 cs su.Ziuu r�n�rn t +.N 1 IL ..rwre imairocEcw+weaaw t3�i�sntif` ._��{,rdrf J g2,z75.9 SFr![. � litp Bankofftw cam r+�n rtr�r Por Ab}aa1 t,c�.�� zolrzofc-00975 Check number: I Amount: $2,275.00 (c) Kadowakis' altered evidence after our Appeals were filed, by filing more surveys: (i) Submittal date: 03/03/17, (with addition & subtraction of several features), and (ii) Submittal date: 03/20/17, (with addition & subtraction of several features) (d) This proves that Kadowakis acknowledge submission of "Incorrect" information to obtain the Conditional Permit. Therefore, According to Muni Code 17.86.060, conditional Permit ZON 201600475 should be revoked/suspended. G-2 MUNICIPAL CODE 17.80.080: ACTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL 1. Planning Comm. Minutes, Page 5 states that: " Findings for the permit are based solely on views", and foliage considerations.. 2. "Action by the City Council (17.80.080 A 4)", shows that the City Council: "Disaparove the aDDlication upon finding that all applicable findings cannot be made or all provisions of Title 16 and Title 17 of this Code have not been complied with" Records show that following codes have " Not been complied with": - Muni Code 17.86.060 (B): "Incorrect or Fraudulent Information" by the Applicant. Muni Code 17.86.060 (C): Permit is "Contrary to provisions of Municipal Codes". Muni Code 17.76.040 (I): Requires Minor Grading Permit for 3-5 feet excavation. Muni Code 17.76.040 (II): Requires Major Grading Permit for encroaching or altering water flow channels. City inspected on 2/27/17, and recorded condition in 8 photos. Kadowakis slope is 10.5 feet vs. Sujans slope as 6.5 feet over about 50 feet of front yard. Sujans bared wall and abrupt benching continue to damage the Retaining Wall. We attach 3 photos.. Muni Code 17.76.040 (III): Applicant has no Remedial Grading Permit with Soils Report, per our inquiry from the City. This was required. Muni Code 17.86.080: Requires double fees/penalties for work done without }permits. Such exceptions/non-compliances have created severe damage to Sujans' Foundation Retaining Wall which is connected to our home. After living 39 year in RPV, we are appalled at these non -compliances, and continued destruction of our Foundation. G-3 IX • may„ ;?• � ' •. �' �� �1.,A f je,�a�� _ y • � - .s y,`rt.•Fr�� �,,.+ii �� 4.� Alt gg CITY COUNCIL CAN PREVENT MORE STRUCTURAL DAMAGE TO SUJANS' PROPERTY 1. Sujans' Geotechnical report attached herewith, concludes that Kadowakis' excavation " undermines support for the building foundation" "Some movement of the building may occur" If the City Council allows Kadowakis to excavate again for a wall fence, Sujans' house movement may occur. 2. Our Structural Engineerine report shows that the severely damaged surcharge Retaining Wall has to be replaced with a new wall (so save our home). Sujans request the City Council to recognize an alternative to risking destruction to the Sujans' home. The Sujans offer to help Kadowakis to build a wood fence as designed, and filed with the City on January 5, 2017. A Copy of the drawing is attached, along with the photo of the old fence showing Kadowaki and Sujan in the photo. Such a decision will prevent any further damage to the Sujans' property. G-6 NorCal Engineering Soils and Geotechnical Consultants 10641 Humbolt Street Los Alamitos, CA 90720 (562) 799-9469 Fax (562) 799-9459 November 9, 2016 Mr. Su Jan 30937 Cartier Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275-5633 Project Number 19235-16 RE: Temporary Excavations Along Driveway and House Area - Located at 30937 Cartier Drive, in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California Dear Mr. Jan: As per your request, this firm has performed an inspection of the recent temporary excavation along the driveway and house area at the subject site. The excavation is approximately 12 inches wide and 2 to 5 feet deep, adjacent to the small retaining wall along the side of the driveway. The existing retaining wall has been exposed and the deepest excavation of 5 feet extends slightly below the wall foundation, also. Background