CC SR 20150203 K PC Fence Wall Permit Decision ZON2014-00202CITVOF RANCHO PALOSVERDES
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: JOEL ROJAS, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTO r :.jZ ,
DATE: FEBRUARY 3, 2015
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION TO USE THE CITY'S VIEW RESTORATION
MEDIATOR TO ASSIST WITH AN APPEAL OF FENCE/WALL
PERMIT DECISIONS (CASE NOS. ZON2014-00202 & ZON2014-
00415); PROJECT ADDRESS — 29023 SPRUCEGROVE DRIVE
(APPLICANT: MR. & MRS. HESSER / APPELLANT: MR. & MRS.
SHAHBAZIAN)
REVIEWED: CAROLYNN PETRU, ACTING CITY MANAGER&
Staff Coordinator: So Kim, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION
Take no action to amend the View Restoration Mediator's contract as both parties involved
with this matter believe that mediation would not be beneficial, thereby allowing the
Planning Commission to continue with its consideration of the Fence/Wall Permit
application appeal.
BACKGROUND
On November 4, 2014, the City Council conducted an appeal hearing on a Fence/Wall
Permit decision made by the Planning Commission and remanded the matter back to the
Planning Commission for review. The City Council took this action at the recommendation
of Staff due to the appellants informing Staff that they intend to appeal a separate Staff
decision involving the same fence/wall. Thus, rather than considering the entire wall
through two separate appeal processes, the City Council agreed that the walls should be
reviewed as a single structure under the same appeal process.
As expected, subsequent to the City Council meeting, the appellants submitted a letter
appealing the Director's approval for a portion of the fence/wall to the Planning
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD. / RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275-5391
PLANNING & CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION (310) 544-5228 / BUILDING & SAFETY DIVISION (310) 265-7800 / DEPT. FAX (310) 5�529�J
E-MAIL: PLANNING@RPV.COM/ WWWPALOSVFRDES.COM/RPV ff�� I1
Commission. On December 9, 2014, the Planning Commission held an appeal hearing for
the entire wall. At this public hearing, some Commissioners felt that it may be best to use
the resources of the City's View Restoration/Preservation Mediator for a resolution
between the involved parties because of the degree of contention in this case. The
applicant spoke at the meeting and explained that mediation at this point would not be a
viable option as he has made several attempts for a resolution with the appellants to no
avail. Staff noted a concern with the Commission's suggestion since it appeared to be
outside the Mediator's scope of work and could be construed as a gift of public funds. As a
result, Staff noted that Staff would need to check with the Acting City Manager and the City
Attorney as to the appropriateness of using the City's View Mediator. With this, the
Commission voted 5-1 (Tomblin dissenting) to continue the appeal hearing to February 10th
to allow an opportunity for the City's View Mediator to meet with the two parties and resolve
their differences related to the proposed wall/fence and other associated issues involving
both parties.
DISCUSSION
Subsequent to the Planning Commission meeting, the Acting City Manager and City
Attorney opined that the City Council would need to authorize the use of the City's View
Mediator as suggested by the Planning Commission for two reasons. One, the City's
Mediator contract is limited to only resolving view cases and thus the City Council would
have to agree to amend the contract to use the mediator for non -view cases. Secondly,
the City Council would need to decide if this would be an appropriate use of City funds. As
such, this matter was scheduled for the Council's February 3rd meeting for consideration.
On January 20, 2015, the applicant submitted a letter to Staff (attached), explaining the
reason why he believes involvement by the City Mediator would not be beneficial. In
addition, on January 21, 2015, the appellant submitted an email (attached) that an attempt
to reach agreement with the applicant at this time would be superfluous given the
applicant's position. Both letters explain how attempts have been made by both parties to
no avail. Given receipt of these letters from both parties and since mediation only works if
both the involved parties are willing to participate, Staff recommends that the City Council
take no action to authorize the use of the City's Mediator for this matter. As a result, the
Planning Commission will proceed to hear the appeal regarding this matter on February
10th
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The original approval by the Director, which was subsequently upheld by the Planning
Commission, was for a 4' tall solid wood wall topped with a 2.5' tall framed acrylic on top of
an existing garden wall for section C. The applicant in his letter is now proposing to
replace the wood and acrylic material with chain link for section C. In other words, section
C would comprise of a 6.5' tall chainlink fence on top of the existing garden wall. The
applicant explains that he is proposing this alternative in response to the appellant's
concern for the maintenance of the 2.5' tall acrylic portion of the wall. Staff will note this
alternative to the Planning Commission when they continue the appeal hearing.
