CC SR 20150721 03 - 29023 Sprucegrove Dr. Fence Wall Permit Appealtt ,
CITY OF IL �RANCHO PALOS VERDI
PUBLIC HEARING
Date: July 21, 2015
Subject: Appeal of Fence/Wall Permit Decisions (Case Nos. ZON2014-00202
and ZON2014-00415)
Subject Property: 29023 Sprucegrove Drive
1. Report of Notice Given: City Clerk Morreale
2. Declare the Hearing Continued: Mayor Knight — Continued from April 21, 2015
3. Staff Report & Recommendation: Senior Planner Kim
4. Public Testimony:
Applicant: Mr. & Mrs. Hesser
Appellant: Mr. & Mrs. Shahbazian
5. Council Questions:
6. Rebuttal:
7. Declare Hearing Closed: Mayor Knight
8. Council Deliberation:
9. Council Action:
Public Hearing
Cover Page
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MEMORANDUM
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: JOEL ROJAS, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTO
DATE: JULY 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)
REVIEWED: DOUG WILLMORE, CITY MANAGERMA--)
Staff Coordinator: So Kim, Senior Planner 4*
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt C.C. Resolution No. 2015-_; thereby modifying the Planning Commission's
decision and approving a solid wooden barrier of varying heights 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.
BACKGROUND
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
1
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
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.
On April 21, 2015, the City Council held an appeal hearing and voted unanimously to
continue the matter to July 21s' with direction to Staff to work with both parties to try to
obtain consensus on a consistent look for the entirety of the wall (sections A, B, C and D),
with a reduced maximum height of 4' for section C.
All previous Staff Reports, Minutes and public correspondence are available as
attachments to the April 21s' Staff Report on the City's website. However, the Planning
Commission adopted Resolution No. 2015-05 is attached as reference.
DISCUSSION
Per the City Council's direction, Staff met with both the applicant (hereinafter referred to as
Hesser) and appellant (hereinafter referred to as Shahbazian) multiple times to try to reach
consensus on the look of the wall. A summary of the meetings is provided below:
• May 3 & May 12 — Hesser met with Staff explaining that he would agree to wood
material for sections A, B, and C, but would prefer to leave section D as chain link.
This is because the rear yards in his neighborhood are secured with a chain link
fence rather than wrought iron or other solid material. He believes that any material
other than chain link for section D would not be compatible with neighboring
properties. He noted that both he and Shahbazian also have chain link fences
along their opposite side yards and along the rear yard property lines.
• June 9 — Staff met with Shahbazian at their property to discuss their material
preference. Shahbazian stated their preference is that the entire wall be wrought
iron with all vegetation along said fence and the adjacent trellis structure removed.
They stated that they may consider paying for the cost of a wrought iron fence if the
adjacent privacy trellis is removed or lowered to the new fence height of 4'. They
also continued to raise view impairment concerns from their kitchen window.
• June 10 — Staff met with Hesser and he explained that if Shahbazian were to pay
for a new wrought iron fence, with no landscaping between their properties, such a
fence would offer him no privacy protection. However, he did offer to lower section
A to open up the street/rear slope view from Shahbazian's kitchen window in
exchange for increasing section C to 5.5' in height. Additionally, Hesser explained
that the only reason he erected the trellis structure is to protect his privacy from
05
Shahbazian's deck. Hesser said that he would remove portions of his trellis
structure if the portion of Shahbahzian's deck that causes privacy impacts is
removed as they go hand-in-hand.
June 23 — Staff met with Shahbazian at their property and they were open to
increasing the height of a portion (approx. half) of section C to 5' since Hesser is
willing to lower section A by the same amount. However, Shahbazian explained
that this would be pointless unless all foliage and other structures are removed off
of Hesser's property to open up their view. When Staff relayed to Shahbazian that
Hesser installed the trellis in response to their deck expansion to protect his privacy,
Shahbazian offered to place potted plants to form a privacy screen along the side of
their deck facing Hesser, but in no way would they remove any portion of the deck.
June 30 — Staff met with Hesser on his property and Hesser explained that a 5' tall
barrier for section C will not protect his privacy as Shahbazian's actual pad level is
higher, enabling them to look into his rear yard and bedroom. He explained that
wall section C would have to be at least 5.5' in height to protect his privacy. Hesser
stated that if a privacy hedge consisting of potted plants is placed along
Shahbazian's deck facing his property to prevent deck users from looking into his
rear yard, he is willing to remove a portion of his privacy trellis. However, he
explained that he will not remove the entire trellis as there would still be an area on
Shahbazian's rear yard that would afford them a view of Hesser's rear yard that
could not be protected by potted plants on the deck. In response to Staff's offer to
work with him and Shahbazian on creating a privacy hedge to address privacy
impacts from this area of Shahbazian's rear yard, Hesser explained that he was not
open to any privacy solution on Shahbahzian's property since it would provide him
less privacy protection than his current privacy structure, which he is legally allowed
to have. He emphasized that the trellis was installed to protect his privacy that was
being adversely impacted as a result of Shahbazian's cantilevered deck over the
slope. The only way he is willing to remove the trellis in its entirety is if section C is
increased to 5.5' and the portion of Shahbazian's deck that is causing privacy
impacts is removed.
• July 8 — Hesser submitted the attached correspondence requesting solid wood for
sections A, B and C while leaving section D as chain link. He is requesting that
section D remain as chain link as most of the neighboring properties have the same
material in their rear yards, including Shahbazian's property.
In summary, Staff could not get both parties to agree on a uniform material for the entirety
of the wall. This is because both parties tried to attach different requests through this
process (e.g. lowering/removing Hesser's privacy structure, removal of portions of
Shahbazian's deck, lowering/increasing various parts of the proposed wall, etc.) rather than
focusing on the material of the proposed barrier, as directed by the Council. The crux of
the matter between the parties is not the material, but Hesser's privacy versus
Shahbazian's view. Staff tried to facilitate an amicable solution to no avail as both parties
are entrenched in their positions. Staff believes that further discussion will only create
3
greater animosity between the two parties and the City. The one point both parties are in
agreement is that they want this matter to be resolved. For this reason, Staff believes it is
time for the City to find a balance between privacy and view and make a decision on the
pending appeal.
Based on the City Council's direction on April 21 st to try to achieve a consistent look for the
entirety of the proposed wall, Staff recommends that the entirety of the proposed wall
(sections A, B, C and D) be composed of wood material that matches existing sections A
and B and the height of the four wall sections be as follows:
• Sections A — 5-7" in height, as measured from the top of the existing retaining
wall, at a length of 19' from the edge of the applicant's 20' front yard setback.
