The URL can be used to link to this page

RPVCCA_CC_SR_2015_04_21_02_Appeal_PC_Approval_29023_Sprucegrove_DrCITY OFi�RANCHO PALOS VERDES PUBLIC HEARING Date: April 21, 2015 Subject: Appeal of Fence/Wall Permit Decisions (Case Nos. ZON2014-00202 & ZON2014-00415) Subject Property: 29023 Sprucegrove Drive 1. Report of Notice Given: City Clerk Morreale 2. Declare the Hearing Open: Mayor Knight 3. Staff Report & Recommendation: Community Development Director Rojas 4. Public Testimony: Appellants: Mr. and Mrs. Shahbazian Applicants: Mr. and Mrs. Hesser 5. Council Questions: 6. Rebuttal: 7. Declare Hearing Closed: Mayor Knight 8. Council Deliberation: 9. Council Action: Public Hearing Cover Page ILCITYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCI MEMBERS FROM: JOEL ROJAS, COMMUNITY DE L ENT DIRECTOR DATE: APRIL 21, 2015 SUBJECT: 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) Staff Coordinator: So Kim, Senior Planner-' RECOMMENDATION Adopt C.C. Resolution No. 2015-_; upholding the Planning Commission's decision to approve a Fence/Wall Permit as modified by the Commission, for a barrier along the south side property line at 29023 Sprucegrove Drive (Case Nos. ZON2014-00202 and ZON2014- 00415). Quasi -Judicial Decision 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. The specific findings of fact are listed and discussed in the `Discussion' portion of the Staff Report. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2014, the Director approved a wall along the south side property line of the applicant's (29023 Sprucegrove — Hesser) property in two separate application processes on two separate dates. The abutting neighbor to the south (29029 Sprucegrove — Shahbazian) filed two separate appeals of the Director's approval of said wall. One of the appeals was heard by the Planning Commission, at which time the Commission agreed with Staff and upheld the Director's decision to approve a portion of said wall. This decision was then appealed to the City Council. Given that there were two separate appeals pending for what is essentially the same wall, the City Council remanded the matter back to the Planning 1 Commission so that the entire side wall can be reviewed as a single unit. Subsequently, on February 10, 2015, the Planning Commission held an appeal hearing on both applications and voted 5-0 (Commissioners Gerstner and Tomblin absent), upholding the Director's decision with modifications; thereby approving the entire side wall with a change in material (chain link) for a section of the wall. The appeal is now before the City Council for a final decision. More detailed background, site and project descriptions are included in the attached December 9, 2014 Staff Report to the Planning Commission (page A-145). DISCUSSION The property owner of 29023 Sprucegrove Drive (applicant — Hesser) is requesting approval of a barrier along the south side property line between his property and the southerly upsloping neighbor's property located at 29029 Sprucegrove Drive (appellant — Shahbazian). There is an existing retaining wall on the applicant's property along the south side property line, ranging in height from 1.5' to 2.5' between the two properties. The top of the retaining wall is lower than the appellant's pad elevation. The applicant is requesting approval to install a barrier on top of the existing retaining wall, located entirely on his property, based on surveys submitted by both the applicant and the appellant. While the exact height of the retaining wall portion and freestanding wall portion of the barrier varies, the overall maximum height of the proposed barrier will be 6.6' maximum, as measured from the appellant's grade elevation; and 8', as measured from the applicant's grade elevation. As shown in the graphic below, the proposed barrier is separated into four sections (A, B, C and D) for a better understanding of the proposal. Section view for purposes of identifying the location of wall sections A, B, C & D Eley 0'-0 Original Staff Level Approval Peace 7'-0. Too/ Pp' As described in the `Executive Summary' section of the report, the Director approved the applicant's request, which was then appealed to the Planning Commission by his upsloping neighbor. The Director's approval was to allow the following: A 5-7" high solid wood fence on top of an existing retaining wall for Section A (already installed); 2 rSn+smW It, hLL 'A BPee ---moi - Fgge'. S' -r Fenn S-7• �Fenoe 6-0 Fere. Ca' Fence' 0 6' WK 7.5' Tual'a (Ir Well 2'0 Well 2'-0' Toth 7•.7• TOW a' -W WAS 1'6" tml n6' Wap 1'-0' TOW p'd D IrlonSaa , (Fgnt FaMWel IFmet �w&Wel IRpr Few$) i ..... .c,...r. Eley 0'-0 Original Staff Level Approval Peace 7'-0. Too/ Pp' As described in the `Executive Summary' section of the report, the Director approved the applicant's request, which was then appealed to the Planning Commission by his upsloping neighbor. The Director's approval was to allow the following: A 5-7" high solid wood fence on top of an existing retaining wall for Section A (already installed); 2 • A 6' high solid wood fence on top of an existing retaining wall for Section B (already installed); • A 4' high solid wood fence topped with a 30" high framed acrylic on top of an existing retaining wall for Section C (proposed); and, • A 7' high chain link fence on -grade for Section D (proposed). Modified Planning Commission Approval The Director's decision was appealed to the Planning Commission and then to the City Council who remanded it back to the Planning Commission. The Commission, at its February 10, 2015 meeting (page A-8), was asked to affirm whether the following specific Findings of Fact can be made in order to support approval of the applicant's proposed barrier along the side property line: Development Code Section 17.76.030.8.3 — Fence/Wall Permit Findings 1. That the fence or wall 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 plans, as a city -designated viewing area. 2. That all foliage on the applicant's lot which exceeds 16' or the ridgeline of the primary structure, whichever is lower, and impairs a view from the viewing area of another parcel, 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. 3. That placement or construction of a fence or wall shall comply with all applicable standards and requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code and general plan. 4. Notwithstanding finding (a) of this subsection, 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: L 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. ii. Denial would prevent compliance with the swimming pool fencing requirements and there is no reasonable method to comply that would not significantly impair a view from a viewing area of another property. 3 These findings are discussed in more detail in the attached P.C. Resolution No (page A-1). Of said required Findings of Fact necessary for approval, Finding No to view impairment is the primary reason why the application is on an appeal before the City Council. The Planning Commission determined that sections A and B do not result in any view impairment as the only visible portion of the wall from the appellant's residence is from the kitchen window. From this window, the only view available is primarily of the applicant's roof and the sky (see photo to the right), which are not considered protected views. 2015-05 1 related Additionally, the Planning Commission concluded that Sections C and D do not result in significant view impairment from the appellant's viewing area (page A-1), which is shown in the photograph below. Section C consists of the area across the yellow tape shown in the right periphery of the photograph above. At the recent February 10th Planning Commission appeal hearing, the applicant proposed a modification to Section C changing the material from the previously approved solid wood topped with framed acrylic to chain link. The applicant explained that this change was in response to the appellant's concern for the maintenance of the 2.5' tall acrylic portion of wall. The Planning Commission approved the material change for Section C as it would provide additional visibility from the appellant's property. Section D, composed entirely of chain link material on the descending slope, was approved as presented. As a result, the Planning Commission upheld the Director's decision to approve the applicant's Fence/Wall Permit with a modification in material for Section C. Appellant's Request and Grounds for Appeal Mr. & Mrs. Shahbazian, the abutting property owners of the upsloping property at 29029 Sprucegrove Drive submitted the attached appeal letter (page A-62), appealing the approval of the applicant's proposed side wall for the following reasons: 1) entire fence 11 should be considered one unit and have same measurements, 2) fence does not comply with Municipal Code wall requirements; 3) uncertainty in property boundary line should have required Director determination prior to issuance of erroneous permit and opportunity for appeal; 4) manipulation of pre-existing retaining wall and grade by the applicant; 5) city participation; and 6) erroneously issued permit was the cause of existing fence being destroyed and land taken. The appellant is requesting as part of their appeal that the former fence be restored to the original height of 4' up to the rear building fagade and a chain link fence in the rear yard up to 3'-11" in height. The specific reasons for the appeal and Staff's response are detailed in the attached December 9, 2014 Planning Commission Staff Report (page A-50). No additional or new information has been submitted by either the applicant or the appellant since the February 10th appeal hearing by the Planning Commission and therefore Staff's recommendation is to uphold the Planning Commission's modified approval of the project. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Detached Accessory Structures in the Applicant's Rear Yard During the processing of the appeal hearings, the applicant obtained ministerial approvals for accessory structures in the rear yard. More specifically, one of the approvals granted to the application was for a detached trellis in the rear yard, parallel to Wall Section C, which impairs the appellant's view. A ministerial decision involves only the use of fixed standards or objective measures, such as setbacks and height limitations, and Staff cannot use special discretion or subjective judgment in the decision. Accordingly, the detached trellis was approved as a ministerial approval, over-the-counter as it met the minimum setbacks (5' side and 15' rear) and height (12' maximum) limitations. Therefore, the existing accessory structures, including the detached trellis in the applicant's rear yard is not subject to the pending appeal and cannot be revoked. Fiscal Impacts Pursuant to Development Code Section 17.80.120 — Appeal Fee Refund, if an appeal results in a modification to the project, other than changes specifically requested in the appeal, then one-half of the appeal fee shall be refunded to the successful appellant. Since the material change for Wall Section C was not a request made by the appellant and resulted in a modification to the original approval, one-half of the appeal fee ($1,137.50) will be refunded to the appellant, should the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's decision to approve the proposed wall on 29023 Sprucegrove Drive. CONCLUSION Based on the discussion above and attached Minutes, Planning Commission Resolutions and Staff Reports, Staff recommends that the City Council adopt C.C. Resolution No. 2015-_; thereby upholding the Planning Commission's decision to conditionally approve, with modifications approved by the Commission, a Fence/Wall Permit at 29023 Sprucegrove Drive. ALTERNATIVES In addition to the Staff's recommendation, the following alternatives are available for Planning Commission's consideration: Approve the appeal and direct Staff to return to the City Council with a revised resolution to deny the Fence/Wall Permits at the next meeting. 2. Further modify the appeal and direct Staff to return to the City Council with a revised resolution at a date certain. ATTACHMENTS • C.C. Resolution No. 2015-_ (page 7) • P.C. Resolution No. 2015-05 (page A-1) • P.C. Minutes dated February 10, 2015 (page A-8) • P.C. Staff Report dated February 10, 2015 (page A-15) • C.C. Staff Report dated February 3, 2015 (page A-25) • P.C. Minutes dated December 9, 2014 (A-37) • P.C. Staff Report dated December 9, 2014 (page A-46) • C.C. Minutes dated November 4, 2014 (page A-80) • C.C. Staff Report dated November 4, 2014 (page A-82) • P.C. Resolution No. 2014-26 (page A-139) • P.C. Minutes dated September 9, 2014 (A-145) • P.C. Staff Report dated September 9, 2014 (A-155) • P.C. Minutes dated August 12, 2014 (page A-158) • P.C. Staff Report dated August 12, 2014 (page A-160) • Director Staff Report dated June 26, 2014 (page A-248) 101 C.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2015- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A FENCEIWALL PERMIT WITH A MODIFICATION THAT SECTION C BE COMPRISED OF CHAIN-LINK MATERIAL AT 29023 SPRUCEGROVE DRIVE (ZON2014-00202 AND ZON2014- 00415). WHEREAS, on May 22, 2014, the property owner (Darrel Hesser) obtained an approval for an after -the -fact Site Plan Review to legalize an 8' tall combination wall along the side property line between the edge of the 20' front yard setback and the applicant's rear building fagade (ZON2014-00180); and, WHEREAS, on June 26, 2014, the Director approved a Fence/Wall Permit for an 8' tall combination wall along the side property line located between the applicant's rear building fagade and the rear property line. Said wall consists of a 2'-6" tall framed acrylic fence on top of a 4' tall solid wood fence on top of an existing V4, tall retaining wall (ZON2014-00202); and, WHEREAS, on July 11, 2014, the abutting property owners of 29029 Sprucegrove Drive (Hossein and Vicky Shahbazian) submitted a timely appeal, requesting that the Planning Commission overturn the Director's June 26th decision (ZON2014-00202) based on concerns related to the application process, view impairment, unpermitted retaining wall, and inconsistency with the Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, on August 12, 2014, the Planning Commission continued the appeal hearing to September 9, 2014 based on the impacted agenda and the applicant's availability; and, WHEREAS, on September 9, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2014-26, thereby denying the appeal and upholding the Director's decision to allow an 8' tall combination wall along the south side property line, between the applicant's rear building fagade and the rear property line (ZON2014-00202); and, WHEREAS, on September 23, 2014, the abutting property owners of 29029 Sprucegrove Drive (Hossein and Vicky Shahbazian) submitted a timely appeal, requesting that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission's September 9th decision; and, WHEREAS, on October 14, 2014, the Director revoked the after -the -fact Fence/Wall Permit based on a procedural error (ZON2014-00180). More specifically, while a signed application, plans and an application fee is required at the time of application submittal, the application was processed without a signed application. FA Additionally, a notice of decision providing interested parties an appeal opportunity was not provided; and, WHEREAS, on October 31, 2014, a new after -the -fact Fence/Wall Permit was administratively approved to legalize an 8' tall combination wall along the south side property line between the edge of the 20' front yard setback and the applicant's rear building fagade (ZON2014-00415); and, WHEREAS, on November 4, 2014, the City Council, pursuant to Staff's recommendation, remanded the appeal back to the Planning Commission so that the entire side wall (ZON2014-00202 and ZON2014-00415) could be reviewed as a single unit; and, WHEREAS, on November 17, 2014, the abutting property owners of 29029 Sprucegrove Drive (Hossein and Vicky Shahbazian) submitted a timely appeal, requesting that the Planning Commission overturn the Director's October 31St decision (ZON2014-00415) approving an after -the -fact Fence/Wall Permit; and, WHEREAS, on November 20, 2014, a public notice of the December 9th appeal hearing was mailed to property owners within a 500' radius from the subject property and published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code; and, WHEREAS, on December 9, 2014, the Planning Commission continued the appeal hearing to February 10, 2015, to allow Staff to check with the Acting City Manager and the City Attorney about the ability to use the City's View Restoration Mediator to meet with the parties in attempt to resolve their differences; and, WHEREAS, on February 3, 2015, the City Council took no action to amend the View Restoration Mediator's contract to facilitate mediation on this project, since both the applicant and appellant stated that mediation would not be beneficial, thereby allowing the Planning Commission to continue with its consideration of the Fence/Wall Permit application appeal; WHEREAS, on February 10, 2015, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2015-05, thereby denying the appeal and upholding the Director's approval and the Planning Commission's approval of Fence/Wall Permits with a modification that Section C be comprised of chain link material at 29023 Sprucegrove Drive (ZON2014-00202 and ZON2014-00415); and, WHEREAS, on March 19, 2015, a public notice of the April 21St City Council appeal hearing was mailed to property owners within a 500' radius from the subject property and was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News, pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code; and, �661 WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt under Class 3 (Section 15303); and, WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on April 21, 2015, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The proposed project involves a combination wall, not to exceed 8' in height, as measured from the grade on the lower side of the wall at 29023 Sprucegrove Drive ("Applicant") and 7', as measured from the grade on the higher side at 29029 Sprucegrove Drive ("Appellants") along the south side property line. Wall sections A and B of Exhibit "B" hereto consist of a solid wood fence on top of a retaining wall. Wall section C of the attached Exhibit "B" consists of a chain-link fence on top of a retaining wall. Wall section D consists of a chain-link fence up to 7' in height on grade of the descending rear slope, with no portion exceeding 4' above the building pad level of 29029 Sprucegrove Drive. Section 2: A Fence/Wall Permit is warranted because: A. The combination wall would not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another property or a view from public property that has been identified in the City's General Pian or Coastal Specific Plans as a City -designated viewing area. More specifically, as modified by the Planning Commission, wall section C is composed of an 8' tall combination wall, of which the 6'-6" tall chain-link portion that is visible above the grade level of 29029 Sprucegrove Drive, would not cause significant view impairment as only a minimal amount of the ocean view from the Appellants' viewing area (consisting of the rooms facing west along the rear fagade of the Appellants' residence--living/dining room and two bedrooms and from the kitchen area) would be impaired by the chain link material. Additionally, when the entirety of the Appellants' view is considered, the proposed combination wall would be located in the far right periphery of the Appellants' view frame, and the remaining ocean and Catalina views would not be impaired from their viewing area. Additionally, from the viewing area of 29043 Sprucegrove Drive (Wang), there would be even less view impairment caused by the proposed 8' tall combination wall as it would be located in the right periphery of the view frame and the remaining ocean and Catalina views would not be impaired. Furthermore, there are no public properties in the vicinity that have a view across the proposed project area, and the subject property is not located within the City's coastal zone. Wall sections A, B and D, as conditioned, also do not impair protected views for the following reasons: sections A and B do not result in any view impairment because the only visible portion of the wall from the Appellants' residence is from the kitchen window. From this window, the only view available is primarily of the Applicant's roof and the sky, which are not protected views under the Municipal Code. Section D also does not result in significant view impairment from the Appellants' viewing area because it is comprised entirely of chain link fencing material and is located primarily on the descending slope in the rear yard; accordingly, the majority of section D is not visible from the Appellants' viewing area and the portion that is visible is located in the far right periphery of the Appellants' view frame. B. As demonstrated by the photographs that were presented to the City Council, which are part of the administrative record of this matter, there is no foliage on the Applicant's lot which exceeds 16' or the ridgeline of the primary structure, whichever is lower, that impairs a view from the viewing area of another parcel, or a view from public property that has been identified in the City's general plan or coastal specific plan as a city -designated viewing area. C. The placement or construction of the subject wall complies with all applicable standards and requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code and General Plan. More specifically, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.76.030(C)(b)(iii), "when combined, the total height of a fence, freestanding wall or retaining wall may not exceed 8, as measured from grade on the lower side, and may not exceed 7' as measured from the grade on the higher side". The subject combination wall will not exceed 8' in height from the grade on the lower side at 29023 Sprucegrove Drive and will not exceed 7' from the abutting property's grade on the higher side at 29029 Sprucegrove Drive. Additionally, the City's General Plan, Policy No. 14 of the Urban Environment Element states the following: "Prohibit encroachment on existing scenic views reasonably expected by neighboring residents". Only the rear corner of the 8' tall combination wall would project into a minimal amount of ocean view at the periphery of the view frame of the abutting neighbors' (including Appellants') viewing area, while the remainder of the ocean and Catalina view would be preserved. Section 3: The Appellants submitted a letter on April 17, 2014, appealing the approval of the proposed Fence/Wall Permit for the following reasons: 1) the entire fence/wall should be considered as one unit and have the same measurements; 2) the fence/wall does not comply with Municipal Code requirements for walls; 3) uncertainty as to the location of the property boundary line should have required a determination by the Director prior to issuance of the erroneous permit and opportunity for appeal; 4) the Applicant previously had changed the pre-existing retaining wall and grade; 5) other actions by the City; and 6) an erroneous permit issued by the City was the cause of the original fence being destroyed and land taken from the Appellants by the Applicant. The City Council finds that the Appellants' grounds for appeal are not warranted, for the following reasons: 10 A. The Appellants claim that the proposed fence/wall should be considered as a single unit and should have the same measurements. The City Council agrees with that the entire wall (wall sections A, B, C and D) should be considered as a single unit, which is why the original decision of the Planning Commission regarding wall sections A and B was remanded back to the Commission on November 4, 2014, thereby allowing a determination to be made at one time for the entirety of the fence/wall. However, the City Council disagrees with the Appellants' request to apply a uniform height to all of the sections of the proposed fence/wall because the existing retaining wall along the side yard between the applicant and appellants' property varies in height, and the view impacts to the Appellants' vary across said fence/wall, as is discussed above in Section 2A. B. The Appellants claim that the proposed fence/wall does not comply with Municipal Code requirements. More specifically, the Appellants explain in their appeal letter that the viewing area should include their living/dining room, master bedroom, second bedroom and kitchen as they all share the same view. The City Council agrees that the viewing area, as defined by Municipal Code Section 17.02.040.A.15, consists of all rooms facing west along the rear fagade of the Appellants' residence (living/dining room and two bedrooms and looking west from the kitchen area) as they share the same view of the ocean and Catalina Island. The Appellants claim in their letter that wall section C (4' tall solid wood fence topped by a 2'-6" tall acrylic barrier) significantly impairs their view by destroying 100% of the Malibu and ocean view. However, wall section C was modified by the Planning Commission to be chain-link, and with this change, the view of Malibu and the ocean area are visible through the chain link material and, therefore, the wall does not result in significant view impairment. The Appellants also claim that wall sections A and B significantly impair a view of the ocean and natural hillside across Sprucegrove Drive from their kitchen window. However, the only view from the kitchen window is primarily of the Applicant's roof and sky, which are not considered a protected view; therefore, wall sections A and B do not result in any view impairment. The Appellants also state that the devaluation of their views cause a decrease in the value of their property. However, under the Municipal Code, property values are not considered as part of a decision whether to allow an improvement on a neighboring property. Lastly, the Appellants claim that the approvals for wall sections A, B, C, and D are inconsistent with General Plan Urban Environment Element Policy No. 14, which states: "Prohibit encroachment on existing scenic views reasonably expected by neighboring residents". As discussed above, no protected views are impacted by wall sections A, B and D and only a minimal amount of the periphery of the Appellants' ocean view is impaired by wall section C. Therefore, the wall heights for the proposed wall are consistent with the General Plan. C. The Appellants claim that uncertainty as to the location of the property line required a Director determination prior to issuance of the erroneous permit and 11 the Appellants' opportunity to appeal. The "erroneous permit" referenced by the Appellants is the approval granted administratively for wall sections A and B in May 2014. There was a procedural error in said approval, which was subsequently revoked by the Director in October 2014. A new application was submitted for the same proposal; the City's procedures were properly followed, and it was approved again. Prior to the original approval of wall sections A and B in May 2014, the Appellants raised a concern regarding the property line location. Both the Applicant and the Appellants submitted surveys, which were prepared by the same company IWS, showing the existing retaining wall along the south side property line to be located entirely on the Applicant's property. As such, any uncertainty about the property boundary line between the Appellants' and the Applicant's properties was resolved through the submittal of surveys by both parties, which clearly demonstrate that the proposed wall is located entirely on the Applicant's property. D. The Appellants claim that the Applicant's grade and pre-existing retaining wall have been modified by the Applicant sometime in the past. Specifically, the Appellants claim that the applicant lowered the height of the pre-existing retaining wall and raised the height of the adjoining grade at the base of the retaining wall. However, the Municipal Code does not prevent a property owner from making such changes. Even if these changes did occur, the approved height restrictions on the proposed wall are based on the current grade elevations. Specifically, at no point shall the combination wall exceed 8' as measured from the Applicant's side (lower side) and 7' as measured from the Appellants' side (higher side). (See Municipal Code Section 17.76.030.C.b.iii) Thus, if the Applicant lowers his grade elevation even more, it would only allow for an even shorter wall, not a taller wall, because of the 8' maximum height limitation on the Applicant's side of the wall. Conversely, if the Applicant raises his grade, he still cannot exceed 7' as measured from the Appellants' side. As such, in the end, the approved wall cannot exceed the 7'/8' height envelope set forth in the Municipal Code. The fence/wall that was approved by the Director and the Planning Commission complies with these requirements. E. The Appellants claim that the City made false representations as to applications that were filed. The submittal requirements for a Fence/Wall Permit include a completed application signed by the property owner, plans and a fee. When the Applicant originally sought approval of wall sections A and B, the Applicant submitted plans and a fee, but not a completed application. Due to this procedural error, the Director revoked this approval and the Applicant was required to file a new "application," which included a completed application signed by the property owner, plans and fees. Subsequently, this application for wall sections A and B was approved by the Director and is part of the pending appeal. Because the Director revoked the prior approval, and the current application complies with the City's requirements, the prior procedural error has been corrected. 12 F. The Appellants claim that the proposed wall cannot be considered an after -the - fact wall because the Applicant's pre-existing white -lattice fence was still in place. The term "after -the -fact" is used to describe applications for projects that have been initiated without City approval. The application for wall sections A and B is considered an after -the -fact application, because portions of the Applicant's new wood fence already were constructed at the time of the submittal of the application. The review process for "after -the -fact" applications is exactly the same as for non -"after -the -fact" applications, except that the Applicant had to pay an additional penalty fee (double the application fee). Additionally, no City permits are needed for the demolition/removal of walls. G. The Appellants claim that the Planning Division knew about the Applicant's grading activities and ignored enforcing Municipal Code provisions thereby causing damage to the Appellants' drainage on their property. More specifically, the Appellants allege that the existing retaining wall between their property and the Applicant's property was modified without permits, approvals, and/or inspections. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.76.040 (Grading Permit) subsection C, grading approval is not required for: 1) an excavation, fill or combination thereof, less than 20 cubic yards; 2) an excavation or fill less than 3' in depth of natural grade; or 3) an excavation less than 10' below existing grade for the foundation or footings of a structure on a slope less than 35% and not involving a caisson foundation. The existing retaining wall that supports earth between the two abutting properties with an average building pad elevation difference of 2' does not require approval of a Grading Permit, especially given the existing height of the alleged modified retaining wall (ranging between 1'-6" and 2'-5"). Additionally, the minimal quantity of earth movement and the depth of cut or fill to modify the existing retaining wall at the current height (ranging between 1'-6" and 2'-Y), would not have required a Grading Permit, Building Permit or inspections by the City. Furthermore, any damage as a result of the alleged retaining wall modification is a civil matter to be resolved between the two parties. H. The Appellants claim that the City had knowledge that the pre-existing white - lattice fence had been constructed by them and that administrative approval of wall sections A and B in May 2014 caused the removal of the fence and land to be taken from Appellants by the Applicant. However, the City approval that was issued in May 2014 was for the installation of new wall sections A and B and not for the demolition or removal of any pre-existing fence. As is discussed in Paragraph G above, no City approval was required under the Municipal Code for the removal of said fence. Lastly, the approved wall sections A and B are located entirely on the Applicant's property, consistent with the surveys submitted by both the Applicant and the Appellants. Section 4: The time within which judicial review of the decision reflected in this Resolution must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedures and other applicable short periods of limitation. 13 Section 5: For the foregoing reasons, and based on all of the information in the administrative record and the findings of fact included in the Staff Reports, Minutes and other records of these proceedings, as reflected above, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby denies the appeal and upholds the Planning Commission's approval of a Fence/Wall Permit for the installation of a barrier on top of an existing retaining wall along the south side property line of 29023 Sprucegrove Drive, subject to the conditions set forth in the attached Exhibit "A" and the project plan depicted in the attached Exhibit "B" (Case Nos. ZON2014-00202 and ZON2014-00415), both of which are incorporated herein and made a part hereof by this reference. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21St day of April 2015, by the following vote: Mayor Attest City Clerk State of California ) County of Los Angeles )ss City of Rancho Palos Verdes ) I, Carla Morreale, the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2015- was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on April 21, 2015. City Clerk 14 EXHIBIT 'A' CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ATF FENCE/WALL PERMIT (ZON2014-00202 and ZON2014-00415) 29023 SPRUCEGROVE DRIVE This approval is for the legalization of a combination wall not to exceed 8' in height, as measured from the adjacent grade on the lower side (29023 Sprucegrove Drive) and 7', as measured from the adjacent grade on the higher side (29029 Sprucegrove Drive). Specifically, as depicted in Exhibit "B" attached hereto, wall sections A and B consist of a solid wood fence on top of an existing retaining wall. Wall section C consists of chain-link fence on top of a retaining wall. Wall section D consists of a chain-link fence up to 7' in height located primarily on the descending rear slope, with no portion exceeding 4' above the building pad level of 29029 Sprucegrove Drive. 2. Wall section C shall be maintained as chain-link with no foliage growing on or within the chain-link material and no other obstructions shall be placed on or abutting the chain-link fence. 3. Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, the Applicant and the property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have read, understand, and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this decision. Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void. 4. Prior to conducting any work in the public right of way, such as for curb cuts, dumpsters, temporary improvements and/or permanent improvements, the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works. 5. 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. 6. The Community Development Director is authorized to make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions of approval if such modifications will achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with the approved plans and conditions. Otherwise, any substantive change to the project shall require approval of a revision by the final body that approved the original project, which may require new and separate environmental review. 7. The project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards contained in these conditions of approval or, if not addressed herein, shall conform to the residential development standards of the City's Municipal Code, including, but not limited to height, setback and lot coverage standards. 15 8. 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. 9. If the applicant has not submitted an application for a building permit for the approved project or not commenced the approved project as described in Section 17.86.070 of the City's Municipal Code within one year of the final effective date of this decision, approval of the project shall expire and be of no further effect unless, prior to expiration, a written request for extension is filed and approved by the Community Development Director. 10. 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. 11. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be completed in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the City with the effective date of this decision. 12. 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. 13. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, 9:OOAM to 5:OOPM on Saturday, with no construction activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section 17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. During demolition, construction and/or grading operations, trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining street rights-of-way before 7AM Monday through Friday and before 9AM on Saturday, in accordance with the permitted hours of construction stated in this condition. When feasible to do so, the construction contractor shall provide staging areas on-site to minimize off-site transportation of heavy construction equipment. These areas shall be located to maximize the distance between staging activities and neighboring properties, subject to approval by the building official. 14. All grading, landscaping and construction activities shall exercise effective dust control techniques, either through screening and/or watering. 15. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly manner, to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official. All construction waste and debris resulting from a construction, alteration or repair project shall be removed on a weekly basis by the contractor or property owner. Existing or 16 temporary portable bathrooms shall be provided during construction. Portable bathrooms shall be placed in a location that will minimize disturbance to the surrounding property owners, to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official. 17 P.C. Resolution leo. 2015-05 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2015-05 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE DIRECTOR'S APPROVAL AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF FENCEIWALL PERMITS WITH A MODIFICATION THAT SECTION C BE COMPRISED OF CHAINLINK MATERIAL AT 29023 SPRUCEGROVE DRIVE (ZON2014-00202 AND ZON2014- 00415 ).. WHEREAS, on May 22, 2014, the property owner (Darrel Hesser) obtained an approval for an after -the -fact Site Plan Review to legalize an 8' tall combination wall along the side property line between the edge of the 20' front yard setback and the applicant's rear building facade (ZON2014-00180); and, WHEREAS, on June 26, 2014, the Director approved a Fence/Wall Permit for an 8' tall combination wall along the side property line located between the applicant's rear building fagade and the rear property line. Said wall consists of a 2'-6" tall framed acrylic fence on top of a 4' tall solid wood fence on top of an existing V-6" tall retaining wall (ZON2014-00202); and, WHEREAS, on July 11, 2014, the abutting property owner of 29029 Sprucegrove Drive (Hossein and Vicky Shahbazian) submitted a timely appeal, requesting that the Planning Commission overturn the Director's June 261h decision (ZON2014-00202) based on concerns related to the application process, view impairment, unpermitted retaining wall, and inconsistency with the Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, on August 12, 2014, the Planning Commission continued the appeal hearing to September 9, 2014 based on the impacted agenda and the applicant's availability; and, WHEREAS, on September 9, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2014-26, thereby denying the appeal and upholding the Director's decision to allow an 8' tall combination wall along the south side property line, between the applicant's rear building fapade and the rear property line (ZON2014-00202); and, WHEREAS, on September 23, 2014, the abutting property owner of 29029 Sprucegrove Drive (Hossein and Vicky Shahbazian) submitted a timely appeal, requesting that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission's September 911 decision; and, WHEREAS, on October 14, 2014, the Director revoked the after -the -fact Fence/Wall Permit based on procedural error (ZON2014-00180). More specifically, while a signed application, plans and an application fee is required at the time of application submittal, the application was processed without a signed application. Additionally, a notice of decision providing interested parties an appeal opportunity was not provided; and, WHEREAS, on October 31, 2014, a new after -the -fact Fence/Wall Permit is administratively approved to legalize an 8' tall combination wall along the south side property line between the edge of the 20' front yard setback and the applicant's rear building facade (ZON2014-00415); and, P.C. Resolution No. 2015-05 Page 1 A-2 WHEREAS, on November 4, 2014, the City Council, pursuant to Staff's recommendation, remands the appeal back to the Planning Commission so that the entire side wall (ZON2014-00202 and ZON2014-00415) can be reviewed as a single unit, and, WHEREAS, on November 17, 2014, the abutting property owner of 29029 Sprucegrove Drive (Hossein and Vicky Shahbazian) submitted a timely appeal, requesting that the Planning Commission overturn the Director's October 3151 decision (ZON2014-00415) approving an after - the -fact FenceiWall Permit; and, WHEREAS, on November 20, 2014, a public notice of the December 911 appeal hearing was mailed to property owners within a 500' radius from the subject property and published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code; and, WHEREAS, on December 9, 2014, the Planning Commission continued the appeal hearing to February 10, 2015 to allow Staff to check with the Acting City Manager and the City Attorney on the appropriateness in using the City's View Restoration Mediator to meet with the parties in attempt to resolve their differences; and, WHEREAS, on February 3, 2015, the City Council took no action to amend the View Restoration Mediator's contract to facilitate medication on this project as both the applicant and appellant believe that mediation would not be beneficial, thereby allowing the Planning Commission to continue with its consideration of the Fence/Wall Permit application appeal; WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQK), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt under Class 3 (Section 15303); and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on February 10, 2015, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The proposed project involves a combination wall, not to exceed 8' in height, as measured from the grade on the lower side at 29023 Sprucegrove Drive (applicant) and 7', as measured from the grade on the higher side at 29029 Sprucegrove Drive (appellant) along the south side property line. Wall sections A and B of attached Exhibit B consists of a solid wood fence on top of a retaining wall. Wall section C of the attached Exhibit B, as modified on February 101h, consists of a chainlink fence on top of a retaining wall. Wall section D consists of a chainlink fence up to 7' in height on grade, with no portion exceeding 4' above the building pad level of 29029 Sprucegrove Drive. Section 2: A Fence/Wall Permit is warranted because: A. The combination wall 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 P.C. Resolution No. 2015-05 Page 2 A-3 General Plan or Coastal Specific Plans, as a city -designated viewing area. More specifically, wall section C composed of an 8' tall combination wall of which 6'-6" tall chainlink portion would be above the grade level of 29029 Sprucegrove Drive would not cause significant view impairment as only a minimal amount of ocean view from the appellant's viewing area would be impaired. Additionally, when the entirety of the view is considered, the proposed combination wall would be located in the far right periphery of the appellant's view frame and the remaining ocean and Catalina views would not be impaired. Additionally, from the viewing area of 29043 Sprucegrove Drive (Wang), there would be even less view impairment caused by the proposed 8' tall combination wall as it would be located in the right periphery of the view frame and the remaining ocean and Catalina views would not be impaired. Furthermore, there are no public properties in the vicinity that has a view across the proposed project area and the subject property is not located within the City's coastal zone. Lastly, wall sections A, B and D, as conditioned, do not impair protected views. B. There is no foliage on the applicant's lot which exceeds 16' or the ridgeline of the primary structure, whichever is lower, that impairs a view from the viewing area of another parcel, or a view from public property which has been identified in the city's general plan or coastal specific plan, as a city -designated viewing area. C. Placement or construction of a fence or wall complies with all applicable standards and requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code and General Plan. More specifically, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.76.030(C)(b)(iii), "when combined, the total height of a fence, freestanding wall or retaining wall may not exceed 8, as measured from grade on the lower side, and may not exceed 7', as measured from the grade on the higher side". The proposed combination wall will not exceed 8' in height from the grade on the lower side at 29023 Sprucegrove Drive and 7' from the abutting property's grade on the higher side at 29029 Sprucegrove Drive. Additionally, the City's General Plan, Policy No. 14 of the Urban Environment Element states the following.- "Prohibit ollowing."Prohibit encroachment on existing scenic views reasonably expected by neighboring residents". Only the rear corner of the 8' tall combination wall would project into a minimal amount of ocean view at the periphery of the view frame of the abutting neighbors' viewing area, while the remainder of the ocean and Catalina view would be preserved. 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 PM on Wednesday, February 25, 2015. A $2,275,00 appeal fee must accompany any appeal letter. If no appeal is filed timely, the Planning Commission's decision will be final at 5:30 PM on February 25, 2015. 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 and the Planning Commission's approval of Fence/Wall Permits, with a modification that section C be comprised of chainlink material subject to the conditions set forth in the attached `Exhibit A' and the project plan depicted in the attached 'Exhibit B' (Case Nos. ZON2014-00202 and ZON2014-00415). P.C. Resolution No. 2015-05 Page 3 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1011 day of February 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Cruikshank, Emenhiser, ,lames, Vice Chairman Nelson, Chairman Leon NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: None RECUSALS: None ABSENT: Commissioners Gerstner, Tomblin Gordon Leon, Chairman Joel Rotst� JA PComm veto m nt Director and Secret oPI ing Commission P.C. Resolution No. 2015- 05 Page 4 A-5 EXHIBIT 'A' CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ATF FENCEIWALL PERMITS (ZON2414-00202 and ZON2014-00415) 29023 SPRUCEGROVE DRIVE This approval is for the legalization of a combination wall not to exceed 8' in height, as measured from the adjacent grade on the lower side (29023 Sprucegrove Drive) and 7', as measured from the adjacent grade on the higher side (29029 Sprucegrove Drive). Specifically, as depicted in 'Exhibit B' attached herein, wall sections A and B consists of a solid wood fence on top of an existing retaining wall. Wall section C consists of chain- link fence on top of a retaining wall, Wall section D consists of a chain-link fence up to 7' in height on grade, with no portion exceeding 4' above the building pad level of 29029 Sprucegrove Drive. 2. Wall section C shall be maintained as chain-link with no foliage growing on or within the chain-link material and no other obstructions placed on the chain-link fence. 3. Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, the applicant and the property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have read, understand, and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this decision. Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void. 4. Prior to conducting any work in the public right of way, such as for curb cuts, dumpsters, temporary improvements and/or permanent improvements, the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works. 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. 6. The Community Development Director is authorized to make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions of approval if such modifications will achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with the approved plans and conditions. Otherwise, any substantive change to the project shall require approval of a revision by the final body that approved the original project, which may require new and separate environmental review. 7. The project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards contained in these conditions of approval or, if not addressed herein, shall conform to the residential development standards of the City's Municipal Code, including but not limited to height, setback and lot coverage standards. 8. 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. 9. if the applicant has not submitted an application for a building permit for the approved project or not commenced the approved project as described in Section 17.86.070 of the City's Municipal Code within one year of the final effective date of this decision, approval P.C. Resolution No. 2015-05 Page 5 of the project shall expire and be of no further effect unless, prior to expiration, a written request for extension is filed and approved by the Community Development Director, 10, 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. 11. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be completed in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the City with the effective date of this decision. 12. 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. 13. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, 9:00AM to 5:OOPM on Saturday, with no construction activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section 17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. During demolition, construction and/or grading operations, trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining street rights- of-way before 7AM Monday through Friday and before 9AM on Saturday, in accordance with the permitted hours of construction stated in this condition. When feasible to do so, the construction contractor shall provide staging areas on-site to minimize off-site transportation of heavy construction equipment. These areas shall be located to maximize the distance between staging activities and neighboring properties, subject to approval by the building official. 14. All grading, landscaping and construction activities shall exercise effective dust control techniques, either through screening and/or watering. 15. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly manner, to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official. All construction waste and debris resulting from a construction, alteration or repair project shall be removed on a weekly basis by the contractor or property owner. Existing or temporary portable bathrooms shall be provided during construction. Portable bathrooms shall be placed in a location that will minimize disturbance to the surrounding property owners, to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official. P.C. Resolution No. 2015-05 Page 6 A-7 P.C. Minutes (February 10, 2015) • ommission to support a finding that they are supposed to make that it is in the pub l' s in est. In addition, he was troubled by the requirement of a substantial propefight of;; pplicant in order to approve a Variance. He stated he did not see this Vr ntial propertght, and there was nothing presented in the staff report to changepinion. Commissiondy,Emenhiser agreed with Commissioner James, but not that allowing the zone chan and building the homes will keep someone fr coming in and building an auto r air or a 7 -Eleven. He felt that it was in the ublic interest to not allow that to happen. Commissioner Cruikshank as concerned about allowina creation of substandard ' lots, which will result in the b ding of narrow houses. t, he agreed with the architect in that it would be difficult to sell*e large house built n the lot. Chairman Leon asked staff if the appl'itQnt couldXplit the lot with the current zoning. Director Rojas answered that the lot could t be split under the current zoning. Chairman Leon stated his concern i ese two omes would be out of character with the surrounding homes and it w d almost be ' e putting two townhomes on this corner. Vice Chairman Nelson agr d with Commissioner James'ments. He noted that he made the motion to app ve staff's recommendation knowing t at down the road there will be recommend 'ons to change and modify the final design. However, the Commission's purp se at this meeting is to make a recommendatio to the City Council for their review d, most likely, modifications. He stated the Com sion represents 40,000 peopl and if a survey were taken he felt that the 40,000 peop would much prefer wha as been proposed as opposed to many of the alternatives. The Otion to approve staff's recommendation, thereby approving PC Res&tt ,ion 20g-04 was approved, (3-2) with Commissioner James and Chairman Leon ssenting. CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Appeal of Fence/Wall Permit decisions Case Nos. ZON2014-00202 and ZON2014-004151; 29023 Sprucegrove Drive Senior Planner Kim presented the staff report, explaining that at the last hearing in December the Commission had voted to continue the public hearing to allow both parties to get together with the view mediator to try to resolve their differences. She noted that both the Acting City Manager and the City Attorney agreed that the City Council would have to authorize the use of the view mediator, as the current contract is limited to view purposes only, and to decide if this would be an appropriate use of city funds. She explained that the item was scheduled to be heard by the City Council, Planning Commission Minutes February 10, 2015 Page 6 however both the applicant and appellant submitted letters stating mediation at this point would not be beneficial. She stated that since mediation only works when both parties are willing to participate, the City Council, at staff's recommendation, took no action. Therefore, the item is once again before the Planning Commission for consideration. She explained that included in the applicant's letter to the City Council was an alternative to Section C of the wall, which was to remove the originally proposed wood wall/clear acrylic material portion and replace it with chain link. She stated staff was in support of the proposed change, as it would provide additional visibility through the chain link. She stated staff's recommendation remains the same, to deny the appeal and uphold the Director's decision with the applicant's proposed modification to Section C of the wall. Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff what the proposed height limit was for Section C and Section D of the wall. Senior Planner Kim answered the height limit for Section C is 8 feet as measured from the lowest point on the applicant's side, and 6 Y2 feet above the grade level as measured from the appellant's side. She stated that Section D would be entirely chain link. Director Rojas reminded the Commission that the Planning Commission's previous decision on Sections C and D was appealed to the City Council. It has been remanded back for the Commission to hear the entire issue, and will go back to the City Council for the appeal. Therefore, the Commission's decision is not final, as it item is still to be heard by the City Council. Cyrus Shahbazian (applicant) commented on the staff report, noting that staff continues to treat the wall as four separate portions. He noted the staff report omits the recent approvals the Hessers have received for structures in their rear yard, and therefore he felt the offer of a chain link fence is irrelevant as the only view available will be of these new structures. He stated that this all comes down to the preservation of a view, and the code protects against the unnecessary impairment of views. In addition, the General Plan discusses views that are reasonably expected. He noted that the Shahbazians have had this view for twenty three years, and is therefore reasonably expected. He showed photos of the view before the wall, and the view that is available today. Lastly, he noted the section of the Code that discusses the refund of the appeal fee, and noted he hasn't heard anything from staff about that. Commissioner Emenhiser questioned the view from the kitchen window, and asked if he is standing at the window looking straight out does he see the neighboring house or does he see the slope across the street, as depicted in the photo. Mr. Shahbazian explained that when standing at the kitchen sink and looking straight out you will see the neighboring house, but you will still see the street and slope in your peripheral view. However, when you turn your head you will see the street and the slope across the street. Planning Commission Minutes February 10, 2015 Page 7 A-10 Commissioner Cruikshank asked Mr. Shahbazian what he is asking for, and what the purpose of the presentation was. Mr. Shahbazian asked that the wall be returned to the prior construction, and that a four foot fence the entire length of the property line be approved. Vicky Shahbazian stated that for twenty five years she could stand at her kitchen sink and look out and see the slope across the street, and it was much more visible before the six foot fence was constructed. She did not understand how the City could give Mr. Hesser permits to build structures in his rear yard that obstruct her view. She also stated that she has always been willing to participate in mediation with the neighbor. She noted that Mr. Hesser's application was submitted March 19th and a zoning change came into effect in May, and she felt that staff should have processed the application before the new zone change was in effect. Commissioner Emenhiser noted that Mrs., Shahbazian stated she has always been willing to participate in mediation, however staff noted that the Shahbazians rejected mediation. He asked staff to clarify. Director Rojas explained that staff had asked both parties to write letters to the City Council clarifying their positions on city mediation. Mr. Hesser wrote a letter stating he did not believe mediation would be of any benefit, and staff received an email from Cyrus Shahbazian which seemed to indicate that, given Mr. Hesser's position that mediation would not be beneficial, it would therefore be superfluous to try to engage in mediation. He noted that at the meeting he was trying to convey to the City Council both parties' position, however he also noted that both parties were at the hearing and could have provided any clarity to their positions. Hossein Shahbazian stated no training is needed to be able to tell if something is very beautiful or very ugly, and anybody passing by that can see this fence will feel very bad and very sad. He felt that for a city official to issue an approval for something like this is ridiculous. He stated all of the information provided is false and fraud, and any permit issued under these circumstances must be revoked. He felt everything his neighbor has done has been done for harassment and questioned why every mistake made by staff benefited the Hessers. Darrel Hesser stated that this is not a case of view restoration or view preservation, but rather a case of a neighbor trying to extend their already expansive view by force. He stated that the view was never available to the Shahbazians until they illegally removed the hedge from his property. He stated that, contrary to the Shahbazians statements, he has made several attempts to work with the neighbors to reach a compromise. He stated that, given he has previously requested mediation in writing which was rejected, he did not feel that mediation at this point is a fruitless effort. He stated that through the process he has been very careful to comply with all city requests, and when he's made mistakes he has made the necessary corrections. He stated he has followed the Planning Commission Minutes February 10, 2015 Page 8 A-11 provisions set forth in the City code, and in this case a series of findings are required in order to recommend approval. He stated that these findings have been met. He requested the Commission uphold the Director's decision and approve the fence application. Commissioner Emenhiser asked Mr. Hesser if he rejected the last offer of mediation. Mr. Hesser answered that he did reject the idea of meeting with the mediator. He explained that at this point he wants no less than what is allowed by the city's code. Chairman Leon asked Mr. Hesser if the fence is approved as recommended by staff, would he still require the trellis structure. Mr. Hesser answered that he would still require the trellis structure. Brenda Hesser reiterated that when they bought the home, and up until the Shahbazians removed the hedge, there was a chain link fence with a hedge which provided a great amount of privacy. She felt the Shahbazians have made several false statement over the last three meetings, and asked the Commission to disregard their attempt to derail the one reason they are before the Commission. She felt there was no valid justification not to allow a chain link fence that creates no view impairment. She asked the Commission go uphold the Director's decision. Chairman Leon felt that it appeared the grade in the back yard has been increased and that the bottom of the wall is higher than the level of the house. Mrs. Hesser stated that there has been no change, and the height of the small planter wall has not changed. Vice Chairman Nelson stated his issue was why the Hessers have put up a trellis and why they have asked for a 12 -foot tall shed. He felt these two improvements make the chain link fence null and void. Mrs. Hesser answered that the trellis is now a gazebo that protects the koi pond in the back yard. She noted the Shahbazians appealed the four foot tall fence long before the trellis or gazebo was even in place. Cyrus Shahbazian (in rebuttal) stated the hedge in question was entirely on the Shahbazian property. In regards to the findings, he felt the findings were made based on what has been represented as accurate. He felt that the findings were based on inaccurate information. He stated that the former white lattice fence was taken from his family by the Planning Department issuing this Fence Permit to the Hessers. He stated that the portion of the fence was taken unjustly because they had a legitimate claim to ownership, as they had occupied the portion of the property for 24 years. Finally, he stated that the Director's comments that the Shahbazians rejected mediation was incorrect. Planning Commission Minutes February 10, 2015 Page 9 A-12 Chairman Leon closed the public hearing. Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff to review the proposed resolution. Director Rojas first clarified that the Commission is looking at the entire fence, however to better understand it, it has been divided into sections for explanation only. Senior Planner Kim explained that portions A and B are currently a solid wood fence, and staff is in support in that remaining in its current location, at its current height, and with its current material. Section C was originally approved that the lower portion be constructed of a wood wall material and the upper portion be of a framed acrylic. Now, because of the applicant's proposal, staff is in support of the entirety of Section C being of a chain link material. She stated that Section D is proposed to remain a chain link material. Commissioner Emenhiser asked who is required to build the fence, and what kind of time frame is allowed. Senior Planner Kim answered that the Hessers will be building the fence, and because there is no building permit required, there is no time restriction involved. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to approve staff's recommendation, seconded by Commissioner James. Commissioner James clarified with staff that the gazebo and other structures on the Hesser property are not currently before the Planning Commission. Senior Planner Kim stated that was correct, that the Commission is only making a decision on the entirety of the wall and fence. Commissioner Cruikshank asked staff what would stop the Hessers from planting another hedge on this slope. Director Rojas explained that there is a section of the code that says any hedge cannot significantly impair a view. Commissioner Cruikshank asked if that section of the code would apply if ivy were to grow up the chain link fence. Director Rojas stated that ivy growing in a chain link fence would not be considered a hedge, and suggested a condition be added that the chain link remain open and not have any type of landscaping or other type of obstructions in or on it. Commissioner Emenhiser accepted that as an amendment to his motion, seconded by Commissioner James. Planning Commission Minutes February 10, 2015 Page 10 A-13 Commissioner Emenhiser stated that this is a neighbor to neighbor dispute that neither the City nor the Planning Commission will be able to resolve, and neither neighbor will be happy until one of them sells and moves away. He felt that both neighbors are manipulating the system, and did not appreciate being manipulated in such a way. Vice Chairman Nelson stated he will support the motion, but found himself in shock and awe that the City renders the Planning Commission and the City Council impotent when it comes to a wood fence and a 12 foot tall shed and any view impact they may have. He did not think this was the purpose of some of the view ordinances in place, and was shocked that the Commission cannot consider these structures. Commissioner James stated that both parties have spent quite a bit of time defending their efforts to compromise along the way and accused the other side of not being as cooperative as they might have been. He stated that all of that is irrelevant to him, as there is no requirement that the parties mediate or cooperate, and the Commission is being asked to make a decision on a Fence application. He suggested that when going before the City Council in appeal, that neither side even mention the personal disputes as it is not part of the issue. He stated he disagreed with Mr. Shahbazian that there is a view from the kitchen window. He, too, was concerned with the structures built in the Hesser's yard, but accepted staff's position that it is not before the Commission, and it will not be part of his decision. Commissioner Cruikshank stated he is in favor of the motion, and regretted that the two parties were not able to reach a compromise. He was also troubled by the trellis, but recognized it was not before the Commission. Chairman Leon stated this neighborhood is one where there have been a number of new construction or major remodel applications, and the Commission has been very careful with respect to the rear setbacks that have been established between houses so as not to obstruct neighbors' views. He felt that if the Commission doesn't want trellises and gazebos and sheds built in the rear yards, additional conditions will have to be added to the approvals. The motion to approve staff's recommendation as amended, thereby upholding the Director's decision and adopting PC Resolution 2015-05 was approved, (5-0). ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 3. Pre -Agenda for the meeting on February 24 2015 The pre -agenda was reviewed and approved as presented. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes February 10, 2015 Page 11 A-14 Staff Report (February 10, 2415 PC Meeting) A-15 CITYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES COMMUNITY DI=VLLOPMLNT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: JOEL ROJAS, COMMUNITY D L MENT DIRECTOR DATE: FEBRUARY 10, 2015 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF FENCEIWALL PERMIT DECISIONS (CASE NOS. ZON2014-00202 & ZON2014-00415); PROJECT ADDRESS -- 29023 SPRUCEGROVE DRIVE (APPLICANT: MR. & MRS. HESSER I APPELLANT: MR. & MRS. SHAHBAZIAN) Staff Coordinator. So Kim, Senior Planner e RECOMMENDATION Adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2015-�; approving a modification to Fence/Wall Permits issued by the Director at 29023 Sprucegrove Drive (ZON2014-00202 and ZON2014-00415). BACKGROUND On December 9, 2014, the Planning Commission held an appeal hearing for a side wall along the south property line of 29023 Sprucegrove Drive. 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 the Acting City Manager and the City Attorney would have to be consulted 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, if possible, an opportunity for the City's View Mediator to meet with the two parties and resolve their differences related to the proposed walllfence and other associated issues involving both parties. 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. 30940 HAWTHORNS BLVD. / RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275-5391 PLANNING & CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION (310) 544-5228 I BUILDING & SAFETY UVISION (310) 265-7800 / DEPT. FAX (310) 544-5293q F -MAIL. PLANNING@RPVCOM/ "WPAI.OSVERDES.COM/RPV A-16 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) stating 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, the City Council at its February 3rd meeting took no action to authorize the use of the City's Mediator for this matter. As a result, this matter is back for Planning Commission's consideration. DISCUSSION Section view for purposes of identifying the location of wall sections A, B, C and D As illustrated in the drawing above and described in the attached December 9, 2014 Staff Report, the pending appeal before the Planning Commission is for the entire side wall, consisting of sections A, B, C and D. Staff previously determined that sections A and B do not result in any view impairment as the only view of this portion of the wail is from the kitchen window and there is no protected view from that window. Additionally, the Planning Commission previously upheld the Director's approval for sections C (4' tall solid wood topped with 2.5' tall framed acrylic on top of a 1.5' tall existing wall) and D (7' tall fence), finding that these wall sections do not result in significant view impairment from the appellant's viewing area (see attached Resolution 2014-26, Minutes and Staff Report dated September 9, 2014). As part of the public correspondence to the recent City Council meeting related to the City Mediator matter, the applicant (Hesser) submitted a letter proposing to replace the wood and acrylic material with chainlink for section C. In other words, section C would be comprived 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 (Shahbazian) concern for the maintenance of the 2.5' tall acrylic portion of wall section C. Staff is in support of this change since it will provide additional visibility to the appellant through the fence. CONCLUSION Based on the discussion above, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission modify the appeal; thereby upholding the Director's approval and the Planning Commission's approval of Fence/Wall Permits at 29023 Sprucegrove Drive, with a modification that section C be entirely comprised of chainlink material. A-17 ALTERNATIVES In addition to the Staff's recommendation, the following alternatives are available for Planning Commission's consideration: 1. Approve the appeal and direct Staff to return to the Planning Commission with a revised resolution to deny the FenceANall Permits at the next meeting. 2. Further modify the appeal and direct Staff to return to the Planning Commission with a revised resolution at a date certain. ATTACHMENTS • P.C. Resolution No. 2015- • C.C. Staff Report and attachments (dated February 3, 2015) • P.C. Staff Report and attachments (dated December 9, 2014) • C.C. Staff Report and attachments (dated November 4, 2014) • P.C. Staff Report and attachments (dated September 9, 2014) • P.C. Staff Report and attachments (dated August 12, 2014) • Director Staff Report and attachments (dated June 24, 2014) • P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2015- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE DIRECTOR'S APPROVAL AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF FENCEIWALL PERMITS WITH A MODIFICATION THAT SECTION C BE COMPRISED OF CHAINLINK MATERIAL AT 29023 SPRUCEGROVE DRIVE (ZON2014-00202 AND ZON2014- 00415). WHEREAS, on May 22, 2014, the property owner (Darrel Hesser) obtained an approval for an after -the -fact Site Plan Review to legalize an 8' tail combination wall along the side property line between the edge of the 20' front yard setback and the applicant's rear building facade (ZON2014-00180); and, WHEREAS, on June 26, 2014, the Director approved a Fence/Wall Permit for an 8' tall combination wall along the side property line located between the applicant's rear building fagade and the rear property line. Said wall consists of a 2'-6" tall framed acrylic fence on top of a 4' tall solid wood fence on top of an existing V-6" tall retaining wall (ZON2014-00202), and, WHEREAS, on July 11, 2014, the abutting property owner of 29029 Sprucegrove Drive (Hossein and Vicky Shahbazian) submitted a timely appeal, requesting that the Planning Commission overturn the Director's June 26�h decision (ZON2014-00202) based on concerns related to the application process, view impairment, unpermitted retaining wall, and inconsistency with the Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, on August 12, 2014, the Planning Commission continued the appeal hearing to September 9, 2014 based on the impacted agenda and the applicant's availability; and, WHEREAS, on September 9, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2014-26, thereby denying the appeal and upholding the Director's decision to allow an 8' tall combination wall along the south side property line, between the applicant's rear building facade and the rear property line (ZON2014-00202); and, WHEREAS, on September 23, 2014, the abutting property owner of 29029 Sprucegrove Drive (Hossein and Vicky Shahbazian) submitted a timely appeal, requesting that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission's September 91h decision; and, WHEREAS, on October 14, 2014, the Director revokeD the after -the -fact Fence/Wall Permit based on procedural error (ZON2014-00180). More specifically, while a signed application, plans and an application fee is required at the time of application submittal, the application was processed without a signed application. Additionally, a notice of decision providing interested parties an appeal opportunity was not provided; and, WHEREAS, on October 31, 2014, a new after -the -fact Fence/Wall Permit is administratively approved to legalize an 8' tall combination wall along the south side property line between the edge of the 20' front yard setback and the applicant's rear building facade (ZON2014-00415); and, P.C. Resolution No. 2015 - Page A-19 WHEREAS, on November 4, 2014, the City Council, pursuant to Staff's recommendation, remands the appeal back to the Planning Commission so that the entire side wall (ZON2014-00202 and ZON2014-00415) can be reviewed as a single unit; and, WHEREAS, on November 17, 2014, the abutting property owner of 29029 Sprucegrove Drive (Hossein and Vicky Shahbazian) submitted a timely appeal, requesting that the Planning Commission overturn the Director's October 31s' decision (ZON2014-00415) approving an after - the -fact Fence/Wall Permit; and, WHEREAS, on November 20, 2014, a public notice of the December 91" appeal hearing was mailed to property owners within a 500' radius from the subject property and published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code; and, WHEREAS, on December 9, 2014, the Planning Commission continued the appeal hearing to February 10, 2015 to allow Staff to check with the Acting City Manager and the City Attorney on the appropriateness in using the City's View Restoration Mediator to meet with the parties in attempt to resolve their differences; and, WHEREAS, on February 3, 2015, the City Council took no action to amend the View Restoration Mediator's contract to facilitate medication on this project as both the applicant and appellant believe that mediation would not be beneficial, thereby allowing the Planning Commission to continue with its consideration of the Fence/Wall Permit application appeal; WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt under Class 3 (Section 15303); and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on February 10, 2015, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The proposed project involves a combination wall, not to exceed 8' in height, as measured from the grade on the lower side at 29023 Sprucegrove Drive (applicant) and 7', as measured from the grade on the higher side at 29029 Sprucegrove Drive (appellant) along the south side property line. Wall sections A and B of attached Exhibit B consists of a solid wood fence on top of a retaining wall. Wall section C of the attached Exhibit B, as modified on February 1011, consists of a chainlink fence on top of a retaining wall. Wall section D consists of a chainlink fence up to 7' in height on grade, with no portion exceeding 4' above the building pad level of 29029 Sprucegrove Drive. Section 2: A Fence/Wall Permit is warranted because: A. The combination wall 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 P.C. Resolution No. 2015 - Page 2A-20 General Plan or Coastal Specific Plans, as a city -designated viewing area. More specifically, wall section C composed of an 8' tall combination wall of which 6'-6" tall chainlink portion would be above the grade level of 29029 Sprucegrove Drive would not cause significant view impairment as only a minimal amount of ocean view from the appellant's viewing area would be impaired. Additionally, when the entirety of the view is considered, the proposed combination wall would be located in the far right periphery of the appellant's view frame and the remaining ocean and Catalina views would not be impaired. Additionally, from the viewing area of 29043 Sprucegrove Drive (Wang), there would be even less view impairment caused by the proposed 8' tall combination wall as it would be located in the right periphery of the view frame and the remaining ocean and Catalina views would not be impaired. Furthermore, there are no public properties in the vicinity that has a view across the proposed project area and the subject property is not located within the City's coastal zone. Lastly, wall sections A, B and D, as conditioned, do not impair protected views. B. There is no foliage on the applicant's lot which exceeds 16' or the ridgeline of the primary structure, whichever is lower, that impairs a view from the viewing area of another parcel, or a view from public property which has been identified in the city's general plan or coastal specific plan, as a city -designated viewing area. C. Placement or construction of a fence or wall complies with all applicable standards and requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code and General Plan. More specifically, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.76.030(C)(b)(iii), "when combined, the total height of a fence, freestanding wall or retaining wall may not exceed 8, as measured from grade on the lower side, and may not exceed 7' as measured from the grade on the higher side". The proposed combination wall will not exceed 8' in height from the grade on the lower side at 29023 Sprucegrove Drive and 7' from the abutting property's grade on the higher side at 29029 Sprucegrove Drive. Additionally, the City's General Plan, Policy No. 14 of the Urban Environment Element states the following: "Prohibit encroachment on existing scenic views reasonably expected by neighboring residents'° Only the rear corner of the 8' tall combination wall would project into a minimal amount of ocean view at the periphery of the view frame of the abutting neighbors' viewing area, while the remainder of the ocean and Catalina view would be preserved. 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 PM on Wednesday, February 25, 2015. A $2,275.00 appeal fee must accompany any appeal letter. If no appeal is filed timely, the Planning Commission's decision will be final at 5:30 PM on February 25, 2015. 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 and the Planning Commission's approval of Fence/Wall Permits, with a modification that section C be comprised of chainlink material subject to the conditions set forth in the attached 'Exhibit A' and the project plan depicted in the attached 'Exhibit B' (Case Nos. ZON2014-00202 and ZON2014-00415). P.G. Resolution No. 2015 - Page 3A-21 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of February 2015, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: RECUSALS: ASSENT: Gordon Leon, Chairman Joel Rojas, AICP Community Development Director and Secretary of the Planning Commission P.C. Resolution No. 2015- Page 015Page A-22 EXHI BIT 'A' CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ATF FENCEI'W'ALL PERMITS (ZON2014-00202 and ZON2014-00415) 29023 SPRUCEGROVE DRIVE This approval is for the legalization of a combination wall not to exceed 8' in height, as measured from the adjacent grade on the lower side (29023 Sprucegrove Drive) and 7', as measured from the adjacent grade on the higher side (29029 Sprucegrove Drive). Specifically, as depicted in 'Exhibit B' attached herein, wall sections A and B consists of a solid wood fence on top of an existing retaining wall. Wall section C consists of chainlink fence on top of a retaining wall_ Wall section D consists of a chainlink fence up to 7' in height on grade, with no portion exceeding 4' above the building pad level of 29029 Sprucegrove Drive. 2. Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, the applicant and the property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have read, understand, and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this decision. Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void. 3. Prior to conducting any work in the public right of way, such as for curb cuts, dumpsters, temporary improvements and/or permanent improvements, the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works. 4. Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws and regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code shall apply. 5. The Community Development Director is authorized to make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions of approval if such modifications will achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with the approved plans and conditions. Otherwise, any substantive change to the project shall require approval of a revision by the final body that approved the original project, which may require new and separate environmental review. 6. The project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards contained in these conditions of approval or, if not addressed herein, shall conform to the residential development standards of the City's Municipal Code, including but not limited to height, setback and lot coverage standards. 7. Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be cause to revoke the approval of the project pursuant to the revocation procedures contained in Section 17.86.060 of the City's Municipal Code. 8. If the applicant has not submitted an application for a building permit for the approved project or not commenced the approved project as described in Section 17.86.070 of the City's Municipal Code within one year of the final effective date of this decision, approval of the project shall expire and be of no further effect unless, prior to expiration, a written request for extension Is filed and approved by the Community Development Director, P.C. Resolution No. 2015 - Page A_23 9. In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations and/or requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter standard shall apply. 10. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be completed in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the City with the effective date of this decision. 11. The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that material used for immediate construction purposes. Such excess material may include, but not be limited to: the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap metal, concrete asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or discarded furniture, appliances or other household fixtures. 12. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, 9:OOAM to 5:OOPM on Saturday, with no construction activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section 17.95.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. During demolition, construction and/or grading operations, trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining street rights- of-way before 7AM Monday through Friday and before 9AM on Saturday, in accordance with the permitted hours of construction stated in this condition. When feasible to do so, the construction contractor shall provide staging areas on-site to minimize off-site transportation of heavy construction equipment. These areas shall be located to maximize the distance between staging activities and neighboring properties, subject to approval by the building official. 13. All grading, landscaping and construction activities shall exercise effective dust control techniques, either through screening and/or watering. 14. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly manner, to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official. All construction waste and debris resulting from a construction, alteration or repair project shall be removed on a weekly basis by the contractor or property owner. Existing or temporary portable bathrooms shall be provided during construction. Portable bathrooms shall be placed in a location that will minimize disturbance to the surrounding property owners, to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official. P.C. Resolution No. 2015 - Page A_24 Staff Report (February 3, 2015 CC Meeting) A-25 ILCITVOF ECHO PALOS VIERDES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: JOEL ROJAS, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTO j&4 j.12. DATE: FEBRUARY 3, 2015 SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION TO USE THE CITY'S VIEW RESTORATION MEDIATOR TO ASSIST WITH AN APPEAL OF FENCEIWALL PERMIT DECISIONS (CASE NOS. ZON2014-00202 & ZON2014- 00415); PROJECT ADDRESS — 29023 SPRUCEGROVE DRIVE (APPLICANT: MR. & MRS. HESSER 1 APPELLANT: MR. & MRS. SHAHBAZIAN) REVIEWED: CAROLYNN PETRU, ACTING CITY MANAGE Staff Coordinator: So Kim, Senior Planner 0-1 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 FenceNVall Permit application appeal. BACKGROUND On November 4, 2014, the City Council conducted an appeal hearing on a FenceANall 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. I RANCHO I AL©S VERDES, CA 90275.5391 PLANNING & CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION (310) 544-5228 ! BUILDING & SAFETY DIVISION (390) 265-78001 DEPT. FAX (310) 544-5293 q%�_^6 E-MAIL: PLANNING@RPVG0MI WWWPALOSVERDES.COM/RPV L 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 1 Qth 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 sections C and D. The applicant in his letter is now proposing to replace the wood and acrylic material with chain link for sections C and D. In other words, sections C and D would comprise of a 5.5' 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. A-27 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. i CYRUS SHAHBAZIAN ATTORNEY AT LAW 29029 Sprucegrove Drive Tel: (310) 404 - 5104 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Cyrtis.Shalibaziaii@giiiai[.com Fax: (3 10) 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 turngd 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 3`d 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 2ft 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 fagade 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. 1 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.Shah bazianL_i)gmail.com or (310) 404-5104. Best, Cyrus Shahbazian A-29 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 COMMUNITY r)EVELOPMEN i DEPARTMENT r C'7 i Q 10 Flee: 0'-0" Project Description (UPDATED SECTION C: CHAIN-LINK ONLY) A: 19' of 5-7" solid fence B-. 37' of 6'-0" solid fence front setback line house front facade to house rear facade to house front facade. (16"W columns noted above included within 37') View of 29029 Sprucegrove Drive (Neighboring douse) from 29023 Sprucegrove Drive Fence 5'-7" Fence5'-7" Fence 5'-0" Fence 6'-6" Wall 2'-5" Wall 2'-0" Wall, 2'-0" Wall: V-6" Totaf. 8'-0" Total T-7" Total. 8'-0" Total: T-6" (Front Setback) (Front Facade) (Front Facade) (Rear Facade Flee: 0'-0" Project Description (UPDATED SECTION C: CHAIN-LINK ONLY) A: 19' of 5-7" solid fence B-. 37' of 6'-0" solid fence front setback line house front facade to house rear facade to house front facade. (16"W columns noted above included within 37') View of 29029 Sprucegrove Drive (Neighboring douse) from 29023 Sprucegrove Drive 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 S.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. 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(VerbaI 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 Iine 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. A-32 Previous Attempts for a Compromise Third Attempt(Letter)/August 13, 2014/Went Unanswered We have come of with a series of cuniprotnlses that we would be willing to consider (as it series of 1 for I concessions from bath +ides [Or each semina of the fe'ilte) 1) For Iength front rear fatatde of oto- house tothe leading edge of the deck... A. We agreti to Remove adjacent lattice/Freeing rip view potential b. We agree to Reduce tine overall height of the fence from 6.5 to 5:5 c. Shalabazians agree to Solid Felice This would allow persons in house to see over ouryard, but not down into our yard and provide an acceptable privacy screet between yards. a j Far length fa oto this point to trot of gardcia wall a. We agree to Remove adjacent lattice/freeing up view potentia lis, We agree to Reduce tEte overate lieiglrt ul [Ise lenceFraru 6.5 to 5:5 (3' soloed/2.5'rlear) C. Shahbazians agree to niuve re turns of retaunngwalls 5' Back li-otit property line out al setback area (returning setbackgrac to inatcb adjacenklm'jgilial graded Tlvs would allow For expanded view at end of fence area , while not allowing Iur elrvated viewing aniouryard fr(uil side yard setback. It would also address pending concerns we have for runoff and drainage issues. 3) For fence front tact of gardeu wall dotutt the slope.., a. We would agree not to change hillside fence to solid b, 5ltahbaiians agree to above nientironed rctaiiung waU restricfivn in side setback art .a returning setback to adfatent grade al base of fence... alleviating runoff and drainage issues. 4) Lucking to the future,,. a, We agree to .abide by all city codes for foliage platetncnt anti heights 13. We agree to I ern ive tllc tree Mr. Sliahbazian referred to as "The pepper Tree" that was- added asadded in agreement with Mr. Shahbazian c, Shahbazians agree not to elevate any portion of lite side yard setback and higher than [lie base of the lence.and agree to forgo any future cornplaiuts conc'er'ning the garden wall anti related issues grading issues. S) Fen fence between the houses—(and the Beck) a. We would accept the "peek•a-boo" concession by rebuilding the entire Mice in this .urea: ( Reduced height -considering that previous height tvas 53" and approved height is lit" - right dawn the middle i t 66" for the entire length.) ----,------THE DECK -------- The fleck's proximity to the property Iisne(4.5') and extent of expanse beyond the etid of the fence in question itself inakes it extremely difficult to reconcile with our coucertis for privacy and view inipairrnciit. If the deck were reeonfagUrCtl (Which we believe the city is going to require to some extent anyway), we believe we rotdd 'achieve at least an acceptable level of privacy and still allow the Shahbazians to have their entire deck. b. Only for the half, nearest oto• property litre, relocate existing decking using existing materials with the sarne square footage to extend Front existing patio to tits point where it now begins. just pulling everytbing back, would alleviate privacy concerias, without the Shahbazians having to louse any of their deck,. "`walk through deck adlustntents with City f'lalneer to assure it [netts their requirements A-33 Previous Attempts for a Compromise Fourth Attempt(Letter and Diagram)/August 19, 2014/Went Unanswered Mr. Hellman 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 wilding 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 Shahbazaans agree to the fence on the backyard as detailed, we wouM 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 detaiirng the dimensions of the lence that we could accept Thank you Oarrel and Brenda Messer dhesser yahoo com CCtr.Ft� ;, 15 -,'!D 41 Yol Req -51 (Via 3 w� Acrylci 3 Previous Attempts for a Compromise 4 Fifth Attempt(Email and Same Diagram)/September 2, 2014/Went [unanswered dhesser@yahoo.com rV Fwd: HesseoShahbazen Fence Hello Mr Hellman - As we did not gel a response from our previous message concerning the "Fence Issues", we wanted 10 confirm that you received the previous message.(see below) Thank You Darrel and Brenda Hesser Letter pdf Begin forwarded message: From: 'D. Alan Hesser .lrn c.;nesser ya".. -,3_-_ rr> Subject: Hesser/Shahbazian Fence Date: August 14. 2614 at 7'14:59 AM PDT Mr Helfman As per your request. we taken a look at your list Irom the other night. We have tried to come up with a compromise, Please see attached Thank You Darnel Hesser Kan Letter.pdf cc,-•�, 5151 rss ro ai You-flPgss"al r5 l0 3 n' A q'.) A-35 Previous Attempts for a Compromise Sixth Attempt(Email)/October 10, 2014/Received Current Response From Cyrus and Mr Helfman (summarily rejecting any compromise) dhestser@yahoo.com t'x HesseriShahbazi am Mr Hellman Attached you will find two pages addressing the issues and proposed compromises we spoke of mms weekend We would I,ke for you to pass rt on to the Snahbazions And look'orward 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 offers for a compromise may have gone unanswered is possibly because they could have been perceived as 'a Inst 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 left it open for the Shahbazians to to -fill in the blanks` with what they are willing to compromise for an agreement I AGREED We would agree to lower oar front fence to give the -peek-a-boo' view to across the sheet 2 PROPOSAL We would like a 5 5' Solid backyard fence for only the fust 3 sections I9821 3 AGREED We would be wilding to forgo the acrylic top and extend the chain-link fence up the hilt, replacing the last section of the backyard fence 4 AGREED We would agree to lower the entire trellis to the same height of file backyard fence 5 AGREED We would agree to keep the hillside fence as cnain•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 took lonvard 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,_ic yahoo cam P S. If it seems that none of these compromises are feasible, we would aiternativety 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 A 5 P.C. Minutes (December 9, 2014) A-37 rector Rojas stated there is a condition regarding grading because grading in e ea ment requires permission from the easement holder. The issue of th t/"-re- removalkhowever, raises the question of whether or not the applicant has th right to remove t trees from the access easement, and that question becomes a:("civil issue between the arties. He thought the Chairman might be contemplating condition that says this appro I is contingent upon the applicant demonstrating t right to access the property where roposed, which would include the removal of t es. Chairman Leon agreed. Commissioner Tomblin state he Planning Commiss oh could then possibly approve the project, however the applica may not necessar ly be able to build the project as approved, pending permission from a easemen 'older. Chairman Leon moved to amend the 'on to require that prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant shall de on rate their right to access the property where proposed, which includes the remov of any trees to allow for said legal access. Vice Chairman Nelson accepted the amendment, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Commissioner James nbfed that Mr. Sorenson had stated th none of the neighbors were aware of tonig is meeting. He asked staff if all required tificati0ns had been sent. Associate anner Mikhail answered that all required notices had b n sent out regardin his meeting. Th motion to approve the project as amended, thereby adopting PC Resolution 2414-35 was approved, (5-1) with Commissioner Emenhiser dissenting. 6. Fence[Wall Permit (Case Nos. ZON2014-00202 and ZON2014-00415): 29023 Sprucegrove Drive Senior Planner Kim presented the staff report, giving a brief background of the scope and history of the project, noting that the Planning Commission had heard and upheld an appeal of the Director's decision. Subsequently, the Planning Commission's decision was appealed to the City Council, who remanded the case back to the Planning Commission. The City Council felt that the entire wall, consisting of sections A, B, C, and D in the staff report, be considered together as a single structure by the Planning Commission. She explained the appellant was requesting the approval for the entire wall be overturned, primarily based on view impacts, and it be replaced at a height equivalent to a former wall at the site. She showed photos taken from the appellant's viewing area which demonstrate the height of the approved wall, explaining that staff felt the amount of ocean view that would be impaired by the approved wall would not be significant. She also explained that the appellants feel they also have a view from their kitchen window, and staff showed a photo taken from the kitchen Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 2014 Page 17 1 • • window. She stated that staff determined the view from the kitchen windows was of the applicant's home. In conclusion, she stated that staff continues to believe that the view impairment caused by the entirety of the wall does not cause significant view impacts and recommends the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the Director's decision on Sections A and B and affirm the Planning Commission's decision for Sections C and D. Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff to clarify why the City Council remanded this back to the Planning Commission. Director Rojas explained that the Planning Commission's decision on Sections C and D was appealed to the City Council, and because of a procedural error staff had to issue a new decision for Sections A and B. One of the issues that had been raised by the appellant was that the entire wall should have been looked at as a single decision as opposed to two separate decisions. Staff felt this was an opportunity to do that and therefore recommended to the City Council that this be remanded back to the Planning Commission to be considered as one wall. He noted that whatever decision is made by the Planning Commission at this meeting, an appeal has already been filed to the City Council for them to review the entirety of the wall. Commissioner Emenhiser stated that this case is an example of one that begs for mediation. He stated that the City has a view impact consultant that has been particularly well trained and very experienced with these types of issues. He asked staff if it would be possible to use the resources of the view impact consultant in this situation in order to bring both parties together rather than the Planning Commission picking a winner and a loser. Director Rojas acknowledged the City has a professional mediator that is involved in the view restoration process. He explained in the view restoration process there is the ability to reach a private agreement in regards to the trees. He stated that unlike view restoration cases however, this type of case has code findings that must be made and there is not the discretion for the Commission to come up with a solution that does not meet these findings. He reminded the Commission that the parties apparently have tried to resolve this themselves, however were unsuccessful. He also noted that both parties would have to agree to mediation and that there is a Permit Streamling Act deadline that must be considered. Commissioner Emenhiser felt it would be beneficial for both parties to have a discussion with the mediator, and understood it would have to be voluntary on for both parties to do so. He thought this could happen and then the issue could come back to the Commission to be reviewed as part of the overall process. He felt that this started out as a neighbor to neighbor dispute and over time staff, the Planning Commission, and the City Council have been brought into it. He therefore felt that mediation might be the best solution. Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 2014 Page 18 A-39 Commissioner James noted that at the last hearing he had said to both parties that the Planning Commission is a poor vehicle for resolving this type of problem. He stated he could clearly see why each side felt their position was justified, and agreed with Commissioner Emenhiser that picking a winner and a loser was not the best result. He felt that if both sides, with or without a mediator, could resolve the matter between themselves the solution would most likely be much better. Chairman Leon opened the public hearing. Cyrus Shahbazian (appellant) disagreed with the Director's statement that this application was back to the Commission because of a procedural issue, but rather felt a mistake was made by staff by applying the newly amended Fence and Wall Permit procedure incorrectly and in such a way that his family was not able to appeal staff's decision. He showed several photos of the fence that was in place prior to the current fence and the view that was previously enjoyed from his parent's home. He discussed two grounds for overturning the approval: it is inconsistent with Municipal Code Section 17.76.030 requirements and it is based on incorrect and/or fraudulent information. In regards to portions A and 6 of the fence, he felt that staff made an improper determination of a protected view, the analysis was not done from the viewing area, and the analysis was done from a standing, rather than a seated, position. He noted that from the kitchen window there is a clear view across the street of what he considered is a natural hillside setting, and therefore a protected view. He stated the new fence creates a significant view impairment of that view. In regards to Section C of the fence, he stated that the patio is where the best and most important view should be taken from, and this is discussed in the View Restoration Guidelines. He also noted the code section and the View Restoration Guidelines section that discusses when a view from a seated position can be taken. He displayed copies of several email in which he felt the staff improperly or incorrectly applied the code. He felt that upholding this approval would be promoting fraud and forgoing code requirements. He requested the fence be returned to the prior construction or to allow it at 4 feet in height in its entirety. Commissioner James stated that for arguments sake, the Planning Commission agreed that everything Mr. Shahbazian has just said is correct and the application and the process may have been incorrect, and the Planning Commission is being asked tonight to decide how much of a fence the applicant can have. For arguments sake, the Planning Commission decides the applicant can have the fence they want. He asked Mr. Shahbazian if that then ends it. He was not sure if it was necessary to go through all of the procedural problems for the Planning Commission to look at the fence and at the code and make a decision. Mr. Shahbazian answered that it does not end it. He added that what he has not had a chance to discuss is the grading that was done that did damage to his property and the taking of the fence that was his family's fence. He did not think the Commission allowing the applicant to have this fence would resolve the greater unresolved issues that are at play. Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 2014 Page 19 � � 1 Commissioner James noted that taking of the fence and other issues are not what is before the Commission and is not something the Commission is supposed to deal with. Vicky Shahbazian explained that she is appealing the seven foot tall fence, and that a four foot tall fence would be acceptable. She stated that the previously existing fence was in place for 20 years and she was always under the impression that was her fence. She stated she took care of that fence and the property it was on. She felt that the applicant has caused a great deal of damage to her property in changing the old fence to the existing fence and modifying the slope and drainage to do so. She stated she is appealing this decision because the fence will substantially block her view and she did not feel the proper applications were submitted and reviewed. Commissioner Emenhiser asked Mrs. Shahbazian if she had to choose between losing and mediation, which she would choose. Mrs. Shahbazian stated she would definitely choose mediation, noting that through this entire process she has always been willing to talk to the applicant and to compromise. Hossein Shahbazian stated that the Planning Department is run like a dictatorship, has no respect for the public, and there is no accountability. He accused the Department of auditing and filtering and charging different fees, using different procedures, and having different requirements for individual benefits. He felt the department participates in fraudulent behavior and manipulation and defamation of character. He felt the City gave away City resources for free or at a very minimal charge that required from Mr. Hesser by law. He stated that everyone involved in his project make over $500 thousand cumulatively, but cannot solve a 750 square foot deck and a four foot fence. He did not think this was acceptable. He felt the deck and fence should have been handled together by one person. Maurice Rahimi felt that mediation was a good idea. He referred to the comment by Commissioner James that the procedural mishaps may not be of concern to the Commission, and asked that he think about that a bit more. He discussed a range with two extremes, with incompetence on one side and fraud on the other. He felt that staff was very competent and it was not fair to accuse them of fraud. However, it does not appear that staff has been following their own procedures. He stated it was his understanding that no applications were filed and only architectural drawings were used to get the permits. He asked, if an application is not filed, how is that a request for anything? And how is the Commission approving something that was never requested and the applications were filed after -the -fact? It was also his understanding that the City Council remanded this back to the Planning Commission, not because they felt the Commission has to deal with all of these other issues, but because they had no documentation to back up the request. Commissioner James stated that he did not mean to imply that procedures are not important, because they are. He also did not mean to imply that this is of no concern to the Planning Commission. His point was that, sooner or later, the ultimate question will Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 2014 Page 20 A-41 be what kind of fence can be placed on the property. He did not think that going back and redoing everything would ultimately put some angle into it that would ultimately change the question. Brenda Hesser (applicant) stated that she and her husband thought long and hard about what the Commission said at the last meeting, and made six different attempts to reach some type of agreement. Unfortunately they didn't work out. She reviewed that when she moved into her home there was a chain link fence covered by a hedge that ranged from 5 to 6 feet in height, which maintained a level of privacy and security for the property. She showed several photos of the new deck on the neighbor's property and, with the removal of the hedge, how she felt the deck now invades their privacy from the backyard and their bedroom. She stated that she agrees with the Director's decision that the four foot wall with the 80% clear does not create a view impairment from the Shahbazian residence. She noted at the previous meeting the Planning Commission raised some concern over the maintenance of the clear acrylic portion of the fence. She showed several photos of acrylic barriers in the neighborhood, noting that there are several such barriers in the immediate neighborhood. She stated that because of this concern she is willing to replace the clear acrylic option with chain link as the Shahbazian's requested in their appeal letter to the City Council. She stated there is already chain-link there, which is barely visible and this would resolve issues of future maintenance of the acrylic. Commissioner Emenhiser asked Mrs. Hesser, given the choice between losing or taking part in mediation, which would she choose. Mrs. Hesser noted that she has already made six attempts to try to resolve the issues without success, and was not sure that continued mediation was a viable option at this point. Commissioner Cruikshank asked Mrs. Hesser why they wanted the higher fence at Section A and B. Mrs. Hesser explained that at that section a lower fence would allow anyone at the Shahbazian property to look directly into their bathroom window. She also noted that they need, at a minimum, a 5 '/2 foot feet to keep the dog from jumping over the fence. Darrel Hesser (applicant) did not think mediation at this point would be a viable option. He stated even his latest offer to just put up a chain link fence across the entire length was turned down by the Shahbazians. He noted he has the letters and the emails to support his statement. In regards to the fence, he stated Sections A and B create no view impairment and he is allowed by code to build a fence up to certain standards. He also did not think Section C caused any significant view impairment of the ocean, explaining that without the fence or without the trellis there was a clear view into his bedroom. Chairman Leon asked Mr. Hesser if the hedge was in his yard or the Shahbazian's yard. Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 2014 Page 21 A-42 Mr. Hesser explained there was a chain link fence on the Shahbazian's side of the property and a hedge that was planted in front of the chain link fence on his side of the property. He noted the hedge had been there for quite some time and grew across both properties. Jim Howe discussed the character of the Hessers, and noted that any construction done on the property has been with City permits and approvals. He agreed that without the hedge there is no privacy on the Hesser property and that a fence was needed. He also felt that there is very little view impairment to the Shahbazian's as a result of the new fence. He also noted that the view of the ocean from the Shahbazian's kitchen window is most likely impaired by a storage shed that was built in the side yard, most likely without a city permit. Cyrus Shahbazian (in rebuttal) disagreed with the statement that the hedges were on the Hesser property and stated he has pictures to show the roots of the hedges are on his parent's property. He also explained that the chain link fence was removed in response to the stone pillars that the Hessers erected. In regards to the acrylic portion of the fence, he noted the ones you typically see are not solid wood fences with two feet of acrylic on top for a total of eight feet. He therefore felt the 2 '/2 of acrylic was irrelevant and should not be allowed. Commissioner Emenhiser asked Mr. Shahbazian what happened to the hedge. Mrs. Shahbazian explained that the hedges were most definitely on her property, and she removed them when Mr. Hesser began putting in the pillars since it looked like he wanted to change the fence. Commissioner Tomblin discussed process and how the City and the Planning Commission works. He noted that if something is built without a permit, or if a mistake was made, or if someone misunderstood the requirements for a permit there is a process called an after -the -fact permit. He understood mistakes may have been made in this case, but felt the Planning Commission is here now to review this after -the -fact situation per the City codes, and looking at the wall as it is currently in place. Commissioner James asked Mr. Shahbazian to comment on Mr. Hesser's statement that he had recently offered to replace the sections of the fence with chain link. Mr. Shahbazian responded that this was the first he had heard of such an offer. Chairman Leon closed the public hearing. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to table the issue until the next Planning Commission meeting and in the meantime employ the services of the view restoration mediator to meet with the two parties, and at the next meeting the Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 2014 Page 22 A-43 mediator be present and present a report as to what transpired and whether or not a resolution was found, seconded by Vice Chairman Nelson. Vice Chairman Nelson stated that he uses blinds for privacy, and it works quite well. He suggested the privacy issue can be addressed with the use of blinds. He supported the motion, as he felt this is a neighbor versus neighbor situation, and did not think either party was going to like the mediator's decision. Commissioner James stated he has been in full support of mediation all along, but did not think he would want to push the issue if one side is not willing to participate. He stated that the notion behind mediation is that there are two parties that are willing to try, and both Mr. and Mrs. Hesser have indicated they have gone about as far as they can go and did not think mediation would be of any value. Chairman Leon stated he would be in support of the motion to try one more time to have the neighbors work out their issues. Director Rojas stated that his only concern was that the City has a mediator for view purposes and paid for by a budget established by the City Council. He was concerned that using the view restoration mediator in this way and coming to the next Commission meeting may be perceived as a gift of public funds, because in the end, unlike view restoration cases, the Commission will still have to make a decision on this case. He felt he would have to take this idea to the City Attorney for a ruling on the use of public funds. Commissioner Emenhiser suggested that he call the City Manager's office and that Chairman Leon call the Mayor to see if they could get the funds freed up. Director Rojas clarified that there are funds, the issue is whether or not the Commission can authorize the use of public funds for this issue. Chairman Leon felt that one could make the argument, given where they are today, that using the city's mediator would result in a net savings rather than a net expense. Director Rojas suggested that a caveat be added to the motion that the Director check with the City Attorney on the use of these funds. Commissioner Emenhiser stated that as far as he was concerned the Director could check with the City Attorney and he would discuss with the Chairman as to who they could talk to. Commissioner Emenhiser stated he would amend the motion to add the caveat that staff or the Commission would check with city leadership. He felt the Director may be looking for roadblocks that aren't there, and questioned what the City Attorney has to do with financial matters. He felt the money could be found and this is a good cause. He shared Commissioner James' concerns about certain party's participation. Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 2014 Page 23 � I / Director Rojas asked that the Commission choose a date specific for this item to return to the Commission. The Commission agreed on the February 10th meeting, and Commissioner Emenhiser moved to amend his motion to reflect that date, seconded by Vice Chairman Nelson. The motion was approved, (5-1) with Commissioner Tomblin dissenting. Commissioner James commented to both parties that they should not get themselves locked into all of the procedural issues. He stated that even if they are right, the City is looking for them to come to some sort of agreement on this fence. Commissioner Tomblin commented that the function of the Planning Commission is to rule on what the Codes are, and felt the Commission may be getting into an area that is a bit outside of their purview. He also commented that the Commission spends a lot of time on the protection of not only view issues, but privacy issues as well. He stated that if asked to vote tonight, he would support staff's recommendation to deny the appeal and uphold the Director's decision. Commissioner Emenhiser stated that the Commission is going out on a limb for both parties and going outside of their normal procedures. He stated the Commission is putting their faith in both parties, and would be very disappointed if that faith is not rewarded with a solution. Vice Chairman Nelson stated that he would hope this mediation is successful because he did not think either party would be happy with what the Commission is going to decide. 7. The minutes were app?avQd as presented without objecti ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE—AGEN 8. Pre -Agenda for the meeting, of Jan!gry 13, 2015 The pre -agenda was reyjpw6d and approved as prese Commissione mblin asked that a report be presented to the Co-mnajssion at the next meetin what he felt was a major change to the plans the Commissi,&n= _ pproved for thq,k3festridge Senior Condominium project in terms of the addition of walls. Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 2014 Page 24 A-45 Staff Deport (December 9, 2014 PC Meeting) lA No L4V4� CITYOF STAFF REPORT Subjdcf Site 1 L.J. THOMAS GUIDE PAGE 8221G-1 RANCHO PALOS VERDES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISgkON FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOP IRECTOR DATE: DECEMBER 9, 2014 SUBJECT: APPEAL - FENCEIWALL PERMITS (ZON2014-00202 AND ZON2014-00415} PROJECT ADDRESS: 29023 SPRUCEGROVE DRIVE APPLICANT/ DARREL & BRENDA HESSER LANDOWNER: (29023 SPRUCEGROVE DRIVE) APPELLANT: HOSSEIN & VICKY SHAHBAZIAN (29029 SPRUCEGROVE DRIVE) STAFF SO KIM IfJL COORDINATOR: SENIOR PLANNER REQUESTED ACTION: OVERTURN THE APPROVAL OF FENCEIWALL PERMITS THAT ALLOW A COMBINATION WALL OF VARYING HEIGHTS TO BE CONSTRUCTED ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE PROPERTY LINE ON 29023 SPRUCEGROVE DRIVE (ZON2014-00202 AND ZON2014-00415). RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2014-; THEREBY DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE DIRECTOR'S APPROVAL AND AFFIRMING THEPLANNINGCOMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF FENCE/WALL PERMITS AT 29023 SPRUCEGROVE DRIVE (CASE NOS. ZON2014-00202 AND ZON2014-00415). REFERENCES: ZONING: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS -4) LAND USE: RESIDENTIAL CODE SECTIONS: 17.02, 17.76, 17.80 GENERAL PLAN: RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DU/AC) TRAILS PLAN: NONE SPECIFIC PLAN: NONE CEQA: EXEMPT PER SECTION 15303 (NEW CONSTRUCTION) ACTION DEADLINE: NIA 30940 HAWTHORNE BLVE).1 RANCHO f'ALOS VERDES, CA 90275-5391 PLANNING & GODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION (310) 544-52281 BUILDING & SAFETY DIVISION (310) 265-7800 1 DEPT. FAX (310) 544-52,() E-MAIL: PLANNING@RPVCOM / V%MlWPALOSVERDESCOM/RPV PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS RESIDING WITHIN 500' OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: NONE BACKGROUND The following is a chronology of requests/decisions for the property located at 29023 Sprucegrove Drive (applicant — Hesser): ■ May 22, 2014 — An after -the -fact, Site Plan Review application is administratively approved to legalize an 8' tall combination wall along the side property line between the edge of the 20' front yard setback and the applicant's rear building facade (wall sections A and B of the attached plans). ■ June 26, 2014 — Director approves a Fence/Wall Permit to allow an 8' tall combination wall along the side property line located between the applicant's rear building facade and the rear property line (wall sections C and D of the attached plans). ■ July 11, 2014 — Property owners of 29029 Sprucegrove Drive (Shahbazian) file an appeal of the Director's approval of wall sections C and D, thus requesting that the Planning Commission overturn the Director's June 261h decision. ■ August 12, 2014 — Planning Commission continues the appeal hearing due to the impacted agenda. ■ September 9, 2014 — Planning Commission adopts Resolution No. 2014-26, denying the appeal and upholding the Director's decision to allow an 8' tall combination wall along the side property line, between the applicant's rear building fagade and the rear property line (wall sections C and D of the attached plans). ■ September 23. 2014 — Property owners of 29029 Sprucegrove Drive (Shahbazian) file an appeal, requesting that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission's September 91h approval of wall sections C and D. • October 14, 2014 — Director revokes the May 22n1f administrative approval of wall sections A and B of the plans, based on procedural error. ■ October 31, 2014 — As a result of a procedural error, a new after -the -fact, Fence/Wall Permit is administratively approved to legalize an 8' tall combination wall along the south side property line between the edge of the 20' front yard setback and the applicant's rear building fagade (wall sections A and B of the plans). This is the same administrative decision made on May 22, 2014. The Shahbazians inform the City that they intend to appeal this approval. ■ November 4, 2014 — Given the issuance of a new Fence/Wall Permit for wall sections A and B and the Shahbazian's intent to file an appeal of this decision, the City Council, at a duly noticed public hearing, remands the appeal of wall sections C and D back to the Planning Commission so that the entire side wall can be reviewed as a single unit (wall sections A, B, C and D). ■ November 17, 2014 -- Property owners of 29029 Sprucegrove Drive (Shahbazian) file an appeal of Staff's October 31st decision on wall sections A and B, requesting that the Planning Commission overturn the Director's October 31St approval of wall sections A and B of the attached plans. DISCUSSION Given the background circumstances described above, the appeal of the entirety of the proposed combination wall (sections A, B, C and D) is now before the Planning Commission for consideration. A description of the entirety of the proposed wall is provided below. As illustrated in the drawing below, the entirety of the subject wall is divided into four sections, labeled A through D. Sections A and B consist of a solid wooden wall that would be placed on top of an existing masonry garden wall on the applicant's property that varies in height from 1'- 6" to 2'-F. Section C consist of a solid wooden wall topped with a framed acrylic placed on top of the same masonry garden wall that measures 1'-6" in height. Wall section D would be placed at ground level, directly on the existing rear yard slope. Section view for purposes of identifying the location of wall sections A, B, C and D When considered with the existing masonry garden wall, wall sections A and B would measure a maximum of 8', as measured from the applicant's pad level and a maximum of 6', as measured from the appellant's pad level. Staff approved this portion of the wall, as proposed, in May 2014 and again in October 2014, because Staff determined that said wall portions would not result in any view impairment from the viewing area of any adjacent property owner, including the appellant. These Staff approved walls sections have already been constructed and comply with the approved plans. With regards to wall sections C and D, in June 2014, Staff approved wall Section C with conditions that regulate the solid portion to not exceed 4' in height, as measured from the appellant's pad level, with a 2'-6" framed acrylic on top. When considered with the existing masonry garden wall, the combination wall would measure 8', as measured from the applicant's lower pad level. Along with wall section C, Staff approved wall section D so as not to exceed 7' in height, as measured from existing grade, with no portion to exceed 4' as measured from the applicant's pad level. As conditioned, Staff determined that wall sections C and D would not significantly impair the ocean view from the upsloping neighbor's (Shahbazian appellant) viewing area. On September 9, 2014, the Planning Commission upheld the Director's decision as they agreed that wall sections C and D, as conditioned, will not significantly impair a view from the appellant's property. the Director's decision as they agreed that wall sections C and D, as conditioned, will not significantly impair a view from the appellant's property. An appeal of the entirety of the wall as one single unit (sections A, B, C and D) is now before the Planning Commission for consideration. Appellant's Grounds for Appeal Mr. and Mrs. Shahbazian are the property owners of the abutting upsloping property at 29029 Sprucegrove Drive, which is at least 2' higher in building pad elevation than the applicant's property located at 29023 Sprucegrove Drive. The Shahbazians submitted the attached appeal letter, appealing the approval of the entire side wall (sections A, B, C and D) for the following reasons: 1) entire fence should be considered one unit and have same measurements, 2) fence does not comply with Municipal Code wall requirements; 3) uncertainty in property boundary line should have required Director determination prior to issuance of erroneous permit and opportunity for appeal; 4) manipulation of pre-existing retaining wall and grade by the applicant; 5) city participation; and 6) erroneously issued permit was the cause of fence being destroyed and land taken. The specific reasons for the appeal are described individually in more detail below followed by Staff's response. 1) Entire fence should be considered one unit and have same measurements The City Council remanded the matter back to the Planning Commission so that the entire wall (wall sections A, B, C and D) can be reviewed as a single unit. However, Staff disagrees with the appellant's request to apply a uniform height for all sections of the combination wall. The reason being is that the existing retaining wall along the side yard between the applicant and appellant's property varies in height from 2'-5" towards the front to V-6" at the rear of the property. Development Code section 17.76.030.C.1.b.iii allows a combination wall (fence, freestanding wall or retaining wall combined) up to 8' in height, as measured from grade on the lower side and 7', as measured from grade on the higher side. This means an 8' tall combination wall can be allowed, as measured from applicant's side and no taller than 7' as measured from appellant's side, provided that there is no significant view impairment, Staff conducted site visits to the appellant's property and found that wall sections A and B are only visible from a single garden window over the kitchen sink. From this kitchen window, no protected views are impaired as only the street and other developed properties are visible. Therefore, the Director approved wall sections A and B up to 8' in height from applicant's side. Given that there is a grade elevation difference ranging from 2'-5" to 1'-6" in height between the applicant's and appellant's properties, the combination wall would inevitably range in height from 5'-6" to 6'-6" maximum, as measured from the appellant's side. With regards to wall sections C and D, the Planning Commission found that a solid wall up to 4', as measured from appellant's property would not significantly impair a view from the appellant's viewing area. Since the applicant desired a taller barrier to secure his dogs, a 2'-6" tall framed acrylic (allows 80% transmission of light, vision or air) on top of the 4' solid wood fence was approved (wall section C). Wall section D is a solid wood fence approved up to 7' in height, provided that no portion exceeds 4' above the appellant's building pad level. For these reasons, Staff believes that requiring a uniform wall height as measured from the appellant's side is not warranted. 2) Fence does not comply with Municipal Code requirements The appellants explain in their appeal letter that the viewing area should include their living/dining room, master bedroom, second bedroom and kitchen as they share the same view. Staff agrees that the viewing area consists of all rooms along the rear facade of the appellant's residence (living/dining room and two bedrooms) and the kitchen area as they share the same view of the ocean and Catalina Island. The appellants claim in their letter that the approved wall section C (4' tall solid wood fence topped by a 2'-6" tall acrylic barrier) significantly impairs their view by destroying 100% of the Malibu and ocean view. Additionally, they claim that the 7'/8' tali combination wall (wall sections A and B) along the side yard significantly impairs a view of the ocean and natural hillside setting across Sprucegrove Drive their kitchen window. The appellants state that the devaluation of their views cause a decrease in their property value. It should be noted that impacts to property values are not assessed as part of any City application/appeal. Below is a photograph taken from the appellant's living/dining area. The two additional bedrooms are located to the left and increase the view frame to the left, providing larger views of the ocean and Catalina Island. Photograph taken in August 2044 from Shahbazian's living/dining room in a standing position. The photograph to the left was taken from the living/dining area of section C and a portion of Section D. The yellow line represents the approved 4' solid wood fence height and the red line represents the originally proposed solid wood fence up to 6'-6" in height. Due to view impacts of the ocean, the Director approved the wall at a reduced height of 4'. A solid barrier at 4' in height was determined to have less than significant view impact as it impaired a minimal amount of the ocean. Additionally, as evidenced in the appellant's submitted photograph (refer to Exhibit B of the appeal letter), the appellant's view of Malibu (green ribbon represents the 4' mark for the solid barrier) would not be impaired by a 4' solid barrier. Rather, a portion of the appellant's rear yard deck impairs their view of Malibu in their photograph. A-51 The photograph to the left was taken from the appellant's kitchen window. The appellant's claim that ocean views and natural hillside setting across Sprucegrove Drive is available from this window. As evidenced in the left photograph, there is only a view of the applicant's house. When standing at the left edge of the window looking to the right, the street of access (Sprucegrove Drive) and the rear slope of developed residential properties across the street are visible. These are not considered protected views. Therefore, there is no view impairment caused by the 778' wood fence shown in the photograph to the left. Lastly, the appellants make a claim that the approvals for wall sections A, B, C, and D are inconsistent with General Plan Urban Environment Element Policy No. 14 which states, "Prohibit encroachment on existing scenic views reasonably expected by neighboring residents" No views are impacted by wall sections A and B and a minimal amount of ocean view is impaired by wall section C. Therefore, Staff believes that the approved wall heights for sections A, B, C and D are consistent with the General Plan. 3) Uncertainly in property bounda line required Director determination prior to issuance of erroneous permit and opportunity to appeal The "erroneous permit" referenced by the appellant is the approval granted administratively for wall sections A and B in May 2014. Staff acknowledges that there was a procedural error in said approval which resulted in this approval being subsequently revoked by the Director in October 2014. A new application was submitted for the same proposal, the procedure was properly followed and it was again approved. The attached appeal letter was filed based on this subsequent said approval. Prior to the original approval of wall sections A and B in May 2014, the appellants raised a concern to Staff regarding the property line location. As a result, the applicant was required to submit a property line survey. After said survey was submitted, the appellants remained concerned with the accuracy of the survey. As such, the appellants submitted their own survey to Staff. Both surveys matched, showing the existing retaining wall along the south side property line to be entirely on the applicant's property. As such, any uncertainty in the property boundary line between the appellants and the applicant was resolved through the submittal of surveys which clearly demonstrate that the approved wall sections A, B, C and D are located entirely within the applicant's property. 4) Manipulation ofpre-existing retaining wall by the applicant The appellants claim that the applicant's grade and pre-existing retaining wall have been modified by the applicant sometime in the past. Specifically, the appellants claim that the applicant lowered the height of the pre-existing retaining wall and raised the height of the adjoining grade at the base of the retaining wall. There is nothing to prevent a property owner from doing this. Even if such changes did occur, the approved height restrictions of the proposed wall are based on the current grade elevations. Specifically, at no point shall the combination wall exceed 8' as measured from the applicant's side (lower side) and 7' as measured from the appellant's side (higher side). Thus, if the applicant lowers his grade A-52 elevation even further, it would only allow for an even shorter wall, not a taller wall because of the 8' control point of the applicant's side. Conversely, if the applicant raises his grade, he still cannot exceed 7' as measured from the appellant's side. As such, in the end, the approved wall cannot exceed the 7'18' height envelope. 5) Cityparticipati_on: false representations, fence not after -the -fact, and grading requirements not enforced a) False representation by Staff as to original Fence/Wall Permit application being filed The submittal requirements for a Fence/Wall Permit include a completed application signed by the property owner, plans and a fee. When the applicant originally sought approval of wall sections A and B, the applicant submitted plans and a fee, but not a completed application. Staff used the plans to function as the application since all the necessary information to process the permit was on the plans. Staff referred to these "plans" as the "application" on previous Staff Reports. Due to this procedural error, the Director revoked this approval and the applicant was required to file a new "application", which included a completed application signed by the property owner, plans and fees. Subsequently, this application for wall sections A and B was approved by the Director and is now subject to the pending appeal. b) The approval for wall sections A and B cannot be considered after -the -fact because the Shahbazian's pre-existing white -lattice fence was constructed 2 months after permit was issued The term "after -the -fact" is used to describe applications for projects that have been initiated without City approval. Wall sections A and B were considered after -the -fact by Staff as portions of the applicant's new wood fence were already constructed at the time of application submittal. The review process for "after -the -fact" applications is exactly the same as for non -"after -the -fact" applications except that the applicant has to pay an additional penalty fee (double the application fee). It should be noted that no City permits are needed for the demolition/removal of walls. c) The Planning Division knew about Hesser's grading activities and ignored enforcing code provisions thereby causing damage to Shahbazian's drainage The appellants claim that the existing retaining wall between their property and the applicant's property was modified without permits, approvals, and/or inspections. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.76.040 (Grading Permit) subsection C, grading approval is not required for: 1) an excavation, fill or combination thereof, less than 20 cubic yards, 2) an excavation or fill less than 3' in depth of natural grade, or 3) an excavation less than 10' below existing grade for the foundation or footings of a structure on a slope less than 35% and not involving a caisson foundation. Based on field observations and submitted plans, Staff determined that the existing retaining wall that supports earth between the two abutting properties with an average building pad elevation difference of 2' does not require approval of a Grading Permit, especially given the existing height of the alleged modified retaining wall. Additionally, the minimal quantity of earth movement and the depth of cut or fill to modify the existing retaining wall at the current height ranging between 1'-6" and 2'-5", would not trigger a Grading Permit, Building Permit or inspections. A-53 Furthermore, any damage as a result of the alleged retaining wall modification is a civil matter to be resolved between the two parties. 6) Staff's erroneously issued permit was the cause of fence being destroyed and land taken The appellants claim that the City had knowledge that the white -lattice fence was constructed by them and that administrative approval of wall sections A and B in May 2014 caused the removal of the fence and land taken by the applicant. The City approval was in May 2014 for the installation of new wall sections A and B and not to remove any pre-existing fence. It should be emphasized that no City approval is required for removal of said fence. Lastly, the approved wall sections A and B are located entirely on the applicant's property, consistent with the surveys submitted by both the applicant and the appellant. Appellant's Request The appellant is requesting as part of their appeal that the former fence be restored to the original height of 4' up to the rear building facade and a chain link fence in the rear yard up to X- 11 " -11" in height. CONCLUSION Based on the above discussion, Staff believes that no new information has been submitted by the appellants to warrant overturning the Director's decision on wall portions A and B or the Planning Commission's decision on portions C and D. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the previous decisions for Case Nos. ZON2014-00202 and ZON2014-00415. ALTERNATIVES In addition to the Staff's recommendation, the following alternatives are available for Planning Commission's consideration: Approve the appeal and direct Staff to return to the Planning Commission with a revised resolution at a date certain. 2. Modify the appeal and direct Staff to return to the Planning Commission with a revised resolution at a date certain. ATTACHMENTS • P.C. Resolution No. 2014- • Appeal Letter • Public Correspondence • C.C. Staff Report and attachments (dated November 4, 2014) • P.C. Staff Report and attachments (dated September 9, 2014) • P.C. Staff Report and attachments (dated August 12, 2014) • Director Staff Report and attachements (dated .lune 24, 2014) P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2014- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION AND AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO APPROVE, WITH CONDITIONS, FENCEIWALL PERMITS FOR A COMBINATION WALL ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE PROPERTY LINE AT 29023 SPRUCEGROVE DRIVE (ZON2014-00202 AND ZON2014-00415). WHEREAS, on May 22, 2014, the property owner (Darrel Hesser) obtained an approval for an after -the -fact Site Plan Review to legalize an 8' tall combination wall along the side property line between the edge of the 20' front yard setback and the applicant's rear building fagade (ZON2014-00180); and, WHEREAS, on June 26, 2014, the Director approved a Fence/Wall Permit for an 8' tall combination wall along the side property line located between the applicant's rear building fagade and the rear property line. Said wall consists of a 2'-6" tall framed acrylic fence on top of a 4' tall solid wood fence on top of an existing V-6" tall retaining wall (ZON2014-00202); and, WHEREAS, on July 11, 2014, the abutting property owner of 29029 Sprucegrove Drive (Hossein and Vicky Shahbazian) submitted a timely appeal, requesting that the Planning Commission overturn the Director's June 2611 decision (ZON2014-00202) based on concerns related to the application process, view impairment, unpermitted retaining wall, and inconsistency with the Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, on August 12, 2014, the Planning Commission continued the appeal hearing to September 9, 2014 based on the impacted agenda and the applicant's availability; and, WHEREAS, on September 9, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2014-26, thereby denying the appeal and upholding the Director's decision to allow an 8' tall combination wall along the south side property line, between the applicant's rear building fagade and the rear property line (ZON2014-00202); and, WHEREAS, on September 23, 2014, the abutting property owner of 29029 Sprucegrove Drive (Hossein and Vicky Shahbazian) submitted a timely appeal, requesting that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission's September 9th decision; and, WHEREAS, on October 14, 2014, the Director revokes the after -the -fact Fence/Wall Permit based on procedural error (ZON2014-00180). More specifically, while a signed application, plans and an application fee is required at the time of application submittal, the application was processed without a signed application. Additionally, a notice of decision providing interested parties an appeal opportunity was not provided; and, WHEREAS, on October 31, 2014, a new after -the -fact FenceANall Permit is administratively approved to legalize an 8' tall combination wall along the south side property line between the edge of the 20' front yard setback and the applicant's rear building facade (ZON2014-00415); and, P.C. Resolution No. 2014 - Page 1 I� WHEREAS, on November 4, 2014, the City Council, pursuant to Staff's recommendation, remands the appeal back to the Planning Commission so that the entire side wall (ZON2014-00202 and ZON2014-00415) can be reviewed as a single unit; and, WHEREAS, on November 17, 2014, the abutting property owner of 29029 Sprucegrove Drive (Hossein and Vicky Shahbazian) submitted a timely appeal, requesting that the Planning Commission overturn the Director's October 3111 decision (ZON2014-00415) approving an after - the -fact Fence/Wall Permit; and, WHEREAS, on November 20, 2014, a public notice was mailed to property owners within a 500' radius from the subject property and published in the Palos Verdes 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 Substances Statement), the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt under Class 3 (Section 15303); and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on December 9, 2014, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The proposed project involves a combination wall, not to exceed 8' in height, as measured from the grade on the lower side at 29023 Sprucegrove Drive (applicant) and 7', as measured from the grade on the higher side at 29029 Sprucegrove Drive (appellant) along the south side property line. Wall sections A and B of attached Exhibit B consists of a solid wood fence on top of a retaining wall. Wall section C of the attached Exhibit B consists of a 2'-6" tall framed, transparent acrylic fence on top of a 4' tall solid wood fence on top of an existing V-6" tall retaining wall. Wall section D consists of a barrier up to 7' in height, with no portion exceeding 4' above the building pad level of 29029 Sprucegrove Drive. Section 2: A Fence/Wall Permit is warranted because: A. The combination wall 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 Plans, as a city -designated viewing area. More specifically, wall section C composed of an 8' tall combination wall of which 6'-6" tall portion would be above the grade level of 29029 Sprucegrove Drive (2'-6" tall framed, transparent fence that allows 80% transparency of vision light or air on top of a solid wood fence up to 4' in height) would not cause significant view impairment as only a minimal amount of ocean view from the appellant's viewing area would be impaired. Additionally, when the entirety of the view is considered, the proposed combination wail would be located in the far right periphery of the appellant's view frame and the remaining ocean and Catalina views would not be impaired. Additionally, from the viewing area of 29043 Sprucegrove Drive (Wang), there would be even less view impairment caused by the proposed 8' tall combination wall as it would be located in the P.C. Resolution No. 2014 - Page 2 �� i right periphery of the view frame and the remaining ocean and Catalina views would not be impaired. Furthermore, there are no public properties in the vicinity that has a view across the proposed project area and the subject property is not located within the City's coastal zone. Lastly, wall sections A, B and D, as conditioned, do not impair protected views. B. There is no foliage on the applicant's lot which exceeds 16' or the ridgeline of the primary structure, whichever is lower, that impairs a view from the viewing area of another parcel, or a view from public property which has been identified in the city's general plan or coastal specific plan, as a city -designated viewing area. C. Placement or construction of a fence or wall complies with all applicable standards and requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code and General Plan. More specifically, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.76.030(C)(b)(iii), "when combined, the total height of a fence, freestanding wall or retaining wall may not exceed 8, as measured from grade on the lower side, and may not exceed 7, as measured from the grade on the higher side". The proposed combination wall will not exceed 8' in height from the grade on the lower side at 29023 Sprucegrove Drive and 7' from the abutting property's grade on the higher side at 29029 Sprucegrove Drive. Additionally, the City's General Plan, Policy No. 14 of the Urban Environment Element states the following.- "Prohibit ollowing."Prohibit encroachment on existing scenic views reasonably expected by neighboring residents". Only the rear corner of the 8' tall combination wall would project into a minimal amount of ocean view at the periphery of the view frame of the abutting neighbors' viewing area, while the remainder of the ocean and Catalina view would be preserved. Section 3: That the appeal is not warranted since the height and materials of the approved wall along the south side property line between the edge of the 20' front yard setback and the rear property line do not result in significant view impairment from the appellant's (29029 Sprucegrove Drive) viewing area. Section 4: 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 4:30 PM on Friday, January 2, 2015. A $2,275.00 appeal fee must accompany any appeal letter. if no appeal is filed timely, the Planning Commission's decision will be final at 4:30 PM on January 2, 2015. Section 5: 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 decision and affirms the Planning Commission's approval of FenceNllall Permits, subject to the conditions set forth in the attached 'Exhibit A' and the project plan depicted in the attached 'Exhibit B' (Case Nos. ZON2014-00202 and ZON2014-00415). P.C. Resolution No. 2014 - Page 3 A-57 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this g« day of December 2014, by the following vote-- AYES- NOES.- ABSTENTIONS: ote, AYES:NOES:ABSTENTIONS: RECUSALS: ABSENT: Gordon Leon, Chairman Joel Rojas, AICP Community Development Director and Secretary of the Planning Commission P.C. Resolution No, 2014 - Page 4 EXHIBIT 'A' CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ATF F'ENCEIWALL PERMITS (ZON2014-00202 and ZON2014-00415) 29023 SPRUCEGROVE DRIVE This approval is for the legalization of a combination wall not to exceed 8' in height, as measured from the grade on the lower side (29023 Sprucegrove Drive) and 7', as measured from the grade on the higher side (29029 Sprucegrove Drive). Specifically, as depicted in 'Exhibit B' attached herein, wall sections A and B consists of a solid wood fence on top of an existing retaining wall. Wall section C consists of 2'-6" tall framed, transparent acrylic fence on top of a 4' tall solid wood barrier on top of an existing V-6" tall retaining wall. The visibility of the 2'-6" portion (framed acrylic) shall be maintained so that it allows at minimum 80% transmission of light, air or vision. Wall section D consists of a barrier up to 7' in height, with no portion exceeding 4' above the building pad level of 29029 Sprucegrove Drive. 2. Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, the applicant and the property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have read, understand, and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this decision. Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void. 3. Prior to conducting any work in the public right of way, such as for curb cuts, dumpsters, temporary improvements and/or permanent improvements, the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works. 4. Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws and regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code shall apply. 5. The Community Development Director is authorized to make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions of approval if such modifications will achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with the approved plans and conditions. Otherwise, any substantive change to the project shall require approval of a revision by the final body that approved the original project, which may require new and separate environmental review. 6. The project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards contained in these conditions of approval or, if not addressed herein, shall conform to the residential development standards of the City's Municipal Code, including but not limited to height, setback and lot coverage standards. 7. Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be cause to revoke the approval of the project pursuant to the revocation procedures contained in Section 17.86.060 of the City's Municipal Code. 8. If the applicant has not submitted an application for a building permit for the approved project or not commenced the approved project as described in Section 17.86.070 of the City's Municipal Code within one year of the final effective date of this decision, approval of the project shall expire and be of no further effect unless, prior to expiration, a written P.C. Resolution No. 2014 - Page 5 request for extension is filed and approved by the Community Development Director. 9. In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations and/or requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter standard shall apply. 10. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be completed in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the City with the effective date of this decision. 11. The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that material used for immediate construction purposes. Such excess material may include, but not be limited to: the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap metal, concrete asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or discarded furniture, appliances or other household fixtures. 12. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7.00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, 9:OOAM to 5:OOPM on Saturday, with no construction activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section 17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. During demolition, construction and/or grading operations, trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining street rights- of-way before 7AM Monday through Friday and before 9AM on Saturday, in accordance with the permitted hours of construction stated in this condition. When feasible to do so, the construction contractor shall provide staging areas on-site to minimize off-site transportation of heavy construction equipment. These areas shall be located to maximize the distance between staging activities and neighboring properties, subject to approval by the building official. 13. All grading, landscaping and construction activities shall exercise effective dust control techniques, either through screening and/or watering. 14. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly manner, to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official. All construction waste and debris resulting from a construction, alteration or repair project shall be removed on a weekly basis by the contractor or property owner. Existing or temporary portable bathrooms shall be provided during construction. Portable bathrooms shall be placed in a location that will minimize disturbance to the surrounding property owners, to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official. P.G. Resolution No. 2014 - Page 6 A-60 EXHIBIT `B' PLANNING CASE NO. ZON2014-00202 (FENCEfWALL PERMIT) 29023 SPRUCEGROVE DRIVE Project Description dear 'JE hyl!$Ufi�i . ... ... ... . .. .. .. . A. 19' of 5'-7" solid lence B: 37' of V-0" solid fence C: 23' of 61-1 soNdJ80Qa open fence D: 35` of TH (80% open) fence front setback line house front facade to house rear facade house rear facade to end of wall end of wafl to rear of property to house front facade. (16'W columns noted above included within 37') (solid fence to 48") (grade equal both sides) (grade difference more than 2') (grade difference more than 2') (8011:6 open to top of fence) (grade difference )ess than, 2') SIDE VIEW DIAGRAM -.1- .. .. .... .. .. ..... ..... 29023 SPRUCEGROVE DRIVE View of 29029 Sprucegrove Drive Neighboring House) from 29023 Sprucegrcve Drive Appeal Letter (Shahbazian Family — property owners of 29029 Sprueegrove Drive) NOTICE OF APPEAL. ZO N 2014-415 TO: Members of the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission FROM: Cyrus Shahbazian and Family RE: 29029 Sprucegrove Drive: Case No. ZON2014-00415: Fence/Wall Permit DATE: November 7, 2014 This letter is to serve as notice of appeal: case ZON2014-00415. The Shahbazians respectfully request that the Director's recommendation be overturned and the prior fence be rebuilt for the following reasons: BASIS #1: ENTIRE FENCE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ONE UNIT AND HAVE SAME MEASUREMENTS (1) By bifurcating the Shahbazian's fence into 3 separate portions, the director approved the construction of 3 different heights for the one fence. The fence runs east to west and does not run in the same direction as the natural slope of the street, north to south. In that respect, approving 3 size fences does not coincide with a sloping lot. BASIS #2: FENCE DOES NOT COMPLY WITH MUNICIPAL CODE WALL REQUIREMENTS. (1) FENCE/WALL SUBSTANTIALLY IMPAIRS VIEW FROM VIEWING AREA. — Viewing Area: Viewing Area includes Shahbazian's Living/Dining Room, Master Bed Room, Second Bedroom, and kitchen because those rooms share the same view. (Exhibits 1-2). — Significant Impairment: Approved fence in rear fagade, at 4ft plus 2.5 acrylic barrier, significantly impairs a view by destroying 100% of the Malibu and Ocean view. The erroneously approved fence along the side property, at 7ft/8ft, significantly impairs a view by destroying the Shahbazian's view of the ocean and natural hillside setting across Sprucegrove Drive from their Garden Window. (Exhibit 3). (2) PLACEMENT OF WALL DOES NOT COMPLY WITH ALL STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS OF MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN. — Municipal Code - Per MC §17.76.030, at 4ft (rear) and 7ft (side), the Hessers proposed fence would cause an "unnecessary impairment of views" and cause a devaluation of the Shahbazian's property in excess of $100,000. — General Plan - The proposed approval runs afoul of the City's General Plan; Policy Number 14 — "Prohibits encroachment on existing scenic views reasonably expected by neighboring residents." Over 20 years ago, the Shahbazian's erected a Oft fence that ran from the front yard building fagade and 3 ft chain link fence in the rear facade and have enjoyed the Malibu, ocean, and natural hillside setting views from their living, dining, bedrooms and garden windows for the past 25 years and reasonably expect that scenic view to continue. A-63 BASIS #3: UNCERTAINTY IN BOUNDARY LINE REQUIRED DIRECTOR DETERMINATION PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ERRONEOUS PERMIT (MC § 17.48.030(A)) AND OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAL. (1) Boundary line unclear and City had knowledge (see correspondence). (2) Shahbazian's erected 4ft white -lattice fence with former owner's knowledge. (3) Hessers initially believed upper pad was owned by Shahbazians. (4) When it became unclear and prior to issuing any permit, Director was required to determine "the appropriate property line" and his decision should have been appealable. BASIS #4: MANIPULATION OF RETAINING WALL AND INCREASING GRADE 2FT. (1) By decreasing the retaining wall and increasing elevation of grade, approved fence is 2ft higher than stated specifications (Exhibits 4) (2) Approval for 7ft is essentially 9ft and 8ft approval is 10ft. (3) Grade cannot be increased to manipulate approvals according to one's wants. BASIS #5: CITY PARTICIPATION: (1) FALSE REPRESENTATIONS, (2) FENCE NOT AFTER -THE -FACT; AND (3) GRADING REQUIREMENTS NOT ENFORCED. (1) FALSE REPRESENTATIONS AS TO APPLICATIONS BEING FILED. (Exhibit 5). — Planning department continuously represented that three (3) opplications were filed and fees were paid — No such application exist, or currently exist - Various explanations provided o "FWH application, site plan review application, plan as application" — No evaluation can be made without application by which to base analysis. (2) CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AFTER -THE -FACT BECAUSE SHAHBAZIAN'S WHITE -LATTICE FENCE WAS STILL ENTIRELY CONSTRUCTED 2 MONTHS AFTER PERMIT WAS ISSUED. (Exhibit 6). City: "No white lattice fence existed when Senior Planner made 151 site visit on May 1211." Based on the no -application approval, Hessers removed our fence in July 2014. (3) PLANNING DEPARTMENT KNEW ABOUT HESSER'S GRADING ACTIVITIES AND IGNORED ENFORCING CODE PROVISIONS THEREBY CAUSING DAMAGE TO SHAHBAZIAN'S DRAINAGE (Exhibit 7) Shahbazians continuously informed the city about Hesser's substantial grading, ignored. Shahbazians pleas, and even stated "call the police." Substantial damage to Shahbazian's property, including drainage issues. — Code requires major grading permit (17.76.040(13)(2)(iii)) BASIS #6: ERRONEOUSLY ISSUED PERMIT WAS THE CAUSE OF FENCE BEING DESTROYED AND LAND TAKEN. (1) City had knowledge that white -lattice fence was constructed by Shahbazians. (2) Director substantially participated in the taking of the Shahbazian's property, claims to said property, and damage to property without notice, hearing, or opportunity to assert a claim as to property on the upper pad elevation. (3) Issuance of permit constitutes substantial participation in the unlawful dispossession of Shahbazian's property without providing notice or a hearing. SHAHBAZIAN'S REQUEST Pursuant to MC §17.84.060, the Shahbazians request that their 20 -year preexisting fence/wall be restored to its original condition; Oft up to the rear building fagade, and a 3.9ft chain-link fence in the rear yard facade as their fence was destroyed due to a voluntary act by the Hessers and Planning Department. � s� ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS TO SHAHBAZIAN'S NOTICE OF APPEAL CASE ZON2014-415 EXHIBIT #1 (View from Shahbazions' Living room in a seated position approximately 3.5 ft in height) Yellow Tape: Ms. Kims initial tapered fence ( 4ft at the rear building facade and decreasing to 2ft). Green Tape: view blockage from a seated position with a continuous 4ft fence. EXH I BIT ##2 (View from Master Bedroom) EXHIBIT #3 (View of Natural Hillside Setting from Garden Window) Ue I Ue • M• Y r 4e - • � �..''. _ '+- ; p?!�.1'"'_ ; Pie.. $:` • ,� 46 I + 'ISO • M• Y r 4e - • � �..''. _ '+- ; p?!�.1'"'_ ; Pie.. $:` • ,� r b EXHIBIT #5 (Continued representation of multiple opplicotions submitted) [August Staff Report, Letters & Correspondence] PLANNING CONINI. SjDN M1LMBE RSRES',DINGVI.T-tN 30n'0J Su&JECT P,ROPER'N: NONL BACKGROUND Pursuant to Dsveiopment Code Section 1 T76.030.13 2, on May 7. 2014. Mfr. Darrel Hesser, the propeiiy owner of 29023 Sprucegrove Drive submitted an application and a site inspection fee for Staf l to perform a site visit to determine whether the construction of a solid wall ,5'4" to ff' in height) on top of an existing retaining wall (2' to 2'-G' n height) along the side property line abutting 29029 Sprucegrove Drive mquirets approval of a Fencedlr'Jall Permit. A portion of said wall was alreadI under construction at the time of the inspection fee submittal Staff uonducted ,site visits on May 15, 19 and 21, 2.014 to both the subject property, and to the abutting property at 29029 Sprucegrova Detre. Eased on these site visits, Staff confirmed that no views would be impacted by the constructed portion of the proposed con-bination wall up to the rear building faYade of the applicant's property, while a wall beyond the rear building fa-ade may have a potential for view impairment from the viewing area of 291129 Sprucegrove Drive. As a result. Staff informed the applicant that he can either apply far aflekhe-fact approval of a ministerial Site Plan Review application to legalize the existing 9' tall corrbinatiDn wall along the .side property litre up to his rear building facade or remove ff. He was also informed that if he wished to extend the B' corrbinati❑n wall beyond his rear building fagade, approval of a discretionary Fenr&Wall Permit would be required. On May 19, 2014, a complaint was tiled with the Code Enforr:emerd Division about alleged unpermitted construction of accessory structures in the rear yard of the subject property. The City's Code Enfornement Officer conducted a site visit on the same day and confirmed the allegation. Subsequently, a letter was sentto Mfr. He.sser, requiring him to obtain permits forthe unpermittead construction. In response, the property owner submitted an after-the-factSite Plan Review application to Legalize the unpeffnitte+d pond, fountain and fire pit in the rear yard and ebta ined approval on M1 ay 22, 2014 (ZON2014-M 19 B). On May 22, 2914, the applicant applied and obtained approval for an after -the -fact Site Plan Review application to legalize the B'tall combination wall up to hisrear building fapade. On May 27, 2014, Mfr. Hessen submded a Fenc fWall Permit requetting to extend the ®' tall combination wall beyond his rear building faVade. M- t.._- nc 'Ini.2 1L- M —y_ -__.-._J - r ---._Ilii ri n --:.L A- _U-... -- n- 1-71 �A-pp d �xl F; A-71 May S. 2014 aarre! & l3renda (-lesser 29023 Sprucegrove Drive Rancho Palos Verdes. CA 90275 Subject: ZC)N2014-00180 (FVVH) Project Address: 29023 Sprucegrove Drive Dear Mr. & Mrs. Hesser, On May 7, 2014, the application listed above was submitted to the Community Development Department for processing. Your application has been assigned to Ms. So Kim, who will be the project planner responsible for processing your application through the planning permit stage. Within 30 days of the date of submittal, the project planner will conduct a preliminary review of your application to determined the information provided is generally complete or needs to be augmented in any way. The project planner will notify you in writing as to the status of your application before or shortly after that time. If there are items that still need to be provided in order to make the application submittal complete, it is advised that you supply these items to the project planner in a timely manner in order to avoid any delay in the processing of the application. The Community Development Department looks forward to working with you on your proposed project. if you have any questions regarding your application submittal, please feet free to contact Ms. Kim at (310) 544-5228 or via e-mail at saknrpv.com. incerely, C 1TY OF � [�Ar1CHC� I�ALOS �/ECZUES t X )M a IN l ', l x vti i s ai IMI N1 t)i -s Jnr; � ru h May 12. 2014 Hossein & Vick Shahbazian 29029 Sprucegrove Drive Rancho Palos Verdes. CA 90275 Dear Mr Shahbazian. A Fence & Wall Permit application was submitted by your neighbor. Mr. Hesser, requesting approval to replace an existing fence along the shared side property line, i would like to visit your property to assess view impacts. if any, as a result of this proposal Please contact me within 7 days of this letter to schedule a site visit. Please feel free to contact me at (310) 544-5228 or sok9rpv.c0m. Sincerely, So Kim Associate Planner — -.- - e e n% r r'+ A nn) -7 V, A-72 <U.ickyC: vthgrnemotar_sex/p��s3 om> Cc: Joel Rojas eIR@rpy G{, m>, Ara Mihranian <AiaM0rL)y.cO1 i>, Julie Peterson <Jc)liep,arpv p rta Mrs. Shabahzian, I nr It►e areas up to the rear building facade of Mr_ Hesser's property, the City Council atfupted an ordinance, which went into effect as of May 2014 that only requires a Fence, /Wall Permit if there is potential for view imp air me it hetwe�en properties with a pat? elevation difference of 2' Gr more_ Given that there was i~o view impairment that would be caused by a combinatico wall along the side property line tip to Mr. Hesser's rear building fatiade,noother permilsnutsideofaiiover-the counter Site Plan Review was required As yoo are aware, this was approved. However, for the areas beyond Mr. Hesser's rear building facade, Staff found that there would be view impairment, therefore a Fence/Wall Permit wasrequired. The Director approved this application and you appealed this decision to the Planning Commission. So, yes, there is a Fence/Wall Permit required between properties with pad elevation difference of 2' or more if there is potential forview impairment. Sincerely, So Kim Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes www.palosverdes.comIrpv (310) 544-5228 A-73 EXH I BIT #f (Planning Department said our fence was removed before permit issued) From: Joel Rous <JoeiR@rpv.com> Hide Subject: RE: Permit Revocation Update and issues before the City Inbax - Gmail 3 Council Dale: October 20, 2014 9:59:32 AM PDT To: Cyrus Shahbazian Cc: Carolynn Petru <Carolynngrpv.com> and 4 mere... Dear Mr. Shahbazian Thanks forgetting back to me so quickly. We are confirmed to meet on Tuesday, October 21 at Spm in our community development department conference roam. I believe Acting City Manager Carolynn Petru will be attending as well. I'm not sure I can explain the disconnect we have about the white lattice fence removal, According to our records and So Kim's recollection, when she went out there for the first time on May 15th to assess the proposed new fence, the pre-existing white trellis fence as not there, She has a photograph of what she saw. She recalls that your parents explained to her that there was a white trellis fence there and were very unhappy that it was removed. Your parents then emailed photos of the pre-existing white lattice fence to So Kim so she could see what was there. ,Again, my point in all this is to simply clarify that the removal, 2f the 2re-existinq white fence was done prior to us processing any permit for its replacement and thus the city's granting of the eventual fencelwall permit did not lead to the destruction n of the pre-existing fence as you claim. I'm confident we will be able to straighten all this out when we meet. Joel Rojas I believe you are confused because the City's Code docs not regulate the removal of private fences or walls, it only regulates the installation of fences or walls. Since there is no City code that requires that private property be fenced there is no need for a resident to seek City approval to remove a pre-existing fence. Thus, while I understand your concern with Mr. Hesser's removal of the prc-existing white lattice fence between your two properties, the City had no say in its removal. In fact, when City Staff first visited the site to assess the proposed wall that Mr. Hesser wished to install, Staff was surprised to learn that the pre-existing fence had already been removed. As a result, Mr. Hesser was required -)ay a penalty fcc and his Fence/Permit request was processed as an after -the —fact 41,plication. The City decision allowed the new replacement wall to remain. - Mr. Rojas, October 17, 2014 A-74 (Application supposedly submitted May 7"; May 28", Shahbazian's fence clearly up if 4i moi► :�!V ' ti i') .A � - - - - _ Af A-75 Ir I Public Correspondence (Received after the November 4, 2014 CC Meeting) So Kim rrom: D. Alan Hesser Jr <darrelhesser@gmail.com> gent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 10:16 AM To: So Kim Subject. Fence Good Morning... This is our proposal for alternative construction materials for fence C. Chain -Link Fence at P/L extending to full approved height. Solid Wall Adjacent to chain-link to approved 4'. Hopefully this will address concerns for maintaining the clear acrylic. Thank You On Nov 4, 2014, at 3:50 PM, So Kirit <SoKLc,ryv.conr> wrote: Hi Mr. Hesser, The refund for your trellis application has been processed. Sincerely, So Kim Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes www.palosverdes.com/rpv (310) 544-5228 <Refund Letter.pdf> IT"We C.C. Minutes (November 4, 2014) AGENCY") TO THE CITY PURSUANT TO THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY'S LONG RANGE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT PLAN (THE "LRPMP"). PUBLIC HEARINGS: Appeal of Planning Commission's Fence/Wall Permit Decision (Case No. ZON2014- 00202); Project Address - 29023 Sprucegrove Drive (Applicant: Mr. and Mrs. Hesser/Appellant: Mr. and Mrs. Shahbazian) City Clerk Morreale reported notice of the public hearing was duly published, written protests included with the late correspondence distributed prior to the meeting, and there were five requests to speak regarding this item. Mayor Duhovic declared the public hearing open. Community Development Director Rojas provided a brief staff report regarding this item. Vicky Shahbazian, appellant, Rancho Palos Verdes, stated there have been numerous erroneous permits issued and fabrications in a report; commented on the importance of the ideals of preserving the beauty of the community and preserving views; and noted they lost much of the view when a 7 -foot tall fence was built by their neighbor. She added that the facts are available in the City records regarding the aesthetics of the fence, the pad elevations, and reiterated that erroneous permits were granted. She added that she desired to reach a reasonable solution with the neighbor to enhance the views of both parties. Mayor Duhovic disclosed that he visited the Shahbazian home over the weekend to review the issues at the property location. Discussion ensued among Council Members. Hoss Shahbazian, appellant, Rancho Palos Verdes, reported that the approval process to have his deck approved took 9 months and commented on the difficulties he faced to get his applications processed. Bob Nelson, Planning Commissioner, Rancho Palos Verdes, noted the Planning Commission anticipates considering this item again. Mayor Duhovic declared the public hearing closed. Mayor Pro Tem Knight moved, seconded by Mayor Duhovic, to approve the staff recommendation to refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for further review and consideration. City Council Minutes November 4, 2014 Page 4 of 10 • Staff Report (November 4, 2014 CC Meeting) C1TVOFL& RANCHO PALOS VERDES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE MAYORCITY C NCIL MEMBERS FROM: JOEL ROJAS, COMMUNI EVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: NOVEMBER 4, 2014 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S FENCEfWALL PERMIT DECISION (CASE NO. ZON2014-00242); PROJECT ADDRESS — 29023 SPRUCEGROVE DRIVE (APPLICANT: MR. & MRS. HESSER l APPELLANT: MR. & MRS. SHAHBAZIAN) REVIEWED: CAROLYNN PETRU, ACTING CITY MANAGER Staff Coordinator: So Kim, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION Refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for further review and consideration. BACKGROUND On May 7, 2014, the applicant (Hesser — 29023 Sprucegrove Dr.) submitted a Fence/Wall Permit site inspection fee of $202 and a plan in order for Staff to determine the type of application process required for the installation of a solid wood barrier on top of an existing retaining wall along the south side property line located between his residence at 29023 Sprucegrove Drive (Hesser) and the abutting residence at 29029 Sprucegrove Drive (Shahbazian). The entire wall consists of four separate parts, sections A, B, C and D, as shown in the diagram on the following page. Sections A and B represent the area in the side yard, extending from the edge of the front yard setback line to the applicant's rear building facade. Section C represents the area from the applicant's rear building fapade to the top of slope and Section D follows the descending slope in the rear yard. Proposed Wall Sections A and B Based on a few site visits, Staff determined that while proposed wall sections A and B would cause no view impacts, portions of proposed wall sections C and D could impair a view from the viewing area of the abutting property at 29029 Sprucegrove Drive 30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD. / RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275-5391 PLANNING & CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION (310) 544-52281 BUILDING & SAFETY DIVISION (310) 265-7800 / DEPT, FAX (310) 544-5293A-83 E-MAIL PLANNING@ Rf V.COM / WWWPALOSVERDES COM/RPV (Shahbazian). As such, pursuant to recently amended Municipal Code Section 17.76.030.13, a Staff level approval was granted for wall sections A and B (ZON2014- 00180) under a shortened review process, while sections C and D required the approval of a FencelWall Permit under the full review process. Following the approval of sections A and B, Staff mailed a letter to the neighbor (Shahbazian) informing them of this approval. Proposed Wall Sections C and D As described in the first paragraph, Staff informed the applicant that the proposed wood wall in section C and a portion of section D would cause view impacts and thus a formal Fence/Wall Permit would need to be processed. The applicant submitted a Fence/Wall Permit, Staff conducted site visits to the neighbor's property (Shahbazian) and determined that a solid barrier up to 4' in height would not significantly impair a view. However, the applicant requested a taller barrier (up to 6.5' in height) as security fencing for his dogs. As such, the Director approved a solid barrier up to 4' topped with a 2.5' tail transparent acrylic panel as measured from the grade of the upslope property (Shahbazian) to be installed on top of an existing 1.5' tall retaining wall on the applicant's property. The neighbor (Shahbazian) disagreed with this decision as they felt that the approved wall significantly impaired their view and appealed the Director's decision to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission upheld the Director's decision and approved the wall. Subsequently, the same neighbor (Shahbazian) appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council, which has been scheduled for tonight's hearing. DISCUSSION In reviewing the process for approving wall sections A and B, it has come to Staff's attention that the new procedural requirements of Section 17.76.030 of the Code pertaining to the processing of a Fence/Wall Permit were not completely followed. More specifically, while the Code requires the submittal of an application along with the site inspection fee, Staff considered the submittal of a fee and plans to function as the application, while a completed application form was not submitted. Additionally, the Code allows an adjacent property owner to appeal the Director's decision to the Planning Commission. Staff's letter sent to the adjacent property owner (Shahbazian) advising them of the approval of wall sections A and B did not indicate the process for filing an appeal. As a result, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.86.060 (Suspension or Revocation of Permits), the approval for sections A and B was revoked as it was issued contrary to the provisions of the Municipal Code. The applicant accepted the revocation. Following the revocation, the applicant was given the option to either remove the solid wood barrier comprised of sections A and B within 30 days or submit a new Fence/Wall Permit application to allow said solid wood wall to remain. In response, the applicant submitted a new Fence/Wall Permit application which Staff is processing. The abutting neighbor (Shahbazian) verbally informed the Director that he intends to appeal the upcoming decision for wall sections A & B. Since the pending appeal of wall sections C and D is an extension of the same wall, Staff believes that the entire side wall (sections A, B, C and D) should be assessed as a single unit. As such, Staff is recommending that the City Council refer the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision on wall sections C and D back to the Planning Commission so that the entire side wail can be reviewed by the Planning Commission as a single structure once the appeal of the approval of sections A and B is made. Once the Planning Commission- considers the entirety of said wall (sections A, B, C and D), the matter will be forwarded back to the City Council for its consideration given the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision on wall sections C and D. Staff's recommendation has been discussed with both the applicant (Hessen) and the appellant (Shahbazian). CONCLUSION Based on the discussion above, Staff recommends that the City Council refer the matter back to the Planning Commission so that the entire side wall be evaluated as a single structure. FISCAL ANALYSIS There are no fiscal impacts related to this request. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Since Staffs recommendation is to referthe matter back to the Planning Commission, the entirety of the record related to this matter is not attached to this Staff Report. The entirety of the record will be provided to the City Council when this item is brought back to the City Council after the Planning Commission reconsiders the item. • Appeal Letter (dated September 23, 2014) NOTICE OF APPEAL Case No. ZON2014-00202 Rancho Palos Verdes City Council TO: Members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council FROM: Cyrus Shahbazian and Family RE: Case No. ZON2014-00202: Fence/Wall Permit Appeal DATE: September 23, 2014 Members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council: RECEIVED SEP 23 2014 COM IMUNJTY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT This correspondence serves as notice of appeal by the Shahbazians of the Planning Commission's approval of Fence/Wall Permit, Case Number: ZON20I4-00202. Said approval calls for the proposed construction of a 6'6" tall fence, comprised of 4' of solid wood portion and an upper portion of2'6" acrylic transparent barrier, situated on a i' retaining wall between the Hesser's and Shahbazian's respective properties. For the following reasons, the Shahbazians request that the respected members of the city counsel overturn the Planning Commission's approval. I. PERMIT PROCESS AND BIFURCATION OF SIDE AND REAR YARD FENCE. On May 7, 2014, Mr. and Ms. Hesser, located at 29023 Sprucegrove Drive, submitted a Fence/Wall Permit application for the construction of a 6'0" solid fence along the property line between their property and Shahbazian's property, located at 29029 Sprucegrove drive. For the past 20 years, there existed a 3'9" white -lattice fence on a 3' structural wall along the property line separating the Shahbazian's property and what is now the Hesser's property. The prior construction allowed the Shahbazian family, their friends, and visitors to enjoy the pristine views expanding from Catalina Island to the Malibu Hills, the views that originally attracted the Shahbazians to Rancho Palos Verdes. The viewing area where the fence was situated did not obstruct the Shahbazian's view, or the view of surrounding neighbors, as it was a combination of lattice and chain link. In January 2014, the Hessers began removing portions of the white -lattice fence, inserting T stone columns, and then reinserting the white -lattice fence. The Shahbazian's immediately objected and contacted the city. On February 190'2014, a Ms. Julie Peterson of Code Enforcement made a site visit and informed the Hessers that a Fence/Wall Permit was required for construction of a fence along the property line and ordered the removal of the 7' stone columns, all of which were reproved except one the following day. From the time of Ms. Peterson's site visit in February until mid July, the Shahbazian's white -lattice fence remained in place. On May 7"', the Hessers • submitted a Fence/Wall Pen -nit application requesting approval to replace a pre-existing fence along the property line from the front yard set back to the rear yard slope. Between May 15'" and 21 ". Senior Planner, Ms. So Kim, made three site visits, verifying that a Fence/Wall Permit was required due to grade and pad elevation. On May 23", 2014, the Hessers were issued an after -the -fact "approval" for construction of a 6' fence on the 3' retaining will beginning 20' from the front yard set back extending to the Hesser's rear building facade. The Shahbazian's were sent a letter informing thein that an approval was issued, but the Hessers would be required to apply for a Fence/Wall Permit should they wish to extend the proposed construction to the rear yard slope. The approval issued on May 23`d bifurcated the proposed fence into three sections and cannot be characterized as a ministerial gfter- the-fact approval because no such fence existed. Therefore, the Hessers May 7"' application should have been characterized as a Fence/Wall Permit application and been evaluated as a single fence under the standards and requirements set forth in the Municipal Code. [I. REAR YARD FENCE Secondly, even assuming, arguendo, that a single fence within the set back area along the property line can be bifurcated, approved, and constructed under separate standards, the approval relating to the rear yard set back should nonetheless be overturned. The director's approval permits the construction of a 4' tall solid fence with an additional 2'6" tall transparent acrylic barrier on top of a 3' structural wall (totaling 9'6" from Hesser's true grade) beginning at the Hessers rear building facade extending to the rear yard slope. The code provides examples of such 80% "transparcnt" materials, such as chain-link. However, much ambiguity exists, as made apparent by members of the planning department, as to who will be responsible for maintaining the clarity, whether the city will have ongoing responsibility to ensure it maintains its 80% transparency, who determines whether the acrylic barrier is 80% see through, and so forth. Additionally, this 2.6" transparent portion is outlandish to the Rancho Palos Verdes community and serves no purpose to the Hessers. The anomalous construction will decrease property value, call for continued city governance, and lead to further contention between the Hessers and Shahbazians. 11I. GARDEN TRELLIS / FENCE/WALL Lastly, during the appeal process, the Hessers were approved with, and constructed, what they describe as a "Garden Trellis" in the rear building fag.ade extending to the rear yard slope. The Municipal Code makes it clear that during the appeal process, further construction must cease pending the outcorne. Although it may be argued that the "Garden Trellis" is not the subject of the appeal as it falls just outside the 5'0" setback requirement, the director noted in the Staff Report that the Hessers erected a structure that obstructs the very view he was trying to preserve. During the appeal with the planning department, the director indicated that this structure was not subject to the appeal, and the members of the planning commission were without authority to make a finding on its construction. The Hesser's application characterized the trellis as an "accessory structure," falling within the relevant codes requirements. The Shahbazians had an open house, inviting residents within the Rancho Palos Verdes community to see what the Hessers had constructed. Neighbors, visitors and friends were astonished that the city would permit such a view blocking structure, and expressed their concerns vii emails, letters and support. Subsequently, the director indicated that the `'Garden Trellis" fell within the code's definition of wall, and required the Hessers to reduce the barrier, then 12` tall, to 7' as per code requirements. From a policy perspective, permitting the construction of a solid 7' barrier that rests inches from the code's required set back makes the requirements and standards of a Fence/Wall Permit obsolete. What is the purpose of requiring a resident to apply for a Fend/Wall permit if a solid 7' barrier can be constructed that serves the same purpose without being subject to a view impairment analysis'? From its inception, Rancho Palos Verdes has been known for the scenic, topographical views. Rancho Palos Verdes, its elected representatives, and its residents all recognized the value of the pristine views as evidenced by various code sections, the General Plan and Proposition M. Members of the City Council, as you are aware, the scenic views make Rancho Palos Verdes is one of the most desirable places to live. Allowing such a barrier not only destroys the view from our home, it significantly decreases its property value, is contrary to the character of the neighborhood, and is inconsistent with what the Rancho Palos Verdes community was founded on. Sincerely. Cyrus Shahbazian and Family 29029 Sprucegrove drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Email: VShahbazian whotmail.com; Cvrus.Shahbazian(a,�mail.com Phone: (33 10) 292-6305; (310) 4045104 A 0 • Public Correspondence (Received after the September 9, 2014 P.C. Meeting) So Kim From: Joel Rojas Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 8:12 AM To: Carla Morreale Cc: Teresa Takaoka; So Kim Subject: FW: Second plea for help Attachments: Original Message.docx; IMG_2064jpg; IMG_2327.JPG Follow Up Flag: Fallow up Flag Status. Flagged Carla I would consider this late correspondence related to the public hearing appeal item on Tuesday's agenda. Joel From: Cyrus Shahbazian[mailto:cyrus.shahbazian@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 9:40 PM To: Jerry Duhovic Cc: Carolynn Petru; Susan Brooks; Joel Rojas Subject: Second plea for help Dear Mr. Duhovic: My name is Cyrus Shahbazian, son of Hoss and Vicky Shahbazian. I am writing in regards to letter my father had written you in July of this year (see attachment). As you may be aware, my family has been in an ongoing dispute with the Hessers, the neighbors situated to our north at 29023 Sprucegrove Drive, since February 2014 (this year). It is now in October and a resolution does not appear to be forthcoming. I became involved in the matter in August of this year. Admittedly, when I first heard the circumstances, I was weary in accepting it all as true given the emotional state my parents were in and the look of despair gleaming from their faces. As any son would, I had no choice but to interject and attempt to understand why and how my parents have came to this state of despair. After reviewing the address and project file, reviewing correspondence between the Planning Department and my family, researching applicable Municipal Code sections, and a significant amount of time and money, I realized that everything my father had said was entirely accurate. The story my parents told me is the same story they continued to tell to the Planning Department pleading for them to listen. But to no avail, time and time again, their concerns, issues, and pleas for help were ignored, disregarded, and swept under the rug. What we were initially concerned about was preserving the pristine view that brought us to this city in the first place. Our view was the primary reason we chose to move to Rancho Palos Verdes. For more than 20 years, as my father indicated, we have lived in our RPV home and enjoyed the Malibu and ocean view. This was possible because, when our property was purchased, we constructed a view -preserving 4'0" white lattice fence that extended from the front building fagade to the rear building fagade along the property line between our home and the Hessers. At the rear building fagade, we constructed a 3'9" chain link fence that tapered as is neared the U • rear yard slope. Now, some 20 years later, for reasons unknown and incomprehensible, our neighbors are seeking to destroy the very thing that makes Rancho Palos Verdes one of the most desirable cities in the country by erecting a 6'0" fence. Not only is the process by which the Planning Department undertook a major issue of this dispute. but is also a reason by which the Planning Department is responsible for both the removal of our pre existing white -lattice fence, damage to our property as a result of non -permitted, non -investigated grading, as well as handing the Hessers a portion of our upper pad elevation which my family, as well as the Hessers, believed was ours prior to this dispute. What took months to uncover would be nearly impossible to explain in a simple email, or 3 minutes given at a hearing. While some may believe that this fence dispute is relatively insignificant, to my family and I, this is our home and has been, our home for over 20 years. I imagine that every RFV resident would feel the same if they were in the situation we have been in. Throughout this process, we have seen a great show of support, both from our friends and the community. They are in disbelief just as much as we are as evidenced by numerous letters drafted by RPV residence in support of our position. At the end of the day, Mr. Duhovic, we are a family that has been treated unfairly, unjustly, and in a manner in opposite to what our city stands for. All I am asking at this point, sir, is for you to make a site visit to see the situation with your own eyes. I have attached a photo for your reference to help add prospective. Please let me know when you would be available, or if you have any questions, comments, or concerns. My telephone number is (310) 404-5104. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Sincerely, Cyrus Shahbazian Cyrus Shahbazian Juris Doctor, 2014 29029 Sprucegrove Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Tel: (310) 404-5104 Email: Cyrus. ShahbazianLa gmail.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This communication with its contents may contain confidential andfor legally privileged information. It is solely far the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication. I� • So Kim From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Due By: Flag Status: Mr. Rojas: Cyrus Shahbazian <cyrus.shahbazian@gmail.com> Wednesday, October 29, 2014 9:24 PM Joel Rojas So Kim Re: Friday Site Visit & CC Appeal Follow Up Wednesday, October 29, 2014 10:08 PM Flagged Thank you for the confirmation email. I will be at my parents house this Friday, October 31 st, at 10 pm. Again,. in an abundance of caution, I want to clarify that my family's acquiesce in your view assessment is not to be interpreted as a waiver of any type. In regards to the appeal, you are correct. This matter should be heard in its entirety in front of the city counsel, a neutral third party. See you Friday, Cyrus Shahbazian On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Joel Rojas <Joe1R@Kpv.corn> wrote: Cyrus I just want to confirm our conversation from earlier this week that So Kim and I will be meeting you at your parents' property at 10am, this Friday October 31" to do a view assessment related to the re -submitted Fence/Wall Permit. Also, as we discussed, since you made it clear to me that your parents are going to appeal the pending Staff decision, our recommendation to the City Council on November 4"' is to remand the appeal matter back to the Planning Commission so that the Commission can consider the entirety of the proposed wall (Sections A -D) together. The November 4`h City Council Staff Report should be posted on the City's website (www.palosverdes,com/rpv) sometime tomorrow. Joel Cyrus Shahbazian Juris Doctor, 2014 29029 Sprucegrove Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Tel: (310) 404-5104 Email: Cvrns.Sb ahbazian67,1— - ail.coan CONFIDENTfALITY NOTICE This connmunlcation with its contents may contain confidpritill andlof legally p€wileged information. It is solely for the use ofthe intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception_ revievt. Ilse or disclosure is prohibited and may violate: applicable taws including the Electronic Conumunicalions Privacy Act. It you are not the intended recipit;nt, please cot itact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication 1MA So Kim From: Joel Rojas Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 8:25 PM To: Cyrus Shahbazian Cc: Carolynn Petru; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; So Kim; Leza Mikhail; Ara Mihranian Subject: RE: Permit Revocation Update and issues before the City Council Follow Up Flag: Follow Up Due By: Sunday, October 26, 2014 10:40 PM Flag Status: Flagged Cyrus Let me clarify my comments made at our October 21 st meeting about the site visit for the new Fence/Wall Permit that was submitted to replace the revoked Permit. Since I have already been to your parents' property to assess their view from their primary viewing area and said primary view has been documented in photographs, I don't need to perform a site visit to act on the new Fence/wall Permit application. However, because your parents spoke about the view from their kitchen window at the PC meeting, since I have not personally seen the view from said kitchen window, I wanted to extend the courtesy to your parents to see the view they are talking about. I refer to it as a "courtesy" visit because while the view from the kitchen window is not from the protected viewing area, it is nevertheless, important to your parents. Per you mom's invitation on the 21 st, I was all set to visit your parents' property last Thursday. However, at your request on Thursday morning 1 cancelled my visit at your request since you could not be there. I am available tomorrow, Monday, at 1 or 1:0 pm to stop by. Please let me know if that works for you. Joel rojas From: Cyrus Shahbazian <cyrus.shahbazian@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 8:03:34 AM To: Joel Rojas Cc: Carolynn Petru; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; So Kim; Leza Mikhail; Ara Mihranian Subject: Re: Permit Revocation Update and issues before the City Council Mr. Rojas: I apologize for the delayed response. I had so much to say, but I wasn't quite sure how to say it. To recap and clarify the situation fully, on September 23, 1 went to the city to review all documents and records contained in the project/case file. Specifically, I wanted to know how the Planning Department, after being made aware of the then prolonged unpermitted grading, excavation, and alteration of the retaining wall (NOT garden wall) that supported our foundation since our home was built, could have proceeded and represented the situation as they had. Aside from the foundation issues, I wanted to know how a trusted body could continuously ignore each and every one of my parent's statements/pleas for help (both oral and written) clearly stating that they owned the white -lattice fence that was in place for the past 20 years and through July of 2014; same white -lattice fence Ms. Kim saw when she made her first site visit on May 16, her second site visit on May 19, and her third site visit on May 21. It wasn't until I looked through all the documents contained in the project/case file did 1 realized several inconsistencies, contradictions, and falsehoods that the Planning Department was representing and the records that actually existed, or should have existed. So, in addition to seeking an explanation for actions undertaken by the Planning Department, I wanted an explanation as to why the records contained in the projectladdress file completely contradicted what the Planning Department had been continuously representing to my family, as evidence by public records and correspondence since the beginning of this "application" process, and as represented by the August Staff Report drafted by Ms. Kim, the Senior Planner who was assigned to our project. Most notably, i wanted an explanation as to the location/existence of applications that the Senior Planner repeatedly claimed to have been submitted. Keep in mind that at the time of our discussion at the counter that afternoon, I had already spoken to four other Planning Department personnel, including two other planners, each of whom had no explanation for the inconsistencies and contradictions. Given the fact that you, the experienced Director of the Planning Department responsible for signing off on each application, could not provide an explanation even after you had the opportunity to looked through the project file, and four other staff personnel could not explain what was represented with what was true, you could imagine my level of confusion. During our meeting on Tuesday, October 21, with Ms. Kim, Ms. Lynch, and Ms. Petru present, as well as my sister, mother, our contractor, you were supposed to provide an explanation after "further investigation." Aside from missing applications and inconsistencies with what had been repeatedly represented by the Planning Department in public correspondence, you and Ms. Kim sought to explain the issuance of, as what the Planning Department called it, the "after - the -fact" permit for a fence that extended from our front building facade to the rear building facade, the side despite the presence of our white -lattice fence. it should be noted that when I initially asked Ms. Kim about the project file for the so called "after -the -fact permit," file ZON2014-00180, not only did she not know which application I was referring to, she made several other alarming comments. As you recall and as stated in public correspondence, you and Ms. Kim both stated that there was no white -lattice fence at the time of Ms. Kim's site visit. However, just as my parents said since February, during our meeting, we showed you time dated, encrypted photographs that clearly showed the white -lattice fence was up before, during, and after Ms. Kim's site visits. In fact, we even showed you photos that the fence was up through a portion of July. After hearing your and Ms. Kim's explanation of the Planning Department's actions and for the inconsistencies in the Department's representations and documents actually submitted, as well as several statements made during the meeting, it was obvious that you and Ms. Kim were contradicting everything that had been represented up until that point. Shocked and an disbelief, that night, after thinking through the excuses and utterances you and Ms. Kim made, that the reason that there were missing applications, why certain documents were dated in March, and what Ms. Kim was referring to when she wrote "approved as modified" became clear. With regards to the revocation of the erroneous approval issued to the Hessers for the fence/wall along the property line and building facade, you indicated that you could make a "courtesy" visit to determine whether there would be any impairment of a protected view as defined by the code. Based on your statement that the visit does not need to be done, as well as Ms. Kim's August Staff Report stating that there was no view impairment from the garden window, a site visit to assess whether an actual impairment exists would be superfluous. When I called you today, I wanted to make sure that you were not going to make a site visit without me present because, as has been the case, what my parents say is disregarded. I want to clarify that, by allowing you to do your courtesy site visit, my family is not waiving any and all possible claims in this matter. You can understand how/why this entire process has been very disheartening, especially because my parents have been telling you and Ms. Kim all off this since the beginning. At this point, I would feel most comfortable if I were included in any future discussion or correspondence with my parents. Sincerely, Cyrus Shahbazian On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Joel Rojas <LoeIRC�pv.com> wrote: Mr. Shahbazian I want to clarify that when we spoke at the counter on September 23, you sought an explanation of the different Staff actions noted in the "Background" section of Ms. Kim's August 12, 2014 Staff Report to the Planning Commission. Since Ms. Kim was out on maternity leave, I attempted to explain the actions using the project file as a guide. I did note to you some missing information (the application) and some inconsistencies between the process followed and the Cade. As a result, I told you that I would investigate this matter further. I did investigate the matter and spoke to Ms. Kim about it when she returned from her leave and as a result, the approval of Mr. Hesser's new wall has since been revoked. I look forward to our meeting later today so both Ms. Kim and I can walk you through all the steps that were taken with regards to the processing of your neighbors' f=ence/Wall applications, as well as answer whatever questions you may have. Joel Rojas From: Cyrus Shahbazian[mailto:cyrus.shahbazian@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 3:25 PM To: Joel Rojas Cc: Carolynn Petru; Carol Lynch <clynchQarwglaw.coirx>; So Kim; Leza Mikhail; Ara Mihranian Subject: Re: Permit Revocation Update and issues before the City Council Mr. Rojas: Thank you for the confirmation email. I noticed that we had both mistakenly wrote "May 21st" instead of "October 21 st" in our previous email. With respect to the City's involvement in the destruction and removal of our white lattice fence, it is apparent that you are continuing to allege that, despite the nonexistence of an application and its accompanying measurements which an approval is based, the City's issuance and approval of the fence/wall permit was done after our pre-existing white lattice fence had been removed. With all do respect, the supposed existence of city records and apparent recollection of Ms. Kim indicating otherwise is alarming, disconcerting and is a matter than is deserving of internal investigation. If you recall, when I went to the Planning Department on September 23 and personally spoke to you, in addition to the above referenced "missing application," you confirmed the blatant contradictions and inconsistencies between the city records, including dates, and Ms. Kim's staff report. Referenced applications, documents, and dates in the Staff Report were clearly false and contradictory to the file's actual contents. It should be noted that during my September 23 visit when I first asked about how a permit could be issued without an accompanying application or notice, I was handed off to four different staff personnel, which included two Planners, who each provided me with a different explanation. The only fact that was consistent was the fact that no application had been submitted. �i • Based on the recent revocation letter, the city allegedly accepted a nominal fee from the Hessers to determine the type of application that was required and issued an after -the -fact permit for the construction of a fence because the Hessers had constructed a solid wail, which I can only assume to be a reference to the retaining wall that was constructed over 20 years ago when we purchased our property. The significance of the City's most recent rendition is that, aside from being; the fifth explanation I have heard, it is in opposite to and contradicts the very Staff Report she wrote months ago. It is also my understanding that Ms. Kim has recently returned after being on maternity leave and, I am sure, the last thing on her mind was the issuance of a fence/wall permit that was issued months prior. I am sure that whatever the reason for the Planning Department's position, beliefs and representations, as you said, will be straightened out during our meeting tomorrow. Whether a lack of communication or the City's reliance on misrepresentations, your concern and attempt to provide clarity is greatly appreciated. See you tomorrow, Cyrus Shahbazian On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Joel Rojas <JoeIR cr rpv.com> wrote: Dear Mr. Shahbazian Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. We are confirmed to meet on Tuesday, October 21 at Spm in our community development department conference room. I believe Acting City Manager Carolynn Petru will be attending as well. I'm not sure I can explain the disconnect we have about the white lattice fence removal. According to our records and So Kim's recollection, when she went out there for the first time on May 15th to assess the proposed new fence, the pre-existing white trellis fence was not there. She has a photograph of what she saw. She recalls that your parents explained to her that there was a white trellis fence there and were very unhappy that it was removed. Your parents then emailed photos of the pre-existing white lattice fence to So Kim so she could see what was there. Again, nay point in all this is to simply clarify that the removal of the pre-existing 4 white fence was done prior to us processing any permit for its replacement and thus the city's granting of the eventual fence/wall permit did not lead to the destruction of the pre-existing fence as you claim. I'm confident we will be able to straighten all this out when we meet. From: Cyrus Shahbazian <cyrus.shahbazianPgmail.com> Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 7:02.02 PM To: Joel Rojas Cc: Carolynn Petru; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; So Kim; Leza Mikhail; Ara Mihranian Subject: Re: Permit Revocation Update and issues before the City Council Mr. Rojas: Thank you for the email. I think a meeting with your Staff and the City Attorney is a great idea and it is greatly appreciated. l was actually in the process of drafting a response to Ms. Kim's Revocation Letter correcting the inaccurate statements therein when your email was received. As for May 21 st, 3 p.m. works for me. I completely agree with your statement that the Municipal Code does not regulate the removal of private fences. However, l believe you are confused because, as you indicated, the code's silence indicates that the City has no authority to issue a permit that facilitated the destruction and removal of our fence and property. Based on past correspondence, the City was aware that the white -lattice fence was ours. Your confused extends to dates. You indicated that: "City Staff first visited the site to assess the proposed wall that Mr. Hesser wished to install, Staff was surprised to learn that the pre-existing fence had already been removed. As a result, Mr. Hesser was required to pay a penalty fee and his Fence/Permit request was processed as an after -the —fact application." Staff apparently made 3 site visits: May 15th, 19th, and 21st_ While you and your Staff seem to believe our white -lattice fence was removed prior to issuing the May 22 "after -the -fact" approval, we have time -dated photographs and video up to July indicating otherwise. As everyone knows, photographs don't lie_ Anyways, these issues can be further discussed during our May 21st, 3p.m. meeting. See you then! Sincerely, Cyrus Shahbazian On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 1237 PM, Joel Rojas <JoelR6_Drpv.corn> wrote: Dear Mr. Shabazian I have had an opportunity to review the attachment to your October 15, 2014 email in which you raise a number of questions and concerns regarding the Hesser's May 23" Fence/Wall approval. I have copied the contents of that attachment below and provided responses where requested. I should note that you have an incorrect understanding of the City's role in the removal of the pre-existing lattice fence which I explain below. With regards to your request for a meeting, I think it would be beneficial if Staff as well as the City Attorney attended so we will be able to address all of your issues. The City Attorney is going to be here next week. Let me know if you are available to meet on the afternoon of May 21" sometime after Spm? Joel Rojas Mr. Rojas: Thank you for your email response. I apologize for the delay. It is my understanding that, based on your email, the Hesser's May 23 Fence/Wall approval is being revoked. However, as I indicated earlier, there are additional areas that need further clarification. As you are aware, my family"s 4'0" white lattice fence existed along the property line when the PIanning Department erroneously granted Mr. Hesser the permit. As a direct result of the City's error, Mr. Hesser destroyed our fence and constructed a brown 6.5'-7' fence on the existing 3'0" retaining wall. While I am pleased to see that the entire fence/wall is now subject to appeal, I believe that the Planning Department's responsibility and participation requires more. In reviewing the Municipal Code, I would like to know what grant of authority the Planning Department was operating that allowed it to facilitate the destruction and replacement of what had been our fence for the proceeding 20 years? I believe you are confused because the City's Code dues not regulate the removal ofprik-site fences or walls_ it only regulates the installation of fences or walls. Since there is no City code that requires that private property be fenced there is no need for a resident to seek Cit; approval to remove a pre-existirtp fence. Thus. xvhile I understand your concerti a%ith Mr. Hesser's reinoval of the pre-existing white lattice fence between your two properties, the City had no say in its removal. In fact, when City Staff first visited the site to assess the proposed wall. that Mr. I lesser wished to install, Staff `gas surprised to learnt that the pre-existing- fence had already been removed. As a result. Mr. Hesser was required to pay a penalty fee and his Fence/permit request was processed as an after -the —fact application, The City decision allowed the new replacement Lyall to remain, Even before the permit was granted, my parents had been pleading to the City that the Hessers were undertaking construction along the property line. The city made it clear they do not get involved in those types of disputes. However, this appears to be completely contradictory because, by erroneously granting of the permit, the City's involvement is what led to the destruction of our white -lattice fence. But for this "permit," our white -lattice fence would still stand. Is the city going to pay for the property damage done by Mr. Hesser as a result of this erroneous permit? As you can see, merely allowing my family the opportunity to appeal, while appreciated, alone would be insufficient and a great injustice. The record shows that your parents raised a number of concerns with City Staff regarding the sections of your neighbors. The allegations of trespassing, fence removal and damage to your property were not pursued by the City as these as private civil matters to be resolved between you and your neighbors. The allegations of work or improvements performed without City approval were pursued by the City where it was verified that such improvements needed City approval. Secondly, your email indicated that you are revoking the permit because the correct process was not followed, as per our conversation. When I went to the city and discussed the permit application process with you and how the Hesser's approval deviated from the code's requirements, you and I reviewed each and every document in the project and address file. If you recall, a Fence/Wall Permit application was NEVER submitted by the Hessers with respect to the side fence. So although you indicate that the permit is being A-101 revoked because the correct process was not followed, how could there be a process at all without an application providing a project description etc.? Similarly, you indicated that a new notice of decision is being issued which my family will have the opportunity to appeal. Again, how can the City even issue a notice of decision without a permit application or standards by which to even base a decision? My research of the relevant municipal code sections and application requirements suggests that no such authority exists. While a completed and signed application was not submitted when the site visit lee was paid by Mr. 1 -lesser oil Ma,, 7, 2014, a side vices diagraaxi. of the proposed fence `wall was submitted. The submitted diagran3 included a project description that broke down the proposed fence/'wall into 4 distinct sections (A -D) and identified the proposed height and length of etch section. This was SUf`ficient information for Staff to process the request. ,\. new Notice of Decision will not be issued until a completed Fence/Wali Peri -nit Application is Submitted by Nlr. or Mrs. Ilesser. I understand that this is the first dispute the City has had since the amendment of MC §17.76.030 and it is a learning process. However, that does not justify or excuse the fact that every mistake that has been made has been to the benefit of the Hessers and the detriment to my family and I_ The deck is another example of the City's disparate treatment of my family. Months ago, my father submitted the permit application and was required to pay all fees and the substantial penalty upfront. After being required to pay all fees up front, the City then continued reject plans that had been "stamped" by a contractor and engineer, and required him to resubmit them several times for issues as minute as a difference in 1" from the plans and measurement. Throughout the process, my parents were never informed or provided any information that there was a time period that the City had to "approve" the application. On the other hand, each and every construction project undertaken by the Hessers, whether or not an application was fled, has been approved by the Planning Department without issue, expense, or delay. Many of these projects approved by the Planning Department,. to my understanding, would not pass Building and Safety. This is not meant to complain about what the Hessers are doing on their property, because, in all honesty, I couldn't care less. It is merely being used to demonstrate the obstacles my parents have had to overcome. Given the; situation between you and your neighbor, we have strived to treat each party equally and fairly. How -ever. given that Your parents are trying to obtain after-the—fiiet approval for a rather large deck over an extreme slope, please understand that the City's review process for that type, of application is much more involved than the more simplified City review process fir a fence, privacy wall, pond, fire pit, and A/C unit that have been approved on your neighbor's property. Unfortunately, due to inconsistencies between your parents' submitted deck plans and existing field conditions, a lot of time and energy was spent trying to get the plans correct. Fortunately, the plans have been corrected and clarified and we are close to making a decision on said approval request. At the outset of this convoluted dispute, my parents sought refuge in the City. But to no avail, their voices were silenced and their concerns pushed aside. The facts and circumstances I have presented since my involvement in August, which has exposed the Hesser's and the City's clear deviation of the Municipal Code's requirements, are the same facts and circumstances my parents presented. You can understand how the progression of this dispute and the manner by with the City has handled it has caused my family great frustration and distress. Today. I responded to Mr. Hesser's email addressed to Mr. Helfman and proposed that the fence be returned to its construction prior to the commencement of this dispute; the condition prior to the City's erroneous approval. 1 know that the forgoing is a lot to absorb. It may be best to set up a meeting to discuss, among other things, the side fence. Also, because you indicated that we have a hearing with the City Council set for November 41h the sooner we meet, the better. You can call or email me at your earliest convenience (310) 404-5104. 1 look forward to hearing from you. Best, Cyrus Shahbazian From: Cyrus Shahbazian[mailto:cyrus.shahbazian2gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 12:19 PM To: Joel Rojas Cc: CC; PC Subject: Permit Revocation Update and issues before the City Council Mr. Rojas:. Thank you for your email. During our telephone conversation yesterday, I indicated that I had several questions and concerns I wanted you to address with respect to the process undertaken by the Planning Department when it issued the erroneous permit. Attached is my response to your previous email indicating A-103 that you have verified the permit application process was not followed and are revoking the Hesser's Fence/Wall approval. 1 hope you can understand how this process has impacted and frustrated my family. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Cyrus Shahbazian Cyrus Shahbazian Juris Doctor, 2014 29029 Sprucegrove Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Tel: (310) 404-5104 Email: Cynis.Shahbazian(a-rginail.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This communication with its contents may contain confidential and -'or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended rocipient(s) Unauthorized interception, review. Use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Coinmunicalions Privacy Act If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the cnmmunicetic n 10 A-1 04 So Kim From: Cyrus Shahbazian <cyrus.shahbazian@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 1:09 PM To: So Kim Subject: Re: Fence/Wall Permit Hi Ms. Kirn: Glad to see you are back! Hope you are feeling well. I apologize for the delay in response. Given the fact that I will be seeing you in about an hour or so (I assume), might be easier to schedule then. See you soon? Best, Cyrus On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 3:04 PM, So Kim <SoK(cv �cotn> wrote: Hi Cyrus, As you are aware, the City sent a letter to Mr. Hesser, informing him of the Director's intent to revoke his approval of the solid fence along the side yard. He accepted the revocation and therefore the Director's decision is final. The letter gave him two optians: either remove the solid fence within 30 days or submit a new Fence/Wall Permit application. In response, he submitted a new Fence/Wall Permit application with plans last Friday, requesting approval. As such, Staff would like to conduct a site visit to your parent's property sometime this week. Director Rojas and I are available tomorrow (Tue) between 10am and Spm or on Wednesday after fpm. Please let me know what day/time would work best for you.. Sincerely, So Kim Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes www.Dalosverdes.com/rov (310) 544-5228 1 A-1 05 Cyrus Shahbazian Juris Doctor, 2014 29029 Sprucegrove Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Tel: (310) 404-5104 Email: Cyrus. ShahbazianCi,gmEtiIxom C©NFIDENTIAt_ITY NOTICE. This communication Lyth its contents may contain confidential andlor legally privileged information It is solely for the use of tiie intended recipient(s) Unauthorized interception. review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may vtolale applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender and destroy afl copes of the communication A-106 So Kim From: Joel Rojas Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 5:13 PM To: Cyrus Shahbazian Cc: So Kim; Ara Mihranian; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; Carolynn Petru Subject: FW: Revocation of Planning Clearances Attachments: Revocation Letter (10-15-14).pdf; Residential -Plan ning-Application.pdf Cyrus Here is the letter that was just sent to Mr. and Mrs. Hesser. Joel From: So Kim Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 4:43 PM To: Brenda & Alan Hesser Cc: Joel Rojas Subject: Revocation of Planning Clearances Hi Mr. Hesser, Attached is the revocation letter. Also attached is a uniform planning application for a Fence/Wall Permit. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Sincerely, So Kim Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes www.t)alosverdes.com/rov (310) 544-5228 A-1 07 C ITV OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT October 15, 2014 Darrel & Brenda Hesser 29023 Sprucegrove Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear Mr. & Mrs- Hesser: This letter serves as a summary of actions the City is taking with regards to the followingtwo issues: 1) detached trellis/privacy wall and 2) solid wood barrier on top of an existing garden wall along the south side property line adjacent to your residence. 1) Detached Trellis / Privacy Wall On July 17, 2014, you submitted and obtained Planning Division approval of a Minor Site Plan Review application that allowed the construction of a 12' tall detachedtrellia in the rear yard of your property (ZON2014-00286). The approval was granted by the City because the trellis met the City's definition of an accessory structure as well as the development standards for said structure. After the detached trellis was installed, Staff received a letter from your neighbor's attorney stating that the structure met the City's definition of a fence or wall and should be regulated as such. Based on a site visit. I performed and a review of the Code, it was determined that the structure also met the City's definition of a "wall". As such, it was determined that the privacy wall needed to be lowered to 7'. Since you lowered the privacy wall from 12' to 7', it no longer requires City approval, provided- that the wall is outside the minimum required side yard setback of 5'. As such, please submit a survey wet stamped by a surveyor or civil engineer that confirms that the 7' tall privacy wall is located at least 5' away from the side yard property line. The City will issue a $330 refund for the Minor Site Plan Review application fee you submitted for case no. ZON2014-00286 once said survey is submitted. 2} Solid Wood Barrier on top of an existing garden wall along the south side property line On May 7, 2014, you submitted a Fence/Wall Permit site inspection fee of $202 and a plan in order for Staff to determine the type of application process required for the installation of a solid wood barrier on top of an existing garden wall along the south side property line located between your residence and your neighbor's residence. Staff conducted a few site visits and discovered that the solid wall was already installed and determined that it caused no view impacts from the viewing area of the abutting property at 29029 Sprucegrove Drive. Since the wall was installed prior to obtaining City entitlements, you paid an additional $198 in penalty fees and the City issued an after -the -fact approval on May 22, 2014 to allow the solid wood barrier on top of an existing garden wall along the south side property line (ZON2014-00180) to remain. Subsequently, on May 23, 2014, Staff mailed a letter to the adjacent property owner at 29029 Sprucegrove Drive informing them of this approval. 30940 HAWTHORNE BLvD / RANCHO PALOS VEROES, CA 90275-5391 PLANNING & CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION 13101 544-5228 f BUILDING & SAFETY DIVISION (310) 265,7800 / DEPT. FAX (310) 544-5293 E-MAIL. PLANNING@RPVCOM f WWWRAIOSVERDES.COMIRPV I , • U I have recently reviewed the processing of the May 22, 2014 approval and have determined that Staff did not follow all the procedural requirements of Section 17.76.030 of the Code pertaining to the processing of said Fence/Wall Permit. More specifically, while the Code requires the submittal of an application along with the site inspection fee, Staff considered the submittal of a fee and plans to function as the application. In hindsight, a completed application should have also been submitted bythe applicant. Additionally, the Code allows an adjacent property owner to appeal the Director's decision to the Planning Commission. However, Staff s letter sent to the adjacent property owner at 29029 Sprucegrove Drive did not mention the process for filing an appeal. As a result, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.86.060 (Suspension or Revocation of Permits), I intend to revoke the approval of Minor Site Plan Review application (ZON2014-00180) made on May 22, 2014, allowing a solid wood barrier on top of an existing garden wall along the south side property line, as said approval was issued contrary to the provision of the Municipal Code. You have ten (10) calendar days from the date of this notice (by October 27, 2014, since the 10th day falls on a Saturday) to be heard on this proposed revocation. The revocation will occur after October 27, 2014 if you do not seek to be heard on the revocation or sooner if you acknowledge in writing that you accept said revocation. Once the revocation occurs, you will have 30 days to either remove the wail which was the subject of this revoked approval or submit a new Fence/Wall Permit application (enclosed) to allow the fence/wall to remain. No fees will be charged for the new application as the previous approval was incorrectly processed by Staff. If you submit a new application, a new decision will be made and a formal Notice of Decision will be provided to you and all interested parties. if an interested party decides to file an appeal within the 15 -day appeal period following the Notice of Decision, it will be heard at a future Planning Commission hearing together with the pending appeal of case no. ZON2014-00202 (Fence/Wall Permit). This is because we believe that the Fence/Walf Permit for the portion of the barrier between your residence and your neighbor's residence and the FencelWalf Permit for the barrier beyond the facade of your two residences should be evaluated as a single Fence/Wall Permit. To achieve this, at the scheduled November 4th City Council appeal hearing of case no. ZON2014-00202, Staff will recommend that the City Council remand the item back to the Planning Commission so that this item can be heard together with case no. ZON2014-00180 (solid wall barrier on top of an existing garden wall). If an appeal is not submitted within the 15 -day appeal period following the Notice of Decision, the approval of case no. ZON2014-00180 (solid wall barrier on top of an existing garden wall) will be final and the pending November 4th City Council appeal hearing of case no. ZON2014-00202 (Fence/Wall Permit) will continue to proceed independently. The City apologizes for any confusion this may have caused and appreciates your patience throughout this process. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at (310) 544-5228 or ioelrrpv.com. Si cerely, oel ojas C munity Development Director UASTIVZ Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Phone: (310) 544-5228 Fax: (310) 544-5293 planningQrpv.com www.palosverdes.com/rpv RESIDENTIAL PLANNING APPLICATION Planning Case No: Project Address: APPLICATION(S) (PkPast- shark all that annlvl- (To be assigned by City Staff) CONTACT INFORMATION PROPERTY OWNER: Name Address City State Zip. APPLICANT: Name Address City Telephone Teleph Email Email City Business License No. (Required for architects and design professionals) PROJECT DESCRIPTION (Use additional paper, if needed) State - zip - Rev. 111712012 A-110 Site Plan Review Major ❑ Grading Permit ❑ Height Variation ❑ Extreme Slope Permit ❑ Fence, Wall and Hedge Permit ❑ Revision/Amendment ❑ Coastal Permit Appealable or Non -appealable? El Minor Exception Permit ❑Variance Landslide Moratorium Exception ❑ Geologic Investigation Permit ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Other Application: Additional Reviews: ❑ Neighborhood Compatibility Analysis ❑. Foliage Analysis CONTACT INFORMATION PROPERTY OWNER: Name Address City State Zip. APPLICANT: Name Address City Telephone Teleph Email Email City Business License No. (Required for architects and design professionals) PROJECT DESCRIPTION (Use additional paper, if needed) State - zip - Rev. 111712012 A-110 PROJECT INFORMATION A. EXISTING DEVELOPMENT 1. Square footage of Lot 2. Square footage of total existing floor area: First Story Second Story Garage Other (accessory structures) 3. Square footage of existing structure footprint (including any accessory structures, attached or detached) 4. Square footage of driveways, parking areas and impervious surfaces (EXEMPT: impervious surfaces less than 5 feet in width and/or one patio areas less than 500 square feet in areas) 5. Square footage of existing lot coverage (line A3 + line A41 6. Percentage of existing lot coverage [line A5 line Al x 100] 7. Height of existing structure, as measured from highest point of exist. grade covered by structure to the highest ridgeline (for structures on sloping lots, please refer to the Height Variation guidelines handout for height require.) B. PROPOSED Development 1. Square footage of proposed new floor area: First Story Second Story Garage Other (accessory structures) 2. TOTAL square footage of structure footprint (existing + new) 3. TOTAL square footage of driveways, parking areas and impervious surfaces (existing + new) (EXEMPT: impervious surfaces less than 5 feet in width andlor one patio areas less than 500 square feet in areas) 4. TOTAL square footage of proposed lot coverage [line B2 + line 133] 5. Percentage of new lot coverage pine B4 + line Al x 100] 6. Height of proposed structure, as measured from highest point of exist. grade covered by structure to the highest ridgeline (for structures on sloping lots, please refer to the Height Variation guidelines, handout for height restrictions) 7. Linear feet of existing interior and exterior walls (If demolishing 25% or more) C. GRADING INFORMATION Cubic yards of: Fill Maximum height of: Fill Cubic yards of: Import + Cut Cut (to bottom of footing) Export Linear feet of walls to be demolished = TOTAL D. HEIGHT VARIATION EARLY NEIGHBORHOOD CONSULTATION PROCESS 1. Number of individual parcels under separate ownership within 500 foot radius of subject parcel 2. Number of individual parcels under separate ownership within 100 foot radius of subject parcel 3. Number of total signatures within 500 foot radius Percentage of total (D1 + D3 x 100) 4. Number of total signatures within 100 foot radius Percentage of total (D2 _ D4 x 100) 2 A-111 INFORMATION TO DETERMINE 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 and which can be used as a gathering space and viewing area (i.e., decks, covered patios)? Yes 11 No ❑ 2. Does the proposed project involve an addition or structure which consists of 120 square feet or more of habitable space (i.e., room expansions, additions, conversions)? Yes El 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 & SUBSTANCE 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 8122/2012): 30940 Hawthorne Blvd I City Hall J Civic Center 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: 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. Property Owner Signature Date A-112 So Kim From: Joel Rojas Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 5:15 PM To: Cyrus Shahbazian Cc: Leza Mikhail; So Kim; Ara Mihranian Subject: RE: Update Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Cyrus I was able to verify all the facts about the processing of Mr. Hesser's application regarding the fence/wall approved on May 23. Thus, as stated below we will be revoking this approval since the correct process was not followed. The revocation letter is set to go out tomorrow. Also, we have scheduled your appeal hearing for the November 411' City Council meeting. As explained below, if you appeal the new notice of decision that will be issued on the portion of wall between the two houses, our recommendation to the City Council will be to remand the matter back to the PC so that the entirety of the wall can be re -considered by the PC. Joel From: Joel Rojas Sent: Friday, October 03, 2014 4:03 PM To: 'Cyrus Shahbazian' Subject: RE: Update Cyrus have had an opportunity to discuss the matter with the city attorney who agrees with me that it appears the new code process for Fence/wall permits was not followed to the letter of the code with regards to the portion of the wall between the two houses. However, because So Kim is out on maternity leave, we need to make sure that there is no more information that was submitted to her that may be in a file in her office that we're not aware of. Thus, I have asked Mr. Hesser to confirm everything that he submitted to the City and I am in the process of conducting a thorough search of So's office. Barring any new information that we uncover, we intend to revoke the May 23rd decision and issue a new decision with an opportunity for appeal. If an appeal is submitted, we would then present your PC appeal to the City Council with a recommendation to remand the matter back to the PC so that the PC can hear the appeal on the entirety of the proposed wall/fence at the same time. We would do this without the need for payment of additional appeal fees since you have already paid the required appeal fees. I'm hoping to get the revocation letter out to the Hesser's by the end of next week. Joel From: Cyrus Shahbazian[mailto:cyrus.shahbazian@Bmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 03, 2014 1.1:05 AM A-113 To: Joel Rojas Subject: Update Good Morning Mr. Rojas: I am sure you have been preoccupied with other matters, but I wanted to inquire about any updates regarding the date of the next appeal (city council), as well as an update on the issues concerning the fence along the side yard (as per our discussion about insufficient notice etc). I know you had indicated that you needed to speak with the city attorney about how to proceed, so I was just wondering if that has been done. This has been a prolonged process and I think everyone is ready for it to be over, including the planning department? Anyways, I appreciate your impartiality throughout this process, even though tempers flared and emotions got involved. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Cyrus Shahbazian Cyrus Shahbazian Juris Doctor, 2014 29029 Sprucegrove Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Tel: (310) 404-5104 Email: Cvrus.ShahbazianLgmaiI.com CONFIDENTiALiTY NOTICE- This comrnunicafion with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. tf you are not the sntended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all cop'€es of the communication A-114 So Kim From: Joel Rojas Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 8:39 AM To: D. Alan Hesser Jr Cc: So Kim Subject: RE: Fence Mr. Hesser As noted in the revocation letter, if the Shahbazian's do not appeal the new Notice of Decision, the appeal hearing on solely the PC decision will occur on Nov. 4th. If they do appeal it, our recommendation to the city council will be to not conduct the appeal hearing but to remand the appeal back to the PC so they can hear the appeal of the new Notice of Decision together with their previous decision. So, yes, if the Shabazian"s appeal this new Notice of Decision there will be delay. Joel -----Original Message ----- From: D. Alan Hesser Jr (mailto:dhesser@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 6:19 PM To: Joel Rojas Cc: So Kim Subject: Re: Fence Thank You—that makes sense... But that was actually my point... There is no living room sliding glass window ... or wails that surrounded it ...or portion of wall between our houses... and will that delay or effect the process...? > On Oct 20, 2014, at 5:48 PM, Joel Rojas <JoelR@rpv.com> wrote: > Mr. Hesser > There is no additional delay as this is the regular process that we must follow. My expectation is that will have the site visit and decision done this week. Our intent is to perform the view analysis from the same location as their other application, which is the living room sliding glass window. > Joel > > From: D. Alan Hesser Jr <dhesser@yahoo.com> > Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 4:37:56 PM > To: Joel Rojas > Subject: Re: Fence > > I have two questions--- * 1) does this mean there is another delay in the the process? > 2) does this mean that you will consider the fact that to gain this supposed view impairment that they have torn out the last two feet of the rear facade and one foot of the wall around the corner to achieve this new "view"? >> On Oct 20, 2014, at 2:49 PM, Joel Rojas <JoeIR@rpv.com> wrote: 1 A-115 >> Mr. Hesser I would be glad to go over your processing questions on Thursday when we meet. I should clarify that given your submittal of the formal application on Friday, we do need to schedule a site visit to view the wall from the shahbazian's viewing area since they are on record stating that they believe the wall would impair their view. Not until we conduct said visit, will we will be able to make a formal decision on your application. We just need to make sure we follow all the review procedures. >> Joel >> From: So Kim >> Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 11:35:13 AM >> To: D. Alan Hesser Jr >> Cc: Joel Rojas >> Subject: RF: Fence » >> Hi Mr. Hesser, >> Ok, thank you. » >> Sincerely, >> So Kim >> Senior Planner >> City of Rancho Palos Verdes >> www.palosverdes.com/rpv >> (310) 544-5228 -----Original Message----- » From: D. Alan Hesser Jr (mailto:dhesser@yahoo.coml >> Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 11:27 AM >> To: So Kim >> Subject: Re: Fence >> Ok... >> But to actually answer your question...Yes to both revocations... [am >> supposed to get the setback verification sometime this week... » >> PS... >> Do you have the new approval and notice of decision available? >> On Oct 20, 2014, at 10:07 AM, So Kim <SoK@rpv.com> wrote: >>> Hi Mr. Hesser, >>> Just for clarification purposes: »7 >>> 1) Your previous approval for the side yard fence will be revoked. A new approval has been issued last Friday, and a Notice of Decision will be mailed out today, providing adjacent property owners an opportunity to appeal. >>> 2) If this is NOT appealed, the approval over-the-counter will be final. The pending appeal will continue independently. >>> 3) If it is appealed, it will be subject to an appeal hearing and we will recommend that the pending appeal be remanded back to the Planning Commission so that both fences will be heard together as a single matter at an appeal hearing. E A-116 >>> If this is not what you're understanding, we can discuss this further at our upcoming meeting. >>> Sincerely, >>> So Kim >>> Senior Planner >>> City of Rancho Palos Verdes >>> www,palosverdes.com/rpv >>> (310) 544-5228 >>> -----Original Message ----- >>> From: D, Alan Hesser Jr [ma ilto:dhesser@yahoo.com] >>> Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 10:01 AM >>> To: So Kim >>> Subject: Re: Fence >>> As I understand the process at this time... »> >>> the permit will be revoked and re -issued based on the two findings >>> made >>> A letter goes out informing adjacent neighbor of the decision...giving them the opportunity to appeal the "Initial Site Visit Decision" >>> ...based on the two findings for View Impairment and Foliage... >>> If the decision is appealed based on one of those two criteria—and is successful... The application is subject to the full application process and associated additional findings along with the other fence application. >>> If the decision is upheld ... then it is approved and the other fence application goes forward. >>> If this is the case then Yes... >>> Otherwise... >>> As we want to make sure that the process is stricly followed, we need to talk about the process. >>> On Oct 20, 2014, at 9:38 AM, So Kira <SoK@rpv.com> wrote: »» Hi Mr. Hesser, »» In submitting a new application/plans for the side yard fence last Friday, may I assume that you are accepting the revocation of the previous permit for the same fence and the withdrawal of the trellis application? »» Sincerely, »» So Kim »» Senior Planner »» City of Rancho Palos Verdes »» www.palosverdes.com/rpv »» (310) 544-5228 »>7 »» -----Original Message----- »» From: So Kim »» Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 9:38 AM »» To: 'D. Alan Hesser Jr' 3 A-117 »» Cc: Joel Rojas »» Subject: RE: Fence »» Hi Mr. Hesser, »» Ok, Thursday 4:30pm confirmed. The meeting will be in the Conference Room in our office. See you then. »» Sincerely, »» So Kim »» Senior Planner >>>> City of Rancho Palos Verdes »» www.palosverdes.com/rpv »» (310) 544-5228 »» »» -----Original Message----- »» From: D. Alan Hesser Jr [mailto:dhesser@yahoo.com] »» Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 9:37 AM »» To: So Kim »» Subject: Re: Fence »» That will work... »» On Oct 20, 2014, at 8:35 AM, So Kim <SoK@rpv.com> wrote: »»> Hi Mr. Hesser, >>> We can both be available at Thur 4:30pm. Would that work for you? »»> Sincerely, »»> So Kim »»> Senior Planner »»> City of Rancho Palos Verdes »»> www.palosverdes.com/rpv »»> (310) 544-5228 »»> -----Original Message----- »»> From: D. Alan Hesser Jr [mailto:dhesser@yahoo.com] »»> Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 8:08 AM »»> To: So Kim »»> Subject: Re: Fence »»> I am available Tuesday/Thursday afternoon (same time 2 or later) and Friday at any time... »»> On Oct 20, 2014, at 7:42 AM, So Kim <SoK@rpv.com> wrote: »»» Hi Mr. Hesser, »»» I am available anytime after lunch. However, Mr. Rojas is not available today. »»» if you would like to meet with Mr. Rojas, I will schedule an apps. for you. Please let me know your preference. »»» »»» Sincerely, »»» So Kim »»» Senior Planner »»» City of Rancho Palos Verdes »»» www.palosverdes.com/rpv 4 A-118 »»» (310) 544-5228 »»» »»» -----Original Message----- »»» From: D. Alan Flesser Jr [mailto:dhesser@yahoo.com) »»» Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 2:43 AM »»» To: So Kim »»» Cc: Joel Rojas »» Subject: Fence »»» »»» Good Morning »»» I was wonder if i could come by today after lunch and go over the process and ask a few questions. »»» (Possible with Mr Rojas also) »»» Thank You »»» » A-119 So Kim From: D. Alan Hesser Jr < dhesser@yahoo.com > Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 10:47 AM To: So Kim Subject: Re. -Fence OK ... we can discuss... Our main problem is that is has taken us 6 months to get here... We don't want to have to start all over again... The decision on fence C has already been made and passed on, and only needs to be heard "with the other fence" if the Fence A/B Decision is successfully appealed and declared tho be in the same category as fence C. With the unlikeliness of a successful appeal of the initial site visit, we do not foresee the likelihood of the two permits every needing to be heard together...and reargued. We want to make sure that it moves forward as soon as possible... and not be dragged in Circles to From Planning Commission—to City Council ... to Planning Commission(again) and back to City council (again). As the appeal of the Initial Site Visit decision is much simpler... based on only two criteria ... and much easier to schedule and bring to a conclusion: We would like to look at what you see for as a schedule of events and decide if we want to temporarily withdraw/hold fence C until the front fence issue is resolved, I will come by this afternoon to get some clarification on the process. On Oct 20, 2014, at 10:07 AM, So Kim <SoK@rpv.eom> wrote: > Hi Mr. Hesser, > Just for clarification purposes: > 1) Your previous approval for the side yard fence will be revoked. A new approval has been issued last Friday, and a Notice of Decision will be mailed out today, providing adjacent property owners an opportunity to appeal. > 2) If this is NOT appealed, the approval over-the-counter will be final. The pending appeal will continue independently. > 3) if it is appealed, it will be subject to an appeal hearing and we will recommend that the pending appeal be remanded back to the Planning Commission so that both fences will be heard together as a single matter at an appeal hearing. > > If this is not what you're understanding, we can discuss this further at our upcoming meeting. > Sincerely, > So Kim > Senior Planner > City of Rancho Palos Verdes > www.palosverdes.com/rpv A-120 > (310) 544-5228 > -----Original Message----- > From: D. Alan Hesser Jr [mailto:dhesser@yahoo.com] > Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 10:01 AM > To: So Kim > Subject: Re: Fence > > As I understand the process at this time... > > the permit will be revoked and re -issued based on the two findings > made > A letter goes out informing adjacent neighbor of the decision...giving them the opportunity to appeal the "Initial Site Visit Decision" > ...based on the two findings for View Impairment and Foliage... > If the decision is appealed based on one of those two criteria ... and is successful... The application is subject to the full application process and associated additional findings along with the other fence application. > If the decision is upheld ... then it is approved and the other fence application goes forward. > If this is the case then Yes... > Otherwise... > As we want to make sure that the process is stricly followed, we need to talk about the process. > On Oct 20, 2014, at 9:38 AM, So Kim <SoK@rpv.com> wrote: >> Hi Mr. Hesser, >> In submitting a new application/plans for the side yard fence last Friday, may i assume that you are accepting the revocation of the previous permit for the same fence and the withdrawal of the trellis application? >> Sincerely, >> So Kim Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes >> www.palosverdes_com/rpv (310) 544-5228 >> -----Original Message----- » From: 5o Kim >> Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 9:38 AM >> To: 'D. Alan Hesser Jr" >> Cc: Joel Rojas >> Subject: RE: Fence >> Hi Mr. Hesser, >> Ok, Thursday 4:30pm confirmed. The meeting will be in the Conference Room in our office. See you then. » >> Sincerely, >> So Kim rJ A-121 >> Senior Planner >> City of Rancho Palos Verdes >> www.palosverdes.com/rpv >> (310) 544-5228 -----Original Message----- » From: D. Alan Hesser Jr [mailto:dhesser@yahoo.com] >> Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 9:37 AM >> To: So Kim >> Subject: Re: Fence » >> That will work... >> On Oct 20, 2014, at 8:35 AM, So Kim <SOK@rpv.com> wrote: >>> Hi Mr. Hesser, >>> We can both be available at Thur 4.30pm. Would that work for you? »> >>> Sincerely, >>> So Kim >>> Senior Planner >>> City of Rancho Palos Verdes >>> www.palosverdes.com/rpv >>> (310) 544-5228 »> >>> -----Original Message ----- >>> From: D. Alan Hesser Jr [mailto:dhesser@yahoo.com] >>> Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 8:08 AM >>> To: So Kim >>> Subject: Re: Fence >>> I am available Tuesday/Thursday afternoon (same time 2 or later) and Friday at any time... >>> On Oct 20, 2014, at 7:42 AM, So Kira <SoK@rpv.com> wrote: »» Hi Mr. Hesser, »» I am available any time after lunch. However, Mr. Rojas is not available today. »» If you would like to meet with Mr. Rojas, I will schedule an appt. for you. Please let me know your preference. a»> »» Sincerely, »» So Kim »» Senior Planner »» City of Rancho Palos Verdes »» www.palosverdes.com/rpv »» (310) 544-5228 »» -----Original Message----- »» From: D. Alan Hesser Jr [mailto:dhesser@yahoo.com] »» Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 7:43 AM »» To: So Kim »» Cc: Joel Rojas »» Subject: Fence 3 A-122 »» Good Morning »» I was wonder if I could come by today after lunch and go over the process and ask a few questions. »» (Possible with Mr Rojas also) »» Thank You » A-123 So Kim From: Cyrus Shahbazian <cyrus.shahbazian@gmail-com> Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 9:40 AM To: dhesser@yahoo,com Cc: PC; Joel Rojas; Leza Mikhail; So Kim Subject: Response to Oct. 10th email to Mr. Helfman Attachments: Email to Mr. Hesser .docx Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Mr. Hessen Attached is a document responding to the comments, questions, and concerns stated in your October 10th email (and attachments) addressed to Mr. Helfman, as I understood them to be. In looking forward, I hope we can put an end to this prolonged and overdue dispute. Best, Cyrus Shahbazian Cyrus Shahbazian Juris Doctor, 2014 29029 Sprucegrove Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Tel: (310) 404-5104 Email: Cyrus. Shahbazian(agmail.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE. This communication with its contents may contain confidential and'or legally privileged information. it is solety for the use of the intended recipient(s) Unauthmized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the mterlded rebpiank. please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication 1 A-124 +CYRUS SHAHBAZTAN 29029 Sprueegrove Drive, RPV, CA 90275 Tele: (310) 404-5104 Email: Cyrus_Shahbazianngnlail.corn TO: Mr. and Ms. Hesser FROM: Cyrus Shahbazian RE: Response to Mr. Hessers email DATE: October 14, 2014 Mr. Hesser: I was forwarded the email you sent to Mr. Helftnan regarding an apparent conversation you had with him over the weekend (October 4th or 5Eh). As he mentioned, I have been in communication with the city and believe it would be most appropriate that I respond to your email on behalf of my parents. I appreciate your show of a willingness to compromise. At the end of the day, we are neighbors. As neighbors, we should watch out for each other, ensure each other's families are safe, and ensure our neighborhood is safe. While the dispute between our families began as a neighborly disagreement over the height of a fence, the events that have transpired since its inception has caused it to drastically escalate. With that in mind, just as my family had been all along, we are willing to compromise and move forward with our lives. Respectfully, Mr. Hesser, your email appears to be misleading and create many misconceptions. Without context, a plain reading of your email and the documents attached would lead one to believe that you have been entirely forthcoming and eager to compromise with my family. Unfortunately, when your family's concerns surfaced in February of this year, I was away and unaware of the surrounding circumstances. When I interjected in August, I was able to think rationally and objectively because my limited knowledge and involvement kept me disengaged. At the time, based on ability to think objectively and my experiences during our prior interactions, which, although scarce, were cordial and respectful, I believed that I would be able to facilitate a compromise between you and my family that would end the dispute before substantial amounts of time and money were spent. In August, I initiated a conversation with you without having a complete or accurate understanding of the facts and circumstances as they existed, believing that an early end to what began as a neighborly dispute would serve all our interests. As a result of my desire to reach a resolution on that August night, the proposal you cite in your email was drafted on behalf of my parents. I am pleased to see that you have given thought to my family's August proposal. However, your email appears to take the proposal out of context by containing misstatements and misconceptions. As you may recall, when I presented the proposal to you, I emphasized the fact that it was drafted holistically, meant to be all encompassing so as to avoid any prolonged and convoluted negotiations_ I recall Mr. Helfman making a similar representation. Evidently, your piecemeal approach deviates both from our August discussion and mutual understanding of the all-inclusive nature of the proposal. Furthermore, your email appears to disregard what I had spent a considerable amount of time emphasizing; each portion in the proposal was necessary and dependent on the other. Again, as indicated when the proposal was presented and because it was intended to resolve all existing issues, the individual portions concerning the side fence, rear fence, deck, and trellis and the specifies contained therein were included after considering what you and my parents represented to be most important areas in an overall effort to reach a "package" compromise. A-125 Based on your email, it appears as thought you have been eager to compromise and reach a resolution throughout this process. However, I have great skepticism in the sincerity of your claimed desire to compromise and truly question the motive underlying your statements as a result of actions taken subsequent to my August proposal. After I presented the proposal to you and your wife, you unambiguously indicated that you had to "sleep on it" and would "get back to us" within a day or two. From that point until your October conversation with Mr. Helfman, neither me, my family, nor Mr. Helfman, heard from you. Even if you were hesitant in speaking with my parents or Mr. Hclfman, based on you and your wife's comments on August 9th indicating that you were comfortable communicating with me, you could have approached, called, or emailed me. I believe that if you truly wanted to compromise, you would have approached me individually, just as I did in August. It has now been over a week since your encounter with Mr. Helfman and I am not aware of any attempt to contact me or my parents. Lastly, your email makes reference to "previous offers" remaining unanswered by my family, which creates the misconception that you have attempted and made an offer to compromise. However, as stated above, no such offer or communication has been received from you. In any event, as time has progressed, I have come to a thorough understanding of the details, facts and circumstances surrounding the dispute. After spending hours at the city reviewing documents, public correspondence, "applications" that were allegedly submitted, and the municipal code, it has become clear that the primary reason this dispute has been prolonged and the position my family is in is a result of subterfuge. Had I have known a fraction of what I know now back in August, the proposal presented to you would have been drastically different. What I have found most troubling were your representations to the city indicating that you had been in the process of "replacing" the fence separating our properties since the latter half of 2010. Based on city documents, you selected November 2010. However, both you and my parents know the facts and circumstances of the 2010 events. When you approached my parents back in the latter half of 2010, you asked if you could replace a portion of our white lattice fence that existed in the front yard facade to match the brown fence that separated you and the neighbors situated to your north. As good, unsuspecting neighbors would, my parents saw no problem with it. As a result, the fence existing between our properties consisted of your requested 4' brown fence in the front yard facade, followed by the 4'0" white -lattice fence my parents erected 20 years prior that extended from the front building fagade to the rear building fagade, and a 3'9" chain-link fence in the rear yard fagade. This construction remained without incident for the next four years, until February 2014.1 am sure you understand how your representations to the city where you indicated that you began replacing our fence in November 2010 has frustrated my family and I. Aside from creating a false impression, you have taken advantage of loving, wonderful people. My parents allowed you to replace the front portion of our fence so you could better enjoy your property. As our neighbor, they put trust in you and had no reason to suspect you would have placed them in the position they are in today. When I first learned of the February 2014 events, I was unsure of whether my parents were exaggerating or not. However, a review of city documents and pictures confirm that without permission or consent, you removed portions of our white -lattice fence, constructed and erected five 7' stone pillars, and proceeded to reinserted the portions of the white -lattice fence you had removed in between said pillars. If you remember, my parents did not hesitate in approaching and telling you that your construction was unacceptable. They also contacted the city, and code enforcement made a visit and told you that you had to remove the pillars, which, to your credit, you did. Although the construction and removal of the pillars damaged our property, your thinning, altering, and removal of portions of the retaining wall along the property line compounded the problem and caused substantial damage to our property's natural drainage, which has cost us in excess $6,000, exclusive of al the fees we have been required to pay, including appeal fees, permit fees, and fees associated with your complaints about the deck. In May, you supposedly submitted a few Fence/Wall Permit applications, is an issue in and of itself. On May 22, your proposed construction replacing a fence that extended from the front yard fagade to the rear building fagade was "approved." As a result of said approval, you proceeded to remove my family's white -lattice fence, A-126 but delayed in doing so until July 2014. As you know, this portion of the fence was not initially subject to appeal. However, after I personally met with the Director of the Planning Department, walked through and discussed the convoluted application process, and explained how the city's approval deviated from the municipal code's clear requirements that they agreed with the position that the approval was issued erroneously. But for the erroneously issued approval, you would not have been able to remove our 4'0" white lattice fence and it would have remained. As the famous saying goes, "actions speak louder than words." It is important to note that throughout this dispute and during the entirety of the appeal process, you have continuously worked on, constructed, and planted foliage in the rear yard setback, which, at the time, was the only area subject to appeal. While your email to Mr. Helfman gives the impression that you have been willing and eager to compromise, your actions have been completely contradictory. Aside from the foliage, including the banana tree you recently planted just before the rear yard slope within the setback area, you constructed the "tellis/wall" in July 2014, just before our appeal was to be heard by the Planning Commission. Even assuming that you did in fact desire to compromise with my family after you had erected the trellis, the fact that you constructed an additional 18" to the length of the trellis after seeing Mr. Helfman this past weekend and expressed your desire to compromise causes me to question the motives behind your words and leads me to believe you have underlying purposes apart from compromising. In light of the fact that you continued working, planting, and adding to the Trellis/Wall after your discussion with Mr. Helfman, one could see why my family and I believe that the statement in your email expressing "hopes to reach a resolution" is contrived, insincere, and artificial. Despite the continuous work and the circumstances surrounding this dispute, my family and I continue to believe that compromising, for obvious reasons, is in the best interest of everyone involved. However, on behalf of my family, my position has significantly changed since the August proposal as a result of my understanding of the manner in which this dispute has progressed, surrounding facts and circumstances, newly surfaced information, time spent, money expended, and permits erroneously issued. It stands to mention that in August, when I became involved in this dispute, my mother and father presented me with the facts and circumstances of this dispute. Initially, I was hesitant in taking everything as entirely accurate as I understand that when emotions are involved, stories get exaggerated and become one sided. However, since February, the facts as represented to me were wholly consistent with what they told the city, as evidenced by pubic correspondence between them and the city. For one reason or another, it appeared as though no one would listen. To this day, the facts presented to me by my parents have been completely and entirely accurate. With that in mind, the mental and physical impact this process has had on my family and 1, I am proposing the following with hopes that this will end the life -draining dispute: 1. The fence along the property line be returned to its prior measurements, condition, and construction (4' white lattice extending from our front building fagade to the rear building facade). 2. In the rear fagade, we are willing to return the fence to its prior construction, a 3'9 chain-link fence that tapered as it neared the slope. In exchange, we will allow the hedges to grow, and will maintain them as we had for the past 20 years. Additionally, we request your 7' trellis remain at a minimum of 5' from the property line and either: a. Be removed in its entirety, b. Retain only the frame as you indicated in August, but remove the lattice section, or I c. Lowered it to a height no more than 4' at the upper most point 3. With respect to the deck and consistent with what I represented to you in August, we will keep the furniture, fire pit, chairs and tables situated on the opposite end of the deck, as it has been since constructed and throughout this process. Also, we would place some sort of object in the corner nearest your property, limiting its use and access, again, consistent with what I indicated in August. In exchange, we would ask that stop all complaints with respect to the deck. A-127 4. As to the foliage, your email indicates that you would "keep it within the codes requirements." Although at face value, this appears to be a somewhat reasonable request. However, in taking a closer look at the language of the municipal code and the circumstances likely contemplated by the City Council which led to its enactment, the provision seems to be tailored to situations in opposite to the one at hand. Additionally, as I am sure you are aware, the code's requirements indicate that foliage can extend no higher than the lower of 16' or the ridgeline of the house. I am sure you see the issues my family has with that request. Your banana tree, and in due time, the 3-4 recently planted, serves the same intended purpose as the trellis, fence and other foliage you have planted. Therefore, I would not be willing to accept any proposal where you would keep foliage within code specifications. In fact, it is my understanding that as they exist today, your banana trees are a fire hazard and are located too close to our building. However, in the spirit of compromise, I would be willing to agree to foliage on the condition that they are maintained at a height no taller than any resulting fence (or hedge). 5. My family constructed the white -lattice fence nearly 20 years ago with the understanding that we owner all land on the upper pad elevation. From the time you purchased your home until the May 2014 survey, you believed the same. Our beliefs were supported by the measurements of the retaining wall as it existed prior to its thinning, removal and alteration. The width of the retaining wall, as it had been for 20 years, left a minimal strip of land too narrow for any construction and thereby prevented you from any construction on our pad elevation. Therefore, consistent with our beliefs and how the properties were situated prior to any alteration, we request that the retaining wall be returned to its prior state which left no room for construction on the upper pad elevation, or, in the alternative, keep the retaining wall as you have altered but agree, unequivocally, that now and in the future, you will not construct any structures or any other conceivable artifice on our pad elevation. 6. If the above compromise is agreed to in its entirety, I would be willing to waive any and all possible past, present, and/or future legal claims as they relate to property damage throughout the duration of this dispute. As I stated in August and holding true today, I believe that an all-inclusive proposal will put an end to an otherwise prolonged dispute and will avoid future issues and negotiations. Therefore, in an abundance of caution, I want to reiterate that the above proposal is meant to be all encompassing and takes a holistic approach; each portion is a necessary and dependent on the other. What deserves emphasis is that the purpose of this email is to explain and provide the Hessers, or others, with a better understanding of my parent's position. It was written with much sincerity and is in no way intended to be interpreted as an attack of Mr. or Ms. Hessers' character. As mentioned above, our encounters have always been respectful and cordial. The mere fact that there is a dispute with my parents does not change my morals, the fact we are neighbors, and the fact we are people. I do, however, stand by all statements and representations made in this email and, to the best of my knowledge, and wholly believe in its accuracy based entirely on public correspondence, public documents, expert reports, and applicable municipal code sections. If you have any questions, comments, or concerns, please feel free to contact me. Best, Cyrus 5hahbazian So Kim Frorn: Larry A. Helfman <lah@helfmanlaw.com> Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2014 6:50 PM To: Darrel Hesser Cc: Joel Rojas; Leza Mikhail; So Kim; PC; vicky@hawthornemotorsexpress.com; Cyrus Shahbazian Subject: Re: Hesser/Shahbaziam Mr. and Mrs. Hesser, Thank you for your email. As you know since the first time we approached you regarding a possible resolution of this matter, our clients have always been interesting in seeking an amicable resolution of this matter, certainly before they were required to pay substantial monies for appeals and attorney's fees in connection with not only the fence, but also the trellis that you built, and your complaints made to the City about the Shahbazian's deck. As I mentioned, at this point, Cyrus is handling communications with the City on these matters, so I will forward your email to him to respond to. Since you copied City staff and the Planting Commission on your email, I should state for clarification purposes that in August, after our discussions with you, we provided you with a compromise proposal which sought to balance what you were requesting and what the Shahbazians were requesting. This compromise proposal is the same handwritten document you have attached to your email — it never represented our clients' request or position. Also, what you told me you were willing to do when you approached me at Starbucks is different than what is stated in your email and letter, so further clarification will likely be needed if a resolution is to be reached. Larry A. Helfman, Esq. Law Offices of Larry A. Helfman 2780 Skypark Drive, Suite 325 Torrance, CA 90505 Tel: (31.0) 539-0688 l Fax: (310) 784-251.3 Email: lah a helfmanlaw.com This email may contain confidential and privileged material, and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message. From: Darrel Hesser Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 1:06 PM To: Iah(ahelfmanlaw.com Ce: Joel Rajas ; Leza Mikhail ; So Kim ; pc@rpv,com Subject: Hesser/Shahbaziam > Mr. Helfman > Attached you will find two pages addressing the issues and proposed compromises we spoke of this A-129 weekend. > We would like for you to pass it on to the Shahbazions. > And look forward to hearing from you soon > Thank You > Darrel and Brenda Hesser > A-130 So Kim From: Darrel Hesser <dhesser@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 1:06 PM To: lah@helfmanlaw.com Cc: Joel Rojas; Leza Mikhail; So Kim; PC Subject: Hesser/Shahbaziam Attachments: Mr Helfman.pdf; AT f00001.txt; ShabazionRequest. pdf > Mr. Helfman > 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 Shahbazions. > And look forward to hearing from you soon > Thank You > Darrel and Brenda Hesser A-1 31 Mr. Helfman: It was nice speaking to you over the weekend. We understand that the reason previous offers 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 left it open for the Shahbazians to to "fill in the blanks" with what they are willing to compromise for an agreement. 1. 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. A-132 -F �e- I xt rJ 1-7 UA 14 A-133 So Kim From: Joel Rojas Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:32 AM To: D. Alan Hesser Jr Cc: Leza Mikhail; So Kim; Ara Mihranian Subject: RE: Hesser/Shahbazian update Thank you for the update. Hopefully, you are able to work things out. However, please note that we are working toward making our formal decision on their Extreme Slope Permit since we have been instructed by the Shahbazian's to proceed on making a decision on their application. I expect a formal decision to be made by next week. Joel _____Original Message ----- From: D. Alan HesserJr [mailto:dhesser@a yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 8:24 PM To: Joel Rojas Cc: Leza Mikhail; So Kim; Ara Mihranian; PC Subject: Hesser/Shahbazian update in the spirit of keeping everyone on the loop... We wanted to let you know that over the weekend we approached the Shahbazian's attorney about the pending fence and deck issues. We expressed our desire to reach some kind of agreement, and avoid going back to the Planning Commission and then to the City Council. We let him know that we are willing to come to some sort of compromise or mediation on both the fence and deck issues. We also offered the opportunity to walk through the issues on-site. He agreed to convey this this to the Shahbazians, Hopefully we can get to a resolution. Thank You Darrel and Brenda Hesser A-134 So Kim From: Joel Rojas Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 2:42 PM To: Cyrus Shahbazian Cc: D. Alan Hesser Jr; So Kim; Leza Mikhail; Ara Mihranian Subject: RE: Notice of Appeal Dear Mr. Shahbazian We have received your timely appeal of the Planning Commission's September 9" decision to approve a Fence/Wall Permit at 2902.3 Sprucegrove Drive. As a result of the appeal, the PC's decision is not final. Your appeal will be scheduled to be heard by the City Council on the next available City Council agenda which most likely will be either November 4t" or November 18t". We should be able to confirm said date by next week. Once the appeal date has been established, public notice of the appeal hearing will be provided. Let me know if you have any questions. Joel Rojas From: Cyrus Shahbazian [mailto:cyrus.shahbazian@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 1:03 PM To: Joel Rojas Subject: Notice of Appeal Hello Mr. Rojas, Attached are the changes you requested as per our discussion today, September 23, 2014. Please notify the Hessers immediately as they are about to start construction on said approval. If you have any questions, please let me know. Best, Cyrus Shahbazian Cyrus Shahbazian Juris Doctor, 2014 29029 Sprucegrove Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Tel: (310) 4045104 Email: Cyrus.Shahbazian�ign;ail.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential andfor legally privileged information It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). unauthorized interception. review use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act If you are not the intended recipient. please co€ltact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication A-1 35 NOTICE OF APPEAL Case No. ZON2014-00202 Rancho Palos Verdes City Cotuicil TO: Members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council FROM: Cyrus Shahbazian and Family RE: Case No. ZON2014-00202: Fence/Wall Permit Appeal DATE: September 23, 2014 Members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council: This correspondence serves as notice of appeal by the Shahbazians of the Planning Commission's approval of Fence/Wall Permit, Case Number: ZON2014-00202. Said approval calls for the proposed construction of a 6'6" tall fence, comprised of 4' of solid wood portion and an upper portion of 2'6" acrylic transparent barrier, situated on a Y retaining wall between the Hesser's and Shahbazian's respective properties. For the following reasons, the Shahbazians request that the respected members of the city counsel overturn the Planning Commission's approval. I. PERMIT PROCESS AND BIFURCATION OF SIDE AND REAR YARD FENCE. On May 7, 2014, Mr. and Ms. Hesser, located at 29023 Sprucegrove Drive, submitted a Fence/Wall Permit application for the construction of a 60" solid fence along the property line between their property and Shahbazian's property, located at 29029 Sprucegrove Drive. For the past 20 years, there existed a 3'9" white -lattice fence on a 3' structural wall along the property line separating the Shahbazian's property and what is now the Hesser's property. The prior construction allowed the Shahbazian family, their friends, and visitors to enjoy the pristine views expanding from Catalina Island to the Malibu Hills, the views that originally attracted the Shahbazians to Rancho Palos Verdes. The viewing area where the fence was situated did not obstruct the Shahbazian's view, or the view of surrounding neighbors, as it was a combination of lattice and chain link. In January 2014, the Hessers began removing portions of the white -lattice fence, inserting 7' stone columns, and then reinserting the white -lattice fence. The Shahbazian's immediately objected and contacted the city. On February 19`x' 2014, a Ms. Julie Peterson of Code Enforcement made a site visit and informed the Hessers that a Fence/Wall Permit was required for construction of a fence along the property line and ordered the removal of the 7' stone columns, all of which were removed except one the following day. From the time of Ms_ Peterson's site visit in February until mid July, the Shahbazian's white -lattice fence remained in place. On May 7"', the Hessers A-1 36 submitted a Fence/Wall Pen -nit application requesting approval to replace a pre-existing fence along; the property line from the front yard set back to the rear yard slope. Between May 15th and 21St, Senior [Tanner, Ms. So Kim, made three site visits, verifying that a Fence/Wall Permit was required due to grade and pad elevation. On May 23"i, 2014, the Hessers were issued an after -the -fact "approval" for construction of a 6' fence on the 3' retaining will beginning 20' from the front yard set back extending to the Hesser's rear building facade. The Shahbazian's were sent a letter informing thernrn that an approval was issued, but the Hessers would be required to apply for a Fence/Wall Permit should they wish to extend the proposed construction to the rear yard slope. The approval issued on May 23rd bifurcated the proposed fence into three sections and cannot be characterized as a ministerial after - the fact approval because no such fence existed. Therefore, the Hessers May 7`' application should have been characterized as a Fence/Wall Permit application and been evaluated as a single fence under the standards and requirements set forth in the Municipal Code. II. REAR YARD FENCE Secondly, even assuming, arguendo, that a single fence within the set back area along the property line can be bifurcated, approved, and constructed under separate standards, the approval relating to the rear yard set back should nonetheless be overturned. The director's approval permits the construction of a 4' tall solid fence with an additional 2'6" tall transparent acrylic barrier on top of a 3' structural wall (totaling 9'6" from Hesser's true grade) beginning at the Hessers rear building fagade extending to the rear yard slope. The code provides examples of such 80% "transparent" materials, such as chain-link_ However, much ambiguity exists, as made apparent by members of the planning department, as to who will be responsible for maintaining the clarity, whether the city will have ongoing responsibility to ensure it maintains its 80% transparency, who determines whether the acrylic barrier is 80% see through, and so forth. Additionally, this 2.6" transparent portion is outlandish to the Rancho Palos Verdes community and serves no purpose to the Hessers. The anomalous construction will decrease property value, call for continued city governance, and lead to further contention between the Hessers and Shahbazians. 111. GARDEN TRELLIS / FENCE/WALL Lastly, during the appeal process, the Hessers were approved with, and constructed, what they describe as a "Garden Trellis" in the rear building facade extending to the rear yard slope. The Municipal Code makes it clear that during the appeal process, further construction must cease pending the outcome. Although it may be argued that the "Garden Trellis" is not the subject of the appeal as it falls just outside the 5'0" setback requirement, the director noted in the Staff Report that the Hessers erected a structure that obstructs the very view he was trying to preserve. During the appeal with the planning department, the director indicated that this structure was not subject to the appeal, and the members of the planning commission were without authority to make a finding on its construction. The Hesser's application characterized the trellis as an "accessory structure," falling within the relevant codes requirements. The Shahbazians had an open house, inviting residents within the Rancho Palos Verdes community to see what the Hessers had constructed. Neighbors, visitors and A-1 37 friends were astonished that the city would permit such a view blocking structure. and expressed their concerns via emails. letters and support. Subsequently, the director indicated that the "Garden Trellis' fell within the code's definition of a wall, and required the Hessers to reduce the barrier, then 12' tall, to 7' as per code requirements. From a policy perspective, permitting the construction of a solid 7' barrier that rests inches from the code's required set back makes the requirements and standards of a Fence/Wall Permit obsolete. What is the purpose of requiring a resident to apply for a Fence/Wall permit if a solid 7' barrier can be constructed that serves the same purpose without being subject to a view impairment analysis? From its inception, Rancho Palos Verdes has been known for the scenic, topographical views. Rancho Palos Verdes, its elected representatives, and its residents all recognized the value of the pristine views as evidenced by various code sections, the General Plan and Proposition M. Members of the City Council, as you are aware, the scenic views make Rancho Palos Verdes is one of the most desirable places to live. Allowing such a barrier not only destroys the view from our home, it significantly decreases its property value, is contrary to the character of the neighborhood, and is inconsistent with what the Rancho Palos Verdes community was founded on. Sincerely, Cyrus Shahbazian and Family 29029 Sprucegrove Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Email: VShahbazian&Jiotmail.com; Cyrus. Shahbazianagmail.com Phone: (310) 292-6305, (310) 404-5104 USICT011 P.C. Resolution No. 2014-26 A-139 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2014-26 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES UPHOLDING THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION TO APPROVE, WITH CONDITIONS, A FENCEIWALL PERMIT FOR A 7'/8' TALL COMBINATION WALL ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE PROPERTY LINE FROM THE EDGE OF THE REAR BUILDING FACADE TO THE TOP OF THE SLOPE FOR A TOTAL LENGTH OF 23' AT 29023 SPRUCEGROVE DRIVE (ZON2014-00202). WHEREAS, on May 27, 2014, the property owner (Darrel Hesser) submitted a Fence/Wall Permit, requesting approval for an 8' tall combination wall (solid wood barrier on top of an existing retaining wall) along the south side property line (abutting 29029 Sprucegrove Drive) from the edge of the rear building fagade to the top of the slope, equivalent to a length of approximately 23'; and, WHEREAS, on June 26, 2014, the Director approved a Fence/Wall Permit for an 8' tall combination wall, as measured from the grade on the lower side at 29023 Sprucegrove Drive. Said wall consists of a 25 tall framed acrylic fence on top of a 4' tall solid wood fence on top of an existing 1.5' tall retaining wall. Only the 65 tall acrylic and wood fence would exceed the grade level on the higher side at 29029 Sprucegrove Drive; and, WHEREAS, on June 27, 2014, a Notice of Decision was issued informing interested parties of the 15 -day appeal period ending on July 14, 2014; and, WHEREAS, on July 11, 2014, the abutting property owner of 29029 Sprucegrove Drive (Hossein and Vicky Shahbazian) submitted a timely appeal, requesting that the Planning Commission overturn the Director's approval based on concerns related to the application process, view 'impairment, unpermitted retaining wall, and inconsistency with the Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, on July 24, 2014, a public notice was mailed to all persons owning property owners within a 500' radius from the subject property and published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, and, WHEREAS, on August 12, 2014, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to September 9, 2014 based on the impacted agenda and the applicant's availability; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQK), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et, seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt under Class 3 (Section 15303),, and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on September 9, 2014, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence, P.C. Resolution No. 2014-26 Page 1 A-140 NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The proposed project involves a combination wall, not to exceed 8' in height, as measured from the grade on the lower side at 29023 Sprucegrove Drive (applicant) and T, as measured from the grade on the higher side at 29029 Sprucegrove Drive (appellant). This 7'18' tall combination wall is allowed along the south side property line from the edge of the rear building fagade of 29023 Sprucegrove Drive to the top of the slope, for a total length of 23'. Said wall consists of a 25 tall framed, transparent acrylic fence on top of a 4' tall solid wood fence on top of an existing 1.5' tall retaining wall, Section 2: A Fence/Wall Permit is warranted because: A, The combination wall 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 Plans, as a city -designated viewing area. More specifically, the 8' tall combination wall of which 65 tall portion would be above the grade level of 29029 Sprucegrove Drive (25 tall framed, transparent fence that allows 80% transparency of vision light or air on top of a solid wood fence up to 4' in height) would not cause significant view impairment as only a minimal amount of ocean view from the appellant's viewing area would be impaired. Additionally, when the entirety of the view is considered, the proposed combination wall would be located in the far right periphery of the appellant's view frame and the remaining ocean and Catalina views would not be impaired. Furthermore, from the viewing area of 29043 Sprucegrove Drive (Wang), there would be even less view impairment caused by the proposed 8' tall combination wall as it would be located in the right periphery of the view frame and the remaining ocean and Catalina views would not be impaired. Moreover, there are no public properties in the vicinity that has a view across the proposed project area and the subject property is not located within the City's coastal zone. B. There is no foliage on the applicant's lot which exceeds 16' or the ridgeline of the primary structure, whichever is lower, that impairs a view from the viewing area of another parcel, or a view from public property which has been identified in the city's general plan or coastal specific plan, as a city -designated viewing area. C. Placement or construction of a fence or wall complies with all applicable standards and requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code and General Plan. More specifically, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.76.030(C)(b)(iii), "when combined, the total height of a fence, freestanding wall or retaining wall may not exceed 8', as measured from grade an the lower side, and may not exceed 7" as measured from the grade on the higher side". The proposed combination wall will not exceed 8' in height from the grade on the lower side at 29023 Sprucegrove Drive and 7' from the abutting property's grade on the higher side at 29029 Sprucegrove Drive. Additionally, the City's General Plan, Policy No, 14 of the Urban Environment Element states the following: "Prohibit encroachment on existing scenic views reasonably expected by neighboring residents" 'The 8' tall combination wall (2.5' tall framed, transparent acrylic fence on top of a 4' tall solid wood barrier on top of an existing 15 tall retaining wall) would project into a minimal amount of ocean view at the periphery of the view frame of the abutting neighbors' viewing area, while the remainder of the ocean and Catalina view would be preserved. P.C. Resolution No. 2014-26 Page 2 A-141 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 PM on Wednesday, September 24, 2014, A $2,275.00 appeal fee must accompany any appeal letter. If no appeal is filed timely, the Planning Commission's decision will be final at 5:30 PM on September 24, 2014. 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 decision to approve, with conditions, the Fence/Wall Permit, subject to the conditions set forth in the attached 'Exhibit A' (Case No. ZON2014-00202). PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 91" day of September 2014, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Cruikshank, Emenhiser, Gerstner and Vice Chairman Nelson NOES: Commissioner James ABSTENTIONS: None RECUSALS: None ABSENT: Commissioner Tomblin and Chairman Leon Gordon Leon, Chairman Joel Ro s' ICP Com m u ity evelopm Director and Secreta t of he Planning Commission P.C. Resolution No. 2014-26 Page 3 A-142 EXHIBIT'A' CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PLANNING CASE NO. ZON2014-00202 (FENCEIWALL PERMIT) 29023 SPRUCEGROVE DRIVE This approval is for a combination wall not to exceed 8' in height, as measured from the grade on the lower side (29023 Sprucegrove Drive) and 7% as measured from the grade on the higher side (29029 Sprucegrove Drive). This 778' tall combination wall is allowed along the south side property line from the edge of the rear building faqade of 29023 Sprucegrove Drive to the top of the slope, for a total length of 23'. Said wall consists of 2.5' tall framed, transparent acrylic fence on top of a 4' tall solid wood barrier on top of an existing 1.5' tall retaining wall, 2. The existing chain link fence shall be removed, prior to the installation of the approved combination wall detailed in Condition No. 1 above. 3. Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, the applicant and the property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have read, understand, and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this decision. Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void, 4. Prior to conducting any work in the public right of way, such as for curb cuts, clumpsters, temporary improvements and/or permanent improvements, the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works, 5. 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. 6. The Community Development Director is authorized to make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions of approval if such modifications will achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with the approved plans and conditions, Otherwise, any substantive change to the project shall require approval of a revision by the final body that approved the original project, which may require new and separate environmental review. 7. The project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards contained in these conditions of approval or, if not addressed herein, shall conform to the residential development standards of the City's Municipal Code, including but not limited to height, setback and lot coverage standards. 8. 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. 9. if the applicant has not submitted an application for a building permit for the approved project or not commenced the approved project as described in Section 17.86.070 of the City's Municipal Code within one year of the final effective date of this decision, approval of the project shall expire and be of no further effect unless, prior to expiration, a written P.C. Resolution No. 2014-26 Page 4 A-143 request for extension is filed and approved by the Community Development Director. 10. 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. 11. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be completed in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the City with the effective date of this decision. 12. 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. 13. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, 9:OOAM to 5:OOPM on Saturday, with no construction activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section 17-96-920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, During demolition, construction and/or grading operations, trucks shall not park, queue andlor idle at the project site or in the adjoining street rights- of-way before 7AM Monday through Friday and before 9AM on Saturday, in accordance with the permitted hours of construction stated in this condition. When feasible to do so, the construction contractor shall provide staging areas on-site to minimize off-site transportation of heavy construction equipment. These areas shall be located to maximize the distance between staging activities and neighboring properties, subject to approval by the building official. 14. All grading, landscaping and construction activities shall exercise effective dust control techniques, either through screening and/or watering. 15, All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly manner, to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official. All construction waste and debris resulting from a construction, alteration or repair project shall be removed on a weekly basis by the contractor or property owner. Existing or temporary portable bathrooms shall be provided during construction. Portable bathrooms shall be placed in a location that will minimize disturbance to the surrounding property owners, to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official, P.C. Resolution No. 2014-26 Page 5 A-144 P.C. Minutes (September 9, 20 1 4) A-145 missioner Emenhiser opened the public hearing John Pa tated he lives at 28638 Mt Rushmore Road, and pointed �Yt his house on the aerial p, idt He stated that from his property the silhouette is (early visible and is obstructing his vie f the Palos Verdes hills. He felt this will gatively impact the value of his home, an s therefore opposed to the proj Commissioner Emenhiser aske toff if they felt th e was a view impact from this residence. Associate Planner Mikhail stated that sW ha of visited this property, as this is the first time staff has heard there are y concerns fr this resident. She noted, however, that a view of the Pal erdes hillside is no rotected view under the City's Guidelines. Director Rojas adde at there is a "near view" defined in the Ordin e of pastoral settings and op space, however developed areas such as homes on a side are not considered astoral view. Vice airman Nelson moved to approve staff's recommendation, seconded by C missioner Cruikshank. PC Resolution 2014-25 was approved, (5-0). 4. Appeal of Fence[Wall Permit (ZON2014-00202): 29023 Sprucegrove Drive Director Rojas presented the staff report, explaining the history of the application and showed pictures of the view from the appellant's viewing area. Because there was so much contention on both sides of this issue he visited the appellant's property to do a view analysis. He noted that staff had previously done the view analysis from the middle of the room, which the appellant had said was their best view area. However, he felt it was important to take the view from the window, as that is typically where staff takes the view, and said position afford the most expansive view. With that, he showed staff's determination of where and how high the solid wall could be placed on the Hesser property, as well as the height and location of the transparent barrier so that the Shahbazian's view would not be significantly impaired. He explained that after the appeal was filed by the Shahbazians, Mr. Hesser came to the City and received approval to build an accessory structure in the rear yard of his property. Mr. Rojas explained this was a ministerial decision with an over-the-counter approval, and there is no appeal to that decision. He noted that this accessory structure does interfere with the view that staff was trying to protect when determining the wall height. He noted that he performed a site visit to the Hesser property and confirmed that, per the City's Code, it is an accessory structure, However, a question was also raised by the Shahbazian's attorney as to whether or not this structure could be considered a wall. In speaking to the City Attorney, staff felt that it could be construed as a wall and therefore subject to the wall height limits of seven feet. With that, Mr. Hesser lowered the height of the structure to seven feet. He explained that the Fence/Wall Permit process is only for walls within the setback, and this seven foot wall is outside of the setback. To be sure, Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 204 Page 4 A-146 staff is requiring Mr. Hesser provide a stamped survey confirming this. With that, he stated staff's recommendation is for the Commission to uphold the Director's decision. Commissioner Gerstner asked if one of the criteria looked at by the City in approving an accessory structure is that it doesn't block a view. Director Rojas answered that is not a criteria looked at by staff, as an accessory structure is allowed up to twelve feet in height regardless of whether it impairs a view. Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff to clarify how and from what area the view is taken from. Director Rojas explained that, as is typically done, staff identifies the room with the nest and most important view. In this case the living room was identified as the viewing area. Once that is done staff typically stands at the edge of that view, usually at a window or a sliding glass door to assess a view's importance. Sometimes applicants will indicate that they get a better view from sitting on their couch. The Guidelines say the view should be taken from a standing position unless the view is from a sitting area_ He explained the critical factor is staff's analysis is whether the best and most important view is seen from a standing or sitting position. He explained when he was doing the view analysis, the Shahbazians pointed out that they felt they were afforded better view protection from the back of the living room. However, Director Rojas noted that if the best and most important view is determined to be from the couch at the back of the room, then that becomes the best and most important view for all future applications. He explained that sitting on the couch at the back of the room provides a limited tunnel view while standing at the windows there is almost a 180 degree view. Vice Chairman Nelson asked Mr. Rojas if he saw the various tapes at the site, the one he placed as well as the one placed by Senior Planner Kim. He noted there is approximately a two foot difference between the two. Director Rojas stated he saw the yellow tape and the blue tape, however he noted that he did not place either of those tapes. He stated that he thought Senior Planner Kim placed the yellow tape and he was not aware of who placed the blue tape. Vice Chairman Nelson discussed the maintenance of the proposed acrylic portion of the wall. He asked who was responsible for maintaining the clearness of the acrylic. Director Rojas answered the applicant is responsible, since it is his wall. Vice Chairman Nelson discussed the acrylic portion of the wall, noting that in a few years it may become opaque and no view can be seen through that portion. He asked if there was a way to eliminate the acrylic portion of the wall. Director Rojas stated that if the applicant does not maintain the transparent portion of the wail, it will become a code enforcement issues. However, if the Commission does Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 2014 Page 8 A-147 not want to deal with the maintenance issues, the Commission can eliminate the acrylic portion of the wall. Commissioner Emenhiser opened the public hearing. Larry Helfman (representing the appellant) stated the reason the Shahbazians appealed this decision was their concern over the preservation of the views in the neighborhood. He explained that because of these views, most of the homes in the neighborhood have very limited fencing, and many have chain link fencing in the rear to help preserve their neighbors' views. He showed photos of the view from the Shahbazian residence before the new wall was installed. He stated the Shahbazians contend there was also work done to the retaining wall by Mr. Hesser, as part of the retaining wall was removed and grading was done. He noted that for as long as the Shahbazians have lived in their home there has always been a chain link fence along this portion of the property and there has never been a view impact. He explained what staff approved was a four foot solid fence with a two -foot tall acrylic piece on top of the fence. He was concerned with maintenance issues as well as the way the acrylic was to be framed into place, which could also block a view. He explained the Shahbazians were asking the Planning Commission to consider all of the factors in the Code, most importantly that the fence should not be allowed to cause a significant impairment of their view. He stated there was also a concern that the wall be in compliance with the Code. He noted the Code limits the height of the wall to 8 feet from Mr. Hesser's grade. He felt staff's approval was based on an assumption that the retaining wall is 1,5 feet, however at different points the retaining wall is 2 feet in height, and 2 feet 6 inches in height. This would then allow the wail to be higher than 8 feet. He stated the Shahbazians are requesting the entire fence be conditioned to be at a maximum height of 4 feet and that the fence be tapered by five inches starting at 15 Y2 feet from the applicant's structure, and taper again at 23 feet from the structure. Commissioner James asked Mr_ Helfman if any effort has been made to mediate this situation. Mr. Helfman answered that the Hessers have privacy concerns and the Shahbazians have view concerns and there have been discussions to try to alleviate the concerns of both parties, however no progress has yet been made. Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff if the yellow tape that was in several of the pictures was placed by staff. Director Rojas stated he did not place any tape when he was at the property to do his view analysis. However, he thought that Senior Planner So Kim either placed the tape or asked someone to place the tape to help with her analysis. Brenda Hesser explained when she and her husband moved into their home in 2006 their patio and yard was separated from the neighbor's property by a chain link fence and a hedge, and showed a photo of the area. She stated that for the past 8 years the Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 2014 Rage o � � i hedge and fence have maintained a level of privacy and security. She explained that several months ago they approached the Shahbazians about their hillside deck invading their privacy, With that, the Shahbazians removed the hedge. She showed a photo taken from the Shahbazians deck looking into her backyard and bedroom area, as well as a photo taken from her yard looking into the Shahbazians backyard. She then showed a photo of a trellis that was built outside of the setback which she stated is actually lower than the height of the previous hedge. She stated the trellis is code compliant being less than 7 feet in height and with a 51.5 inch setback, and this has been verified by a survey. She then showed the photo taken by staff of the view from the Shahbazian residence. She noted the yellow tape which indicates the height of the proposed wall and pointed out the ridgeline of the houses beyond. She stated that she agrees with the Director's decision that a 4 foot sold wall with a 2.5 foot acrylic does not create a view impairment, and therefore the appeal should be denied. Hossein Shahbazian (appellant) stated purchased his home 25 years ago for the view. He stated that suddenly he lost 40 percent of his ocean view without any type of notice. He felt that with that and the loss of his kitchen view he felt like he was under house arrest in his own home. He stated he wants it back to the way it was without the view loss. Commissioner Cruikshank asked Mr. Shahbazian if he removed the hedge that was existing, Mr. Shahbazian explained that the hedge was on his property. Commissioner Cruikshank questioned if the hedge had not been removed, if this case would now even be before the Planning Commission. Mr. Shahbazian explained that if the Hessers had not touched the fence and left it at four feet as they promised there would not be a problem. Commissioner Cruikshank asked Mr. Shahbazian if he removed the hedge. Mr. Shahbazian answered he removed the hedge, but it was on his side of the property line. He stated again that all he wants is for everything to be the way it was. Commissioner Gerstner explained that it was Mr. Shahbazian's right to remove the hedge on his property, however he noted that the hedge, in the neighbor's opinion, afforded him privacy in his yard and bedroom. Mr. Shahbazian stated that if the neighbors had not moved the fence he would not have cut the hedge, Commissioner Gerstner continued that in order to regain some privacy, the neighbor felt it was necessary to get approval to build the privacy structure which is now on the property, which has given them back their privacy. Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 2014 Page 7 AEA �� Mr. Shahbazian did not understand how the neighbors got approval for this structure. Vice Chairman Nelson noted the yellow tape on the fence that was placed by staff, and asked Mr. Shahbazian if he felt that would give him the view he had before this all started, and if that was an acceptable height to him. Mr. Shahbazian answered that was an acceptable height, it would give the neighbors their privacy and give him his view. Vicky Shahbazian stated that the original picture shown by staff was not really accurate, as the main view is not seen by standing in front of the side of her home. She explained the hedge was on her property and there was a chain link fence, and the reason the hedge was cut was because Mr. Hesser had started changing the fence and started putting up a 7 -foot tall fence. She stated she then erected a 4 -foot fence, as requested by Mr. Hesser, and tapered the end of the fence to preserve her view. She explained her attorney and her son tried to negotiate some type of resolution to this situation, but nothing has worked. Darrel Hesser displayed staff's photo taken from the Shahbazian's viewing area, and indicated that a four foot tall fence straight across would block only a view of the houses and roofs below. He stated that if there was question about the clear acrylic top, he would be happy to change that material to something else. He explained he needs something up at the end to prevent his dog from jumping over the fence. Commissioner Gerstner asked if that happens, would Mr. Hesser remove the privacy structure on his property. Mr. Hesser explained that he has already lowered the trellis and he believed the Shahbazians can now see over the privacy structure. C rus Shahbazian clarified that what is being appealed is the Director's approval of an 8'foot combination wall in the Hesser's rear yard. He stated that the 8 -feet included a 4 - foot tall solid wall on a 1.5 foot tall retaining wall, with a 2.5 foot tall transparent barrier on top. He discussed the potential view impairment, noting the view assessment was based on a standing position from the living room of the residence. He showed a photo of where the Director made his determination that a four -foot wall would not obstruct a view. He then noted in the same Code section which says views will be taken from a standing position unless the primary viewing area is more suitable to viewing in a seated position. He stated that his family and guests sit down in the living room and dining room, and because the living room and dining room are within the designated viewing area, he stated the Shahbazians request the view assessment be taken from a seated position rather than a standing position. He explained that during the appeal process the Hessers erected a trellis in their yard and that the approval was a ministerial approval given by staff, knowing it would cause a substantial view impairment. He did not think the structure built on the Hesser property is a trellis, but Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 2014 Page 8 A-150 rather a fence. He stated this structure is inconsistent with City policy and the General Plan, and was sure that there is not a similar structure anywhere in the City. Sara Shahbazian felt this situation has gotten out of control and needs to be settled. She stated that one of the most upsetting things during this process was that when staff was at the property and put up the tape, they were led to believe this was the final decision, yet the decision was altered. She was upset that the Hessers were allowed to get the trellis approved, knowing that it would block a view, and that the approval could not be challenged. She questioned how the City could allow this trellis to be approved when it will cause such a negative impact to the property value of her parents' home. Maurice Rahimi stated he moved to Rancho Palos Verdes specifically for its views, not to be able to surround his property with fences for privacy. He questioned why Mr. Rojas overruled the decision of his staff in regards to the height of the fence. He suggested that if the Hessers want privacy in their home they may want to consider tinting their windows so that nobody can see inside. He encouraged the Commission to make a decision to maintain the beauty and value of this community- He stated that the precedence set today will be something that will be followed for years to come. Qereck Taylor felt this situation may have gotten out of hand, and felt part of the problem is the process. He felt that the way the code was written was bureaucracy at its worst. He stated the City is required to protect the view. Mansoureh Rahimi stated she has known the Shahbazians for over twenty-five years, and has enjoyed the views from their home. She felt the current situation has obstructed their view. She noted the Hessers want a taller fence so their dog won't jump over it, but noted there is also a fence at the rear of the property and asked if they are also going to build a taller fence down there. She hoped the neighbor would consider fixing the situation they have created. Shohreh Taylor stated one of the main reasons she came to this area was for the view. She too has known the Shahbazians for over twenty-five years and she has always enjoyed the view from their home. She felt it was a real shame to ruin such a lovely view. Mid A uirrq stated the Shahbazians are her aunt and uncle and allowed her to live in their home for a time. She stated that she has never seen such a beautiful view from a home. She felt this situation has gone too far, it's unfair, and hoped a resolution will be reached this evening. ,Jim Howe felt it was important for the Commission to understand that the reason this all started was the removal of the hedge. He explained that it was his understanding that the chain link fence was on the Shahbazian property and the hedge was on the Hesser property, and the Hessers were never asked if the hedge could be removed_ He stated the Hessers deserve to have their privacy, and without that hedge or a fence, there is none. Planning commission Minutes September 9, 2414 Page 9 A-151 Commissioner Emenhiser asked Mr. Howe whose property the hedge was on and who cut the hedge. Mr. Howe answered the hedge was on the Hesser property and the Shahbazians cut down the hedge. Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff if they could clarify whose property the hedge was on. Director Rojas stated that when at the site he saw the retaining wall on the Hesser property with a small amount of distance between the wall and the survey line. Janice Howe stated there was a five to six foot tall fence in place on the Hesser property until early this year. She stated she agreed with staff's decision to allow a four - foot tall solid wall with a clear 2 'lz-foot tall top. Cyrus Shahbazian (in rebuttal) stated much has been said about privacy. He referred to the staff report where it is stated there are no privacy issues in the Hesser's backyard, and any privacy concerns in the house can be alleviated with some type of window covering. He also noted that the way the neighborhood is configured, one can stand in any backyard and see down into several backyards down the street. He disagreed with staff's statement that the approval of the trellis is not appealable, and noted in the code the section that he felt allowed the decision to be appealed. He showed several photos of the view taken from the living room of the Shahbazian residence and demonstrated how he felt the view will be impacted. He stated the Shahbazians were asking for a reasonable resolution to this situation. Darrel Hesser (in rebuttal) felt that what should be looked at is not just the preservation of the Shahbazian's view, but some type of balance between the view and his right to privacy. He explained that the four -foot wall would still afford the Shahbazians their view while giving his family some privacy. He reiterated that he would be happy to substitute the acrylic material for something else if that would help alleviate concerns. He added that he would also be willing to extend the chain link fence up to match the front end of the Shahbazian deck to preserve their view over the rear of his property. He explained that he doesn't want to put up a wall that blocks his neighbors' view, and would like to find a reasonable solution to satisfy both parties. Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff to review their recommendation. Director Rojas explained that, because of the contentious nature of this application, he performed a site visit to look at the view as he felt the staff's decision might be appealed. He stated that the code finding that must be made for approval is that the fence or wall will not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another property. He noted that Chapter 17.02 of the Code defines viewing area as the location where the best and most important view exists. He then explained he made the Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 2014 Page 10 A-152 determination of whether there is significant view impairment to the entirety of the view from the Shahbazian living room. He noted the view from their living room is nearly 180 degrees, from Catalina Island to Malibu,, He also noted there was the issue of where to stand when assessing the view. He stated he consulted the code, and the code defines the viewing area as the area the City determines where the best and most important view exists. He noted the Shahbazians made it clear, that they felt they were afforded a better view from a sitting position, however he did not think that was defensible and consistent with the code. This is because when one sits further back in the room the view frame narrows, and a significant portion of the view is eliminated, including Catalina Island, Thus, a better and more expansive view is attained by standing at the sliding glass window. He explained that the code also states that once a viewing area has been determined, that viewing area may not be changed for any subsequent application. Therefore, it was his determination that the best and most important view should be taken from a standing position in the Shahb,azian living room, as it afforded the greatest view protection to the Shahbazians. Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff if they had an opinion on acrylic versus glass on top of the wall. Director Rojas had no opinion on glass versus acrylic, Commissioner Emenhiser agreed with Commissioner James that this issue should have been mediated some time ago, and unfortunately the decision made by the Planning Commission will not make everyone happy. He stated he was in favor of staff's recommendation. Commissioner James asked Director Rojas why he changed staff's preliminary decision of stepping the wall height to a uniform height of four feet straight across the length of the wall. Director Rojas explained staff did their analysis from a seated position on the couch, however as he explained earlier, he felt that determining the viewing area from a standing position at the window was more consistent with the Code's language of what constitutes the best and most important view. With that, the approved height of the wall was modified from the preliminary assessment to allow it up to the height where it was not significantly impairing a view, He added that he thought this decision was more defensible if challenged by the applicant as to why his wall was required to be lower than it had to be. Vice Chairman Nelson asked staff if the Commission is to not consider the trellis when making their decision in regards to the view and the wall, Director Rojas explained that, in reviewing the matter with the City Attorney, staff believes the trellis is legal and meets all code requirements. Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 2014 Page 11 A-153 Vice Chairman Nelson moved to deny the appeal and uphold the Director's decision to allow a four -foot high solid wood fence not topped with any transparent material. The motion failed due to the lack of a second. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to approve staffs recommendation, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. The motion was approved, and PC Resolution was adopted, (4-1) with Commissioner James dissenting. 5. Pre -Agenda for the meeting on September 23, 201 The pre -agenda was reviewed and approved as presented. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:29 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 2014 Page 12 A-154 P.C. Staff Report (September 9, 2014) A-155 I A� RANCHO PALOS VERDES MEMORANDUM TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBE S OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: JOEL ROJAS - COMMUNIT E OPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: SEPTEMBER 9, 2014 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF DIRECTOR FENCE/WALL PERMIT DECISION (CASE NO. 201400202); PROJECT ADDRESS — 29023 SPRUCEGROVE DRIVE (APPLICANT: MR. AND MRS. HESSER/APPELLANT: MR. & MRS. SHAHBAZIAN) Staff Coordinator: So Kim, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION Adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2014-�, thereby denying the appeal and upholding the Director's approval of a Fence/'Wall Permit to allow a 4 -foot high solid wood fence topped by a 2.5 -foot high transparent acrylic barrier at 29023 Sprucegrove Drive. DISCUSSION This item was set to be discussed as part of the Planning Commission's August 12, 2014 agenda. However, due to other lengthy items on the August 12th agenda, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing without any discussion to September 9, 2014. Thus, attached is the August 12, 2014 P.C. Staff Report (including all attachments), the late correspondence received between the public release of the August 12t' Staff Report and the August 12th P.C. meeting and new correspondence received after the August 12th meeting. Garden Trellis As explained in the attached August 12, 2014 Staff Report, on July 17, 2014, Mr. Hesser, the FenceANall Permit applicant, obtained approval of a ministerial over-the-counter Site Plan Review Application to allow the construction of a "Garden Trellis" structure in his rear yard. According to the submitted application, the "Garden Trellis" would measure 23 feet in length, 2.5 feet in width and 12 feet in height and would be located 5 feet from the side property line. The "Garden Trellis" was approved because it met all of applicable setback, hot coverage and height regulations. Per the code, such approvals are ministerial decisions which require no public notice and cannot be appealed. It should be noted that just like there is a 16 -foot "by right" height limit for residential structures regardless of whether they impair a neighbor's view, there is also a 12 -foot "by right" height limit for accessory A-156 Page 2 structures regardless of whether they impair a neighbor's view. The approved "Garden Trellis" was subsequently constructed. This caused much concern to the Shabazian's since the "Garden Trellis" impairs the ocean view from the Shahbazian's viewing area that the Director was trying to preserve by approving a modified version of the applicant's combination wall request. On August 14, 2014 the City received a letter from the Shabazian's attorney (see attached New Public Correspondence) challenging different aspects of the City's approval of the "Garden Trellis". In response, Staff visited the site to inspect and measure the "Garden Trellis" and consulted with the City Attorney. As a result of this effort, Staff has determined that the "Garden Trellis" meets the City's code definition of a "wall" and therefore needs to be reduced to a height of 7 feet, which is the maximum height allowed for freestanding walls in a residential rear yard. A Fence/Wall Permit that would include a view analysis of the 7 -foot high wall is not required for the reduced wall since the Development Code only requires the approval of a Fence/Wall Permit for walls or fences within the side yard or rear yard setback and the applicant has demonstrated to Staff in the field that the wall is not located within the 5 -foot side yard setback. Nonetheless, Staff is going to require that the applicant provide a stamped certification from a licensed surveyor confirming that the wall is outside the setback. Staff's determination that the "Garden Trellis" constitutes a wall was conveyed to the Shabazian's attorney (see attached email) and to the applicant. As a result, the applicant notified Staff on September 4th that he has reduced the wall to 7 feet in height. Staff intends to verify this height and the impact of the reduced wall on the Shabazian's view in advance of the September 91h meeting. ATTACHMENTS • August 12, 2014 P.C. Staff Report including attachments • Late Correspondence from August 12, 2014 meeting • New Public Correspondence since August 12, 2014 meeting A-157 P.C. Minutes (August 12, 2014) QOMMENTS Fl Non CON%TIND B E AUDIENCE (regarding non -agenda items) 2. Heiqht Variation, Grading, & Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2014-00064): 6321 Villa osa Drive Director Rojas noted t t staffs recommendation was to co ince this item to the to August 26th meeting, ho ver the Commission must ope he public hearing to allow a op P( 0 cannot t 26th �/ any individuals who \canno ttend the August 26 me �ing an opportunity to speak on the item. Chairman Leon opened the publiclVaring. There being no speakers, Chairman August 26, 2014, seconded by Coma objection. PUBLIC HEARINGS moved to continue the public hearing to ner Emenhiser. Approved without 4. The Terraces Mast e/Siggin Program Amend9ftt (Case No. ZON2014-0014 28901 Western A nue Director Rojas state hat staff's amended recommendation is continue this item to Im tj 11C theAugust26ffirn eting, and the Commission should open the p lic hearing to allow po rtu ity I t t m individuals the portunity to speak if they cannot attend that meeti ChairmanXeon opened the public hearing. Therh�ereing no speakers, Commissioner Gerstner moved to continue thh.,public r he ing to August 26, 2014, seconded by Vice Chairman Nelson. Approve 4\ it out ithout objection. 5. Appeal of Fence[Wall Permit (Case No. ZON2014-00202): 29023 Sprucegrove Drive Director Rojas stated that, given the applicant's request, staff was now recommending this item be continued to the September 9, 2014 meeting. Chairman Leon opened the public hearing. There being no speakers, Commissioner Tomblin moved to continue the public hearing to the September 9, 2014 meeting, seconded by Vice Chairman Nelson. Approved without objection. Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 2014 Page 2 A-159 P.C. Staff Report including attachments (August 12, 2014) A-1 60 CITVOF STAFF REPORT rubjeCt Site ' r -, �,. rA �y t.JAMTTr*Q THOMAS GUIDE PAGE 822/G-1 RANCHO FACS VERDES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: PROJECT ADDRESS: APPLICANT/ LANDOWNER: APPELLANT: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNITY DE L P T DIRECTOR AUGUST 12, 201 APPEAL - FENCEIWALL PERMIT (CASE NO. ZON2014-00202) 29023 SPRUCEGROVE DRIVE DARREL & BRENDA HESSER (29023 SPRUCEGROVE DRIVE) HOSSEIN & VICKY SHAHBAZIAN (29029 SPRUCEGROVE DRIVE) STAFF SO KIM qY`' COORDINATOR: SENIOR PLANNER REQUESTED ACTION: OVERTURN THE DIRECTOR'S APPROVAL OF A FENCEIWALL PERMIT THAT ALLOWS AN 8' TALL COMBINATION WALL TO BE CONSTRUCTED ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE PROPERTY LINE W THE REAR YARD ON 29023 SPRUCEGROVE DRIVE (ZON2014-00202). RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2014- ; THEREBY DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE DIRECTOR'S APPROVAL OF A FENCEIWALL PERMIT AT 29023 SPRUCEGROVE DRIVE (CASE NO. ZON2014-00202). REFERENCES: ZONING: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS -4) LAND USE: RESIDENTIAL CODE SECTIONS: 17,02, 17.76, 17.80 GENERAL PLAN: RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DU/AC) TRAILS PLAN: NONE SPECIFIC PLAN: NONE CEQA: EXEMPT PER SECTION 15303 (NEW CONSTRUCTION) ACTION DEADLINE: NIA 30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD. / RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275-5391 PLANNING, & CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION (310) 544-52281 BUILDING & SAFETY DIVISION (310) 265-78001 DEPT FAX (310)5"-5 z�_ 161 E-MAIL.PLANNING@RPVCOMf WWWPALOSVERDESCOM03V PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS RESIDING WITHIN 500' OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: NONE im :(+1i611111 Pursuant to Development Code Section 17.76.030.8.2, on May 71 2014, Mr. Darrel Hesser, the property owner of 29023 Sprucegrove Drive submitted an application and a site inspection fee for Staff to perform a site visit to determine whether the construction of a solid wall (5'-7" to 6' in height) on top of an existing retaining wall (2' to 2'-6" in height) along the side property line abutting 29029 Sprucegrove Drive requires approval of a FenceANall Permit. A portion of said wall was already under construction at the time of the inspection fee submittal. Staff conducted site visits on May 15, 19 and 21, 2014 to both the subject property, and to the abutting property at 29029 Sprucegrove Drive. Based on these site visits, Staff confirmed that no views would be impacted by the constructed portion of the proposed combination wall up to the rear building facade of the applicant's property, while a wall beyond the rear building fagade may have a potential for view impairment from the viewing area of 29029 Sprucegrove Drive. As a result, Staff informed the applicant that he can either apply for after -the -fact approval of a ministerial Site Plan Review application to legalize the existing 8' tall combination wall along the side property line up to his rear building fagade or remove it. He was also informed that if he wished to extend the 8' combination wall beyond his rear building facade, approval of a discretionary Fence/Wall Permit would be required. On May 19, 2014, a complaint was filed with the Code Enforcement Division about alleged unpermitted construction of accessory structures in the rear yard of the subject property. The City's Code Enforcement Officer conducted a site visit on the same day and confirmed the allegation. Subsequently, a letter was sent to Mr. Hesser, requiring him to obtain permits for the unpermitted construction. In response, the property owner submitted an after -the -fact Site Plan Review application to legalize the unpermitted pond, fountain and fire pit in the rear yard and obtained approval on May 22, 2014 (ZON2014-00198). On May 22, 2014, the applicant applied and obtained approval for an after -the -fact Site Plan Review application to legalize the 8' tall combination wall up to his rear building fagade. On May 27, 2014, Mr. Hesser submitted a Fence/Wall Permit, requesting to extend the 8' tall combination wail beyond his rear building fagade. On June 26, 2014, the Director approved a FenceNVall Permit to allow an 8' tall combination wall, as measured from the grade on the lower side at 29023 Sprucegrove Drive. The approved combination fence/wall would consist of a 2.5' tall framed transparent acrylic barrier on top of a 4' tall solid wood fence on top of an existing 1.5' tall retaining wall. Only the 6.5' tall acrylic and wood fence portions of the combination fence/wail would protrude above grade level on the higher side at 29029 Sprucegrove Drive. Subsequently, a Notice of Decision was issued with an appeal period of 15 -days, ending on July 14, 2014. The abutting property owners of 29029 Sprucegrove Drive (Shahbazian) submitted a timely appeal on July 11, 2014, On July 24, 2014, a public notice was mailed to all persons owning property within a 500' radius of the subject property and published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. Public correspondence were received in response to the public notice, which are attached and detailed under 'Additional Information'. A-162 On July 17, 2014. Mr. Hesser obtained a ministerial over-the-counter Site Plan Review application approval for a 57.5ft2 detached linear trellis in the rear yard (ZON2014-00286). The detached trellis, which constitutes an accessory structure meets all Municipal Code requirements. including setbacks (5' min from side property line) and height (12' max.). Said trellis has been constructed and is parallel with the 8' combination wall that is subject to the pending appeal. On July 22, 2014, Mr. Larry Helfman representing the Shahbazians submitted an email requesting an extension of the appeal hearing to allow sufficient time to prepare for the meeting. After consulting with the City Attorney, Staff informed Mr. Helfman that the public hearing on August 12'h cannot be continued as it has already been publicly noticed. It was also pointed out that the Shahbazians have had 7 -weeks to prepare for the hearing. Nonetheless, one of the alternatives identified by Staff for the Commission to take is to continue the public hearing to the August 26th Planning Commission meeting as requested by the appellant. The email exchanges between Mr. Helfman and Staff are attached and addressed under the 'Additional Information' section below. SITE DESCRIPTION The subject property is a residential pad lot with a descending extreme slope at the rear of the property. The properties along Sprucegrove Drive have similar topographical conditions which are terraced with the slope of the street As a result of the elevation difference between properties, retaining walls between properties are common along the side property lines. The subject property, for example, has a pad elevation that is higher than the abutting property to the north while lower than the abutting property to the south. There are retaining walls along both sides of the property based on the elevation differences. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Director's current approval permits the installation of a combination wall not to exceed 8' in height, as measured from the grade on the lower side at 29023 Sprucegrove Drive (applicant) and 7', as measured from the grade on the higher side at 29029 Sprucegrove Drive (appellant). This 7'18' tall combination wall is allowed along the south side property line from the edge of the rear building fagade of 29023 Sprucegrove Drive to the top of the slope for a total length of 23'. The approved combination wall would consist of a 2.5' tall fence (80% transmission of light, air or vision) on top of a 4' tall solid wood fence on top of an existing 1.5' tall retaining wall. As part of the conditions of approval, the applicant is required to submit the necessary documents showing that the 2.5' tall fence on top of the 4' tall solid wood fence allows 80% transmission of light, air or vision. The applicant submitted a proposal for a framed transparent acrylic material for the 2.5' tall fence portion and the Director determined that this satisfies the 80% transmission of light and vision. DISCUSSION Staff's analysis of the required Fence/Wall Permit findings, letters of concern and Staff's responses to the letters of concern can be found in the attached Staff Report, approved by the Director on June 26, 2014. A summary of the appellant's (Shahbazian) reason for appeal along with Staff's responses are provided below. A-163 Appellant's Grounds for Appeal Mr. and Mrs. Shahbazian are the property owners of the abutting property at 29029 Sprucegrove Drive, which is at least 2' higher in building pad elevation than the applicant's property located at 29023 Sprucegrove Drive The Shahbazians are appealing the Director's approval for the following reasons: 1) the application process. 2) view impairment, 3) unpermitted retaining wall and 4) inconsistency with the Municipal Code. The specific reasons for the appeal are described individually in more detail below, 1. Application Process The Shahbazians expressed in their appeal letter that the Fence/Wall Permit should not have been processed as an after -the -fact permit. The subject Fence/Wall Permit was not processed as an after -the -fact permit because no portion of the proposal that triggers a discretionary Fence/Wall Permit was under construction or constructed prior to application submittal. Staff believes that the Shahbazians are referring to the after -the -fact Site Plan Review application that was granted to the applicant prior to the subject Fence/Wall Permit, as mentioned in the background section, for the portion of the combination wall along the side property line between the Shahbazian's and the applicant's properties that is not subject to a discretionary Fence/Wall Permit application as discussed below. According to Municipal Code Section 17.76.030 (Fences, walls and hedges) subsection B.2., "Upon submittal of an application and a site inspection fee—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... the fence/wall permit shall be approved. Pursuant to the above Code Section 17.76.030.B2, the applicant submitted an application and paid a site inspection fee (which included a penalty fee as the combination wall subject to the Site Plan Review was partially constructed prior to obtaining City approval) for approval of a 778' tall combination wall. Subsequent to the submittal, Staff conducted a site visit to the Shahbazian's property and determined that there will be no view impairment from their primary viewing area (consisting of their family room and bedrooms located along the rear fagade) as a result of said wall since the wall would not be visible from their viewing area. The only area where said wall is visible is from a single kitchen window along the side of the house. From the kitchen window, there is no protected view that would be impaired by the after -the -fact 778' combination wall. Therefore, an after -the -fact Site Plan Review was granted for the 778' combination wall which allowed the wall up to the applicant's rear building fagade. A copy of the approval was mailed to both the Shabahzian and the applicant. This approval is not the subject of this appeal hearing. The applicant also requested approval for this combination wall to extend beyond his rear building fagade. Given that Staff determined there could be view impairment caused by an 8' tall combination wall that extends beyond the applicant's rear building fagade, this portion of the wall required approval of a Fence/Wall Permit. Subsequently, the Director approved the Fence/Wall Permit with a modified combination wall (2.5' tall fence on top of a 4' tall solid wood UIN 61i fence on top of an existing 1.5' tall retaining wall) so as not to result in significant view impairment. It is this subsequent application which is the subject of this appeal hearing. 2. View Impairment The Shahbazians indicate in their appeal letter that there used to be a combination lattice and chainlink fence along the side property line, from their rear fapade to the top of the slope, which did not cause a view impairment and that the Director approved a combination wall that now causes a view impairment. The applicant's original proposal was for an 8' tall solid combination wall, 6.5' of which would project above the Shahbazian's grade level. Based on Staff's assessment of the application, it was determined that an 8' tali solid combination wall, specifically the 6.5' portion above the Shahbazian's grade level, would significantly impair the ocean view from their primary viewing area. After subsequent site visits, the Director determined that a solid wood fence limited to a height of 4' above the Shahbazian's grade level would not cause significant view impairment. However, since the applicant desired a taller barrier to keep their dogs from jumping over the barrier, the Director's approval also included a 2.5' tall fence portion that allows 80% transparency of vision light or air on top of the 4' tall solid wood fence to ensure that there would be no significant view impairment while allowing for a taller barrier. As such, with the modified heights and varied materials, the Director approved an 8' tall combination wall (2.5' tall fence that allows 80% transmission of vision light or air on top of a 4' tall solid wood fence on top of an existing 1.5' tall retaining wall) along the south side yard that extends from the applicant's rear building fa(;ade to the top of the slope. Staff believes that as conditioned, this proposed combination wall/fence would not significantly impair the Shahbazian's view. 3. Unpermitted Retaining Wall The Shahbazian's claim in their appeal letter that the existing retaining wall between their property and the applicant's property was modified without permits, approvals, and/or inspections. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.76.040 (Grading Permit) subsection C, grading approval is not required for: 1) an excavation, fill or combination thereof, less than 20 cubic yards, 2) an excavation or fill less than 3' in depth of natural grade, or 3) an excavation less than 10' below existing grade for the foundation or footings of a structure on a slope less than 35% and not involving a caisson foundation. Based on field observations and submitted plans, Staff has determined that the existing retaining wall that supports earth between the two abutting properties with an average building pad elevation difference of 2' does not require approval of a Grading Permit, especially given the existing height of the alleged modified retaining wall. Additionally, the minimal quantity of earth movement and the depth of cut or fill to modify the existing retaining wall at the current height of 1.5' to 2', on average, would not trigger a Grading Permit, Building Permit or inspections. 4. Inconsistencv with the Municipal Code The Director approved a Fence/Wall Permit for an 8' tall combination wall, which was processed with the appropriate planning applications and related findings were made consistent with the Municipal Code. Staff's analysis of the applicable Municipal Code findings are detailed in the attached Director approved Staff Report. A-165 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Public Correspondence In addition to the attached email exchanges received from the property owner of 29029 Sprucegrove Drive (Shahbazian) and their legal representative (Helfman), the property owners of 29043 Sprucegrove Drive and 6944 Grovespring Drive submitted the attached emails expressing view impairment concerns. The content of the emails is discussed in more detail below. 29043 Sr)rucecrrove Drive (Kwan rer)resentina prooertv owner Wan The property at 29043 Sprucegrove Drive is located two lots south of the applicant's property. Ms. Kwan indicates in her email that the fence in question has already been constructed, but as previously noted, the combination wall subject to this appeal has not been constructed. However, Staff believes that she may be referring to the applicant's detached trellis with lattice work that was approved for construction, parallel to the subject combination wall. The detached trellis was approved over-the-counter on July 17, 2014 (Case No. ZON2014-00286) as a ministerial approval since the trellis is located outside of all required setbacks (5' from side) and does not exceed the maximum allowed height of 12'. Ministerial decisions by the Director are not appealable to the Planning Commission. Ms. Kwan's main point of concern is view impairment resulting from the approved 8' tall combination wall. As discussed in the attached Director approved Staff Report, the view impairment from Ms. Kwan's property is even less than from Shahbazian's property and is at the right side periphery of the vast view frame. As such, the Director determined that from Ms. Kwan's property, the view impairment caused by the subject 8' tall combination wall is not significant. 6944 Grovespring Drive (Tang) The property located at 6944 Grovespring is located on the opposite side of the street (without a view), approximately 7 to 8 lots south of the applicant's property. Mr. Tang submitted the attached email in support of the appeal request based on view impacts from the Shahbazian's viewing area. As discussed in the Fence/Wall Permit findings above, the Director determined that the view impairment caused by a 4' tall solid wood fence would not be significant from Shahbazian's viewing area. Appellant's Legal Representative (Helfman) Mr. Helfman, representing the appellants, submitted the attached email with attachments in support of the pending appeal. The email describes the chronology of events from the appellant's perspective and requests the following: + Either the appeal be upheld or as an alternative, lower the entire side yard barrier to no taller than 4' from the appellant's grade level with lattice material for the portion up to the applicant's rear building fagade and chain link for the portion beyond the applicant's rear building fagade. As described in the attached Director approved Fence/'Wall Permit, Staff believes that the 8' tall combination wall as conditioned will not cause significant view impairment from UISTOT01 the appellant's viewing area and all relevant findings were made, Furthermore, the portion of the barrier that does not extend beyond the applicant's rear building fagade does not require approval of a FenceMall Permit and thus not the subject of the pending appeal • Verify the existing retaining wall height. Before making a decision on the FenceNVall Permit, Staff measured the existing retaining wall height portion located beyond the applicant's rear building facade and found the height to be generally 1.5'. However, even if there are portions of the 1.5' tall retaining wall that may be few inches taller beyond the applicant's building facade, the applicant will not be able to exceed the 778' height envelope as required by the conditions of approval. The same applies to the ministerial approved after -the -fact Site Plan Review application. The height restriction was set up this way so that the overall height of the approved combination wall cannot be changed as a result of future alteration of the existing retaining wall. + Decision on the appeal be postponed until the trellis has been resolved. The detached trellis was approved as a ministerial over-the-counter application that cannot be modified, denied or appealed, as it is allowed by -right. Additionally, the approval for the detached trellis is independent from the pending appeal of the Fence/Wall Permit. As such, Staff does not believe postponement of the appeal decision is warranted based on any issues related to the approved detached trellis. View Impacts Cyrus Shahbazian, the son of the property owners of 29029 Sprucegrove Drive, submitted the attached email with view impact concerns as a result of the Director approved 8' tall combination fence. As evidenced in the attached Director approved Fencemall Permit, the proposed 8' tall combination wall will not cause significant view impairment and all relevant findings were made. Detached Trellis Sara Shahbazian, the daughter of the property owners of 29029 Sprucegrove Drive, submitted the attached email with view impact concerns as a result of the recently approved and constructed trellis on the applicant's property. As described in the `Background Section' above, the applicant was granted an over-the-counter ministerial Site Plan Review approval to construct a detached trellis in his rear yard (ZQN2014-00286). The approval was a ministerial decision as the proposed trellis met all applicable development standards, namely setbacks, lot coverage and height limits. According to Municipal Code Section 17.48.050(D) — Accessory Structures, "Decks, playhouses... or any structures or buildings which are physically detached and incidental to the use of the main building are considered accessory structures. Such accessory structures shall be limited to 12' in height, as measured from preconstruction grade adjacent to the foundation wall to the ridge". Pursuant to the Development Code, the detached trellis constitutes an accessory structure, which meets the minimum required setbacks from property lines (20' front, 5' sides and 15' rear) and the 12' height limit. Since obtaining approval, the applicant constructed said trellis 5' away from the south side property line, parallel with the 8' tall combination wall that is subject to the pending appeal. Because the approved trellis is parallel with the 8' tall combination wall, it impairs the ocean view from the Shahbazian's A-167 viewing area that the Director was trying to preserve by approving a modified version of the applicant's combination wall request. Although the approved trellis impairs the ocean view from the Shahbazian's property, the City has no ability to modify or deny the application as the trellis meets the setback, lot coverage and height regulations and no discretionary review is required by the Code. Notwithstanding the new trellis and the impact on the Shahbazian's view, Staff believes that the height and material conditions imposed on the applicant's FenceMall Permit should remain since the lattice portion of the trellis could be easily removed sometime in the future. Appeal Extension Request On July 22, 2014, Mr. Larry Helfman, representing the appellants (Shahbazian) submitted the attached email requesting a two week extension or postponement of the Planning Commission hearing to prepare for the appeal hearing. Staff believes that the appellants have had sufficient time to prepare for the public hearing and believes that the extension is unreasonable, causing unnecessary delays for the applicant. This is because a Notice of Decision for the Fence/Wall Permit was issued on June 27" and with the Planning Commission hearing scheduled for tonight (August 12th), approximately 7 weeks have been provided to both the applicant and the appellant to prepare for the appeal hearing. However, should the Planning Commission feel that granting the extension is warranted, an alternative to Staff's recommendation has been added to continue the matter to the August 26th meeting. Fence/Wall Permit Materials As described in the 'Background' section above, the Director approved a FenceNVall Permit for an 8' tall combination wall (2.5' tall fence on top of a 4' tall solid wood fence on top of an existing 1.5' tall retaining wall) along the south side property line of the applicant's property. The 2.5' tall fence portion was conditioned so that it would be of a material that allows 80% transmission of light, air or vision. The applicant is required to submit documents prior to installation that proves that the proposed fence complies with the 80% transmission requirement. Subsequent to the Director's approval of the FenceNVall Permit, the applicant submitted a drawing of a framed, transparent acrylic material for the 2.5' tall portion of the combination wall. The Director found that the proposed framed, transparent acrylic fence satisfies the requirement and therefore the original Director's condition of approval has been modified to specify the 2.5' tall fence portion material to the framed transparent acrylic, rather than any material that allows 80% transmission of vision, light or air. The modified condition of approval is reflected in the attached Exhibit `A', condition no. 1 of the resolution. Shahbazian's pending After -the -Fact Extreme Slope Permit On April 18, 2014, the Shahbazian submitted an after -the -fact Extreme Slope Permit to legalize an existing unpermitted deck over an extreme slope on their property in response to a Code Enforcement complaint. The application is subject to Director review and has been deemed complete for processing, but a decision has not been rendered at this time. Additionally, a 00 - day extension was granted by the applicant, extending the decision deadline to October 30, 2014. This application is separate and has no relation to the pending FenceNVall Permit appeal hearing. CONCLUSION Based on the above discussion, Staff believes that no new information has been submitted by the appellants to warrant overturning the Director's decision, and therefore recommends that the Planning Commission uphold the Director's decision and deny the appeal. ALTERNATIVES In addition to the Staff's recommendation, the following alternatives are available for Planning Commission's consideration: 1. Approve the appeal and direct Staff to return to the Planning Commission with a revised resolution at a date certain. 2. Modify the appeal and direct Staff to return to the Planning Commission with a revised resolution at a date certain. 3. Grant the appellant's request for an extension and continue the appeal hearing to August 26, 2014. ATTACHMENTS • Draft P.C. Resolution No. 2014-_ • Appeal Letter • Appellant's Extension Request • Public Correspondence • Approved Site Plan for the detached trellis • Site Plan for the Fence/Wall Permit P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2014- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES UPHOLDING THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION TO APPROVE, WITH CONDITIONS, A FENCEIWALL PERMIT FOR A 7'I8' TALL COMBINATION WALL ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE PROPERTY LINE FROM THE EDGE OF THE REAR BUILDING FACADE TO THE TOP OF THE SLOPE FOR A TOTAL LENGTH OF 23' AT 29023 SPRUCEGROVE DRIVE (ZON2014-00202). WHEREAS, on May 27, 2014, the property owner (Darrel Hesser) submitted a Fence/Wall Permit, requesting approval for an 8' tall combination wall (solid wood barrier on top of an existing retaining wall) along the south side property line (abutting 29029 Sprucegrove Drive) from the edge of the rear building fapade to the top of the slope, equivalent to a length of approximately 23% and, WHEREAS, on June 26, 2014, the Director approved a Fence/Wall Permit for an 8' tall combination wall, as measured from the grade on the lower side at 29023 Sprucegrove Drive. Said wall consists of a 2.5' tall framed acrylic fence on top of a 4' tall solid wood fence on top of an existing 1.5' tall retaining wall. Only the 6.5' tall acrylic and wood fence would exceed the grade level on the higher side at 29029 Sprucegrove Drive; and, WHEREAS, on June 27, 2014, a Notice of Decision was issued informing interested parties of the 15 -day appeal period ending on July 14, 2014; and, WHEREAS, on July 11, 2014, the abutting property owner of 29029 Sprucegrove Drive (Hossein and Vicky Shahbazian) submitted a timely appeal, requesting that the Planning Commission overturn the Director's approval based on concerns related to the application process, view impairment, unpermitted retaining wall, and inconsistency with the Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, on July 24, 2014, a public notice was mailed to all persons owning property owners within a 500' radius from the subject property and published in the Palos Verdes 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 Substances Statement), the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt under Class 3 (Section 15303); and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on August 12, 2014, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: P.C. Resolution No. 2014 - Page 1 A-170 Section 1: The proposed project involves a combination wall, not to exceed 8' in height, as measured from the grade on the lower side at 29023 Sprucegrove Drive (applicant) and 7', as measured from the grade on the higher side at 29029 Sprucegrove Drive (appellant). This 778' tail combination wall is allowed along the south side property line from the edge of the rear building fapade of 29023 Sprucegrove Drive to the top of the slope, for a total length of 23'. Said wall consists of a 2.5' tall framed, transparent acrylic fence on top of a 4' tall solid wood fence on top of an existing 1.5' tall retaining wall. Section 2: A Fence/Wall Permit is warranted because: A. The combination wall 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 Plans, as a city -designated viewing area. More specifically, the 8' tall combination wall of which 6.5' tall portion would be above the grade level of 29029 Sprucegrove Drive (2.5' tall framed, transparent fence that allows 80% transparency of vision light or air on top of a solid wood fence up to 4' in height) would not cause significant view impairment as only a minimal amount of ocean view from the appellant's viewing area would be impaired. Additionally, when the entirety of the view is considered, the proposed combination wall would be located in the far right periphery of the appellant's view frame and the remaining ocean and Catalina views would not be impaired. Furthermore, from the viewing area of 29043 Sprucegrove Drive (Wang), there would be even less view impairment caused by the proposed 8' tall combination wall as it would be located in the right periphery of the view frame and the remaining ocean and Catalina views would not be impaired. Moreover, there are no public properties in the vicinity that has a view across the proposed project area and the subject property is not located within the City's coastal zone. B. There is no foliage on the applicant's lot which exceeds 16' or the ridgeline of the primary structure, whichever is lower, that impairs a view from the viewing area of another parcel, or a view from public property which has been identified in the city's general plan or coastal specific plan, as a city -designated viewing area. C. Placement or construction of a fence or wall complies with all applicable standards and requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code and General Plan. More specifically, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.76.030(C)(b)(iii), "when combined, the total height of a fence, freestanding wall or retaining wall may not exceed 8', as measured from grade on the lower side, and may not exceed 7°, as measured from the grade on the higher side". The proposed combination wall will not exceed 8' in height from the grade on the lower side at 29023 Sprucegrove Drive and 7' from the abutting property's grade on the higher side at 29029 Sprucegrove Drive. Additionally, the City's General Plan, Policy No. 14 of the Urban Environment C=lement states the following.- "Prohibit ollowing:"Prohibit encroachment on existing scenic views reasonably expected by neighboring residents". The 8' tall combination wall (2-5' tall framed, transparent acrylic fence on top of a 4' tall solid wood barrier on top of an existing 1.5' tall retaining wall) would project into a minimal amount of ocean view at the periphery of the view frame of the abutting neighbors' viewing area, while the remainder of the ocean and Catalina view would be preserved. 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 P.C. Resolution No. 2014 - Page 2 A-171 within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of this decision; or by 5:30 PM on Wednesday, August 27, 2014. A $2,275.00 appeal fee must accompany any appeal letter If no appeal is filed timely, the Planning Commission's decision will be final at 5:30 PM on August 27, 2014. 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 decision to approve, with conditions, the Fence/Wall Permit, subject to the conditions set forth in the attached `Exhibit A' (Case No. ZON2014-00202). PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 121" day of August 2014, by the following vote AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: RECUSALS: ABSENT: Gordon Leon, Chairman Joel Rojas, AICP Community Development Director and Secretary of the P#anning Commission P.C. Resolution No. 2014 - Page 3 A-172 EXHIBIT 'A' CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PLANNING CASE NO. ZON2014-00202 (FENCE/WALL PERMIT) 29023 SPRUCEGROVE DRIVE This approval is for a combination wall not to exceed 8' in height, as measured from the grade on the lower side (29023 Sprucegrove Drive) and 7', as measured from the grade on the higher side (29029 Sprucegrove Drive). This 778' tall combination wall is allowed along the south side property line from the edge of the rear building fagade of 29023 Sprucegrove Drive to the top of the slope, for a total length of 23'. Said wall consists of 2.5' tall framed, transparent acrylic fence on top of a 4' tall solid wood barrier on top of an existing 1.5tall retaining wall. 2. The existing chain link fence shall be removed, prior to the installation of the approved combination wall detailed in Condition No. 1 above. 3. Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, the applicant and the property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have read, understand, and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this decision. Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void. 4. Prior to conducting any work in the public right of way, such as for curb cuts, dumpsters, temporary improvements and/or permanent improvements, the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works. 5. 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. 6. The Community Development Director is authorized to make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions of approval if such modifications will achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with the approved plans and conditions. Otherwise, any substantive change to the project shall require approval of a revision by the final body that approved the original project, which may require new and separate environmental review. 7. The project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards contained in these conditions of approval or, if not addressed herein, shall conform to the residential development standards of the City's Municipal Code, including but not limited to height, setback and lot coverage standards. 8. 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. 9. If the applicant has not submitted an application for a building permit for the approved project or not commenced the approved project as described in Section 17.86.070 of the City's Municipal Code within one year of the final effective date of this decision, approval of the project shall expire and be of no further effect unless, prior to expiration, a written P.C. Resolution No. 2014 - Page 4 A-173 request for extension is filed and approved by the Community Development Director, 10. 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. 11. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be completed in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the City with the effective date of this decision. 12. 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. 13. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, 9:OOAM to 5:00PM on Saturday, with no construction activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section 17,96.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. During demolition, construction and/or grading operations, trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining street rights- of-way before 7AM Monday through Friday and before 9AM on Saturday, in accordance with the permitted hours of construction stated in this condition. When feasible to do so, the construction contractor shall provide staging areas on-site to minimize off-site transportation of heavy construction equipment. These areas shall be located to maximize the distance between staging activities and neighboring properties, subject to approval by the building official. 14. All grading, landscaping and construction activities shall exercise effective dust control techniques. either through screening and/or watering. 15. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly manner, to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official. All construction waste and debris resulting from a construction, alteration or repair project shall be removed on a weekly basis by the contractor or property owner. Existing or temporary portable bathrooms shall be provided during construction. Portable bathrooms shall be placed in a location that will minimize disturbance to the surrounding property owners, to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official. P.C. Resolution No. 2014 - Page 5 A-174 Appeal Letter (Hossein & Vicky Shahbazian) A-175 TO: Mr. JOEL ROJAS & Ms. So Kim FROM: Hossein and Vicky Shahbazian RE: Property Located at 29023 Sprucegrove Drive DATE: July 10, 2014 NOTICE OF APPEAL JOEL ROJAS & MS. SO KIM: The license or "use permit" issued to Mr. Hesser, located at 29023 Sprucegrove Drive, cannot and should not be characterized as an after -the -fact permit. The fence that had existed between Mr. Hesser's property, and my property, located at 29029 Sprucegrove Drive, was erected over twenty years ago and stood at approximately four feet. For the past twenty years, long before Mr. Hesser moved into the community, the viewing areas where the fence was located did not obstruct our neighbor's view, as it was a combination of lattice and chain link. Our neighbors, my family, and our visitors were able to enjoy the unique topographical views of Palos Verdes, which attracted my family to Rancho Palos Verdes at the outset. City restrictions regarding existing fences are clearly defined in the city code. Refer to city restrictions for height in pad elevations where the pad difference is in excess of two feet, ours is three feet plus height difference. Therefore, according to the code, this requires a "Special Use Permit," and under no circumstances, was guaranteed to Mr. Hesser. Ms. Julie Peterson, in her capacity as code enforcer, made a visit to our property in January or February of this year. Ms. Peterson, after verifying the height difference between Mr. Hesser's and my property, told Mr. Hesser to bring the eight -foot concert columns he had just put up. At the time, Mr. Hesser who has knowledge and experience in construction would have voiced his objection had Ms. Peterson been incorrect in calculating the height difference in pad elevation. Aside from Ms. Peterson's calculations, we have documentation evidencing Mr. Hesser's manipulation and the alteration of the land where the fence existed. Despite that, Mr. Hesser is claiming that the permit received is an after -the -fact permit. A permit obtained under these circumstances should be invalid, and Mr. Hesser's permit should not be an exception. Enforcement would be unjust, inequitable and would encourage landowners to forgo the permit requirement until construction is complete. Based on the documented evidence, Mr. Hesser's permit should not be valid and should be revoked. Thank you, Hossein & Vicky Shahbazian 29029 Sprucegrove Dr., Ranch Palos Verdes, CA 90275 (310) 251-8407 A-176 July 11, 2014 Notice of Appeal — Supplement Re: 29023 Sprucegrove Dr. Case #20N2014-00202 This is a supplement to our Notice of Appeal in the above -referenced matter. Mr. Hesser has modified and removed portions of the retaining wall between our properties without permits, approval, and inspections which is a violation of city code requirements, and which has created damage to our property (29029 Sprucegrove Dr). Also, contrary to what is indicated in the permit, the existing retaining wall is, at many points, significantly greater than 1.5 feet. The fence/wall, as permitted, will significantly impair our view and devalue our property. Lastly the fence/wall, as permitted, does not comply with RPV's municipal code and the general plan of the area. Thank you, Vicky & Hossein Shahbazian 29029 Sprucegrove Dr. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Cell: (310)251-8407 A-177 Appellant's Extension Request r."Swel, So Kim From: So Kim Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 1:28 PM To: 'Larry A. Helfman' Cc: Joel Rojas; Ara Mihranian (aram@rpv.com) Subject: RE: 29023 Sprucegrove Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 - Permit No. ZON2014-00180 and 70N2014-00202 Hi Mr. Helfman, As a follow-up to my previous email, I wanted to let you know that your extension request will be mentioned in the Staff Report and will be provided to the Planning Commission as one of the alternatives for their decision. So, while Staff's recommendation will be different, the Planning Commission may grant your request and continue the matter to a subsequent meeting should they choose do so. Sincerely, So Kim Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes www.palosverdes.com/rpv (310) 544-5228 From: So Kim Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 10:18 AM To: Larry A. Helfman Cc: Joel Rojas; Ara Mihranian Subject: RE: 29023 Sprucegrove Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 - Permit No. ZON2014-00180 and ZON2014- 00202 Hi Mr. Helfman, In discussing the extension request further with the Director and the City Attorney, the public hearing will move forward with the scheduled/agendized date of August 12"' Also, with regards to the requested information, I provided copies of most of the requested items to your clients already. Regardless, I will try to make copies of what you need and provide it to you sometime this week. If you need it sooner, you are welcome to visit our office and make copies yourself. Sincerely, So Kim Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes www.galosverdes.com/rpv (310)544-5228 From: Larry A. Helfman [mailto:lah helfmanlaw.com] Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 4:37 PM To: So Kim Subject: 29023 Sprucegrove Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 - Permit No. ZON2014-00180 and ZON2014-00202 A-179 Ms. Kiin, I wanted to folloNN-Up with you regarding VOUr email of July 22 and the discussion you indicated that yOU would be having with the Director regarding the extension I requested on behalf of m} clients. Please advise as to whether the extension can be granted. My clients are agreeable to the additional site visit you requested, but later in the week will work better. Please call nye to schedule a mutually agreeable date. We are also requesting that copies ofthe photographs be provided to my office in advance of the hearing. On a related matter. I would appreciate it if you could forward me or make available to my office for viewing/copying: (1) the atter-the-fact Site Plan review application submitted by Mr. Hesser to the City on May 7, 2014 (designated by the City as ZON2014-00180), (2) any photographs, drawings or plans pertaining to such application, and (3) any notices regarding the approval of such application. Similarly, for the Fence/Wall Permit submitted by Mr. Hesser on May 27, 2014 (designated by the City as ZON2014-00202), we are requesting viewing/copying of (1) the permit/application submitted by Mr. Hesser and (2) any photographs, drawings or plans pertaining to such application/permit, and (3) any notices regarding the approval of such application. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation, and please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or concerns. Larry A. Helfman, Esq. Law Offices of Larry A. Helfman 27$0 Skypark Drive, Suite 325 Torrance, CA 90505 Tel: (310) 539-0688 1 Fax: (310) 784-2513 Email: lahLa? helfin anlaw. com This email may contain confidential and privileged material, and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message. l e/ So Kim From: So Kim Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 4:28 PM To: 'Larry A. Helfman' Cc: Joel Rojas; Ara Mihranian (aram@rpv.com) Subject: RE: 29023 Sprucegrove DE ive, Rancho Palos Verdes; CA 90275 - Permit No. ZON2014-00180 Hi Mr. Helfman, It was nice speaking with you as well. 1) Per our discussion, your clients were aware of the appeal opportunity since the issuance of the original Notice of Decision on June 27". This gives them approximately a month and a half to prepare for the meeting scheduled for August 121''. As such, I already relayed to your client that an extension cannot be granted as the provided time period is sufficient and any additional extensions or delays to the appeal hearing is not reasonable. Nevertheless, given your subsequent written request, 1 will discuss this matter again with the Director and get back to you. 2) The appeal hearing has been agendized for the August 12" Planning Commission meeting. Below is the link to the July 22" agenda, which includes the August 12`" pre -agenda at the end: http:/jwww.palosverdes.com/rpv/Planning/AGENDAS - Current Ap-endas/PlanninRCommission/2014/2014 07 22 Plannine Commission Aeenda/ Below is the direct link to the August 12"' pre -agenda: http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/planninp/AGENDAS - Current Agendas/PlanninRCommission/2014/2014 07 22 PlanninR Commission Agenda/Agenda Item 5 RP V SR 2014 7 22 %20PC%20Pre-Agenda.pdf 3) Per my discussion with your clients couple days ago, I would like to schedule a site visit to take another set of photographs from their viewing area. i am available anytime next Monday or Tuesday. I anticipate no more than 5 minutes for the site visit. Sincerely, So Kim Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes www.oalosverdes.com/rav (310) 544-5228 From: Larry A. Helfman [mailto:lah@helfmanlaw.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 3:49 PM To: So Kim Subject: 290.23 Sprucegrove Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 - Permit No. ZON2014-00180 Ms. Kim, It was a pleasure speaking with you today. This will confirm that the undersigned has been retained to represent Vicky and Hossein Shahbazian in connection with the above -referenced matter. ' • As we discussed, I am requesting a two week extensionlpostponeinent of the Planning Commission hearing oil this matter, that Nou advised has been agendized for Auoust I2th. although notice has not Net leen sent out. I lie Int -p(' -,e ()['the requested extension/postponeme►it is to alltm sufficient time for ret icN% and analysis ol' this matter. consultation with my clients. and preparation for the hearing. Finall}. thank you for offering to cmail nze the link for the agenda item relating to this matter that you mentioned is posted on the City's �Nebsite. I look forward to receiving the link from you. In [lie meanwhile, please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or concerns. Larry A. Heifrnan, Esq. Law Offices of Larry A. Helfman 2780 Skypark Drive, Suite 325 Torrance, CA 90505 Tel: (310) 539-0688 1 Fax: (310) 784-2513 Email: lahkhelf;nanlaw. com This email may contain confidential and privileged material, and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s), Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly- prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message. 2 A-182 Public Correspondence L AW OFFICES Or LARRY A. HELFMAN ATTORNEY Al LAW lah((t helfmanlaN% cont Airport Atrium I3uilcling Telephone;. (310) 539-0088 2780Skypark DriAe, Suite 325 Facsinjile: (310) 784-251 3 Torrance, California 9030S -53W To: The City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission From: Larry A. Helfman, Esq., on behalf of Vicky and Hossein Shahbazian Date: August 5, 2014 Re: Appeal of Fence/Wall Permit (Case No. ZON2014-00202) for Property Located at 29023 Sprucegrove Drive (Applicant/Property Owner - Darrel & Brenda Hesser I. BACKGROUND This correspondence is written in support of the appeal filed by Vicky and Hossein Shahbazian ("Shahbazian") of the Community Development Director's approval of a fence/wall permit application submitted by Mr. Darrel Hesser ("Hesser"), the property owner of the property commonly known as 29023 Sprucegrove Drive, for a new fence to be constructed on the side property line (as shown in surveys) abutting the property to the north, which is commonly known as 29029 Sprucegrove Drive, and owned the Shahbazians. The Shahbazian and Hesser properties enjoy views of the ocean and Catalina Island, as well as tree tops and other foliage located in the surrounding hillsides and along Sprucegrove Drive. The Shahbazian's Property is situated at a higher pad elevation than the Hesser's Property, with the difference in pad elevation being two feet or more, and with a retaining wall situated on the property line (as shown in the surveys). A. Prior Configuration of the Fence and Retaining Wall For approximately 20 years prior to the beginning of 2014, there existed a side yard fence on the edge of the Shahbazian's upper pad elevation that ran the length of the house, was approximately 4 feet high, and which sat atop a three foot retaining wall. In the back of the property, there existed a chain link fence approximately 2' 8" in height, although a temporary 5' - 5.5' chain link fence was installed by Mr. Hesser in February or March of 2014. Photographs showing the pre-existing conditions are attached as Exhibit "A." The backyard 1 Up until the survey was recently performed, the Shahbazians were under the impression that the retaining wall and fence were on their property, and nothing stated herein is intended to constitute a waiver or limitation on any rights or remedies that the Shahbazians may have in connection with legal or equitable claims regarding the retaining wall, fence and boundary line. Page 1 of 6 r e" chain link fence is common in and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood as it effectively encloses the backyard without obstructing views. B. Modifications Made to the Fence and Retaining Wall Prior to the Permit Application In early 2014, disputes began to arise between Shahbazian and Hesser as to the boundary line, fence, retaining wall and a deck built by Shahbazian in his backyard. In February of 2014, without Shahbazian's consent or any permit or approval from the City, Hesser began removing portions of the retaining wall and the lattice fence, altered the grading on his property, removed the wooden fence, and began installing seven foot columns on the upper pad elevation, all without any approvals or permits. The Shahbazian's property suffered damage, grading and drainage problems as a consequence. Photographs showing the work, columns and resulting damage are attached as Exhibit "B." All but one of the columns were ultimately removed by Hesser, with one column remaining that was cut down in size. However, the retaining wall and grading have yet to be restored to their original condition, and the Shahbazians are in the process of obtaining further advise and consultation from appropriate professionals as to grading, drainage and structural issues that they may need to address. The Shahbazians have sought the City's help in resolving the issues regarding the altered retaining wall, grading and drainage, but have been informed that given the amount of grading and ground retention involved, no Planning Division approval was required for the work done by Hesser, and that any damage caused would be a civil matter. C. Efforts Made at Resolution of the Disputed Fence/Wall Issues Hesser and the Shahbazians did have discussions for purposes of resolving their differences, but were ultimately unable to find a mutually agreeable solution. One compromise offered by the Shahbazians was the replacement of the chain link fence in the backyard with a four foot wooden fence. The idea of such a fence was to address privacy concerns raised by Hesser, while also addressing view obstruction concerns raised by the Shahbazians. This fence was installed in February of 2014, but immediately removed after Hesser objected to the configuration which was gradually tapered in height as the fence approached the rear of the properties. Thereafter, Hesser installed a new 5 foot chain link fence in the backyard. II. FENCE APPLICATION AND PERMIT PROCESS On May 7, 2014, Hesser apparently submitted some type of application with the City for the erection of a new fence. As of May 7, the staff report indicates that an after -the -fact Site Plan Review application was submitted, but, per the City's records, no such application appears to have in fact been submitted - only a fee was paid. According to the staff report, Hesser's application was for the legalization of a solid wall (57' - 6' in height) on top of an existing retaining wall (2' to 2'-6") along the side property line. However, as of May 7th, there was no Page 2 of 6 rr • : • fence that had yet been installed by Mr. Hesser along the side of the properties (between the structures), and there was a chain link fence in the backyard area. On May 12, 2014, the Shahbazians were sent a letter indicated that their neighbor had submitted a Fence & Wall permit application requesting approval "to replace an existing fence along the shared property line." A copy of the City's May 12th letter is attached hereto as Exhibit "C." However, as of May 12, 2014, no such permit application appears to have been filed per the City's records. On May 15, 2014, the Shahbazian's received an email from the City indicating that the City would be withdrawing the pending Fence/Wall permit because of the determination made that the pad elevation between the Shahbazian and Hesser properties was allegedly less than 2 feet. A copy of the City's May 15th email is attached as Exhibit "D." The Shahbazians disputed this contention, and asked the City to come back out to the property to verify the difference in the pad elevations. On May 19, 2014, the City sent an email to the Shahbazians indicating that after re- visiting the property, the City confirmed that in fact there is a two feet pad elevation between the properties, that a Fence/Wall permit would be required, and that the proposed fence would need to be lowered so that it does not impair the Shahbazian's ocean view. The City also indicated that it had requested Hesser to mark the appropriate height on the existing chain link fence so that another site visit could be made so as to confirm this preliminary assessment. A copy of the City's May 19th email is attached hereto as Exhibit "E." The City thereafter made a site visit to the Shahbazian's home on May 21, 2014, and did not indicate to the Shahbazians any change at that time of their assessment. The chain link fence was marked at the time of this site visit indicating the height at which the fence would be approved so as not to obstruct the Shahbazian's view, as shown in the photograph attached as Exhibit "F." On May 23, 2014, the City sent a letter to the Shahbazians advising that Hesser had been approved to build a new fence. A copy of the City's May 23rd letter is attached hereto as Exhibit "G." Based on the letter and the City's Planning Clearance, instead of restricting the height of the entire fence, the City appears to have split the fence application into three parts, approving a maximum 3' by 6" height fence in the front yard setback, a maximum eight foot fence from the end of the front yard setback to the rear of Hesser's building facade, and indicating that a permit application would be required for any part of the fence to be constructed in the backyard. The Planning Clearance appears to reflect the issuance of a permit, even though City records are devoid of any permit application or permit fee submitted by Hesser up to that point. On this point, the staff report indicates as of May 22, 2014, the Site Plan Review Application was approved, even though, again, no such application is contained in the City's records. Neither the Shahbazians nor any of the neighbors were advised of a right to appeal, comment on, or otherwise dispute this approval. Page 3 of 6 _ •• On May 27, 2014, Hesser filed a Fence/Wall Permit application requesting approval of 23 foot fence in the backyard area. While in the past the City had marked a line on the chain link fence at a height of approximately 4 feet (from the Shahbazian's grade) that they indicated would be the maximum height of the fence, the City has now given Hesser approval for a eight foot combination wall, which includes a wall that will be a minimum of 6.5 feet measured from the Shahbazian's grade. Ill. APPEAL On July 11, 2014, the Shahbazians filed the within Appeal, which was scheduled for hearing on August 12, 2014. On or about July 22, 2014, my office contacted the Community Development Department requesting a brief two week continuance of the hearing to allow sufficient time for review and analysis of this matter, consultation with the Shahbazians, and preparation for the hearing. The continuance request was denied on July 29, 2014. IV. POST -APPEAL CONSTRUCTION BY HESSER OF VIEW -OBSTRUCTING "TRELLIS" On July 17, 2014, approximately one week after the Shahbazian's filing of their appeal, Hesser obtained over-the-counter site review approval of what is described as a twelve foot high and 23' long "trellis" that is five feet from the property line. No notice was sent or received by any of the neighboring properties, and no permit was required by the City. The Shahbazian only learned recently that this "trellis" had been approved by the City. Photographs of this "trellis" are attached. As shown in the pictures attached as Exhibit "H", and as the Shahbazians contend, this "trellis" is in fact a wall or fence - as such terms are defined in the municipal code, and should have required a permit, structural analysis, view analysis, etc. The Shahbazians intend to raise their concerns regarding the "trellis" with the City, and it is respectfully submitted that this issue should be resolved before a final decision can be made on the within Fence/Wall Permit appeal, as both matters involve the impact on the Shahbazian's view. V. DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS PURSUANT TO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 17.76.030 A. The Proposed Fence/Wall Will Significantly Impair the View From the Viewing Area of the Shahbazian's Property As set forth in the Staff Report, and pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.76.030, the Fence/Wall Permit that is the subject of this appeal should not be approved to the extent that the proposed fence or wall would significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another property. The Staff report identifies the viewing area of the Shahbazian's home as the living room, which is part of a great room containing the kitchen as well. The view from the viewing area includes both the ocean and surrounding tree tops and foliage, as shown in the pictures attached hereto as Exhibit "A." The Staff report acknowledges that the approved fence will impair the Shahbazian's view, but Staff has determined that the combination fence being Page 4 of 6 r • s • proposed will result only in a "minimal" amount of impairment. The Shahbazians respectfully disagree with such contention, and have requested that the Planning Commission make a brief site visit to assess the view impact of the entire fence that has been approved. B. It Has Not Been Demonstrated that the Approved Fence/Wall Combination will Comply with all Applicable Standards and Requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code As noted in the Staff Report, Municipal Code Section 17.76.630(C)(b)(iii) sets the maximum height of a fence, freestanding wall or retaining wall at 8', as measured from the grade on the lower side, and 7', as measured from the grade on the higher side. In approving the Fence/Wall Permit, the Staff report notes that the project involves a solid wood barrier (6.5') on top of an existing retaining wall (1.5' in height) resulting in an overall height of 8' as measured from Hesser's grade on the south side property line to the top of the wall. However, elsewhere in the report, staff indicates that the height of the retaining wall is 2' to 2'-6" in height. As discussed earlier, the Shahbazians contend that the grading and retaining wall have been altered, and that the retaining wall is in fact significantly greater than 1.5' in many locations. Before granting approval for the permit, it is requested that the Commission and the Shahbazians be given the opportunity to verify the actual height of the retaining wall as measured from the true grade of Hesser's property, to ensure that the approved combination fence will not exceed the height limitations set forth in the code. C. It Has Not Been Demonstrated that the Approved Fence/Wall Combination will Comply with the General Plan As discussed in the Staff Report, the City's General Plan, Policy No. 14 of the Urban Environmental Element, states the following: "Prohibits encroachment on existing scenic views reasonably expected by neighboring residents." As previously discussed, there was an approximate 2' 8" chain link fence in place at the time both the Shahbazians and the Hessers bought their respective properties, and for many years thereafter, and the scenic views they thus reasonably expect include the ocean views and views of surrounding tree tops and foliage that such chain link fence allowed.z The approved combination fence, will be a minimum of 6.5' (as measured from the Shahbazian's grade), and will unnecessarily encroach on the Shahbazian's view. 2 The Staff Report references a pre-existing chain link fence. However, we understand that the chain link fence that was present at the time of the City's visit was a temporaryfence installed by Hesser in February or March of 2014, and was approximately 5` - 5:5' in height as measured from the Shahbazian's grade. The approved combination fence that is the subject of this appeal is 6.5' in height as measured from the Shahbazian's grade. Page 5of6 _ •• VI. REQUESTED ACTION Based on the foregoing discussion, the Shahbazians respectfully request that their appeal be granted, and that the Hessers' Fence/Wall Permit be denied. As an alternative, the Shahbazians respectfully request that the permit approval be upheld conditioned upon the entire fence be treated as one application/approval request, and that the fence be reinstated to its former condition - lattice and four feet in height between the two structures, and in the back yard, a four foot chain link fence. As another alternative for purposes of balancing the concerns of privacy and view preservation, the backyard fence could be approved conditioned on the fence being a four foot lattice fence that tapers as it approaches the rear of the property. Before making its decision, the Shahbazians also respectfully request that the following: 1. That the Planning Commission make a site visit to assess view impacts; 2. That the Shahbazians and the Planning Commission be given the opportunity to verify the height of the retaining wall in the backyard of the Hesser Property as measured from the true grade of the Hesser Property. 3. That the decision on this appeal be postponed until after the issues surrounding the recently installed "trellis" have been resolved. Thank you for your consideration. Page 5 of 5 rr - • EXHIBIT "A" A o havthorne motor, etpress - G.. 30ft Ape aners • About 13) craigs[ist account Seven Roles for One president 29029 Sprucr {6mezon.eam—Online 5h . ' I99b-2bX4 Pathfinder - QX... op.: BCBG Dress Sale Dresses, _. zi HP See t':hat s Net a QD traigslist neeauret Workspace t"lebmail Mail... st print app details $1 :':et Slice Gall r. 0 Wes � .sem •. � '� '.l.s i .•.hT�. �.. .�� S �F _ill .. Y EXHIBIT " A-195 11 r `s.1000 � s s -- lip Awr 4 1007410511 Ul 11, IN 0 11 • �f?�'>^ rpt • PALOSVERDEI COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEP'ARTMENI May 12, 2014 Hossein & Vick Shahbazian 29029 Sprucegrove Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear Mr. Shahbazian: A Fence & Wall Permit application was submitted by your neighbor, Mr. Hesser, requesting approval to replace an existing fence along the shared side property line. I would like to visit your property to assess view impacts, if any, as a result of this proposal. Please contact me within 7 days of this letter to schedule a site visit. Please feel free to contact me at (310) 544-5228 or sok@rpv.com. Sincerely, So Kim Associate Planner cc: Darrel & Brenda Hesser 129023 Sprucegrove Drive / RPV, CA 90275 Gregory Pfost, Deputy Community Development Director Project File 30940 FIAWTI OHNE BLVD. / RANCH) I)WX'; WROES, CA 90275.5391 PLAr4r NCI & CODE EWORCIMCNT MASON 13101 544-5228 / BUILDING & SAFE TI' DIVISION (310) 265.78M) / DEPT. FAX (310) 544-5293 E•MAiL PLAN NNGORPV.COM/ W1AWJ-AL0S\+r%%S(:0MQPV A-201 A-202 Workspace Webmail :: Print Print I Close Window Page 1 of I Subject: 29029 Sprucegrove From: So Kim <SoK@rpv.com> Date: Thu, May 15, 2044 2:05 pm To: "viol(y@hawthornemotorsexpress.com" <vicky@hawthornemotorsexpress.com> Cc: Joel Rojas <JoelR@rpv.com>, Leza Mikhail <LezaM@rpv.com>, Julie Peterson <JulieP@rpv.com> Attach: Vicinity Map & Labels Instructions, pdf Hi Mrs. Shahbazian, Per your request, 1 forwarded your formal complaint to Ms. Julie Peterson so that she can open a code enforcement case against your neighbor (29023 Sprucegrove) for the alleged non -permitted improvements in the rear yard and interior remodel. Secondly, attached is the radius/maps labels instruction sheet that may help you achieve completeness with your current application pending with Leza. In regards to the Fence/Wall Permit pending for your neighbor, I will be withdrawing his application. What this means is that he will be able to build a fence or a solid wall without obtaining Planning Division approval up to 8' in height from his side and 7' from your side, even if it impairs your ocean view. Basically this means no more than 8' from his side. This is because the City's Code does not require a Fence/Wall Permit if the fence or wall is located where the grade differential between the building pads of adjacent 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. In measuring the pad elevation difference of your property and your neighbor's this morning, it was clear that the pad elevation was less than 2' in height. Your picture showing the one single area where it is more than 2' will not apply as the Code says the difference between the'building pads' has to be 2' or more. Lastly, I understand that you obtained a surveyor as you believe that the property line fence that your neighbor has removed/rebuilt is on your property. The survey will be purely for your reference and will not affect the pending Fence/Wall Permit as we discussed since it will now be withdrawn. Please feet free to contact me with any concerns or additional questions. Sincerely, So Kim ASSO °i.ate Planner c1ty of Rancho pal")s Verdes Copyrighl @2003-2014 Ail r ights reserved, A-203 htsnr•11,-+a�� aill$? c r-rir.Yci--rvi r n,>lliri.>ii nr•inl nlalili 111)x0andelar•itr=�Wl R'lli\11A;_)N7X Si17niIPgr1=0 7/)V01.4 EXHIBIT "E" r.'1v,Tsnj Workspace Webmail :. Print Print i Close Window Subject: RE: 29029 Sprucegrove Dr From: So Kim <SoK@rpv.com> Date: Mon, May 19, 2014 5:12 pm To: "vicky@hawthornemotorsexpress.com" <vicky@hawthornemotorsexpress.com> Cc: Carolynn Petru <Carolynn@rpv.com>, Joel Rojas <JoelR@rpv.com>, "Leza Mikhail" <LezaM@rpv.com>, Julie Peterson <JulieP@rpv.com> Hi Mrs. Shabazian, Pa -e i of 5 Per our conversation over the phone and email last Friday, I went to your neigh'bor's property today to verify whether or not there is at least a 2' pad elevation difference. Based on the site visit, it appears that there is a 2' pad elevation difference between your property and his. As such, a Fence/Wall Permit will apply. Therefore, I will not be responding to your email below as it was based on a premise that a Fence/Wall Permit would not apply. As you may recall from our conversation on your property last Friday, I indicated that if the Fence/Wall Permit was to apply, the proposed solid fence will need to be lowered to certain heights so that it does not impair your ocean view. I requested that your neighbor mark these heights along the existing chain link fence so that I can visit your property one final time to confirm my preliminary assessment. I am available between 8:30am and 11am this Wednesday. This will be a quick site visit that will take no more than 10 minutes_ Would you mind contacting me to schedule a site visit? Sincerely, So Kim Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes www.palosverdes.com/rpv (310)544-5228 From: vicky@hawthornemotorsexpress.com[mailto:vic_ky@hawthorn emotorsexpress. coml Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014. 3:25 PM To: So Kim Cc: Joel Rojas; CityManager; Carolynn Petru; Leza Mikhail; Julie Peterson Subject: 29029 Sprucegrove Dr Hi Ms. Kim, Thank you for your timely response. It has become quite apparent that the underlying reasons for the residential ordinances and policies are to preserve and protect residential views from "needless" obstruction. For example, as you pointed out earlier, the "View Restoration and Preservation" ordinance in Article17, although not specifically addressing our issues, states that the purpose is to "[p)rotect, enhance and perpetuate views available to property owners and visitors because of the unique topographical features of the Palos Verdes Peninsula. These views provide unique and IRREPLACEABLE assets to the City and its neighboring communities..." A-205 hops://ernaiI IS. see ureserver.net/vIew print mtt]Li.pl,p'?tii(3Arrzty=5104ilNi3OXt.�-.,LnilPart=O 7/23/2014 EXHIBIT "F" i� Y ��-' '"�►�;i ij' v .,Ay4�``�v v _mss. J T .'f�hYYr.. Mjry W re�� y EXHIBIT T'Gvv l: CITVOF RANCHO f'ALOSVERDES 1 •1 ).,*%,IN 11 fll 1'a I ai- k+(l )NNIEI71' DEf?W 11111 N I May 23, 2094 Hossein & Vick Shahbazian 29029 Sprucegrove Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Shahbazian: This letter is to inform you that the City approved a solid wood barrier on top of the existing garden wall along the side property line between you and your neighbor at 29023 Sprucegrove Drive (Hesser). Mr. Hesser has been approved for a 3.5' tall combination wall (garden wall with solid wood barrier on top) within the 20' front yard setback. Additionally, he is approved for an 8' tall combination wall (garden wall with solid wood barrier on top) from the edge of the 20' front yard setback to the rear facade of his home. No other type of barrier has been approved beyond the rear fagade of his home at this time. He has been made aware that additional applications and fees will apply should he wish to build a barrier in said area. Attached is a copy of the planning clearance issued to Mr. Hesser. Should you have any questions related to this matter, please feel free to contact me at (310) 544- 5226 or sok(a7rpv.com. Sincerely, So Kim Associate Planner cc: Carrel & Brenda Hesser 129023 Sprucegrove Drive ! RPV, CA 90275 Gregory Pfost, Deputy Community Development Director Project File I I �� ,., Ia , . '1, A-20'0 . I i -;f. 11 I!L I,... ��,'i�:;•.! ..."fi; lil,i., .. -tll I 11}0...i''if Lillrl 'f.,lF'lk�'.q�� • �ini�',. ., �., Dir � I '.- t Y ! `f vi •'-I�l�•I ". CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING CLEARANCE Community Development Department PERMIT NO.: ZON2014-00180 Planning Division APPLIED: 5/712014 30940 Hawthorne Blvd ISSUED: 5/22/2014 Rancho Palos Verdes. CA 90275 EXPIRES: 1111$12014 (310) 544-5228 FAX (310) 544-5293 E-mail. planning@rpv.com SITE ADDRESS: 29023 SPRUCEGRGVE DR ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 7583008009 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Solid wood barrier on top of an existing garden wall along the side property line. OWNER/APPLICANT PRIMARY CONTACT HESSER, DARRELA, JR & BRENDA 29023 SPRUCEGROVE DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES CA 90275 TYPE OF USE: Other Use and/or Structure ZONING: RS -4 (Single-Fam. 4 DU/ac) APPLICATION TYPE(S): Fence, Wall & Hedge Permit CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL NOTES: This approval allows the construction of a solid wood barrier on top of an existing garden wall along the side property line between 29023 and 29029 Sprucegrove Drive at the following heights and lengths: a) Maximum 3'-6" in height (this height includes both the garden wall and the solid barrier on top) within the 20' front yard setback, as measured from the grade on the lower side (29023 Sprucegrove Drive); b) Maximum 8' in height, as measured from grade on the lower side (29023 Sprucegrove Dr.) and 7', as measured from grade on the higher side (29029 Sprucegrove Dr.) from the end of section a above (edge of the 20' front yard setback line) to the existing rear building facade of 29023 Sprucegrove Drive; Any increases or modifications to these heights will require additional Planning Division review, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. Construction of the approved project shall substantially comply with the RS -4 district and site development standards of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. In the event that a Planning Division and a Building Division requirement are in conflict, the stricter standard shall apply. ,_ "c"We FEES —Type By Date Amount DATA FOL PNLT LM LM LM 5/22/2014 5/22/2014 5122/2014 S4 00 $19800 $198.00 Tota 1: $400.00 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL NOTES: This approval allows the construction of a solid wood barrier on top of an existing garden wall along the side property line between 29023 and 29029 Sprucegrove Drive at the following heights and lengths: a) Maximum 3'-6" in height (this height includes both the garden wall and the solid barrier on top) within the 20' front yard setback, as measured from the grade on the lower side (29023 Sprucegrove Drive); b) Maximum 8' in height, as measured from grade on the lower side (29023 Sprucegrove Dr.) and 7', as measured from grade on the higher side (29029 Sprucegrove Dr.) from the end of section a above (edge of the 20' front yard setback line) to the existing rear building facade of 29023 Sprucegrove Drive; Any increases or modifications to these heights will require additional Planning Division review, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. Construction of the approved project shall substantially comply with the RS -4 district and site development standards of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. In the event that a Planning Division and a Building Division requirement are in conflict, the stricter standard shall apply. ,_ "c"We CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING CLEARANCE Community Development Department PERMIT NO.: ZON2014-00180 Planning Division APPLIED: 0/7/2014 30940 Hawthorne: Blvd ISSUED: 5/22/2014 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 EXPIRES: 11/18/2014 (310) 544-5228 FAX. (310) 544-5293 E-mail. planning@rpv.com 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, appliancesior other household fixtures. 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. The City strongly urges the applicant for this project to contact the Homeowners' Association or local Art Jury, if any, to gain any additional approvals that may be required before applying for a building permit. A list of Homeowners' Associations is on file with the Planning. Building and Code Enforcement Department of Rancho Palos Verdes. `-For Community Development Director Date 1�7 I t THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE NULL AND VOID AFTER November 18, 2014 UNLESS THE APPROVED PLANS ARE SUBMITTED TO BUILDING AND SAFETY TO INITIATE THE "PLAN CHECK" REVIEW PROCESS, THIS APPROVAL SHALL ALSO BECOME NULL AND VOID IF AFTER INITIATING THE "PLAN CHECK" REVIEW PROCESS OR RECEIVING A BUILDING PERMIT TO BEGIN CONSTRUCTION, SAID PERMIT OR "PLAN CHECK" IS ALLOWED TO EXPIRE OR IS WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT Page 2 of 2 A-211 EXHIBIT "H" A-212 :, �' v 411 w; t1 > �' v r - r• • p ._3 F TO: Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission FROM: Mr. Cyrus Shahbazian RE: Permit Appeal ZON2014-00202 DATE: August 5, 2014 Members of the City Planning Commission: My name is Cyrus Shahbazian and I am writing in regards to the events that have transpired the past several months between the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Department, Mr. and Mrs. Hesser, and my parents, Hoss and Vicky Shahbazian. As I have been away at law school, it wasn't until very recently that I became aware of the gravity of the situation concerning the Hessers. For the past twenty-five years, 29029 Sprucegrove Drive has been the place i, along with my two sisters, mother and father, have called "home." At twenty-six years old, I have come to a place in my life where I have realized what a privilege it has been to be a part of such a wonderful community. From various programs offered, such as the neighborhood watch, to the accomplished school system where I attended elementary, middle, and high school, growing up in Rancho Palos Verdes was an experience I will never forget. When my parents initially told me what was occurring with the Hessers, located at 29023 Sprucegrove Drive, I didn't appreciate the seriousness of the circumstances. In an abundance of caution, my father, Hass, approached the city to voice his concerns. Initially, the city had told him that Mr. Hesser could not erect such a fence and block our ocean view. The view from our main living area overlooks the Pacific Ocean and the scenic mountain ranges, the very thing that attracted our family to Rancho Palos Verdes back in 1990. Although my family purchased our home in 1990 for roughly $412,000, we paid property taxes on an adjusted price of approximately $560,000 to account for the pristine view. As I am sure it has been brought to the attention of the City Planning Department, our family erected a deck on the rear of our property. In building the deck, we made absolutely certain it would not obstruct any neighboring views or be a nuisance to those in the area. Once completed, our neighbor, Mr. Hesser, indicated his fondness of the deck, wanting to "build" one for his own home. Roughly a year after completing the deck, Mr. Hesser approached my parents and inquired about building a 7'0" fence on the boundary between his property and ours, directly in our line of ocean view. Without hesitation, we expressed our unwillingness to assent as the fence would substantially obstruct our view. A short time after that, Mr. Hesser approached the city and indicated that our deck posed a privacy concern. What is troubling is that for the year prior to this dispute, neither Mr. Hesser, nor his wife, had any complaints about the deck or their "privacy" concerns. However, once my family indicated he could not obstruct our view, Mr. Hesser had a change of heart about the deck. As discussed above, prior to Mr. Hesser complaining to the city, my father approached and discussed the situation with various representatives on the RPV Planning Department. Aside from his broken English and cultural barriers, the RPV representatives assured him and my mother that Mr. Hesser would not be permitted to erect the view -blocking fence. Initially, a lady made a site visit and told Mr. Hesser that he could not build the fence without a permit. A-215 Subsequently, the city issued an "over the counter" permit according to Mr. Hesser's handwritten notations. Seeking refuge in the members of the RPV planning department, Ms. So Kim made several site visits, and Director Rojas personally made a site visit. What looked to be a promising event and an end to this never-ending nightmare, turned into shock and disbelief. Mr. Rojas, after just minutes of entering our home, was on his way out having determined that Mr. Hesser's fence would not obstruct our view. When I learned of Mr. Rojas's observations, 1 knew he was not talking about the place that I called home, there was no way. When I moved back home last week, 29029 Sprucegrove Drive was not the house I remembered it to be. Walking into the back yard, what used to be a breathtaking view of the distant mountains, boats sailing along the ocean, and the evening sunsets have been replaced with a solid, repugnant, brown fence. Mr. Hesser had gotten an over the counter permit for a "trellis," standing over 16 -feet in height and blocking all of our northwest view. However, we have yet to have a hearing regarding the appeal for the 7'0" fence. Our initial correspondence with the city, as discussed, ended with assurances that Mr. Hesser would not build a view -blocking fence. How it went from that to issuing Mr. Hesser an "over the counter" permit and Mr. Rojas indicating that our view is not being obstructed is incomprehensible. The underlying policies of the RPV Municipal Code, and a primary focus of the Planning Department, unequivocally seek to preserve views. Those who drafted the Municipal Code recognized the importance and value, both monetarily and non -monetarily; the views are to RPV residents. Various members of the Planning Department have initiated amendments to the Municipal Code to further enforce those underlying policies of view preservation and restoration. Having lived at 29029 Sprucegrove Drive for the past twenty-five years, I, nor my family, had any idea where our neighbor's bedroom was. As Mr. Hesser indicated that his primary concern was "bedroom privacy," one would think that $50 blinds would accomplish that task, and we would have no problem installing them for him if he would like. From the beginning, we have tried to resolve this dispute with the Hesser's in a civil manner, knowing that we reside next door. However, reaching an amicable resolution with one who does not want to find common ground is impractical. One thing my family will not do, nor would any other RPV resident for that matter, is acquiesce to Mr. Hesser erecting a prison yard fence. With deep roots in the Rancho Palos Verdes community, various neighbors, many of whom have lived here since incorporation in 1973, have similarly voiced their objections to Mr. Hesser's fence. Just as I was when I learned that the City issued a permit, they too are in disbelief and have supported my family and our position. Members of the Planning Commission, I ask that you put yourselves in our shoes, Think about the views each one of you has. Whether you grew up in the same home, or whether you have lived in your homes for a short period of time, one of the primary reasons you live in Rancho Palos Verdes is the beautiful scenery. I have called 29029 Sprucegrove Drive home for the past twenty-five years. Now, it just isn't the same. I appreciate your time and consideration in this matter. Cyrus Shahbazian A-216 So Kim From: Sara Shahbazian <ssshahbazian c@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2014 2:52 PM To: So Kim Cc: PlanningCommission Subject: Appeal Case No. ZON2014-00202 29023 Sprucegrove Dr. Attachments- Before.jpg; After,jpeg Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged To Whom It May Concern: Re: 2902.3 Fence/Wall Permit Appeal My name is Sara Shahbazian. I have been a resident of 29029 Sprucegrove Drive in the city of Rancho Palos Verdes my entire life. Although just twenty-seven years old, I have traveled countries near and far and have experienced many of life's treasures that people do not experience in a lifetime. However, I am at a loss for words at the events that have transpired with our neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. Hesser. The city created certain ordinances and policies to protect and preserve the views from unnecessary obstruction. These views we have as residents of Rancho Palos Verdes are unique, priceless, and irreplaceable. We have had a breathtaking view of Catalina, stretching all the way to Malibu, since we purchased our home in 1990. Attached is a photo for your review to see what our neighbors, the Hessers, have done, even before this matter has been resolved with the planning commission. The approval that was granted to Mr. Hesser was based on the fact that there will not be significant view impairment from the viewing area. What is confusing is he was granted a permit for a "trellis." In actuality, Mr. Hesser implemented a solid 16 -foot fence, blocking our view in its entirety from our living room, kitchen window, and dining room. After looking at the photo provided, you can see that there is no longer a view. I have also included a photo showing the height of the fence, which is in yellow, that So Kim measured on one of her site visits. This height of fence was measured to make sure that our view was not compromised. It wasn't the best solution, but we were happy with the fact that our view would still be visible. After looking at what Mr. Hesser has been approved for, and built you can understand our frustration with the addition of the trellis that stands 16ft in height. Rancho Palos Verdes is a city known for its views. My family is asking for your help to preserve the view we have cherished for 25 years. In the 25 years I have lived in Rancho Palos Verdes, we have never had any issues with our neighbors. A simple observation of the surrounding homes speaks for itself. The Hesser's "trellis" is unconventional, heartbreaking, and has caused my family much anguish. Please take our unique and irreplaceable view into consideration as you make your final determination. Best, Sara A-217 rl- -Ago __`�-4 ,._ � t ', titin' J� ,�. \ \ '. �� \ \ • '� � \, M f So Kim From: Joel Rojas Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 9:04 AM To: So Kim Subject: FW: From Nelson: Re: Pending Appeal Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged From: Nelsongang (mailto:nelsongang r@aol.comj Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2014 7:28 PM To: ken.delong@verizon.net Cc: Joel Rojas Subject: From Nelson: Re: Pending Appeal Ken, copy Community Development Director Joel Rojas Written as a Planning Commissioner. We'll receive the 8112 agenda packet probably the previous Thursday. If the commissioners have received an email (pc@a.rpv.com) inviting us to view from this address, obviously, I'll go out that weekend. In any case, after getting the packet, I do a drive by of every agenda item with my wife (I value her opinion and thoughts very much. Sandie sees things I miss and vice versa)_ It is not appropriate for me to contact parties unless invited as above. Until I receive the staff report in the package, l don't do anything - staying below radar and neutral! Not until 'public comments' are concluded in our meetings will most commissioners offer any opinions. As always, thank you for this heads up. Bob Nelson Planning Commissioner 310-544-4632 -----Original Message ----- From: Ken Del-ong <ken.delong@verizon.net> To: 'Bob Nelson ' <nelsonganggaol.com> Sent: Sat, Aug 2, 2014 6:37 pm Subject: FW: Pending Appeal Bob, this will be before the PC on Aug. 12'h. Will you be making a site visit prior to the hearing? Is it appropriate for you to contact the Shahbazian's to discuss this? Ken From: vicky shahbazianjmailto:vshahbazian(ohotmail.comj Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2014 2:31 PM To: info(q-),pypwatch.com Subject: Pending Appeal To Whom It May Concern: A-220 I am reaching out to you for your help and support. Our names are Vicky and Doss Shahbazian, we live at 29029 Sprucegrove Dr.,RPV Recently our neighbor was granted an approval by the city to build a combination fence on top of an approximately 3 foot retaining wall. The approval is for a fence that will be 4feet of solid wood at the bottom with 2 6" clear plastic on top We are not sure what the framing will consist of, but we do know that the height will be approximately 7 feet. The city has also indicated that they would not have control over what he may put behind the fence. As such, if he plants trees, it could go up to his ridgeline or about 16ft high. This fence looking fence will partially block our beautiful view and impacting our home value. As you might imagine, we are in utter dismay and shock that the city would allow and set a precedence in taking away the view value of any home that makes our Peninsula unique and desirable. We have lived here for 25 years and have never seen anything that comes even close to this upcoming decision by the city of Rancho Palos Verdes, which will clearly impact our home values, views and it uniqueness. Last week we came home and were shocked to see that our neighbor had built a 16ft make shift fence on his property along the side where he is requesting to build his another fence. Come to find out he had gotten a permit to build a trellis, but in fact looks like a 16ft fence (please see attached photos). As you know, emerging laws and rulings are almost always based on precedence. If our view is taken away, you could potentially be next. Let's come together as neighbors and be a team. Let's not let precedence be set without our input and impact and let's protect our views and our home values. We have filed an appeal with the city planning commission and have so far paid close to $8,000 in legal fees. The appeal will be heard August 12 at Hess Park at 7pm. We are hosting an information meeting at our home on Sunday August 31d from 4 to 7 PM. Please join us and see for yourself what could potentially happen to your view and property value if this is not stopped. If this permit is not overturned it will affect the entire Peninsula, and anyone will be able to build or request to build any type of fence that will end up blocking a resident's view. The taxes we pay are based on the view we enjoy and the property value it adds. If you have any questions or can't make it on August 3, please call or email me at: Vicky Shahbazian Cell: 310-292-6305, my email Vicky(cD-hawthornemotorsexpress.cam. Best Regards, Vicky Shahbazian 29029 Sprucegrove Dr. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Phone: 310-544-5100 Cell 310-292-6305 A-221 So Kim From: Joel Rojas Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 9:00 AM To: Robert Nelson <nelsongang@aol.com> Cc: So Kim; Ara Mihranian; Leza Mikha0 Subject: RE: From Nelson: Fwd: Pending Appeal Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Bob In June, we approved a Fence/wall Permit for a new wall/fence combination that is proposed to be built in the location of the temporary chain link fence shown in the photos. We approves[ the new wall/fence with conditions that we felt would avoid significant view impairment. This is the decision that was appealed by the Shabazian`s and will be heard by the PC next Tuesday. About 2 weeks ago, after the appeal was filed, the wall/fence applicant obtained over-the-counter approval for and built a detached trellis structure in his rear yard. That is the wooden structure you see in the photo. It appears that this new structure impairs most of the 5hahbazian's view that we were trying to protect with the Fence/wall Permit decision. There is nothing we can do about the new trellis structure as it meets all codes. All of this will be addressed in the forthcoming PC staff report. Joel From: Nelsongang [mailto:nelsongang@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2014 6:57 PM To: Joel Rojas Subject: From Nelson: Fwd: Pending Appeal Joel, I'd have to say this is written as a member of the PC, not as a private citizen. It's a query I rec'd. I recd this email from Ken DeLong. The email he rec'd (below) says the city approved a trellis but the pictures clearly show a view destroying fence. Does staff want to address this turn of events in the staff report? Clearly I'll go out for a site visit but unless the picture is in error I'll call this a 16' fence down the side property line and wonder how it got done. Any thoughts? I'm not responding to Ken DeLong with anything but a vanilla email I1 copy you. Bob Nelson 310-544--4632 -----Original Message ----- From: Ken DeLong <ken.delongp_verizon.net> To: 'Bob Nelson ' znelsonganq(d)aol.com> Sent: Sat, Aug 2, 2014 6:37 pm Subject: FW: Pending Appeal Bob,. this will be before the PC on Aug. 12111. Will you be making a site visit prior to the hearing? Is it appropriate for you to contact the Shahbazian's to discuss this? Ken A-222 From: vicky shahbazian [mailtowshahbaziagLo mail cam] Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2014 2:31 PM To: ir�focr pv_pwatrh corn Subject: Pending Appeal To Whom It May Concern: am reaching out to you for your help and support. Our names are Vicky and Hoss Shahbazian, we live at 29029 Sprucegrove Dr.,RPV. Recently our neighbor was granted an approval by the city to build a combination fence on top of an approximately 3 foot retaining wall The approval is for a fence that will be 4feet of solid wood at the bottom with 2'6" dear plastic on top We are not sure what the framing will consist of, but we do know that the height will be approximately 7 feet. The city has also indicated that they would not have control over what he may put behind the fence. As such, if he plants trees, it could go up to his ridgeline or about 16ft high- This fence looking fence will partially block our beautiful view and impacting our home value. As you might imagine, we are in utter dismay and shock that the city would allow and set a precedence in taking away the view value of any home that makes our Peninsula unique and desirable. We have lived here for 25 years and have never seen anything that comes even close to this upcoming decision by the city of Rancho Palos Verdes, which will clearly impact our home values, views and it uniqueness. Last week we came home and were shocked to see that our neighbor had built a 16ft make shift fence on his property along the side where he is requesting to build his another fence. Come to find out he had gotten a permit to build a trellis, but in fact looks like a 16ft fence (please see attached photos). As you know, emerging laws and rulings are almost always based on precedence. If our view is taken away, you could potentially be next. Let's come together as neighbors and be a team. Let's not let precedence be set without our input and impact and let's protect our views and our home values. We have filed an appeal with the city planning commission and have so far paid close to $8,000 in legal fees The appeal will be heard August 12 at Hess Park at 7pm. We are hosting an information meeting at our home on Sunday August 31d from 4 to 7 PM. Please join us and see for yourself what could potentially happen to your view and property value if this is not stopped. If this permit is not overturned it will affect the entire Peninsula, and anyone will be able to build or request to build any type of fence that will end up blocking a resident's view. The taxes we pay are based on the view we enjoy and the property value it adds. If you have any questions or can't make it on August 3, please call or email me at: Vicky Shahbazian Cell: 310-292-6305, my email VickyCcDhawthornemotorsexpress.com. Best Regards, Vicky Shahbazian 29029 Sprucegrove Dr. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Phone: 310-544-5100 Cell. 310-292-6305 A-223 So Kim From: Ben Tang <benjtang@hnnnaii.comn Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2014 8712 PM To: So Kim Cc: PlanningCommission Subject: Support for Appeal of a Director Approved Fence/Wall Permit (ZON2014-00202) Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up Flag Status: Flagged Dear Ms. Kim and Planning Commission, This letter is in regards to the Appeal of the Fence Permit referenced in the subject line, for the properties located at 29023 Sprucegrove Drive and 29029 Sprucegrove Drive. I am a longterm property owner in the Los Verdes community, having purchased my home at 6944 Grovespring Dr, in 1997. 1 am familiar with the view ordinance of the city, and understand that its role in protecting the character and aesthetics of our neighborhood is ultimately for the benefit of all the residents. I've had the opportunity to see the properties in person, and I would agree with the appellant that the planned fence would be a severe alteration of what has been in place in those properties for over 50 years and would completely change the open look that is common to just about all the properties in the area and the near 180 degree ocean view which they enjoy. I would urge you to reconsider the approval, and ensure that any new wall and fence structure comply with both the letter and intent of the law, which is to ensure that the view from upslope lots be protected from intentional or inadvertent impairment of views, especially where none existed before. Sincerely, Ben Tang A-224 So Kim From: Kathy Kwan <intagl1ovision9gmail.com> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 10:50 PM To: So Kim; Joel Rojas; CityManager Subject: Re: Fence exception for 29023 Sprucegrove Drive RPV Follow Up Flag: Follow ftp Due By: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 12:08 AM Flag Status: Flagged Dear Ms Kim and City Planning officials, Thank you for forwarding the "Notice of Decision" of the fence to be built at 29023 Sprucegrove Drive. We drove by the neighborhood the weekend of August l 9th during our visit to LA. The fence appears to be already up. I thought there would be some notice to the close neighbors that a permit was pending? Thank you for the site visit and considering our concern about view impairment. My larger concern is the prioritization and preservation of the views of our amazing city. I've lived in many places, and RPV is second to none in its views. Please consider that any decisions to allow fences that could be higher than needed will have reverberating effects. More and more residents will cite preceding exemptions, like the one granted to the Hessers. More residents will build fences as their neighbors do. The only people who can carry a vision of open obstructed views is your team. It's a hard contentious Job, and I sincerely hope you and your team can help preserve the views, value, and Beauty of RPV despite pressures from homeowners to ask for exemptions. Regards, Katherine Kwan for Josephine Wang (Josephine a resident of RPV since 1970) On Mon, Jul 28. 2014 at 3:11 PM, So Kim <SoKa)rpv.com> wrote: Hi, Attached is the requested Staff Report. Sincerely, So Kim Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes www.palosverdes.com/rpv A-225 [310)544-5228 From: Kathy Kwan(mailto:intagliovision@grnail.com) Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 12:11 AM To: So Kim Subject: Re: Fence exception for 29023 SPIucegl-ove Drive RPV Dear Ms Kim, Unfortunately, we aren't in LA for awhile. Is there any way to email a PDF? Thanks, Kathy On Mon, Jul 7.2014 at 8:14 AM, So Kim <SoK@rpv.com> wrote: Hi Mrs. Kwan, Yes, I mailed a copy of the Staff Report and the decision of approval to the property owner we have in file: Josephine Wang for 29043 Sprucegrove. Sincerely, WoWNii Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes www.palosverdes.com/rpv (310) 544-522$ 2 A-226 From: Kathy Kwan iiisailto:iritagliovision@grnail.cornj Sent: Friday, July 04, 2014 6:49 PM To: So Kim Cc: CityManager- Joel Rous; Carolynn Petru: Julie Peterson Subject: Re: Fence exception for 29023 Spruccgrove Drive RPV Dear Ms Kim. Do you have an update on the City's decision in regards to this matter? Thank you, Kathy Kwan (for Josephine Wang, my mother) On Tue, Jun 10. 