K-2
CONCLUSION
Given both parties position that the City Mediator's involvement would not be beneficial to
this case, Staff recommends that the City Council not authorize the use of the Mediator,
thereby allowing the Planning Commission to continue with its consideration of the
Fence/Wall Permit application appeal.
FISCAL ANALYSIS
There are no fiscal impacts related to this request.
K-3
CYRUS SHAHBAZIAN
ATTORNEY AT LAW
29029 Sprucegrove Drive Tel: (310) 404 - 5104
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Cyrus.Sliahbazian@gmaiI.com Fax: (310) 371 - 4521
January 21, 2015
Members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council:
As you are likely aware, my parents, Vicky and Hossein Shahbazian, have been involved in a neighborly dispute
with Mr. and Ms. Darrel Hesser, owners of property abutting the Shahbazians to the north. Initially, the dispute
called for the city's determination of an appropriate height of a fence that expands the entirety of the property line.
Seeming relatively simple and straightforward for an experienced Planning Department in one of the most affluent,
desirable cities, has turn@ out to be anything but.
Assuming that most of the member of the City Council, if not all, have some insight as to the dispute between the
Planning Department, the Hessers, and the Shahbazians, little background will be provided, given that the February
3rd hearing is solely for the determination of whether mediation will be provided.
Numerous inconsistencies and falsehoods have been provided by the Planning Department throughout this dispute,
beginning at the outset of 2014, when staff represented that various applications were filed. In the end, the
Shahbazian's white lattice fence, which they had constructed over 20 years ago when they purchased their property,
was removed after staff issued a permit to the Hessers. Troubling is that the Planning Department indicated that the
Fence/Wall permit application applied, given the 211 pad elevation difference and the view concerns, yet failed to
apply it. In fact, staff bifurcated the initial application, separating the fence into different portions and indicating that
only the portion in the rear facade was subject to the Fence/Wall permit application. Thus, the Shahbazian's were
without an avenue to challenge the experienced staff's over-the-counter, fence destroying permit to the Hessers.
I interjected in August 2014, after my parents had been involved in the dispute for months. Needless to say, it
became apparent that my parents were being taken advantage of by Staff and the Hessers. With all do respect, had
the code been properly followed, in substance and procedure, this dispute would have long been resolved. However,
despite the anguish and emotional roller -coaster my family has endured over the past year, I attempted to resolve the
dispute in September. I approached the Hessers and indicated that this dispute is ridiculous and that surely they could
come to a reasonable resolution. After back and forth between the Hessers and my parents, my parents left a proposal
for the Hessers. Days later, the Hessers responded by requesting even more than what the city had absurdly
approved. It should be noted that this attempt to reach a resolution was before discovering that applications allegedly
submitted were nonexistent, Staff blatantly ignored my parent's comments, pleas, and concerns, and other
misleading statements by the Hessers and Staff.
As prolonged as this dispute has been made to be, enough is enough. My parents have been willing to resolve this
conflict from the beginning, and their willingness continues. It has come to the point that there is much more to life
than disputing with the neighbors. However, the Hessers have made comments that make it appear as though they
are less than eager to mediate or resolve this dispute. If correct, then any attempt to reach an agreement, whether
through mediation or another form of dispute resolution, would be superfluous.
Should you have any questions, please contact me at CyruS.Shahbaziana gmail.com or (310) 404-5104.
Best,
Cyrus Shahbazian
Our Position on Use of City Funded Mediator to Process Fence Application.
It is our position that a city -funded mediator should not be required to process a fence application. It is
our understanding that once certain criteria are met ("Findings"), "the fence/wall permit shall be
approved." We continue to agree with the Planning Director's and the Planning Commission's decisions
that state that the findings have been met.
We are of the opinion that in a case such as this the mission of the Planning Commission is to decide of
the findings have been met or not. They have previously decided that the findings have been met, but the
processes has been derailed by a clerical error concerning a prior fence application that poses no
potential for view impairment.
We believe that based on past attempts to come to a meaningful compromise that have been rejected by
our adjacent neighbor (see attached), mediation would not be fruitful and would simply be used as yet
another stalling tactic to delay processing of the fence application.
As an alternative to a city -funded mediator, we would like to propose an option based on our neighbor's
appeal that we hope will satisfactory.
The fence consists of two applications:
1) The previously approved and constructed fence between the two homes, with no potential for
view impairment.