• Section B — 6' in height, as measured from the top of the existing retaining wall,
at a length of 37' from the end of Section A
• Section C — 4' in height, as measured from the top of the existing retaining wall,
at a length of 23' from the end of Section B
• Section D — 7' in height, as measured from adjacent grade, from the end of
Section C to the rear property line.
In doing so, Staff believes that all necessary findings listed below for approval of the
subject Fence/Wall Permit can be made.
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 Plan, as a
City -designated viewing area.
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.
c. That placement or construction of the fence or wall shall comply with all
applicable standards and requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes
Municipal Code and General Plan.
d. Notwithstanding finding a, the applicant's request shall be approved if the
Director determines that findings of b and c 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.
ii. Denial would prevent compliance with the swimming pool fencing
requirements and there is no reasonable method to comply that
would no significantly impair a view from a viewing area of another
property.
al
Therefore, Staff has prepared a resolution (attached) for the Council's adoption that makes
these findings and sets specific conditions of approval for the proposed Fence/Wall Permit.
To prevent any future grade alterations on either Shahbazian's or Hesser's property from
affecting the approved wall heights noted above, the maximum allowed wall heights for wall
sections A, B and C are being set from the top of the existing retaining wall. Additionally, to
prevent future retaining wall alterations from affecting the approved wall heights, a
condition of approval has also been added requiring Planning Division review for any future
modifications to said retaining wall. The wall height for section D is measured from
adjacent existing grade.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Public Correspondence & Previous Background Materials
Staff received correspondence from both Hesser and Shahbazian, which is attached.
However, no new information has been submitted by either the applicant or the appellant
since the April 21 st appeal hearing that has not already been addressed in previous Staff
Reports and public hearings. Therefore, since all the previous correspondence and
background materials were included in the City Council's April 21, 2015 Staff Report, said
previous public correspondence and background materials are not attached to this Staff
Report. However, for reference, the Planning Commission's adopted Resolution that
summarizes their findings on the approval is attached.
FISCAL IMPACT
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/height 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 with modifications to approve the proposed barrier 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, a Fence/Wall Permit at 29023 Sprucegrove Drive.
5
ALTERNATIVES
In addition to the Staff's recommendation, the following alternatives are available for City
Council's consideration:
1. Approve Shahbazian's appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to conditionally
approve the Fence/Wall Permit and direct Staff to return with a resolution to deny the
Fence/Wall Permit at the next meeting.
2. As requested by Hesser, approve the Fence/Wall Permit so that sections A, B and C
are composed of wood material while leaving section D as chain link, with the same
height restrictions as recommended by Staff.
3. Further modify the appeal and direct Staff to return to the City Council with a revised
resolution at a future date certain.
ATTACHMENTS
• C.C. Resolution No. 2015 -_(Page 7)
• P.C. Resolution No. 2015-05 (Page 18)
• Public Correspondence received since April 21, 2015 City Council hearing
(Page 25)
no
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 NO TALLER THAN 4' IN HEIGHT AND THE
ENTIRE WALL BE COMPRISED OF A SOLID WOOD 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 solid 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 portion on top of a 4' tall solid wood wall on top of an existing V-6" tall retaining
wall (ZON2014-00202); and,
WHEREAS, on July 11, 2014, the abutting property owners of 29029
Sprucegrove Drive (Hossein and Vicky Shahbazian) submitted a timely appeal,
requesting that the Planning Commission overturn the Director's June 26th decision
(ZON2014-00202) based on concerns related to the application process, view
impairment, unpermitted retaining wall, and inconsistency with the Municipal Code; and,
WHEREAS, on August 12, 2014, the Planning Commission continued the appeal
hearing to September 9, 2014 based on the impacted agenda and the applicant's
availability; and,
WHEREAS, on September 9, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted
Resolution No. 2014-26, thereby denying the appeal and upholding the Director's
decision to allow an 8' tall combination wall along the south side property line, between
the applicant's rear building 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.
C.C. Resolution No. 2015 -
Page 1
7
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 December 9, 2014, the Planning Commission continued the
appeal hearing to February 10, 2015, to allow Staff to check with the Acting City
Manager and the City Attorney about the ability to use the City's View Restoration
Mediator to meet with the parties in attempt to resolve their differences; and,
WHEREAS, on February 3, 2015, the City Council took no action to amend the
View Restoration Mediator's contract to facilitate mediation on this project, since both
the applicant and appellant stated that mediation would not be beneficial, thereby
allowing the Planning Commission to continue with its consideration of the Fence/Wall
Permit application appeal;
WHEREAS, on February 10, 2015, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution
No. 2015-05, thereby denying the appeal and upholding the Director's approval and
reaffirming Planning Commission's original approval of Fence/Wall Permits with a
modification that Section C be comprised of chain link material at 29023 Sprucegrove
Drive (ZON2014-00202 and ZON2014-00415); and,
WHEREAS, on March 19, 2015, a public notice of the April 21St City Council
appeal hearing was mailed to property owners within a 500' radius from the subject
property and was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News, pursuant to the
requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code; and,
WHEREAS, on April 21, 2015, the City Council held an appeal hearing and voted
unanimously to continue the matter to July 21St with direction to Staff to work with both
parties to achieve a consistent look between all sections of the wall (sections A, B, C
and D), with a reduced maximum height of 4' for section C; and,
C.C. Resolution No. 2015 -
Page 2
•
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA
Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's
Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste
and Substances Statement), the proposed project has been found to be categorically
exempt under Class 3 (Section 15303); and,
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on July 21, 2015,
at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present
evidence;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The proposed project involves a solid wood wall in the following
heights along the south side property line of 29023 Sprucegrove Drive:
A. Sections A — 5'-7" in height, as measured from the top of the existing retaining
wall, at a length of 19' from the edge of the applicant's 20' front yard setback.
B. Section B — 6' in height, as measured from the top of the existing retaining
wall, at a length of 37' from the end of Section A
C. Section C — 4' in height, as measured from the top of the existing retaining
wall, at a length of 23' from the end of Section B
D. Section D — 7' in height, as measured from adjacent grade, from the end of
Section C to the rear property line.
Section 2: A Fence/Wall Permit is warranted because:
A. The solid wall would not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of
another property or a view from public property that has been identified in the
City's General Plan or Coastal Specific Plans as a City -designated viewing area.