Information We understand that the excavation was made in September, 2016 by the neighbor with no permits, no plans and no soil reports. The excavation is open and poses a safety risk for anyone walking in the area. Conclusions The temporary excavation should be backfilled using on-site soils or a cement/slurry mixture. The area near the excavation should have a safety net and stakes to prevent people from falling in the long trench. The deepest excavation of 5 feet is near the house and undermines support for the building foundation. Lateral support is reduced and some movements of the building wall may occur. This firm should review any engineering plans and reports prepared by the neighbor, as necessary. G-7 November 9, 2016 Page 2 Project Number 19235-16 We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Respectfully submitted, NORCAL ENGINEERING D. rrlcA_"k UJ Keith D. Tucker cc No. 04' T' Mark A. Burkholder 16 Project Engineer * Exp. 16 * Project Manager R.G.E. 841��rF cp�rpQ�,� NorCal Engineering M w W -,q ORION z Q O `roe) 0 • . Q O, Qa � rs. U N a x ^, 90 s J J W U U O m U LL o w O � cn O a d z � w W -,q ORION z Q O `roe) 0 • . Q O, Qa � rs. U N a x ^, 90 s I G-10 INCORRECT INFORMATION WAS CREATED BY VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL CODE SECTION 846.5 u FOR OVER 80 DAYS The City has record of the written violations (Kadowakis denied access to Sujans to conduct additional survey), relating to Civil Code Section 846.5(a). We have informed the Kadowakis that our original survey done by Victor Piai, recorded in City Files in 2004, is therefore the basis for Sujans survey. Written record of Kadowakis denials (or "limited" denials) are recorded in City files as follows: Letter dated June 17, 2016. Letter dated June 28, 2016. Letter dated July 15, 2016. Letter dated September 9, 2016. Sujans would like the City Council to know how the Incorrect information was created which the Kadowakis used to excavate without permits and severally damage the surcharge Wall. We believe that this is "matter of evidence may be reviewed by the City Council". G-11 ,Y C ITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES (,OMMUNIT) DEVELCUMEN i DEI'ARTMENT June 22, 2016 Hello Mr. & Mrs. Chandru, This letter serves to confirm that the "Lot and Topographic Survey" completed by Piai Engineering, Inc., of your property at 30937 Cartier Drive, is a copy of the original filed with the City. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty Associate Planner 3( 94011•\\\ I N[11, 13L\4) / RAN -Hi-rI'AL(.)S\1YDE,.I �A'rl)275-'7:i!rI ('L \fl11�r r r rl II I SFr rlir .(' II i1 I Lq\ Itilr 1:+11 it r [-}-5; ; f? (L-11 I1111 -Ni i R SAFE T) PA Itilr 4Y I:aUI'i..' iA(lU ,' IA -111 I (:�11 -I-52!r3 .\ i .r \ �\ �\ �\`I;I'\ A .r r\ EXPLANATION OF "INCORRECT" INFORMATION PROVIDED BY APPLICANTS TO GET CONDITIONAL APPROVAL Two different Computer Aided businesses produced the Applicants (Kadowakis) survey dated September 20, 2016 at scale 1" = 15' to a readable scale of 1/8" = 1.0' Attached letter with survey detail by CAD West shows the accuracy of their efforts. The accurate instrument measurements show that the distance between the property line and each of the walls (a) Sujans Retaining Wall and (b) Kadowakis Proposed Fence Wall is 6". If the City cannot rely on the accurate measurements, recorded with a Theodolite (or similar) sensitive instruments, and instead accepts fictitious "No Scale" numbers with a discrepancy of 5 times from the accurate measurement, then the survey ineasureinents are useless and false. A surveyor can write any fictitious "No Scale" numbers on a piece of paper and get the Approval. But in our opinion the accurately measured data is valuable and should be recognized by the City Council. Therefore, the Conditional Permit (ZON 201600475) was granted with "Incorrect" information as specified in Muni Code 17.86.060 B, and should be revoked or suspended. We know of no other rules or regulations which allow the City to overlook or eliminate the Theodolite (or similar) sensitive instrument measurements in favor of "No Scale" drawings. G-13 