2) The application to extend existing fence beyond the rear facade of our home.
We propose that the fence between the homes, which was processed under a previous application and
permit, remains as it currently stands. As it is, it creates no potential for view impairment and has met
all necessary findings. (1) -sections A/B
Being that our neighbor has expressed concern for maintenance of the acrylic -topped fence approved
by the Planning Director and the Planning Commission;
We propose that the fence requested and approved beyond the rear facade of our home, be chain-link
(in place of the wood -framed acrylic) for the remainder of the fence to the rear of the property as our
neighbor has requested (2) -sections C/D.
The entire fence would run continuously from front to back of property, maintaining heights and
limitations imposed by the director in his approval.
Thank You
Darrel and Brenda Hesser
29023 Sprucegrove Drive
RECEIVED
,iii„V 20a.t
COMMUNITY DEVELOPP�iFi�=�.,
K-5
ort
�
<
W
/ L
Ir-
,22
r
%
ECL
<
Lli
co
-
E%
>
:
2?
0
._
/
0
I=
W
LLI
c
{\
\ \
D
�
_
co
/\
6
LLJ
Cf)
@
.
:
U)
C
5
�\
Z
z0
)G§
k \
\
\\/
a$
\\
// .
d
` z
6 =
r,- LL
CY)
\
LL
D
_\
\s
»
k2
/
Z
)\
0
_\
::3Y
\\
U)
/27
�
/$\
o
m
\
Q
\u
C\j
920
/
%__
°$
Co
b
co LL
\/
/
\
a
�LL}j\Q
LOW
e 6
®§\2
Cf)
/ 2
e2
LL
D
=
g \ /
_cz
.�
ui
U)\0
Z
<
\�\
o
®\§
2
3y0
>
»-, /\
�
®
Q
¥a.._
0=3=
LL
/
D
0)
o
§
0")
b
�O
4-
®
/
o
$
_3
>
ort
Previous Attempts for a Compromise
Previous Attempts for a
Compromise
First Attempt(Verbal Agreement)/Spring 2014/Shahbazians backed out
We agreed to a 4' solid fence between the backyards with plants to 6' and a 5.5' solid fence between the
houses.
The fence was to be installed on the P/L (6' South of retaining wall).
The Shahbazians' handyman was to start the process and I was to join after I got off work.
When I arrived home, the 4' fence was installed as a 4' tapered to 2' fence and their handyman had
removed the white fence and started to install the 5.5' fence as a 4' fence.
I immediately stopped him, and asked what had happened... Mrs Shabazian had come home at lunch and
changed her mind ... giving him new instructions.
1
I informed them that if they wanted to install a fence of those dimensions, they would have to do it on their
side of the property line.
That night, I cobbled together the pieces of the lattice fence that had been removed and laid against my
house and tacked them up against the posts which they had not yet removed.
Second Attempt(Verbal Agreement)/Early Summer 2014/ Shahbazians backed out
Not being able to come to an agreement on what was appropriate or allowed by code, we agreed to turn it
over to a third party.
We agreed to get a survey to show the precise property line and let the city planners process a fence
application deciding what fence could be built.
Mr Shahbazian, my wife and myself shook hands and stated that we would agree to abide by the decision of
the city planners.
When the survey came back showing what I had previously indicated as the P/L Mr Shahbazian contracted
his own survey, which came out exactly the same.
When the City planners came up with the compromise of a 4' wall between the backyards and a full height
wall between the houses, Mr Shahbazian backed out of the agreement and appealed the decision.
K-7
Previous Attempts for a Compromise
Third Attempt(Letter)/August 13, 2014/Went Unanswered
We have collie of with if series of contpromiscs that we would be willing to consider
(As a series of I It)]' 1 concessions front both sides for each section of the fence)
I) For length from rear fayade of our house to the leading edge of the deck...
it. We agree to Remove adjacent lattice/treeing up view potential
b. We agree to Reduce the overall height of the Cance from (6) to 5.5
c. Shalibazians agree to solid fence
This Windd allow parsons fn hQUSe to see over ouryard, hot not down into cnu' yard and provide all
acceptable privacyscreen between yards.
2) For length from this point to end of garden iwall...
it. WM agree to Remove adjacent lattice/freeing up view potential
b. We agree to Reduce tine overall height of the fence front 6.5 to 5.5 (3' solid/2.5' clear)
c. SIIahbaxfans agree to move returns of retaining %vans 5' back trona property hut, out of
setback area (returning setback grade to match adjacent/original grade)
This would allow for expanded view at end of fence area ,
while not allowing bar elevated Vic wilig of our yard If ons side yard setback.