More specifically, a reduced 4' tall solid wall for section C would not cause
significant view impairment as only a minimal amount of the ocean view from the
Appellants' viewing area (consisting of the rooms facing west along the rear
fagade of the Appellants' residence--living/dining room and two bedrooms and
from the kitchen area) would be impaired. Additionally, when the entirety of the
Appellants' view is considered, the proposed wall would be located in the far right
periphery of the Appellants' view frame, and the remaining ocean and Catalina
views would not be impaired from their viewing area. Additionally, from the
viewing area of 29043 Sprucegrove Drive (Wang), there would be even less view
impairment caused by the reduced 4' tall wall (section C) as it would be located
in the right periphery of the view frame and the remaining ocean and Catalina
views would not be impaired. Furthermore, there are no public properties in the
vicinity that have a view across the proposed project area, and the subject
property is not located within the City's coastal zone. Wall sections A, B and D,
as conditioned, also do not impair protected views for the following reasons:
C.C. Resolution No. 2015 -
Page 3
A
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 located primarily on the descending slope in the rear yard;
accordingly, the majority of section D is not visible from the Appellants' viewing
area and the portion that is visible is located in the far right periphery of the
Appellants' view frame. Lastly, the privacy versus the view issue between the
property owners appear to relate more to the Appellant's rear yard deck and the
Applicant's rear yard trellis, neither of which are relevant to the fence/wall and the
appeal.
B. As demonstrated by the photographs that were presented to the City Council,
which are part of the administrative record of this matter, there is no foliage on
the Applicant's lot which exceeds 16' or the ridgeline of the primary structure,
whichever is lower, that impairs a view from the viewing area of another parcel,
or a view from public property that has been identified in the City's general plan
or coastal specific plan as a city -designated viewing area.
C. The placement or construction of the subject wall complies with all applicable
standards and requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code and
General Plan. More specifically, pursuant to Municipal Code Section
17.76.030(C)(b)(iii), "when combined, the total height of a fence, freestanding
wall or retaining wall may not exceed 8', as measured from grade on the lower
side, and may not exceed 7', as measured from the grade on the higher side".
The subject solidwall will not exceed 8' in height from the grade on the lower side
at 29023 Sprucegrove Drive and will not exceed 7' from the abutting property's
grade on the higher side at 29029 Sprucegrove Drive. Additionally, the City's
General Plan, Policy No. 14 of the Urban Environment Element states the
following: "Prohibit encroachment on existing scenic views reasonably expected
by neighboring residents". Only the rear corner of the 4' tall section C would
project into a minimal amount of ocean view at the periphery of the view frame of
the abutting neighbors' (including Appellants') viewing area, while the remainder
of the ocean and Catalina view would be preserved.
Section 3; The Appellants submitted a letter on April 17, 2014, appealing the
approval of the proposed Fence/Wall Permit for the following reasons: 1) the entire
fence/wall should be considered as one unit and have the same measurements; 2) the
fence/wall does not comply with Municipal Code requirements for walls; 3) uncertainty
as to the location of the property boundary line should have required a determination by
the Director prior to issuance of the erroneous permit and opportunity for appeal; 4) the
Applicant previously had changed the pre-existing retaining wall and grade; 5) other
actions by the City; and 6) an erroneous permit issued by the City was the cause of the
original fence being destroyed and land taken from the Appellants by the Applicant.
C.C. Resolution No. 2015 -
Page 4
10
The City Council finds that the Appellants' grounds for appeal are not warranted, for the
following reasons:
A. The Appellants claim that the proposed fence/wall should be considered as a
single unit and should have the same measurements. The City Council agrees
with that the entire wall (wall sections A, B, C and D) should be considered as a
single unit, which is why the original decision of the Planning Commission
regarding wall sections A and B was remanded back to the Commission on
November 4, 2014, thereby allowing a determination to be made at one time for
the entirety of the fence/wall. However, the City Council disagrees with the
Appellants' request to apply a uniform height to all of the sections of the
proposed fence/wall because the existing retaining wall along the side yard
between the applicant and appellants' property varies in height, and the view
impacts to the Appellants' vary across said fence/wall, as is discussed above in
Section 2A.
B. The Appellants claim that the proposed fence/wall does not comply with
Municipal Code requirements. More specifically, the Appellants explain in their
appeal letter that the viewing area should include their living/dining room, master
bedroom, second bedroom and kitchen as they all share the same view. The
City Council agrees that the viewing area, as defined by Municipal Code Section
17.02.040.A.15, consists of all rooms facing west along the rear 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 to be no taller than 4', and, therefore, the wall does not result in
significant view impairment. The Appellants also claim that wall sections A and B
significantly impair a view of the ocean and natural hillside across Sprucegrove
Drive from their kitchen window. However, the only view from the kitchen
window is primarily of the Applicant's roof and sky, which are not considered a
protected view under the Municipal Code; 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.C. Resolution No. 2015 -
Page 5
11
C. The Appellants claim that uncertainty as to the location of the property line
required a Director determination prior to issuance of the erroneous permit and
the Appellants' opportunity to appeal. The "erroneous permit" referenced by the
Appellants is the approval granted administratively for wall sections A and B in
May 2014. There was a procedural error in said approval, which was
subsequently revoked by the Director in October 2014. A new application was
submitted for the same proposal; the City's procedures were properly followed,
and it was approved again. Prior to the original approval of wall sections A and B
in May 2014, the Appellants raised a concern regarding the property line location.
Both the Applicant and the Appellants submitted surveys, which were prepared
by the same company IWS, showing the existing retaining wall along the south
side property line to be located entirely on the Applicant's property. As such, any
uncertainty about the property boundary line between the Appellants' and the
Applicant's properties was resolved through the submittal of surveys by both
parties, which clearly demonstrate that the proposed wall is located entirely on
the Applicant's property.
D. The Appellants claim that the Applicant's grade and pre-existing retaining wall
have been modified by the Applicant sometime in the past. Specifically, the
Appellants claim that the applicant lowered the height of the pre-existing retaining
wall and raised the height of the adjoining grade at the base of the retaining wall.
However, the Municipal Code does not prevent a property owner from making
such changes. To prevent future alteration of the existing retaining wall affecting
the approved wall heights, a condition of approval has been added to attached
Exhibit `A', requiring Planning Division review for any future alterations to said
wall.
E. The Appellants claim that the City made false representations as to applications
that were filed. The submittal requirements for a FenceJWall Permit include a
completed application signed by the property owner, plans and a fee. When the
Applicant originally sought approval of wall sections A and B, the Applicant
submitted plans and a fee, but not a completed application. Due to this
procedural error, the Director revoked this approval and the Applicant was
required to file a new "application," which included a completed application
signed by the property owner, plans and fees. Subsequently, this application for
wall sections A and B was approved by the Director and is part of the pending
appeal. Because the Director revoked the prior approval, and the current
application complies with the City's requirements, the prior procedural error has
been corrected.
F. The Appellants claim that the proposed wall cannot be considered an after -the -
fact wall because the Applicant's pre-existing white -lattice fence was still in place.