digital deign 71 to -ho bl.pil.1 .enloe. I.... March 14, 2017 To Whom It May Concern: Re: Riahi Survey dated September 20, 2016 Our company was asked by C. Sujan to re -scale the attached survey originally drawn at 1/15 scale to 1/8 scale. We scaled one linear 25' dimension in the lower left-hand corner of the survey marked in yellow to 1/8 scale. We cannot attest to the accuracy of the rest of the drawing, but the one linear 25' dimension in the lower left hand corner in yellow is measuring 25' at 1/8 scale on this attached page. Douglas Hi CAD WEST Digital Design & Printing Lomita Blueprint Service 310-375-9700 23890 Hawthorne Blvd., Torrance, CA 90505 Phone: 310-375-9700, FAX: 310-375-9770 www.lbs-cadwest.com G-14 - a ' RIAHI SURVEY AT SCALE 118 - 1'-4" . v COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN SPECIALIST # 2 DATA SIJ�WS:- THE DISTANCE BETWEEN EXISTING RETAINING WALPJ (SUJAN) AND PROPOSED NEW CONCRETE BLOCK 'WALL IS I (ONE) FOOT /� ��. 1 I —A � - r •r rr • N �a Cff it 1I !• r rj rte. <Y' ~'~�� �' � � • -� _ a,T� w�ii `t i .- �I�' - I = .- r -'1•x."1.._ y N 2t;7'T7 3 1 Qe e�€i1 A . �► L� � � Ej!! rtxci v( Blew GIQlf, i6in ftr t+ �swill ' �► 41, s�. •� � •�' 9YIS S©. - ,Ca/if Ea�1�of/ Co. y i yo ' ',h INC. 7wam 44, f - .ch fos Y r s 9aZ7s . � . •- - ��• - 1 Lo - =y rttc�.�D- �5.�l.3;�1�•�' SSS �9s_��=� . o r 1.3,T / P. N. 7 81-Pli-D07) rd O Nn era : / lr• s Aft. . 5hl• eo _u3 Lu: i .]vtop.. Coener - _ •: � - - � fid. •Na 1�1n�►.. - .59t No AMY `O N 21037"17"L Tract'Na.2.5313, MaBa-. 6 .54 POS 93 .96 A.P.N. R 758 01 1m006 _ Pcrfic� of Exis�mpm o,7e.,5-&!x Revelence- 'tv ` 3 i 44 !''�� ,11-1N , �'.aH cbo aw,S V4erailes, V RZ757 � Ldar' /��, 7"rztcf.. �r� Zs3i3, M- 6S4, TfS, 93--96 r� (A'P. No 7581--011_ DOC.) = _ Record /Vi Aft Chair orrit AGI a rl �} .ommie Nct Cho* 5 14, •� '1'�'�S ahs► l�f/�j� �'f7Qtln Lfj? �'J�G2. D _ 0;? 1 .. .? l +�•,.. �F 'v Cir• plop � re COAVev t,S,1111"17? �y► ,Roof qN WOO Id Cd L 0 T 13.3 �. Tract - ©. 25313 M.S. 654, Pas,-: 91- - • 9 6 A.P.N.. 7581-011'007 - Aa RECEIVED FEB 17 2017 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Mr. Octavio Silva City of Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 C. & B. Sujan 30937 Cartier Dr. Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 February 17, 2017 (310) 251-7704 RE: Muni Code 17.86.060: Incorrect/Fraudulent Information Supplied By The Applicants, and Officer or Body Granting Any Permit Can Also Revoke/Suspend the Permit. Dear Mr. Silva, I refer to your call dated February 14, 2017, and memorialize our Progress: 1. City decided to pause Appeal by 3 weeks, to work with a sketch for both parties. 2. We did get some feed back from the City. 3. On 2.14.17, you mentioned about attorneys negotiations. I explained: (a) Our negotiations with Kadowakis are on other civil issues, not City's efforts. (b) We do not intend to encroach on City's well meaning efforts for both parties. We have obtained more direct readable information for the City in the attached scaled detail for Applicant's survey at 1/4" =1'. Due to the thickness of the lines, we request that you please read distances from the center portion of thick lines. You will notice that the distance between Sujans' Concrete Retaining Wall and the Proposed Kadowakis Concrete Fence Wall is at least 12 inches. Respectfully, Chan dru & Bina Sujan G-16 Mr. Octavio Silva City of Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 Re: Meetin on March 8, 2017 Dear Mr. Silva, C. & B. Sujan 3 093 7 Cartier Drive Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 March 10, 2017 (310) 251-7704 We are following up on City's suggestion that City will ask Kadowakis to provide correct distances in the Kadowakis scaled survey. We will appreciate if you let us know the response you receive. Respectfully, Chandru & Bina Sujan RECEIVED MAR 10 2017 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT G-17 Hand Delivered Chandru & Bina Sujan 30937 Cartier Drive Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 March 27, 2017 (310) 251-7704 Mr. Ara Michael Mihranian, AICP Community Development Director City of Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 Case No. ZON 201600475 Dear Mr Mihranian, We have decided to proceed with our Appeal to the City Council, and hope that you will give us some reasonable considerations. Thank you and with regards, Respectfully, C v Chandru Sujan RECEIVED MAR 2 7 %[:'.l COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT G-18 Hand Delivered Chandru & Bina Sujan 30937 Cartier Drive Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 March 27, 2017 (310) 251-7704 Mr. Ara Michael Mihranian, AICP Community Development Director City of Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 Case No. ZON 201600475 Dear Mr Mihranian, We respectfully request that for the City Council Hearing Agenda, please schedule our presentation at an earlier time during the evening, due to a severe heart condition. Thank you and with regards, Respectfully, G Y^^ Chandru ujan RECEIVED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN DEPARTMEN"I G-19 Shigeo and Mieko Kadowaki 30931 Cartier Drive Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 April 3, 2017 Members of the City Cou City of Rancho Palos Ver#es 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 RECEIVED APR 0 6 2017 RE: Appeal- Fence/Wall Permit COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Dear Honorable Members of the City Council: DEPARTMFNIT We, Shigeo and Mieko Kadowaki, have been living at 30931 Cartier Drive for 17 years and are writing this letter in opposition to the appeal submitted by our neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. Chandru Sujan. The reasoning behind their appeal is irrational and entirely without basis. We had peacefully lived at 30931 Cartier since 2000, until one year ago. In March 2016, Mr. Sujan removed the original wall between 30931 & 30937 Cartier and built a new wall that encroached onto our property. Mr. Sujan subsequently removed his encroaching new wall after being notified of his trespass, but then he began a campaign of harassment against us in an effort to disrupt any progress toward building our replacement wall, which is entirely within our own property. The City Staff visited our site a few times, confirmed all requirements were met, and issued us a permit. Notwithstanding, the Sujans appealed to the Planning Commission and the issue was addressed at the hearing on January 24, 2017 where the Commissioners unanimously approved our permit. Despite this the Sujans have now appealed again, this time to the City Council. And like before their reasons are irrational and baseless. Please see our comments below to each of the Sujans' complaints in their appellant letter to the City Council. Sections I, Il, III (pages 2 & 3): See the surveyor's letter (attachment A) in which he explains that the survey is truly correct, valid, and legitimate. Sections IV & V (page 4): Minor and Major Grading Permits are not required by the City. Please see the photo (attachment B). There is no rainwater problem. Rainwater H-1 falling on the Kadowaki's property runs directly on the Kadowaki property. In fact, the Sujans' property is at a higher elevation than the Kadowakis' which has always caused some water from their driveway to flow onto the Kadowakis' property. Furthermore, the expansion of their driveway in early 2016 has created additional runoff problems. Please see the soil engineer's letter (attachment C). Also, the 6' long railroad ties on our property have been sitting in their current location for decades, before we even moved in to 30931 Cartier. Water flow damage has never been a problem due to these railroad ties. We took photos and videos during storms this past January and February to confirmed this. Sections VI & VII (page 5): Please see the soil engineer's letter (attachment C). In his letter he states no damage has occurred to the 30937 site. The Sujans' irrational and baseless appeal is their effort to further harass the Kadowakis and to delay our construction of the wall on 30931 Cartier along the property line with the Sujans' property. We respectfully request this appeal be denied and that we are allowed to construct this long delayed wall for which we properly sought and received a permit from both the City and the Planning Commission. Sincerely, Shigeo and Mieko Kadowaki Applicant H-2 Attachments H-3 A JLVK4WAA"1Vi11• A Riahi Engineering & Surveying N0.35354 John K Riahi EXP. 9.30.201.7 Registered Civil Engineer & Licensed Land Surveyor * 5g -v AA sift . �,� 22630 Leyte Drive, Tarrance, Ca!!,(arIria-QOSOS OFCAI� Q� Tel. (340) 375-0404 Farf3li) 373-e4a4 Jti;xhieng9)yaho. Com To: Head of the Planning Department of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California. LAND � T No. 5850 E�fP,1?