It would also address pending concerns we have for runoff and drainage issues.
3) For fence from cud of garden wall down the slope...
a. We would agree not to change hiliside fence to solid
h. shaihbi zians agree to above mentioned retaining Wali restriction in side setback area
retAlcoing setback to adjacent grade at base of fence... alleviating runoff and drainage
issues.
4) Looking to the future...
it. We agree to abide by all city codes for foliage placement and heights
1). We agree to remove tilt, h'ce Mi. Shahbar.ian referred to as "The Pepper Trent" that was
added in agreement with Mr. Shahbazian
c, 5hahbafans agree not to elevate any portion of the side yard setback and higher than the
base of the lence.and agree to forgo any future complaints concerning the gardell wall and
related issues grading issues.
5) Por fence bel ween the houses...(and the Deck)
a. We would accept the "peek-a-boo" concession by rebuilding the entire fence fu this arca.
(Reduced height -considering that previous height was 53" and approvud height is 78" -
right down the noddle at (10" for tine entire length.)
flli:(:K_.......�..
The fleck's proximity to the Inoperty line(4.5') and extent of expanse beyond the end of the fence
in goestion itself makes it extremely difficult to reconcile with our concerns for privacy and view
impairment. 11 the deck were reconfigured (Which we believe the city is going to require to some
extent anyway). We believe we could achieve at least an acceptable level of privacy and still allow
the Shaihbazians to have Illeii. entire deck.
1). Only for Clic halt, nearest our property If lie, relocate existing decking using existing
oraterials with the same square foolage to extend from existing patio to the point where it
now' begins.
Just pulling everything back, would alleviate privacy concerns, without the ShAhbilzions having to loose
ally of their deck..
"*walla through deck adjustunents with Cfty Plicliner to assure it meets their requirenietit;s
2
)Previous Attempts for a Compromise
Fourth Attempt(Letter and Diagram)/August 19, 2014/Went Unanswered
Mr. Heitman
We have been considering your request for a compromise to the situation with the Shabazians'
objections to our fence application.
As previously discussed, we would be willing to consider the possibility of voluntarily removing the
lattice from our backyard trellis if the Shahbazians would agree to an acceptable fence between the
yard areas.
We have been discussing the differences between "What we want" and "What we would be able to
live with".
We understand that in a situation like this, no one is going to get everything that they want.
With this in mind, we have reviewed your list of requests and come up with a compromise that will
give the Shahbazians a view as well as give us some privacy.
If the Shahbazians agree to the fence on the backyard as detailed, we would also consider voluntarily
lowering our front fence to allow a line of site to the trees across the street as a gesture of good faith
and neighborly cooperation.
Attached you will find a drawing detailing the dimensions of the fence that we could accept.
Thankyou
Darrel and Brenda Hesser
dhesser@yahoo.com
Fi.- -... -s wound agree to .
No Acrylic and Wood Framing on top of fence to 6.5'
Remove the lattice frorn adjacent froths
Keel; the fence beyond the wall ort the slope 80`. Oftar (i.e. Cham -t -ink,
Lover front fence to give site line from kitchen window to street as requested (peek-a-boo)
Shahbazians agree to ..
Move wodclen tie relatnmq wall between fence arkJ deck back out of the setback restoring grade aton,a fence
if 4,a
. nes, rias d m" ,.;.. _ d. w,... ;nd ..r,Gy d,1-5 in.� P -L anc...sr.5>>s c -.a;n .yen rn P!urtorm — 1 -lit
Not to elevate any of s:de yard setbAck above bottom of fence
Fence heights as indicated below:
5 5- for first 18 (coverinq yard) atui Tapered from 5.5 to .1 to er-i of wait
Our R."t— l )
Campror:use t5.5'to ay
Your ReQuest {5'ta 3-w/Acrylic)
NOTF
These h yhts. aprtlhmratety 5 pr hs!. t•Gm the pertio a .v. nor the sl—'b,—'% natio ar"�
n Oadtl if'Ow e51tl naF hilar.- tln ${," - �,edr L•an.er t`n +,b{1 tlt rnQ te'nCe f _,.,� the f - .. -.
al;trw.:m a vow acrr.55 aur yarn, Dbt npc tlnwn nta n�i
K-9
Previous Attempts for a Compromise
Fifth Attempt(Email and Same Diagram)/September 2, 2014/Went Unanswered
dhosser@yahoo.com
;_rry A Hc.'