The term "after -the -fact" is used to describe applications for projects that have
been initiated 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
C.C. Resolution No. 2015 -
Page 6
12
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'-Y). Additionally, the minimal quantity of earth movement and the depth of
cut or fill to modify the existing retaining wall at the current height (ranging
between 1'-6" and 2'-5"), would not have required a Grading Permit, Building
Permit or inspections by the City. Furthermore, any damage as a result of the
alleged retaining wall modification is a civil matter to be resolved between the two
parties.
H. The Appellants claim that the City had knowledge that the pre-existing white -
lattice fence had been constructed by them and that administrative approval of
wall sections A and B in May 2014 caused the removal of the fence and land to
be taken from Appellants by the Applicant. However, the City approval that was
issued in May 2014 was for the installation of new wall sections A and B and not
for the demolition or removal of any pre-existing fence. As is discussed in
Paragraph G above, no City approval was required under the Municipal Code for
the removal of said fence. Lastly, the approved wall sections A and B are
located entirely on the Applicant's property, consistent with the surveys submitted
by both the Applicant and the Appellants.
Section 4: The time within which judicial review of the decision reflected in this
Resolution must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil
Procedures and other applicable short periods of limitation.
Section 5: For the foregoing reasons, and based on all of the information in
the administrative record and the findings of fact included in the Staff Reports, Minutes
and other records of these proceedings, as reflected above, the City Council of the City
of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby denies the appeal and upholds the Planning
Commission's approval of a Fence/Wall Permit for the installation of a barrier along the
C.C. Resolution No. 2015 -
Page 7
13
south side property line of 29023 Sprucegrove Drive, subject to the modified conditions
set forth in the attached Exhibit `A' (Case Nos. ZON2014-00202 and ZON2014-00415),
which is incorporated herein and made a part hereof by this reference.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21St day of July 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 July 21, 2015.
City Clerk
C.C. Resolution No. 2015 -
Page 8 14
EXHIBIT'A'
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
ATF FENCEIWALL PERMIT (ZON2014-00202 and ZON2014-00415)
29023 SPRUCEGROVE DRIVE
1. This approval is for a solid wood a barrier along the south side property line
consisting of the following sections and heights:
i. Sections A — 5'-7" in height, as measured from the top of the existing
retaining wall, at a length of 19' from the edge of the applicant's 20'
front yard setback.
ii. Section B — 6' in height, as measured from the top of the existing
retaining wall, at a length of 37' from the end of Section A
iii. Section C — 4' in height, as measured from the top of the existing
retaining wall, at a length of 23' from the end of Section B
iv. Section D — 7' in height, as measured from adjacent grade, from the
end of Section C to the rear property line.
Any future alterations to the existing retaining wall shall require Planning Division
review and approval.
2. Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, the Applicant
and the property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they
have read, understand, and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this
decision. Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days
following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void.
3. Prior to conducting any work in the public right of way, such as for curb cuts,
dumpsters, temporary improvements and/or permanent improvements, the
applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works.
4. Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and
appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws
and regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of
the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code shall apply.
5. The Community Development Director is authorized to make minor modifications
to the approved plans and any of the conditions of approval if such modifications
will achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with the
approved plans and conditions. Otherwise, any substantive change to the
project shall require approval of a revision by the final body that approved the
original project, which may require new and separate environmental review.
6. The project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards
contained in these conditions of approval or, if not addressed herein, shall
conform to the residential development standards of the City's Municipal Code,
C.C. Resolution No. 2015 -
Page 9 15
including, but not limited to height, setback and lot coverage standards.
7. Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be
cause to revoke the approval of the project pursuant to the revocation
procedures contained in Section 17.86.060 of the City's Municipal Code.
8. If the applicant has not submitted an application for a building permit for the
approved project or not commenced the approved project as described in
Section 17.86.070 of the City's Municipal Code within one year of the final
effective date of this decision, approval of the project shall expire and be of no
further effect unless, prior to expiration, a written request for extension is filed
and approved by the Community Development Director.
9. In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations
and/or requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter
standard shall apply.
10. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be
completed in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the
City with the effective date of this decision.
11. The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall
be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that
material used for immediate construction purposes. Such excess material may
include, but not be limited to: the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap
metal, concrete asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or
discarded furniture, appliances or other household fixtures.
12. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM,
Monday through Friday, 9: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
C.C. Resolution No. 2015 -
Page 10
16
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.
C.C. Resolution No. 2015 -
Page 11
17
P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2015-05
(FEBRUARY 10, 2015)
W
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
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 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 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 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 fagade
(ZON2014-00415); and,
P.C. Resolution No. 2015-05
Page 1
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 31st decision (ZON2014-00415) approving an after -
the -fact Fence/Wall Permit; and,
WHEREAS, on November 20, 2014, a public notice of the December 91h 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 10th, 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
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 FenceMall 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
21
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 101h day of February 2015, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Cruikshank, Emenhiser, James, Vice Chairman Nelson,
Chairman Leon
NOES: None
ABSTENTIONS: None
RECUSALS: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Gerstner, Tomblin
l
Gordon Leon,
Chairman
Joel Roi s, A P
Comm pity D vela )ing
nt Director and
Secret of a PI Commission
P.C. Resolution No. 2015- o5
Page 4
22
EXHIBIT'A'
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
ATF FENCEIWALL 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 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.
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
P.C. Resolution No. 2015-05
Page 5
23
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 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
MAI
PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE
25
So Kim
From: Carolynn Petru
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 5:17 PM
To: So Kim
Subject: FW: Shahbazian 29029 Spruegove Dr., RPV
From: hoss@hawthornemotorsexpress.com [mailto:hoss@hawthornemotorsexpress.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 1:52 PM
To: Susan Brooks; Jerry Duhovic; Brian Campbell; Jim Knight; Anthony Misetich
Cc: Doug Willmore; Carolynn Petru
Subject: Shahbazian 29029 Spruegove Dr., RPV
July, 14, 2015
Members of the City Council:
Attached you will find relevant documents and video clippings in regards to my case and the treatment my family
has endured by City staff since February 2014. Please review said material prior to the hearing on July 21, 2015.
Ordinarily, the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission hears a case approximately two months following an
appeal. On the other hand, Staff scheduled my case to be heard by the Planning Commission less than four weeks
after we appealed. Not only that, when we requested a two-week extension to wait for my son to complete his
Bar exam and help us through this detailed, confusing process, our request was immediately denied. The city's
letter providing "notice" to neighboring residents concerning our appeal was, in large part, misleading.
A Russian Proverb reads, "Trust, but verify." As members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council, I understand
the position you are in. As any city, I am sure you constantly receive complaints concerning staff members. I also
understand that, without reason to believe otherwise, you defer to Staff recommendations and opinions. However,
this is not any city and this is not an ordinary case. My family and I have sent you letters, emails, photos, and so
on and so forth since the outset of this dispute. While it would not be my place to tell you not to trust your staff,
all I am asking is that you verify their rendition of events. Progress doesn't happen without change. We are, and
have been, seeking your help. This has been a long, long process, but we know the truth will be unveiled. With
your help, I am confident that there is light at the end of this tunnel.