2014 at 8:29 AM, So Kim <SoK(cTrpv.com> wrote: Hi Kathy, Thank you for the information. I left a message for Mr. Baronet just now to arrange a site visit with your tenants. Once I am able to get on the property, I will update you on the view assessment. In the meantime, I do not feet that it is necessary to copy others on this email chain any further. Please contact me directly with additional concerns or questions_ Sincerely, So Kim Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes www.galosverdes.com/rpv 3 A-227 310 514-5228 From: intagliovision[mailto:intagliovision2gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 6.11 AM To: So Kinn Cc: CityManager; Joel Rojas, Carolynn Petru, Julie Peterson Subject: RE: Fence exception for 29023 Sprucegrove Drive RPV Dear Ms Kim, You can arrange a visit via my mom's property manager Wili Baronet. Her number is 3108010633.. Regards, Kathy -------- Original message -------- From: So Kim Date:2014/06/10 00:21 (GMT+08:00) To: Kathy Kwan Cc: CityManager ,Joel Rojas ,Carolynn Petru ,Julie Peterson Subject: RE: Fence exception for 29023 Sprucegrove Drive RPV Hi Mrs. Kwan, Thank you for your email. Your concerns will be addressed and included as part of the upcoming Staff Report. In the meantime, I would like to schedule an appt. with your tenant to assess your views from your property. Please provide me with their contact information. Sincerely, So Kirn Associate Planner 4 A-228 City ,,i HAnr lir; P3 o,� Verdes www.f)alosverdes.com r v 310 544-5228 From: Kathy Kwan [mailto:inta liovision aD mail,com] Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 6:43 PM To: So Kim Cc: CityManager; Joel Rojas; Carolynn Petru; Julie Peterson Subject. Fence exception for 29023 Sprucegrove Drive RPV Dear Ms Kim, I have owned the home at 29043 Sprucegrove Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes since 1970 and have been a long time resident of over 40 years. A few years ago due to my age (over 80), l moved to reside with my daughter who currently lives abroad. It has come to my attention that the residents at 29023 Sprucegrove Drive are attempting to put up an 8 -foot side yard fence that does not meet city regulations, and that they are attempting to circumvent the regulations with an application for an exception. This fence would negatively affect my view (as also confirmed by my current renter). I am opposed to any fence or obstruction that would affect my current 180 degree from my home and yard. Furthermore, 1 am very concerned that allowing such exceptions would create a dangerous precedent. Most of us who chose to make their homes in RPV have invested our savings into a neighborhood defined by its amazing ocean views and open landscape. There are many other ways that the resident at 29023 Sprucegrove Dr can achieve some privacy without negatively impacting neighbors. I believe the current regulations are sufficient for this, and I strongly urge the city managers to not allow the exception. Thank you for your consideration. Regards, Josephine Wang A-229 So Kim From: vicky@hawthornemotorsexpress.com Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 4:25 PM To: So Kim Cc: Joel Rojas; Ara Mihranian; Julie Peterson Subject: RE: Appeal Hi Ms, So Kim, I will definitely go over this information you sent and forward to appropriate individuals. But, in taking a quick glance, it appears a little contradictory to what is happing in regards to our deck permit and the penalties we have sustained. Yes, I will be bringing up all our concerns. 'Especially ,since we have been residents of Rancho Palos Verdes for the past 25 years, and as you know, Mr. Hesser moved to the peninsula about 7 years ago and is an on the side house flipper and will eventually move, leaving us with a bad taste in our mouth. Again, I thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Vicky Shahbazian -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: Appeal From: So Kim <SoK@rpv.com> Date: Mon, July 14, 2014 3:52 pm To: "vickv@hawthornemotorsexaress.com" <vicky(a)hawthornemotorsexpress. com> Cc: Joel Rojas <JoelR@rpv.com>, Ara Mihranian <AraMCcbrpv.com>, Julie Peterson <JulieP@rpv.com> Hi Mrs. Shahbazian, Attached is the Code section related to Grading Permits. Also attached is a Grading Permit handout that simplifies what is written in the Code language. Additionally, just a reminder, you have an opportunity to raise any and all concerns related to the Director approved permit at the August 12"' Planning Commission meeting. Sincerely, So Kim Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes www.palosverdes.com/rov (310)544-5228 From:yicky@hawthornemotorsexpress.com[mailto:vickv@hawthornemotorsexpress.comj Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 2:23 PM To: So Kim A-230 Cc: Joel Rojas; Ara Mihranian; Julie Peterson Subject: RE: Appeal Dear Ms. So Kim, I will investigate this farther. Please send me the ordinance where a individual can alter and manipulate property and still be issued an over the counter permit with not investigation. Thank you, Vicky Shahbazian -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: Appeal From: So Kim <SoK(brpv.com> Date: Mon, July 14, 20114 2:15 pm To: "vickv@hawthornemotorsexpress.com" <vicky@hawthornemotorsexpress.com> Cc: Joel Rojas <JoelR(a)rpv.com>, Ara Mihranian <AraM(abrpv.com>, Julie Peterson <JuliePCcbrpv.com> Hi Mrs. Shahbazian, Attached is the adopted ordinance. What you have read was prior to the Ordinance adoption. Sincerely, So Kim Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes www.palosverdes.com/rpv (310) 5445228 From: vickv@hawthornemotorsexpress.com [mailto:vickv@hawthornemotorsexpress.com] Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 2:14 PM To: So Kim Cc: Joel Rojas; Ara Mihranian; Julie Peterson Subject: RE: Appeal Dear Ms. So Kim, No, I was not aware that Mr. Hesser only got an over the counter permit. Everything I have read and have investigated states that when there is a pad elevation difference between 2' and greater ,whether view impairment or not, a special used permit is required. Please forwarded me the link with the new ordinance. Also, does this mean anyone can do whatever they want to the foundation of someone's property and still be issued a permit? Thank you, Vicky Shahbazian -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: Appeal From: So Kim <SoK(drpv.com> Date: Mon, July 14, 2014 1:37 pm To: "vicky(cbhawthornemotorsexpress.com" A-231 <v,ickv(v uhawthornemotorsexpress.com> Cc: Joel Rojas <JoelRLc��v.com>, Ara Mihranian <AraM(dJrpv.com>, Julie Peterson <JulieP(rpvcorn> Mrs, Shabahzian, For the areas up to the rear building facade of Mr. Hesser's property, the City Council adapted an ordinance, which went into effect as of May 2011 that only requires a Fence/Wall Permit if there is potential for view impairr-new between properties with a pad elevation difference of 2' or more. Given that there was no view impairment that would be caused by a combination wall along the side property line up to Mr. Hesser's rear building facade, no other permits outside of an over-the-counter Site Plan Review was required. As you are aware, this was approved. However, for the areas beyond Mr. Hesser's rear building facade, Staff found that there would be view impairment, therefore a Fence/Wall Permit was required. The Director approved this application and you appealed this decision to the Planning Commission, So, yes, there is a Fence/Wall Permit required between properties with pad elevation difference of 2' or more if there is potential for view impairment. Sincerely, So Kira Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes www.palosverdes.com/rpv (310) 544-5228 From: vicky@hawthornemotorsexpress.com[mailto:vickv@hawthornemotorsexpress.com] Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 1:28 PM To: So Kim Cc: Joel Rojas; Ara Mihranian; Julie Peterson Subject: RE: Appeal Dear Ms. So Kim, So what you are saying, is no special permit whatever so is need when there is 3' grade pad elevations difference between properties. Thank you, Vicky Shahbazian -------- Original Message ----_--- Subject: RE: Appeal From: So Kim <SoK(&rpv.com> Date: Mon, July 14, 2014 1:15 pm To: "vickyCd)hawthornemotorsexpress.com" <vicky@hawthornemotorsexpress.com> Cc: Joel Rojas <JoelP,@rpv.com>, Ara Mlhranian <AraM@rpv.com>, Julie Peterson <JulieP(@rpv.com> Hi Mrs. Shahbazian, A-232 Basel on yom °,totr3rrtent that there ,vas a'3' wall which was altered by Mr, Hesser; again, it did not require permits or inspections trom the City. Whether that may or may not liave property damages is a civil matter as i indicated to you before. Additionally, to answer your last question, yes, he was issued an over-the-counter permit. his a reminder, this portion is not subject to this appeal and it does not impair a picrtected v€ew from your primary viewing area. Sincerely; So Kira Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes www.palosverdes.com/rov (310) 544-5228 From:yicky@hawthornemotorsexpress.com [mai Ito:vicky@hawthornemotorsexpress.comJ Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 12:37 PM To: So Kim Cc: Joel Rojas; Ara Mihranian; Julie Peterson Subject: RE: Appeal Dear Ms. So Kim, Although, Mr. Hesser has modified and removed portions of a retaining wall that holds our Foundation and (existed ever since the property existed) and is definitely, not a garden wall. No permit, approval, and or inspections of kind was done or is needed when the retain wall was originally 3ft., which still measures at the the front area and end areas of the retaining wall. Not to mention, that you are aware of, damage to our property that has occurred which we are repairing. He still was able to get an over the counter permit? Please tell me how is this possible? Thank you, Vicky Shahbazian -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: Appeal From: So Kim <SoK(@rpv.com> Date: Mon, July 14, 2014 12:07 pm To: "vicky(o€ hawthornemotorsexpress.cam" <vicky_Cd) hawthornemotorsexpress.com> Cc: Joel Rojas <JoelR@rpv.com>, Ara Mihranian <AraM r_pv.com>, Julie Peterson <JuheP@rpv.com> Hi Mrs, Shahbazian, Garden walls (walls that retain less than 3' over extreme slopes (35% or more) or 5' over less than extreme slopes) that involve less than 20 cubic yards of grading are allowed without Planning Division approval. in other words, these walls can be constructed by -right. So whether it was A-233 altered or iwt i he amount of grading and retr)wn oir slid not require Planning Division �)pproval. Especially given YOUR confirInation that a wali was already thet e, and the neighbor altered the height thereafter. Additionally, the over-the-counter approval v.,,as for a solid wall on top of the existing garden wall that varies in height. Given that it does not impact your views, it was approved. As a reminder, sunlight and shadow effects as you've mentioned in the past are not part of the review criteria for this approval Sincerely, So Kim Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes www.palosverdes.com/rpv (310)544-5228 From: vicky@hawthornemotorsexpress.com [mailto.vicky@hawthornemotorsexpress.comj Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 12:01 PM To: So Kim Cc: Joel Rojas; Ara Mihranian; Julie Peterson Subject: RE: Appeal Hi Ms. So Kim, How was an over the counter permit issued when there was documentation show the altering of the retaining wall?? How can a permit be issued when this is in question? Even with your visits stating that the integrity of the wall no long existed, and has been an on going matter since January. Thank you, Vicky Shahbazian -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: Appeal From: So Kim <SoK@rp-v.com> Date: Mon, July 14, 2014 11:48 am To: "vicky(a)hawthornemotorsexpress.com" <vicky()hawthornemotorsexpress.com> Cc: Joel Rojas <JoelR@rpv.com>, Ara Mihranian <AraM@r]2v.com>, Julie Peterson <JulieP@rpv.com> Hi Mrs. Shahbazian, I understand, however, the area up to his rear facade was an over-the-counter approval and is not subject to this appeal. This appeal is specifically for the Fence/Wall Permit issued for the area beyond his rear building fagade. Additionally, Code Enforcement Staff confirmed that Mr. Hesser conducted work only up to his rear facade, which is not subject to this appeal. A-234 i hope thiE helps, Please lr�e to call me if you need additional clarification. Sincerely, 5o Kim Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes www.palosyerdes.coM py (310) 544-5228 From: vicky@hawthornemotorsexpress.com [mailto:vicky�a, hawth_ornemotorse_xpress.com] Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 11:43 AM To: So Kim Cc: Joel Rojas; Julie Peterson Subject: RE: Appeal Dear Ms. So Kim, Please review the appeal it states clearly that he has altered the side property retaining wall which is legal. The appeal is for the whole side area where he has altered and put up the Fence on Friday, it is not just the (area beyond the rear facade). Thank you, Vicky Shahbazian Cell: (310)292-6305 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: Appeal From: So Kim <SoK r v.com> Date: Mon, July 14, 2014 11:23 am To:"vickyCa)hawthornemotorsexpress.corn" <vicky@hawthornernotorsexpress.com> Cc: Joel Rojas <]oelR@rpv.com>, 3ulie Peterson <JulieP@pv.com> Hi Mrs. Shahbazian, I merely relayed to you what he said. Per my previous email, Code Enforcement will be visiting his property to verify what he is doing. If he is working on the portion subject to the appeal (area beyond his rear fagade), that needs to stop. However, he can continue to work on any area up to his rear facade, since he already obtained approvals and is not subject to this appeal. I will update you on our findings once the site visit is complete. Sincerely, So Kim Senior Planner A-235 Ckty of R mf.ho Palos Verdes www.palosverdes.com/rpv (310) 544-5228 From: vicky@hawthornemotorsexpress.com (mailto:vicky@hawthornemotorsexpress.com] Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 1.0:25 AM To: So Kim Cc: Joel Rojas; Julie Petersen Subject: RE: Appeal Dear Ms. So Kim, That is not true! The appeal is For the whole permit that was issued under Fraudulent representation. Please have him remove the fence he has put up. As I said I have documentation showing even after your call that he continued to put up the fence as fast as he could without contacting you, knowing that he was suppose stop work on it. Thank you, Vicky Shahbazian Cell Phone: (310)292:6305 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: Appeal From: So Kim <SoKCarpv.com> Date: Mon, July 14, 2014 9:20 am To: "yicky(o)hawthornemotorsexpress. com <yicky(abhawthornemotorsexpress. com Cc: Joel Rojas <JoelR(&rpv.com>, Julie Peterson <JulieP@rpv.com> Hi Mrs. 5hahbazian, in speaking with your neighbor, he claims that the area he is working on is not the area subject to appeal. The area he cannot work on is the barrier that extends beyond his rear facade. In any case, I will forward this matter to Code Enforcement now. Sincerely, So Kim Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes www.palosverdes.com/rpv (310)544-5228 A-236 From: vickv Cohawthornemotorsexpress.co{n [mailto:vickv@hawthornemotorsexpress.co m] Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 9:07 PM To: So Kim Cc: Joel Rojas Subject: RE: Appeal Dear Ms. So Kim, To despite your notice to Mr. Hesser this morning at 9:50am, he continued with his work and built his fence all the way own the side of our property. Even when he was told by you to stop. The city needs to have him remove what he has done after your call to stop, I have picture with dates and times when this was done. Please let me know if you would like me to forward them to you. Thank you, Vicky Shahbazian Cell: 310-292-6305 -------- Original Message ------- Subject: RF: Appeal From: So Kim <SoK@rpv.com> Date: Fri, July 11, 2014 9:50 am To: 11 vicky@hawthornemotorsexpre ss.com" <vicky@hawthornemotorsexpre ss.com> Cc: Joel Rojas <JoelR@rpv.com> Hi Mrs. Shahbazian, I just left a voicemail for Mr. Hesser to cease all work until a decision is rendered at the appeal hearing on August 12"'. Please contact me if he continues to work on the subject fence. Sincerely, So Kim Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes www.palosverdes.com/rpv (31.0) 544-5228 8 A-237 From: vicky@hawthornemotorsexpress.co m [mailto:vicky@hawthornemotorsex press.com] Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 8:27 AM To: So Kim Cc: Joel Rojas Subject: Appeal Dear Ms. So Kim, For your information Mr. Hesser is in the process of putting up the fence. With the appeal in process Mr. Hesser needs to be stopped. He has put up four panels 6'1/2 and has taken down all of our previous lattice Fence that we put up 20 years ago. Thank you, Vicky Shahbazian 29029 Sprucegrove Dr. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Cell: (310)292-6305 A-238 So Kim From: Joel Rojas Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2014 8:54 AM To: Robert Nelson <nelsongang@aol.com> Cc: So Kim Subject: RE: Yr Email: re: Nelson: Report of Conversation FYI You too Bob. Take care. From: Nelsongang [mailto:nelsongang@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2014 8:53 PM To: Joel Rojas Cc: So Kim Subject: Re: Yr Email: re: Nelson: Report of Conversation FYI Joel, So Got your message. Thought you should know he called. I have no idea if he reached other PC Commissioners, I suspect he got my home phone from the PC website as I think I'm the only brave soul who had no problem with listing it. Thanks for advice! Have a great 4th! Bob Nelson -----Original Message ----- From: Joel Rojas <JoeIRQrpv.com> To: Robert Nelson <nelsongangPaol.com> <nelsongangCcDaol.com> Cc: So Kim <SoK@rpv.com> Sent: Tue, Jul 1, 2014 214 pm Subject: RE. From Bob Nelson: Report of Conversation FYI Bob Thank you for letting me know about your conversation with Mr. Shahbazian. I have met with Mr. Shabazian, spoken to him several times and visited his property. It's been a very difficult situation as he is embroiled in a neighbor dispute with his downslope neighbor. His downslope neighbor is proposing a 6.5 foot high solid wall which requires the approval of a Fence1W211 Permit. We just approved the Permit with a condition that the solid fence not exceed 4 feet in height with clear plexiglass on top. We believe that this would not significantly impair Mr. Shabazaian's ocean view. Mr. Shahbazian is not happy with this decision and has told us that he plans to appeal the matter to the Planning Commission. I would refrain from getting more involved with this situation as the PC may deal with the matter via an appeal. Joel From: Nelsongang [maiIto: nelsongang()aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2014 12:47 PM To: Joel Rojas; Julie Peterson Subject: From Bob Nelson: Report of Conversation FYI Joel, Julie: FYI. Bob N Director Rojas, Code Enforcement Officer Peterson Just hung up from a call from Mr. Hossein Shahbazian, 29029 Spruce Grove Drive, (phone call was from `Hawthorne Auto' but our system did not retain the number). Issue: It is my understanding his backyard neighbor has built an 8 foot fence, blocking his views. May have been built with or without a permit. A-239 Conversation: 25 minutes Mr. Shahbazian is obviously irritated Apparently he's been told he has to pay some $2,700 to pursue RPV's procedure to restore views he had previous to his neighbor's backyard fence challenge And he feels he has not had any sympathetic advice or conversation with RPV staff at any level, even though he did not cause the problem, his neighbor did - He asked for my advice as to where should he go from here. I said: 1. He can use the 'open mike' 3 minutes at the start of any Council or Planning Commission meeting to detail his contacts with RPV staff and his disappointment in having to pay to correct his neighbor's action — an action that may not be permitted anyway. I said nothing about any 8 foot fence legality but do remember a new ordinance For 7 feet up from 6. 2. During his 3 minutes he could ask for one council member, after the meeting, to agendize his matter so that forgiving the fee can be discussed and decided. I was specific all the Council can do with these 3 minute speeches is listen but they have an option to place his item on a future agenda. Happens very seldom, so he may have to talk for 3 minutes in a couple of meetings. 3. Make sure he requests staff responses be in writing. Leaves a record for any future action or requests. 4. That he remember anything verbal is just that — verbal — not recorded. His 3 minute testimony will be recorded and made part of his public record. 5. That I am not code enforcement — that's a different environment. I am 'land use,' however, we are made aware of changes to RPV's governing documents (GP, Muni Code, various plans). But we have zip -zero enforcement responsibility 6. That we have a Los Angeles County assessor living in our HOA and she has opinioned to our Board, in regard to two of our homeowners refusing to trim bushes to restore ocean view of their neighbors, that in her opinion ocean views impact on home value is: 45 degree view = +$50K; 90 degree = $100K, 180 degree — up high = +250K or higher. 7. Not sure his view problem is an ocean view but he made it sound like it is Thought, because of his reference to lack of interest in correcting his recent problem by staff — except to tell him what it would cost to get them involved] — you'd better know, Just a not -so -happy camper trying to figure out how to get a wrong corrected in RPV. Anyway, now you know of our conversation. Bob Nelson 310-544-4632 I i U Approved Site Plan for the Detached Trellis (Planning Case No..ZON2014-00286) A-241 W=65 00 — F", 'ROJECT DESCRIPTION Garden Trellis with Lattice Panels A. 23' long D 57-5 Square Feet in Area B.2.5' wide E. 5' from Property Line C. 12' tall F Extending from Rear Facade of house EXISTING 205 1 STORY SFR Z I > L) Lm '2 U) MIC .0 0 LL y_0 L, C) 'U -&M MCEM U) 'E LU Cd E, (T}3. 't CJS 1 7 da CID z 0 C) E 0 .53 U 0 I > L) Lm '2 U) MIC .0 —CLM CL, �< 1:0 L y_0 L, C) 'U -&M > SITE PLAN: Garden Trellis 29023 SPRILICEGROVE DRIVE N Site Plan for the Fence/Wall Permit (Section C — subject to appeal) A-243 F— -- I lav, r-n.r inr( err.. Il f i [ 77 G. S-: Project Description A: 19'o4 T sclid Ience 3: 37 of 6'-0" solid fence C- 23' of ' solie1800o open fence D: 35" of r' H (80'* open) fence front selback fine house front facade to house rear'acade house rear facade 10 erd of wall eyed of %vall to rear of prop?rly to house front facade. (16"W columns noted above Included wrthin 3T) tsolid fence to 48") fgrade equal beth sides) (grade. difference more than 2'l (grade cifference more than 2't t8o% open 10 top of fence) (grade difference less than 2') it I i 'SIDE VIER DIAGRAM-, - - 29023 SPRUCEGROVE DRIVE ew of 29029 Sprucegrove Drive (Neigbborinc, }-Rouse) from 29023 Sprucegrove Drive -- t Fence Section C: Material Detail 80% open (framed Clear Acrylid toD 30 A-245 OPTIX Acrylic Properties Physical Test method Units OPTIX Specific Grav ly/Relative ASTM D-792 1 19 Density Optical Refractive index ASTM D-542 1 49 Light Transmission -Total ASTM D-1003 % 92 Light Transmission - Haze ASTM D-1003 % 2 Sound Transmission ASTM E90 1 db 27 E413 Water Absorplion ASTM D-570 %n By wl 04 Shrinkage ASTM D-702 % <5 Chemical Test method Units OPTIX Resistance to Stress - Cfrticat ARTC psi 900 Crazing Stress to lsopropyl Modification of Alcohol MIL -P6997 Resistance to Stress - Critical ARTC psi 500 Crazing Stress to Lacquer Modification of Thinner MIL -P6997 Resistance to Stress - Critical ARTC psi 1,300 Crazing Stress to Toluene Modification of MIL -P6997 Resistance to Stress - Critical ARTC psi 11600 Crazing Stress to Solvesso Modification of 100 MIL -P6997 PLASKOLITE, INC. rr s J PLASKOLITE, INC. Mechanical Test method Units OPTIX Tensile Strength ASTM D-638 psi 11 030 Tensile Elongalaon - Max ASTM D-638 % 58 Tensile Modulus of Pasticity ASTM D-638 % 490 000 Flexural Strength ASTM D-790 ps} 17,000 Flexural Modulus of Elasticity ASTM D-790 psi 490000 Izod Impact Strength - ASTM D-256 ft-iblm Notch 04 Molded Notch Izod Impart Strength - Mined ASTM D-256 ft-Ihlm Notch 028 Notch Tensile Impact Strength ASTM D-1822 ft-;iWin` 20 Abrasion Resistance - ASTM D-1044 Haze, % 0 Change in Haze - 0 cycles Abrasion Resistance - ASTM D-1044 Haze. % 11 2 Change in Haze - 10 cycles Abrasion Resistance - ASTM D-1044 Haze, % 24 Change in Haze - 50 cycles Abrasion Resistance - ASTM D-1044 Haze, % 249 Change in Haze - 200 cycles Rockwell Hardness ASTM D-785 M-95 Thermal Test method Unfts OPTIX Maximum Recommended °F 170-190 Continuous Service Temperature Softening Temperature -F 210-220 Melting Temperature -F 300-315 Melt Flow Rate ASTM D-1238 g/10 min. 15 Deflection Temperature @ ASTM D-648 -F 203 264 psi (1 8 MPa) Deflection Temperature @ 66 ASTM D-648 °F 207 psi (0 45 MPa) Coefficient of Thermal ASTM D-696 in/(fin-°F ) x 30 Expansion 1 c Thermal Conductivity ASTM C-177 BTU-fl/{hr-ft2 00.75 Flammability (Burning Rate) ASTM D-635 In/minute 1 019 Flammability B2 Smoke Density Rating ASTM D-2843 %p 34 Self -Ignition Temperature ASTM D-1929 °F 833 Flame Spread Index ASTM E-84 115 Smoke Developed Index ASTM E-84 550 A-247 Staff Report (Director Approved on June 26, 2014) F ,, CITVOF Lalk MEMORANDUM RANCHO PALOS VERDES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO: JOEL ROJAS, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FROM: SO KIM, ASSOCIATE PLANNER, DATE: JUNE 24, 2014 SUBJECT: FENCEI'WALL PERMIT (CASE NO. ZON2014-00202) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 29023 SPRUCEGROVE DRIVE (Applicant/Property Owner — Darrel & Brenda Hesser) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Community Development Director conditionally approve Case No. ZON2014-00202. BACKGROUND On May 7, 2014, Mr. Darrel Hesser, the property owner of 29023 Sprucegrove Drive submitted an after -the -fact Site Plan Review application and a site inspection fee for the legalization of a solid wall (5'-7" to 6' in height) on top of an existing retaining wall (2' to 2'-6" in height) along the side property line abutting 29029 Sprucegrove Drive. Staff conducted site visits on May 15, 19 and 21, 2014 to both the subject property, and to the abutting property at 29029 Sprucegrove Drive since Staff had identified potential view impairment impacts to this residence that may result from the wall. Based on these site visits, however, Staff confirmed that no views were impacted from the primary viewing area of 29029 Sprucegrove Drive and approved the Site Plan Review application (ZON2014-00180) on May 22, 2014, allowing the construction of a solid wood barrier on top of an existing retaining wall along the south side property line. The project was conditioned so that the approved wall would not project further than the existing rear building fapade of the subject residence. Staff also confirmed that any barrier beyond the rear fagade of the subject residence would require a Fence/Wall Permit as ocean views from the viewing area of 29029 Sprucegrove Drive may be impaired. On May 19, 2014, a complaint was filed with the Code Enforcement Division about alleged unpermitted construction of accessory structures in the rear yard of the subject property. The City's Code Enforcement Officer conducted a site visit on the same day and confirmed the allegation. Subsequently, a letter was sent to Mr. Hesser, requiring him to obtain permits for the unpermitted construction. In response, the property owner submitted an after -the -fact Site Plan Review application to legalize the unpermitted pond, fountain and fire pit in the rear yard and obtained approval on May 22, 2014 (ZON2014-00198). On May 27, 2014, Mr. Hesser submitted a Fence/Wall Permit, requesting approval for a solid wood barrier on top of an existing retaining wall along the south side property line (abutting 29029 Sprucegrove Drive) from the edge of his rear building fagade to the top of the slope, equivalent to a length of approximately 23'. Staff conducted an additional site visit on May 29th to the abutting 30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD. / RANCHO F,ALOS VERDES. CA 90275-5391 PLANNIN(l & CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION (310) 544-5228 / BUILDING & SAFETY DIVISION (310) 265-74001 DEBT FAX (311) 544-52A-249 � E-MAIL �1 MAIL: PLANNINC�@k11VC'OM / 4 WWRAU)SVERDESCOM/RPV /`1 `t property at 29029 Sprucegrove Drive to assess view impacts. Details of this site visit are discussed in the Fence/Wall Permit findings below. SITE & PROJECT DESCRIPTION The subject property is pad lot with a descending extreme slope at the rear of the property. The properties along Sprucegrove Drive have similar topographical conditions which are terraced with the slope of the street. As a result of the elevation difference between properties, retaining walls between properties are common along the side property lines. The subject property, for example, has a pad elevation that is higher than the abutting property to the north while lower than the abutting property to the south. There are retaining walls along both sides of the property based on the elevation differences, The proposed project involves the installation of a solid wood barrier (6.5') on top of an existing retaining wail (1.5' in height), resulting in an overall height of 8' as measured from the applicant's grade along the south side property line to the top of the wall. DISCUSSION Fence/Wall Permit Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.76.030 — 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 if the fence or wall is located where the grade differential between the building pads of adjacent lots is more than 2' in elevation and if the top of the fence or wall is at a lower elevation than that of the pad of the upslope lot. In this case, the building pad difference between the two properties is more than 2' and the applicant is proposing a combination wall along the side propertywithin the side yard setback. As such,. a Fence/Wall Permit is required, which may be approved only if the Directorfinds as follows: a. That the fence or wall 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 plans, as a city -designated viewing area. Staff conducted a total of four site visits to the abutting property located at 29029 Sprucegrove Drive (Mr. & Mrs. Shahbazian) to assess view impairment as a result of the proposed solid barrier. In visiting the property, Staff found that ocean views would be impaired by a portion of the solid barrier, as shown in the photograph to the left. This photograph was taken in A-250 a standing position from the viewing area (living room) of Shahbazian's residence. The view captured in said photograph is only the right half of the entire view frame. The view continues to extend across to the left in the same amount, affording 180 degree view of the ocean and Catalina Island. Given the entirety of the view, Staff believes that a solid barrier up to the requested 8' in height from the applicant's property (which would be approximately 6' above Shahbazian's grade level) would project into the ocean view and result in significant view impairment. However, a solid barrier in said area up to 4' would only impair a minimal amount of ocean view from Shahbazian's viewing area, which would be considered not significant. Staff relayed this determination to the applicant and he is agreeable to the solid barrier at a reduced height of 4', however, he requested approval for the installation of a fence (80% transmission of light, air or vision) above the 4' tall solid barrier. Examples of this type of fence are chainlink, wrought iron, or clear glass where it would allow a view through the material. Since there is an existing chainlink fence in the proposed location where hardly any view is impacted (see photograph on the previous page), Staff feels that as long as the solid portion of the barrier is no higher than 4' from Shahbazian's grade level, a fence allowing at least 80% transmission of light, air or vision on top of the existing retaining wall would not significantly impair the ocean views from Shahbazian's viewing area. Furthermore, when the entirety of the view is considered, the proposed wall would be located in the periphery of the view frame and the remaining ocean and Catalina views would not be impaired. Staff also visited 29043 Sprucegrove Drive (Mrs. Wang) on June 121h based on her concerns related to view impairment. The photograph below was taken in the rear yard immediately in front of her viewing areas (living and family rooms). This photograph only captures the right half of their 180 degree view. The ocean view continues to extend to the left in the same amount. As evidenced in the photograph below, a 4' tall solid barrier would impair even a smaller amount of ocean view than from the Shabahzian's property. Additionally, the existing chainlink fence in the same location is practically invisible. As such, Staff feels that a proposed solid barrier up to 4' in height with a fence on top that allows at least 80% transmission of light, air or vision would not significantly impair a view from Mrs. Wang's viewing area. Furthermore, when the entirety of the view is considered, the proposed wall would be located in the periphery of the view frame and the remaining ocean and Catalina views would not be impaired. Additionally, there are no public properties in the vicinity that has a view across the proposed project area and the subject property is not located within the City's coastal zone. Therefore, this finding can be met. A-251 b. That all foliage on the applicant's lot which exceeds 16' or the ridgeline of the primary structure, whichever is lower, and impairs a view from the viewing area of another parcel, 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. Based on site visits to the subject lot, there is no foliage over 16' in height or the ridgeline of the existing home that would impair a view from another public or private property. Therefore, no foliage removal is required and this finding can be met. c. That placement or construction of a fence or wall shall comply with all applicable standards and requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code and general plan. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.76.030(C)(b)(iii), "when combined, the total height ofa fence, freestanding wall or retaining wall may not exceed 8, as measured from grade on the lower side, and may not exceed 7°, as measured from the grade on the higher side". The applicant is proposing a solid wood fence on top of an existing retaining wall up to 8' in height from his grade level (lower side), not to exceed 7' from the abutting property's grade level (higher side). Based on view assessments, Staff is recommending that a combination wall/fence consisting of a fence (allowing 80% transmission of light, air or vision) on top of a 4' tall solid wood barrier (on top of an existing retaining wall) up to 8' in height, as measured from the grade on the applicant's property, not to exceed 7', as measured from the grade of the abutting neighbor's property (29029 Sprucegrove Drive) be allowed. As such, the recommended height allowance of the proposed combination wall complies with the City's Municipal Code. In regards to the consistency with the City's General Plan, Policy No. 14 of the Urban Environment Element states the following: 'Prohibit encroachment on existing scenic views reasonably expected by neighboring residents". As discussed in finding (a) above, Staff believes that the recommended 8' tall combination wall (2.5' tall fence allowing 80% transmission of light, air or vision on top of a 4' tall solid wood barrier on top of an existing 1.5' tall retaining wall) would project into a minimal amount of ocean view at the periphery of the view frame of the abutting neighbor's viewing area, while the remainder of the view would be preserved. As such, Staff feels that the recommended combination wall along the side property line would not result in unreasonable encroachment into the abutting neighbor's ocean view and therefore consistent with the City's General Plan. Therefore, this finding can be met. d. Notwithstanding finding (a) of this subsection, 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: L 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. ii. Denial would prevent compliance with the swimming pool fencing requirements and there is no reasonable method to comply that would not significantly impair a view from a viewing area of another property. A-252 Findings (b) and (c) can be made as discussed above and Staff does not believe that denial of the proposed project would constitute an unreasonable invasion of the applicant's privacy as the rear yard is already visible from the abutting neighbor's viewing area. Additionally, there is no swimming pool on the subject lot. Therefore, this finding does not apply. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Environmental Assessment Staff has reviewed the proposed application for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Upon completion of this review, it has been determined that this request is categorically exempt from CEQA, pursuant to Guideline Section No. 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). Categorical Exemptions are projects, which have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and have been exempted from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 15303 (Class 3 Exemption) allows the construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures, such as the proposed combination wall. As such, Staff believes that the proposed project is exempt from CEQA. Public Correspondence Attached are emails received from the property owners of 29029 Sprucegrove Drive (Shahbazian) and 29043 Sprucegrove Drive (Wang). View related concerns mentioned in the emails have been addressed under finding (a) above. CONCLUSION Based on the discussion above, Staff is concluding that necessary findings can be met to warrant approval of the proposed Fence/Wall Permit for a combination wall along the south side property line of 29023 Sprucegrove Drive. As such, Staff is recommending that the Community Development Director approve Case No. ZON2014-00202, subject to the recommended conditions of approval found in Exhibit `A'. ALTERNATIVES In addition to the Staff's recommendation, the following alternatives are available for the Director's consideration: 1. Identify any issues of concern and direct the applicant to re -design and resubmit the applications (Case No. ZON2014-00202); or, 2. Deny, without prejudice, the Fence/Wall Permit (Case No. ZON2014-00202). Approved pursuant to Staff's recommendation. Accepted: Dated:y" I Jo )Rj as C nity Develo meet Director A-253 ATTACHMENTS Exhibit 'A' Public Correspondence A-254 EXHIBIT'A' CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR CASE NO. ZON2014-00202 (29023 Sprucegrove Drive) This approval is for a combination wall not to exceed 8' in height, as measured from the grade on the lower side (29023 Sprucegrove Drive) and 7', as measured from the grade on the higher side (29029 Sprucegrove Drive). This 7'18' tall combination wall is allowed along the south side property line from the edge of the rear building fagade of 29023 Sprucegrove Drive to the top of the slope for a total length of 23'. Said wall consists of 2.5' tall fence (80% transmission of light, air or vision) on top of a 4' tall solid wood barrier on top of an existing 1.5' tali retaining wall. Prior to the installation of the 2.5' tall fence, the applicant shall submit the necessary documents showing that it allows 80% transmission of light, air or vision, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 2. Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, the applicant and the property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have read, understand, and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this decision. f=ailure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void. 3. Prior to conducting any work in the public right of way, such as for curb cuts, dumpsters, temporary improvements and/or permanent improvements, the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works. 4. Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws and regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code shall apply. 5. The Community Development Director is authorized to make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions of approval if such modifications will achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with the approved plans and conditions. Otherwise, any substantive change to the project shall require approval of a revision by the final body that approved the original project, which may require new and separate environmental review. 6. The project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards contained in these conditions of approval or, if not addressed herein, shall conform to the residential development standards of the City's Municipal Code, including but not limited to height, setback and lot coverage standards. 7. Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be cause to revoke the approval of the project pursuant to the revocation procedures contained in Section 17.86.060 of the City's Municipal Cade. 8. If the applicant has not submitted an application for a building permit for the approved project or not commenced the approved project as described in Section 17.86.070 of the City's Municipal Code within one year of the final effective date of this decision, approval of the project shall expire and be of no further effect unless, prior to expiration, a written request for extension is filed and approved by the Community Development Director. A-255 9. In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations and/or requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter standard shall apply. 10. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be completed in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the City with the effective date of this decision. 11. The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that material used for immediate construction purposes. Such excess material may include, but not be limited to: the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap metal, concrete asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or discarded furniture, appliances or other household fixtures. 12. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, 9:OOAM to 5:OOPM on Saturday, with no construction activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section 17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. During demolition, construction and/or grading operations, trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining street rights-of-way before 7AM Monday through Friday and before 9AM on Saturday, in accordance with the permitted hours of construction stated in this condition. When feasible to do so, the construction contractor shall provide staging areas on-site to minimize off-site transportation of heavy construction equipment. These areas shall be located to maximize the distance between staging activities and neighboring properties, subject to approval by the building official. 13. All grading, landscaping and construction activities shall exercise effective dust control techniques, either through screening and/or watering. 14. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly manner, to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official. All construction waste and debris resulting from a construction, alteration or repair project shall be removed on a weekly basis by the contractor or property owner. Existing or temporary portable bathrooms shall be provided during construction. Portable bathrooms shall be placed in a location that will minimize disturbance to the surrounding property owners, to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official. A-256 Publ c Correspondence A-257 RE: Fence exception for 2902; Sprucegrove Drive RPV - So Kim Page 1 oft RE: Fence exception for 29023 Sprucegrove Drive RPV So Kim <SoK@rpv.com> Tue 6/10/2014 8:29 AM To-intagliovision <intagliovision@gmail,com>; C :CityManager <CityManager@rpv.com>, Joel Rojas <JoelR@rpv.com>, Carolynn Petru <Carolynn@rpv.com>; Julie Peterson <JulieP@rpv.com>; Hi Kathy, Thank you for the information. I left a message for Mr. Baronet just now to arrange a site visit with your tenants. Once I am able to get on the property, I will update you on the view assessment. In the meantime, I do not feel that it is necessary to copy others on this email chain any further. Please contact me directly with additional concerns or questions. Sincerely, So Kim Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes wwwXa losverdes.comlrpv (314) 544-5228 From: intagliovision[mailto:intagliovision@gmail.comj Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 6:11 AM To: So Kim Cc: CityManager; Joel Rojas; Carolynn Petru; Julie Peterson Subject: RF: Fence exception for 29023 Sprucegrove Drive RPV Dear Nis Kim, You can arrange a visit via my mom's property manager Will Baronet. Her number is 3108010633. Regards, Kathy -------- Original message ------_- From: So Kim Date:2014/06/10 00:21 (GMT+08:00) To: Kathy Kwan Cc. City Manager ,Joel Rojas ,Carolynn Petru ,Julie Peterson Subject: RE: Fence exception for 29023 Sprucegrove Drive RPV Hi Mrs. Kwan, https://owa.rpv.com/owa/ 6/ 1 *492458 RE: Fence exception for 2902" Sprucegrove Drive RPV - So Kim Page 2 of 2 Thank you for your email. Your concerns will be addressed and included as part of the upcoming Staff Report. In the meantime, I would like to schedule an appt. with your tenant to assess your views from your property. Please provide me with their contact information. Sincerely, So Kim Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes www.palosverdes.com/rp (310) 544-5228 From: Kathy Kwan[mailto:intaaliovisionPgmail.comj Sent: Friday, lune 06, 2014 6:43 PM To: So Kim Cc: CityManager, Joel Rojas; Carolynn Petru; Julie Peterson Subject: Fence exception for 29023 Sprucegrove Drive RPV Dear Ms Kim, have owned the home at 29043 Sprucegrove Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes since 1970 and have been a long time resident of over 40 years. A few years ago due to my age (over 80), 1 moved to reside with my daughter who currently lives abroad. It has come to my attention that the residents at 29023 Sprucegrove Drive are attempting to put up an 8 -foot side yard fence that does not meet city regulations, and that they are attempting to circumvent the regulations with an application for an exception. This fence would negatively affect my view (as also confirmed by my current renter). I am opposed to any fence or obstruction that would affect my current 180 degree from my home and yard. Furthermore, I am very concerned that allowing such exceptions would create a dangerous precedent. Most of us who chose to make their homes in RPV have invested our savings into a neighborhood defined by its amazing ocean views and open landscape, There are many other ways that the resident at 29023 Sprucegrove Dr can achieve some privacy without negatively impacting neighbors. I believe the current regulations are sufficient for this, and I strongly urge the city managers to not allow the exception. Thank you for your consideration. Regards, Josephine Wang https:#owa.rpv.com/owa/ 6/iA 9 RE: 29029 Spzucegrove Dr - So Kim RE: 29029 Spruceg rove Dr vicky@hawthornemotorsexpress.com Tue S/27/2014 10:35 AM To -SO Kim <SoK@rpv.com>; Page 1 of S ccJoel Rojas <JoelR@rpv.com>; CityManager <CityManager@rpv.com>, Carolynn Petru <Carolynn@rpv,com>; Julie Peterson < J u lieP@rpv.com > I Hi Ms. Kim, Thank you so much for your explanation. I understand completely and we have sought legal consul. Vicky Shahbazian -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: 29029 Sprucegrove Dr From: So Kim <SoK r v.com> Date: Tue, May 27, 2014 8:16 am To: "vicky@hawthornemotorsexpress.com" < vicky(o�hawthornemotorsexpress.com> Cc: Joel Rojas <JoelR(&rgv.com>, CityM'anager <CityManaper0)rpv.com>, "Carolynn Petru° <Carolynn@rpv.com>, Julie Peterson <JulieP0rpv.com> Hi Mrs. Shahbazian, Given that Mr. Hesser already constructed a portion of the solid barrier along the side property line, it was considered an unpermitted structure. Therefore, the Fence/Wall Permit was processed as an after -the -fact application, where penalty fees were applied, resulting Mr. Hesser to pay double the normal application fee. Also, as explained to you before, the height of the pre-existing wall doesn't matter because the after -the -fact solid barrier was assessed as a "new" barrier. In other words, even if the 3' tall wall that you are alleging was still in place and Mr. Hesser applied for a new 7'/8' tall solid barrier, the process would have been the same (except that he would not have had to pay the penalty fees) and he would have been approved. Additionally, the City is not involved with property damage issues. I would also like to emphasize that you told me that Mr. Hesser altered his wall and since I did not see it for myself, I never agreed or disagreed with your statement. The only fact I acknowledge is that he built an unpermitted wall which he now has obtained a permit for. And yes, you are correct in that the City's Code prior to May 2nd required property owners of the lower property to obtain a Fence/Wall/Hedge Permit for a wall or hedge (fence was excluded) that exceeded the building pad level of the upper property. However, as you were made aware, the City adopted Ordinance No. 546, which now has an 'Initial Site Visit' process. This basically allows for a fence or a wall that has no view impairment to be approved https://owa.rpv.com/owa/ 6/19PA6XO RE: 29029 Sprucegrove Dr - Co Kim Page 2 of 5 without the formal Fence/Wall/Hedge Permit. This is the reason why Mr. Hesser was approved for a solid barrier along the side property line only up to his the rear facade of his home. Any future solid barrier beyond that point would require an additional $1,992 formal application fee. However, based on the pictures provided by both you and Mr. Hesser, it appears that there used to be a fence along the said area. It should be noted that the City's Code allows for nonconforming structures, such as the pre-existing fence to be restored to its original condition. This would mean that the pre-existing chainlink fence can be replaced with another fence (80% light, air or vision). Furthermore, Mr. Hesser is allowed to apply for after -the -fact permits to legalize unpermitted activities, similar to the after -the -fact Extreme Slope Permit that is being processed for your unpermitted deck in the rear yard. Also, as indicated in the letter i mailed to you, he is approved for an 8' tall solid combination wall (solid barrier on top of the existing garden/retaining wall) as measured from his side of the property. Given that the garden/retaining wall is more than 1' in height, the wall height from your side will be less than 7' in height. Lastly, should you submit a survey and it shows that Mr. Hesser's after -the -fact barrier is on your property, the approval can be revoked. As a reminder, outside of this, the City would not be involved with property line disputes or damages incurred as a result thereof. Please feel free to contact me with additional questions. Sincerely, So Kim Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes www.palosverdes.com/rpv (31.0) 544-5228 From: vickv@hawthornemotorsexpress.com(mailto:vickv@hawthornemotorsexpress.com] Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 9:28 PM To: So Kim Cc: Joel Rojas; CityManager; Carolynn Petru; Julie Peterson Subject: RE: 29029 Sprucegrove Dr Dear Ms. Kim, We received your letter of approval for Mr.Hesser fence. I am still questioning your approval for Mr. Hesser's fence. Due to the fact he has obtain it under fraudulent circumstances. Upon your visit May 21, or thereof and being aware of his manipulation of the retaining wall which was 3 feet in height (please refer to my email dated May 16 explaining in detail and also a permit SPR 7670 May 12, 1995 clearly showing the height of our side wall being aft in height). Our property, 29029 Sprucegrove Dr. being the upper pad elevation from his property. https://owa.rpv.com/owa/ 6/l Ae2,,6 RE: 29029 Sprucegrove Dr - c., Kim Page 3 of 5 Mr. Hesser has caused severe damage to our property which he is fully responsible for and must repair it to its original height and location. He must correct the issue that has caused the ground to slant and also correct the issue that has or will occur to the foundation due to his lowering and compromising the side wall. How is it possible that under these circumstances he would get approval to build any type of fence? Per you email on May 15 you indicated that "In measuring the pad elevation difference of your property and your neighbor's this morning, it was clear that the pad elevation was less than 2' in height." Clearly you are aware that he has severely altered the side wall not only altering the wall but also tore down and moved around our existing fence of Oft for the past 20 years. Per all city ordinances that I am aware of and have read and was told by city officials, when a wall exists and is 2' or greater no fence is permitted. Once the wall is fixed to his original height which will be aft the fact would be that he would need to apply for a special fence permit a cost of $2700 filing fee and not guarantee that it would even be approved. Still the question remains, with the city being aware of his fraudulent activity how is it possible he has obtain a permit? And how is it possible that he is able to put up a fence 7' on a wall, once is corrected will be 3ft in height? According to our conversation you stated that he has not even submitted any survey or any documentation showing that this is his property, which in fact the fence that existed and exists was and is indeed our fence that was put up 20 plus years ago. We have contracted a local Rancho Palos Verdes surveyor to run the exact property line and elevation level which has been compromised. We will present them to you once received. Where does the city stand on this under these circumstances? Sincerely, Vicky Shahbazian 29029 Sprucegrove Dr. Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca 90275 Hm: 310-544-5100 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: 29029 Sprucegrove Dr From: <vicky@hawthornemotorsexpress.com> Date: Fri, May 16, 2014 3:26 pm To: "So Kim" <SoK(&rgv.com> Cc: Joel rCarpv.com, dtymanager(0rpv.com, carolynn(abrpv.com,, Iezam@rpv.c..om, juliep1a rgy.corn Hi Ms. Kim, Thank you for your timely response. It has become quite apparent that the underlying reasons for the residential ordinances and policies are to preserve and protect residential views from "needless" obstruction. For example, as you pointed out earlier, the "View Restoration and Preservation" ordinance in Article17, although not specifically addressing our issues, states that the purpose is to "[p]rotect, enhance and perpetuate views available to https://owa.rpv.com/owai 6/At262 RE: 29029 Sprucegrove Dr , c-, Kim Page 4 of 5 property owners and visitors because of the unique topographical features of the Palos Verdes Peninsula. These views provide unique and IRREPLACEABLE assets to the City and its neighboring communities..." Similarly, 17.76.030 Fences, walls and hedges, makes it clear that the purpose is to prevent "unnecessary impairment of views." When a permit is required, as it should be in this case because of the fraudulent activity of the subject property owner manipulznting the land to bypass the permit requirement, a permit MAY ONLY BE APPROVED IF "the fence, wall or hedge would not significantly impair a view from the viewing area." When we purchase our house in 1990 it was more than a 2 foot difference so when you indicated that it may not be, we viere dumbfounded. Come to find out that he has completely altered the heigl J that side wall. We have sent you many pictures showing that taking pla :ind with a little more investigation with our contractor the alteration of the wall is substantial. We also could not understand why all of a sudden a; Ler twenty years our side land is severely slanting toward his property. The 180 degree view from .?alibu to Catalina, is one of the reasons we purchased this house in Rancho =',)s Verdes as advertised in 1990. This fence would not only decrease the val, , of the property, but be a negative selling point to potential buyers if anyo 2 is allowed to build something to block a view. As I indicated in my previc"s email the potential for property devaluation and residential upset is beyond belief. Everything I have been reading in regards to a view ind' as that views cannot be blocked with a solid fence for wall. Even if for some reason y , find our interests in preserving our view to be valid, based on my researchp ! learned that when a view is in question, any fence obstructing that view 'JIUST be 80% breathable and see through. know when you were here you 7entioned something in regards to what he would be permitted to construe With a little diligence and research, we are finding out all the construction ' i%as been doing on that side has altered the height. We could never imagine: he would change the elevation of the property, According to several our neighbors, he purchases homes and "flips" the property for a short I, ofit. It has become apparent that he purposely manipulated the con gucus land to forgo the permit requirement and be in compliance with the c y r.,unicipal code. Could you please explain where -uld be able to find the ordinance that supersedes the section indicting 1 cannot block a view? I appreciate your time and effort to explain the d, _ails and trying to resolve the situation. Thanks again for your quick res; )ns-,-. https://owa.rpv.com/owa/ 6/1 AtX3 RE: 29029 Spracegrove Dr - c,, Kim Page 5 of 5 Sincerely, Vicky Shahbazian 29029 Sprucegrove Dr RPV, CA 90275 310-544-5100 310-292-6305 http://www.palosverdes.com/r;w/cityclerk/munidatabase/ https:Howa.rpv.com/owa/ 6/1 t 4 RE: 29029 Sprucegrove - So Vita Page I of 2 RE: 29029 Sprucegrove vicky@ hawthornemotorsexpress.com Thu 5/15/2014 9:40 PM ra:So Kim <SoK@rpv.corn>; cc:Joel Rojas <JoeiR@rpv.com>; Leza Mikhail <LezaM@rpv.com>; Julie Peterson <JuJeP@rpv.com>; Dear Ms. Kim, I would like to thank you for coming this morning and speaking with my husband (Hossein) and myself. I understand what you have stated in this email. My only concern is first the rights to an obstruction of the view and the devaluation of our property that this will cause. This could in -pack all potential sales of property especially those that have views. That being said, when you were here and checking measurements in regards to the height difference between our homes. Unfortunately, we did not look from the rear of the yard where it shows that when my neighbor did his remodel and re -landscaped his home and yard he pored concert and put three layers of building rocks or blocks (I not sure what you call them, increasing the height of the ground level.) Please come and take one more look before you complete your report. I would appreciate it and it would ease my mind to know your saw what I am talking about. I know that there are laws in place to protect ocean and city views from obstruction or otherwise anyone could come along and purchase a piece of property in front or behind or on the side and be able to block there view. How is that possible? Where would be the right of the person who has the view? We purchase our home here in Palos Verdes for the view and atmosphere believing that it would be impossible that our view cc ]d ever be obstructed. The potential implication are beyond belief. Please let me know when you v. II be able to come out once more. Sincerely, Vicky Shahbazian 29029 Sprucegrove Dr. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5100 (Hm) 310-292-6305 (Cell) -------- Original Message -------- Subject: 29029 Sprucegrove From: So Kim <SoK@rpv.com> Date: Thu, May 15, 2014 2;05 pm To; "vicky@hawthornemotorsexpres :om" < vicky@hawthornemotorsexpress.c n> Cc: Joei Rojas <JoelR@rpv.com>, Leza Mikhail <L,ezaM@rpv.com>, Julie Peterson <JulieP@rpv.com> Hi Mrs. Shahbazian, https://owa.rpv.com/owa/ b/I @ 5 RE: 29029 Sprucegrove - So Vim Page 2 of 2 Per your request, I forwarded your fcr aial complaint to Ms. Julie Peterson so that she can open a code enforcement case agains our neighbor (29023 Sprucegrove) for the alleged non -permitted improvements in the r r yard and interior remodel. Secondly, attached is the radius/maps 3bels instruction sheet that may help you achieve completeness with your current applk :tion pending with Leza. In regards to the Fence/Wall Permit r ding for your neighbor, I will be withdrawing his application. What this means is that ' will be able to build a fence or a solid wall without obtaining Planning Division approval L to 8' in height from his side and 7' from your side, even if it impairs your ocean view. B,- sally this means no more than 8' from his side. This is because the City's Code does not req? e a Fence/Wall Permit if the fence or wall is located where the grade differential between : ie building pads of adjacent pads of adjacent lots, measured perpendicular to the boun i*y between the two properties contiguous to or abutting the fence, wall or hedge, is t feet or less in elevation. In measuring the pad elevation difference of your property d your neighbor's this morning, it was clear that the pad elevation was less than 2' in heip} Your picture showing the one single area where it is more than 2' will not apply as the Co( says the difference between the 'building pads' has to be 2' or more. Lastly, I understand that you obtaine surveyor as you believe that the property line fence that your neighbor has removed/reh - is on your property. The survey will be purely for your reference and will not affect the ending Fence/Wall Permit as we discussed since it will now be withdrawn. Please feel free to contact me with aj concerns or additional questions. Sincerely, So Kim Associate Planner City of Rancho Fales Verdes F1(310) 544-5228 / sok@rpv.cc: https:Howa.rpv.com/owa/ 6/l Ao2,6'?6