�1-zol� Re : Boundary Survey for Property at 30931 Cartier Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275. This is to inform you that pursuant to the request of the record owners of the subject property, Mr. and Mrs. Kadowaki, 1, John H. Riahi, a registered Civil Engineer and licensed Land Surveyor, performed a Partial Boundary Field Survey on September 20, 2016, in order to establish the Easterly Boundary Line of the subject property. I also set several boundary monuments along the easterly boundary line in order to show the exact location of the Easterly Boundary line. Then I prepared a detailed, Scaled and Certified Partial Boundary Survey Map according to the State of California Land Survey Act guidelines and requirements. 1, then presented the said map to the record owners, which they have forwarded a copy of the survey map to your office for your review, use and record. While I was performing the boundary field survey of the subject property, I noticed that the same Boundary Line was surveyed by another surveyor, Mr. John T. Ruff on March 24, 2016 and the boundary monuments that was set by him are in total agreement and coincide with mine. Furthermore, based on additional research of existing record data, I obtained a copy of an older Lot and Topographic survey, dated April 16, 2001, which was prepared under the direction of Mr. Victor Piai, a registered civil engineer for the easterly adjacent property of 30937 Cartier Drive. The Easterly Boundary line that was established by this survey is also coincides and is in agreement with the other latest two boundary surveys that stated above herein. Based on the above facts, which 1 have solid proof of them all the statement and allegations that was made by Mr. Chandru Sujan, the adjacent neighbor, regarding the easterly Boundary Line encroachment are absolutely incorrect and baseless and he intentionally is trying to confuse the concern parties. His comments, claims and allegations regarding the retaining wall damage due to excavation for a prepared wall footing is also baseless and incorrect. A very short field inspection by the City inspector can easily prove that there is no damage to the existing wall at all. A report from Tony Lee, The Soils and Geotechnical Engineer, also supports the fact that there is no damage to the existing retaining wall of Mr. Sujan's Property. Furthermore, during the excavation for the proposed wall it was noticed that the footing of his retaining wall encroached into the Kadowaki's property by approximately six inches. this is clearly shown on the site photos. Finally, the existing northwesterly corner house of Mr. Sujan encroaches into the five feet side set back by approximately 2 feet as shown on all three survey Maps, and there are also some landscape drainage pipes from Mr. Sujan's house that connected to the existing retaining wall and they are encroaching into the Kadowalk's property by approximately three inches which must be relocated. %f � � Ja9• Z3. 