If it wasn't clear during one of our city hearings, what we are requesting is that our fence be restored to its original
condition; a 4ft fence all the way across the north side of our property.
The planning department issued a permit that allowed our neighbor, the Hessers, to remove our 25 -year
preexisting fence without hesitation or regard to our claim in ownership, and, with respect to the portion extending
from our front yard to rear building, without an opportunity to appeal. Essentially, the planning department
provided the Hessers with the "go ahead" to destroy a view that drew us to the Rancho Palos Verdes community,
and the view that our Municipal Code recognized and was designed to preserve. Accomplished by using words
such as "insignificant impairment," the planning department has underplayed and understated the events and their
participation in this tragic dispute by displaying misleading photographs, representing conflicting positions, and
changing their stories. Our pleas, as well as pictures and documentation depicting our preexisting fence and the
alteration of the structural wall supporting our property went ignored by the planning department. As a direct
result of the issuance of this permit, our property was damaged and structural integrity jeopardized.
0
This dispute originated from the construction of our deck in 2012, which, as you are well aware, has taken over a
year to approve. In 2013, a year after the decks completion, the Hessers submitted a formal complaint contending
our deck posed a privacy concern. Our project was assigned to Ms. Mikhail. After attempting to seek approval,
our plans, drafted by contractors, architects, and stamped by a civil engineer, were repeatedly rejected by Ms.
Mikhail. We were told that we needed additional document/details each time our plans were submitted. After
months of being sent back and forth by Ms. Mikhail without direction, and thousands of dollars spent, Ms. Abigail
Harwell accepted our plans on a day Ms. Mikhail was supposedly to be off on a (Friday).
Simply stated, "the deck for the fence." It appears as though Ms. Mikhail refused to accept our deck application
pending the outcome of the fence issue. Although ultimately being accepted by Ms. Kim and approved by the
planning department, the planning department attached conditions on the approval that the approval relatively
worthless. Three years after its construction and thousands of dollars spent, these conditions relate to issues
unrelated to the deck, such as the height of unrelated exterior stairs Ms. Mikhail required us to incorporate on the
deck's application.
In February 2013, prior to the code's Fence/Wall provision being amended, code enforcement told the Hessers
that our fence could not be removed, and he could not build a fence on our upper pad elevation.
Throughout this process, while our plans had been repeatedly rejected, the Hessers were issued a ministerial, over
the counter permit for a structure they and the city referred to as a "trellis." This trellis was constructed five feet
from the properly line in the section the city refers to a "C" in the Hessers rear yard fagade, extending from the
Hesser's rear building to rear yard slope. The structure measured 23' long by 12' in height and constructed of
lattice, nearly a solid wall akin to a prison fence. This structure invariably made the fence issue irrelevant. After
months of back and forth with director Rojas questioning his motives and how such a hideous structure could be
approved, especially during the pendency of the fence appeal where the issue was preserving the very view his
over-the-counter permit destroyed, he drafted a letter stating that the structure was more properly categorized as
a wall and required the Hessers to lower the structure to 7'. Notwithstanding the fact that the Hessers intention to
circumvent the code, the planning department again issued an approval not two months later for the same
structure, now calling it a "wood shed" and "shade structure." Comprised of the same construction and material,
the structures are back at their original measurements, destroying any and all views at issue in the pending fence
appeal. Never has the planning department address our issues on the damage and devaluation that has occurred
to our property.
The Planning Department chose to act as the judge, the jury, and the executioner. It is my understanding that the
planning department is to apply the municipal code and treat the citizens in the same manner, not on an arbitrary
or discriminatory basis. As shocking as it is to say or believe, that is the only logical explanation here. The code
is clear. Handouts concerning the processes and requirements are posted on the city website for ordinary citizens
to read and follow. The fact that experienced staff members, including the director of the Planning Department,
cannot figure out which code section applies, does not require certain applications to be submitted, or "lose" other
documents is inexplicable.
I reached out to the Director of the planning department, Mr. Rojas, by telephone about one year and half ago
hoping that he could stop all the shameful and unjustified behavior. Unfortunately, that was not the case. These
individuals are appointed to serve the best interest of the city, and must carry out their duties in an honorable,
trusting way. Members of the City Council, Rancho Palos Verdes is known for beautiful ocean and scenic
views. Please, do not set a precedent that allows for the destruction of what our community values and cherishes
our views.
I have also mailed outa copyof a power point presentation via certified mail to each of the city council
memberswith videos and photos outlining everything that has happened thus far.Please take a moment and view
it prior to the City Council meeting on July 21 st.
27
Sincerely,
Hossein Shahbazian
w•
w
LU C)
[y
D
ry
In
w
LL
9 ,
lkk-. kL
Ali+ 46
wo
U N
X
W LU
U
0 Z
w -
H U)
Z Lu
Q
a Cl)
U)=
QD
3: O
wz
U) O
Z)
O CD
=z
w p
J J
co
2�
W
U_
19 , r-
r �.
Z
r.�- r#
U)
Z
W
N U
Q Z
CO LLI
2 IL
Q
U)
it40
r�
C)
N
rn
Cr
m
H
lkk-. kL
Ali+ 46
wo
U N
X
W LU
U
0 Z
w -
H U)
Z Lu
Q
a Cl)
U)=
QD
3: O
wz
U) O
Z)
O CD
=z
w p
J J
co
2�
W
U_
19 , r-
r �.
Z
r.�- r#
U)
Z
W
N U
Q Z
CO LLI
2 IL
Q
U)
it40
Ell
rw
k:2
Ad
-
. �' �"� it✓� -rte �'� me -40
� +^ �ol
.�►��6
.ddmp�
1OW
k r.
. _ � , ?•� ,'fig ��'- 's�•' �� ,�,t ' ,�. ,�
DL
;L� 1i 11
S
rt� Yr �� •f r'�l
W
xw
CC
coW
I I
c
raR
LU
T- Oo
I--
(D LU
Z Z
Z <
MOO
Z
< Tt
Z
uj
0 <
0
C)
Lu
C)
v
i
U)
U)
<
w
<
LJJ
O
<
z
U)
U)
<
LLJ
cr)
W
U)
0
C)
ry
LL
Z
W
0
<
ry
LLJ
0
>-
LLI
LIJ
Z
w
o
<
Lu
F -
Aft
v
i
_ . _ _--�-•r..��
--�`_`� ....._. y .
i�R � L
i a"
Ic
0
z
�a
� J
W -J
a
Z
0_j0
Uap
LL CK J
DZ)LL-
COU
W Z) F-
2 ry
U h 0
Z (n ui
-LUC
=Q
Q W
wpw
O~
IL
w0
O
m
r'
0
I*
•
rCD
T
■ r -
Q
f
a
LL
0
LL)
LL) a
{f
Lu�O
20z
Ute='
z_�
I
- -�
C)
0
J v;
LU
LL
J #E
LL
W
LLJ'
LLJ
W
0 i 11
2U0
z
�
0
U
' �.,,� ,x'^.:14. '+ha � ' .•. ^ '� _ l � "� •
LL1 d�
w C/)
TZ )
{-
LU 3: r • t
o. T
LL
' ' f 400
%b Ir r • W
-W-/
f ALL
jw y.