Fwd: Hesser/Shahbazian Fence
Hello Mr Hellman...
As we did not get a response from our previous message concerning the "Fence Issues",
we wanted to confirm that you received the previous message.(see below)
Thank You
Darrel and Brenda Hesser
Letter.pdf
Begin forwarded message
From: "D. Alan Hesser Jr" <dhesser eya Vcom>
Subject: Hesser/Shahbazian Fence
Date: August 19. 2014 at 7 19.59 AM PDT
To: al r, heftmanlaw.eon_i
Mr Helfman
As per your request, we taken a look at your list from the other night.
We have tried to come up with a compromise.
Please see attached
Thank You
Darnel Hesser
Letter.pdf
risers would agree to . .
Na Acrylic and Wood Framing on top of fence to 6,5*
Remove !be laUrcPIrom adjacent Irel!l6
Keep the fence beyond the wail on file slope SP... clear (i.e- Charn-Uakl
Lower trout fence to give site rine from kitchen window to slreel as requested (peek•a-boof
Shahbaz.ans agree to . .
Move waiden ae relarning wall between fence and deck back out of the setback restoring grade along fence
1 Tnr:. ne'M walk aIW '-L M•I ;Ol':"r��1 w:ft yyt IS:n+rrL^I',y pfgG:;'I+e v : 3rv• 1:ie`� 34 2: ew.'ah9 }w-'wrn%ii. i'er. elS� OKR/
Not to eleeale any of side yard setback above bottom of force
Fence f•.mghls as indicated below.
September 2, 2014 3 47 PM
i
Sent - Yahool
- ; !a; first ta' tcovering yard! and Tapered from 5.5 to 4to end of :•rah
Rat,—u 65)
C-r--ise is 5' ro a d
Yau Roquera (5' to T./ Acrylic)
NOtf
Trr.e d
wl�l �Ilc'n e5 re r,r 1—:fin 60--`tte ar «r ,n Iqr Or 11'e '{ wT -1 rerr1.lr 1— l- ",_ _
l d11Ur��rve ,t ...;n —,, rv'. �; d MI -1 rfLu^ i, �I �
K-10
4
Previous Attempts for a Compromise 5
Sixth Attempt(Email)/October 10, 2014/Received Current Response From Cyrus and Mr Helfman
(summarily rejecting any compromise)
dhesser@yahoo.com cf Cknober 10, 2414 146 PPA
- .. . w.t: :wnt:a ':..£?Za M.'kf iii. i. „, '(:;n }h: �3 ; i7V v(:7; "i
HesserfShahbaziam .sent
Mr. Heitman
Attached you will find two pages addressing the issues and proposed compromises we spoke of this weekend
We would like for you to pass it on to the Shanbazions.
Arid look forward to hearing from you soon
Thank You
Darrel and Brenda Hesser
Mr. Heitman:
It was nice speaking to you over the weekend. We understand that the reason previous otters for a
compromise may have gone unanswered is possibly because they could have been perceived as "a
list of demands".
With this in mind we have gone back to the Shahbazians' 6•point response to our original
request(attached). We have looked at each item carefully and considered what we would be willing to
give up and suggested areas of compromise and a couple alternatives. We have felt it open for the
Shahbazians to to 'Pill in the blanks' with what they are willing to compromise for an agreement.
t. AGREED: We would agree to lower our front fence to give the "peek-a-boo" view to across the
street.
2. PROPOSAL: We would like a 5.5' Solid backyard fence for only the first 3 sections (18)
3. AGREED: We would be willing to forgo the acrylic top and extend the chain-link fence up the .
hill, replacing the last section of the backyard fence.
4. AGREED: We would agree to lower the entire trellis to the same height of the backyard fence.
5. AGREED: We would agree to keep the hillside fence as chain-link
6. AGREED: We would agree to include an -Agreement about the Deck" that includes somehow
restricting or modifying the NW corner of the deck and the elevated retaining wall area
adjacent to the deck.
We hope that we can come to a resolution to our disagreement and look forward to a response to this
proposal.
We would also be agreeable to walking the site to discuss the details and open to the possibility of
mediation.
Sincerely,
Darrel and Brenda Hesser
dhesser@yahoo.com
P. S.
If it seems that none of these compromises are feasible, we would alternatively agree to simply
placing a 5' chain-link fence with a hedge across the backyard area. The hedge would be much
"softer" to look at, return us to what we had before. The height could be maintained from either side.
K-11