20 f7 — — - ,Tahn H. Rruhi 9 ,I j LJV / i r CN Attachment C T.I.N. ENGINEERING COMPANY Geotechnical = Structural . Environmental 17834 Bailey Drive . Torrance, CA 90504 Tel: (310) 371-7045, tinsoilsheep@gmail.com File No.: 160040 December 26, 2016 Mr. and Mrs. Shigeo and Mieko Kadowaki 30931 Cartier Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90296_ SUBJECT: Limited Geotechnical Opinion Letter for Abandoned Trench Backfilled with Slurry at 30931 Cartier Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, California Dear Mr. and Mrs. Kadowaki: In accordance with your request, we have completed this limited geotechnical opinion tetter for the abandoned trench backfilled with slurry at the subject site. It is to our understanding that the abandoned trench, approximately 2 to 3 feet deep, 18 inches wide and 35 feet long, was excavated at the eastern property boundary. This trench was excavated for the construction of a freestanding boundary wall; however, the construction of the freestanding boundary wall was withdrawn from this project. This trench was there backfilled with slurry which is no objection to the Planner of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. On November 18, 2016, we visited the subject site and observed the excavated trench. This trench was excavated at the eastern property boundary between the subject site and the property at 30937 Cartier Drive to the east. An off-site retaining wall, approximately 18 feet long and 5 feet high, was located right next to the south portion of the excavated trench. It was our finding that the foundations of this off-site retaining wall were constructed 6 to 8 inches over the property boundary and into the 30931 Cartier site. The off-site sprinkle lines at the 30937 Cartier site were also hung over the property boundary and onto the 30931 Cartier site. Concrete debris was used for the off-site paving at the 30937 Cartier site near the eastern property boundary of the subject site. This off-site concrete -debris paving was located next to the northern portion of the excavated trench. It is our opinion that surface runoff in the off-site concrete -debris paving area appears to toward the 30931 Cartier site. On November 22, 2016, we re -visited the subject site and observed the slurry backfill in the excavated trench. The trench was backfilled with slurry up to 6 to 8 inches below finished grade. Then, the top 6-8 inches of the trench was backfilled with compacted soil for landscaping use. Based upon the site observation and slurry backfill operation, it is our opinion that the prior trench excavation has no damage to the 30937 Cartier site. The slurry backfill should have no adverse effects on the geotechnical stability of the adjacent off-site property at 30937 Cartier. The nature and extent of the data obtained for purposes of this declaration are, in the opinion of the undersigned, in conformance with generally accepted H-6 Mr. and Mrs. Kadowaki - 2 - December 26, 2016 practice in the area. The described findings and statements of professional opinion do not constitute a guarantee or warranty, expressed or implied. Thank you for this opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions regarding this opinion letter, please contact the undersigned at the letterhead location. TSCL:ir Distribution: Client (1, by Email) T.I.N. ENGINEERING COMPANY Very truly yours, T.I.N. ENGINEERING COMPANY Tony S. C. Lee, M.S., P.E. Project Engineer GEOTECHNICAL• STRUCTURAL+ ENVIRONMENTAL H-7 17.86.060 - Suspension or revocation of permits. The officer or body taking final action granting any permit pursuant to the provision of this title may, after following the same procedures utilized for approving such a permit, revoke or suspend the permit if: A. The permit was issued erroneously; or B. The permit was issued on the basis of incorrect or fraudulent information supplied by the applicant; or C. The permit was issued contrary to the provisions of the municipal code; or D. The permit is being or recently has been, exercised contrary to the terms or conditions of such permit. No permit shall be revoked prior to providing a ten calendar day written notice to the holder of the permit and an opportunity to be heard before the officer or body considering revocation or suspension of the permit. Any decision to revoke or not to revoke a permit, other than a decision by the city council, may be appealed by any interested party pursuant to Chapter 17.80 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures) of this title. (Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997: Ord. 175 § 19, 1983) Page 1 1-1