I 1L r�r1 d
}
R
.Y-;Npm-e- 0
0
of
i
AL
AW
KOO
S&I VA
r-
r� . � - - �„ - `� • - ' f Yom'
�a
Owl
LO
."guotw3as
LL)
J
a
U
U7
1
1
1
1 .
w
0-
0
w
CL
>- �n
LU Lu
C; C)
Qca��z mm
t4 }
—U, <_<.
NfLvLL1J-;
LU
KZ
LU V
Q qa �aU� �Iv I w <u -'z'
Ww
wz
C`z
O 0
Op1L
Zcf1wSJ �
w
w
Nm XX
�LL
N��JVLLL [fll�flxxx0. -1
z�nw���O --ICL OmmLL�-ILS—O�XXwvLL�
Q
wm
a=
�Q
�_
U)U)
�o
wW
a_5
O�
wo
L
N
w
LU
0—
e=PRUGE&RC VE DR.
C+Wk tAK M'A6e?5"rrPJ
f�.
M
R25*274414
we
I
a
W LU
d
� J
Q �
z W -
< (_) UJ
Z
WJ
}
W Ll- Q `1
— ❑ z 1
D Z
co
- 7
V
C r • `
ol
•I N
ti���r
■
■
W -
0
W
Z
ry
Q
U) W
J 2
J
O
=
r
z
W ry
_
r LL
W
W J
=
W ry
/1�"
U)Ljj
�0_
r
r
■
■
It
Ir -
I
or
A
wmwI m
►A"
r~
H
00 I
55
t
i f
Z w 1
=w
0 �-U
0 0 Z W
Z LL
LLJ Cl)
w<
LU a-
=�af ZD
LU
LU Uj
LU
-
U) lw�-
Z w I I
< C) J
< LL
W Z °
°(D C/)
U — � � tit fi
U)wIL
Luo
i
�• I
w
_ Z
C
z
<C 0
i- C!)
0 <
w C` )
aow
❑C/)(-)
�ryz
J❑
Io
Q
z z w
00U)
0
z
❑
� J
w 2i
'7.
f
D
b-1
•0 1
rU a)
m n 4
•rl r-1 ro a)
O
g tu Q
in
ro m::1 u
10 cm (a
s~ a) 0 aJ to
o of -,A a a ri a
kn o
4-1 a) rd rl w
r-1 rt 'o r 1 •r l ro r 1
N °L'i Irl �
ro
r•I •moi
r
V?
tti' a a C1 °
1-4 U U) a) c U)
Ot O H O A
r i 43 m T701
r•1 )-I a) •rl c
cw a V ra i7 r
U)
a oa
a a�
U) r1 c
a) 0 m ?r O
`
c 4••1 U) O O
01 U O (y m CO 4-1
a) •11 U) c •r1 C
c ro ?i •r•1
'O
k s4
a°
4-) a) k •rl R
'J a) +) •-I •rl
.--a • aJ O
i �3 O a) J -J ?•+
y(
y 4
'O •rl (a u ^O
M 0n 4- 3 O
a
4J A c'ii oa)
m
a 0)w 1 3-1
rr
u 4.J 44 U
H -r- c 0 " ad •r•f
m
a)
a D v w
- o tT
rn H
o c o a
a) (a
m
4x a) ,, t3+ v
b
H •r1 O H
CI)
4-1 t7 t•f ).4 ld
.r•l oa > a
� '
t7l tr ro 4-� ..,
y
() H b a) O
Ci
O O O 9: r
at U a) a) y
LA
yJ ra .--a
p
r 1 c 1n 4-) (a
w
U n u
to
ro
o
w ova °
)�.asro
c
a,7,o0tn
41
N
co O 4a a) 3 a)•.,
-a ry •ra H I" •.•1
N
ro
U) rn O H H
O
aJ Q! H m O .c
H N ro
U
m .� 0 4) C 14 L
Q) O a) a)
a 01
U rr s+ a N
-4 r-1
O0
M
N O O +) r-1
4-i .c .-# iJ
> a Or -
•+ O E a) a) a3 O
4J
o H
~
ro In
-,-I
ri
h
y, 4)
aff
. s
fH
r
7
G
>1 4) N a)
47 ad3 aJ
C] U)
m
a) V a) 44 4 U
>°
Ln
o
ro
•r1
N
3 H c ro 4J U
jJ 47
C
•r1
41
[ Z3 H:3 0 11 m
-P •^-a 4) O .C' $4
m >-P+JOr.
ao
c°)
Ln
41
4i
4.1 O $4 H 4J 44
U)
+J c a)
u
U) $4 O N O
N
�> 1 ro a O 01
O�
a) 0, 44 0 H
4J
0-1 -a m 41 a) -0
l
cF .-, ro A c
as
oat O4-) m
N
ro u o
to
.c
a) 04c
9
o
C
N
�
m u
^a o at r1
cin H
1.a -.-i 41 M •ri 4
•rl
'Q.r 4.1 '-,I ;>ro 4.1 ,G::c
Vl
••'l•')
W
H
0-14 a^
H m Q) co
4J
U
Q 1A rk) H 0
O C O c
w
as
au)
1*
°
O of vi ro o>
U T3 a1C w
a
H
u o H41 H
7 a) t7 va L a)
Ol
rn .°c
U) N V
U)
•0
a
V
H
ro
>^ .•q •O •14 fel a)
U) s4 M � M
a) t 0
4••1
U)
a)
O H W r a O c7+ N
:J 4J :3H •H "
CA to
ro
Q
4J a) l -o
N '� 'O )
ti
c o ro o m a) ro
1 + >, CL 3 >1 X-1 CL
1
N a
cn
�
�
5
U
al
N
O
rn
N
\
OD
LO
I �
N O
\ N
ro
ri N
N
(a 4J
w
m
Un
(a
w
4-I
4-4
O
a)
U
co4I
f4
U)
a)
4J
O
H
U
X
O
O a)
4J U
3 w
O a) �4
� 3 O
C:) O 4-I
N N O
•rr-I 3 a)
(`•) O O
>•, G n a
r -i rI a) ::I
,� -) V a
�..(a 41
ro r }4
ro +-) >i
E4 oro -)
s~
41 v a)
O .a '0 O
a -r•1 W
O > a
-r4 a) O
4J U) H a)
U a) 1044
v 4 4-)
04 H a)
(n A O
-rel s~
)4 U W
O 104
U
4-4 Ol -ri ro
4-) o ri
() O U r -I
04 4J 4-4-1 00
4 -I
J r4 Q b 4J
a)ro a�aa))
4' y r-4 (n
4J (1) •rl r -1r-.
g m w ro r -I
a) 'p
C > 4J
4-1 4J U) O
O f4 Z7 >
>
o 3 0 3 -
)
41 O r4 u] a) r�i N
4J 44 a �, (0 U •r4 O
U) O `•4 4J 'O 4-J
v a (1) a) a)
-rAO v a •O a s4 O O
4J —1 .Q O s4 O 4J •ri
N -H 0, 3 U) N )-1 "
o r. Ui a) � u, -°
�4 O a) 4 �4 m
a U -r4 4J -O U) p, rJ
O1 r4 p O 10 'O
r�4 R, 4J r -
N r4 4Oa)
( a)
0 0) k U)U) X � (13 -1 1
�Q-1a0a) axroro
0)O I4 U a) a) 0)a) 3
r4 a) a 4J C 4-( >1 b�
a)a)�c-1O(a•r-Iror4r-
4 4J —4 —j U 1~ •s~ a) -r-i
+, O ro m -r1 -r1 4J -4 q
.� 3 b (a •rl •r1
ro N (L) ro s~ 4-) q —1 (d
�4 ro (a 0) •r1 m O 4J
a) 3 a) I~ - S•4 -r1 4J v
�
>i 44J � o o a) -H 4
U) -A -,I —1 •r4 .0 'O 3 a)
4- ?�4, 4J W 4J 4-) -4 M 4 -JO a) 44-1
O -H a) r -I :J 4a U U)
ri S4 -H 4J O •H O
O4J CO (00 CO 4J 4
•r1 (a a) 3 4 4-) O (n
(a 3 ro A a) a
a) a) > -ri
a) a) -0 01 H a) U ro
O U 0 •r -I U 44J 0�1: 4.4
•rl a) a O H ••4
0 F4 .1 :'O O q. O� O
O -H (n U) ro >4 ro G .0 r.
(v O 34
ro �j 4J C: U)
O
U1 .� 4-1-H'd 4J
4J O r1 4j ro ro x
a) o 41 o � q H
ro •r( ri U) a :3 44
A � � O a) - A U) 'O O 44 •O
(a a) U) 4 rl O U) C
U i4 T1 4J O -,-f -ri i; ro
4J a) G rl -r1 > 4 4 •r1
ro q:J -H R O 4J a) E i a)
U a) a) -H (a a m r -I
4J O a) 4-1
rn m p U) U)4)
G �G -r4 O 'O C: a) N
b -r4 ro > 4 4-4 O S4
� (a 0 � -1 a) � � U) 4J
te)
Uv --,U1 U) 0 p, o o' a) v
a) � � r -I :jro - a) 0 0
a) a) 3 O� U)i N A 44 '0
Q) 44J (U4 r -I ro � 4 •H
44J o ro �-o -44'1 P,a
O a) O W :4 ►4 4-J 44 c) ri
O a) O a) r•(
r1saros~m
0, al k
ro a H -Cr -I a tTV
4-J O U) 4J ,1 aD •r1
m >, -r1 ro c i-4 -r1 '0 to
q � • C:w4} O.4 a) M
rl q 4J >,•r1 q 0 4J -4 (L)
rl (a •11 4 4J •-3
a CO 9 r4 U) (0 4-) a) (a
�
O 'r I U m f-1 qv 47 U) U
b a) z O 1M 04 rn
4J >1 s~ > (0 4-) 4) 4 a) 4-) In
(a —4 �l -11 4 A r -I 0 C C
4 i4 O U) U a) v) z az •r1
o
r -I 104 � U
V ►ro4
)0,oaxi�aa) o
Q 4 -J 44 44
r
�p� rn > S 7
O U) r -i Ci ()
U O a) N O "i -Y 1t! U
a QyO,, 4� a) U a) 3 $4
� R, 4-) Ute) U A a' 'U ren 'o M
At
s4
o
ER is sj
U
I3
v U)
3 C7 4
O
n v Q
4J
ih J Ci+
2
�+
F aJ Of W
�4
ri
b S i E. Q) a)
v
vul
asp
Com. �l V) S4 U)
vro ,tiro
H•0
ro
o a�
�.
► {w
A
ro Q O . 4J R. �
'v 'A —1 04
a,
v 4Jro
0
ro '�
o ro v
v 0 4J C C� 3 W
a)
U
C
4J W 0.{ a v ii
O
ro
O ur a)
I O al —1 a) C3 aC N a)
c
O
1 r U
r I O p m -0 r +J O�
z
U)
U .Q M 14U
JJ v 3•i U O u) O O
Q. a) of
O v
� �'
v �e +n wv a)
.n
w
r:
s -i .r:0)
*0 'o Q�j
r .1
O ro R 4 -47 41ro. C 14a)
�
q
(L) 4-4
i.{
Uc*sm
41 -r-{ 4-i S -I (U iJ
ro EOOMOM
ro Q
g
�+ � a�
m a r
v
�
r4 A
JJ O
�
u� �4 �"�
o
U
u
V); ro c
ra
Ol
� ro
O 44
u a1 o• 04 c
v
E
0
Q
-0
m r [7
u0
UU
Q
(aO v
(U
+) E• .G v
�4
4 va
c p
,J
E
13
W
2
(DuU1
C •-
w
-H
y r R
yti U
� � � � A C �
[
a)4
-J aaj
0 [
J
O
O
U
roil U tJ ;..�
Irl R) U] O O Y1
-C 0 VW)
CN
� �
u) .1:::C3
4-1Um
J 14 d O U v1
TIO
r rn
-4
a7 a) Y a) a1
?, 1! )-1
U �
O
+�
a
C k N
+vJ
u
4" O O
a) Ga
{
f;
a) ru v O '44
j
ie cf]o
, fu
Y -t
ivO �rJ
4'
�0
va
�Q
' aON
�o 31
J
O
.4 .H N
viO -W UU
u ZC7 )> r
ro +� M
U
w u 0 .0 dpi' ,� V -� �" 4 4JSa
U)
I
a) ,.�
iJ
U ry r E k Qa S Y
1
::5
)•i yr
s4
o
ER is sj
f r0
O
ih J Ci+
2
�+
ro
a)
ro
a
O
z
o
w
F-+
�I
0
U C
Ix
0
4-J0
.�
C)
ro
WJ%i
W
2
�4 M
N
a
-H
[
a)4
-J aaj
0 [
J
O
W
U ,j
r
4-4
b)
W
TIO
7
a
U �
a)
W •,�
+�
N
aro)
?
o
O 41
a
`4�
�0
va
I
4t
N
U)
a� !
W
�K
�
U
.,
l!J
O
o?1
CO
�
CO
m
Q
L
06
Y0
3
41
O�
U
I
4t
N
U)
a� !
U)�J6��S d
C
61
s
I
�K
O
.,
l!J
U)�J6��S d
C
61
s
I
a 7�
N 1
b
H.
M
o
{{
v
w
I
m
;Yl
MO r",OT
N
H w
r
..
p5
w
ii
w
n.
�r
W
'44
co—
co)
CS
�
r r
w
ui
LL)
a
I
r
o1"
10
-j
Uiz
00
v
4
u.o
o
{{
co i
w
I
m
;Yl
MO r",OT
r
..
p5
w
ii
w
n.
�r
W
'44
(E) 2"x4" STUD @ 16'0C',
:ONC SLAB NEW 4" CONC SLAB CAP
°D }
(N)6"x12"x16"CMU
X FTG REBAR @ 24"0 C (VERT )
1I %1 , #4 REBAR @ 24"0 C (HORIZ )
4' '1°ERPUNAIEDPIPE
+C-RANUIIEi .IAM ^ v
r
au
REBAR@12'OC Y4 REBAR12"0.0
M4
Section_ "A -N'
k^
'`r 1 - IIA n[�QM1R .�2A'Ot, I'y@RI y
RIAwR it 24" O C (HORIZ )
n
{
M kEOAP.�12'OL'- R4 Ri BAR .4 IY O,c.
Section 'IB - B" Y_
it7gw1 4VMUCEUOOVR Oh. PANCNO PALOS YCRofs CA. #07Tp
0
o b a a o.
a°Gi G II 7u ''r- O W
D W
wi1slo3� V w
C
r o o� a
Q6 CL a N O DC7 U m�
t;!.
�i �; D O a O W W 0 0
O O x Z
v T rio 2 E vi F F
0 0 o u �� Z r°d ado ww w 3 3
z b
0 3 �-w¢ �. �QAQo�� w o a� u
0 0 o C7 -� QQ0.n UOv, Q�A�aii' C7 C7 x O O a G]
CL, s c -, O k. p F ¢ � Z C-1 r 3 U
;_ avnw�U O Ca�Q - WdW�d `aW ^- A ° M a
Q'b Ow n W ��nv�iaW.>C<
0W1
UdW �dw>CC7H[- �-�
V] V .�+ p F ✓', Li' 2 [_ .- Q. O C1.. f-1 ^•, P. C4 CL,
0.. [-� — 0O
II
68
w U N o O7 +
MZ
a z ¢Hwy 3 0 0
o oozee a p o .�
a
lOg
M
9
LO
ItECD/
�
a�
a
M
Lq
coi u + +
v u
v x
i o
X S--
N 00 CL
C r N p X �J LJ
N o M `- X
00
C r x
00
co
d
m
LO
ri 000,
M •
a
9
LO
ItECD/
�
a�
a
M
Lq
coi u + +
v u
v x
i o
X S--
N 00 CL
C r N p X �J LJ
N o M `- X
00
C r x
00
co
d
m
LO
ri 000,
M •
LO
Cb CD — O
�CY) 00
�o <# QO
II it it fl
CV"C'd CV
zz T_
-'r CO Ch {ss
f W y_.. C{J C?
X X X X
QQtnQ
Nd q r � [V
It II it II
Sty C'y "r
4 ra CY9.
X x X
Nr
CV N C"I
00 T
to C�) C�
C11
�
II fl
fl 11
iC7
E2
�
LL
LO
Cb CD — O
�CY) 00
�o <# QO
II it it fl
CV"C'd CV
zz T_
-'r CO Ch {ss
f W y_.. C{J C?
X X X X
QQtnQ
Nd q r � [V
It II it II
Sty C'y "r
4 ra CY9.
X x X
Nr
CV N C"I
II
r T
C3?
11
OD
04
�
fV 04 tL7
T T
x
�
X x X
C
it
II
II
C3?
11
OD
04
�
Lo N
T
�
I I
X
(�}
co
4f tC7
II
uy
CJ
tSr
co
ca
1'
[ I 4.1LO
2
Lf) r
N
LO
L"
C I
Cf - i!
T
ltl
�
�f Cl
Y
1i
C'4
11
OD
04
r
Lo N
T
It It
u
�n
0
{ V.
t`3
I I
X
(�}
co
4f tC7
II
uy
r
X o
tSr
co
'
1'
[ I 4.1LO
Lf) r
N
LO
C I
Cf - i!
T
S
to
11
T
N
LO
N
Y
N
II
Z
O
II II Ig
cl
C)
0
W
t
O
N O N
M � 00
N
Tl
X
O
O
6
IN
Q
U
O
N
�l O
V O
O O
M N
vv
r O
O
w 00
M
co r
O
O
X
i
Nr ti
O
c7
O NO O
O
X O C)
O
O
0o
w
M
i`m
I`
co
N
O
O II X
O
X
X
O
�j
11
OO
O O
O
Y
O
O
O)
X
i
N O
c7
O
O
II X
O
0o
I`
N
Lo
� it
D
X
O
�j
11
O
Y
X
OOQ
X
N 0
�00M
m
Lr)O
N
II II
(n
Q c
II II
Y
N
X
i
LLJ CO
3: -
< LLI
z
wQY
(If Lij
LL > <
0 0
U) 2 w
0
U)
T 0 w
M �-
LL
V
i It
0
4r
PWk
AL
tN
f --lop
CD
ui
Ve
LO
00
Imo"
J
L0LL -
0
c L.L
<00
�-�z�
Q W y; •.
L.LI 0
W
W 2
iv
ui1 w �'•.,.. /x ,
COL
CJ W 'W
L y'
co
2E Z
ML
!�
L
00
J
V
go
r^
a
z
LLJ
C) z
< z
0 LLJ LLJ
Sm
LLJ
< LU
wUJ
.-
.'mew
CO
0 Z
0 < LL
� LLJ
LL 0
(D00-1
Z —1
W
> LL
Cl) <
LLJ LLJ
Z
0 LLJ U- Z
uj
Lu
0 co m
z
LLLL <
0 LLJ
LLJ Lij
— UJ (D CO
>
- <
w z 0
:D uj
C/) 0
LU
U) LU
LU
CO
Hello Ms. Kim,
RECEIVE;_14 y
JUL 08 2015
We would like to thank you for your time in preparing our application.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
At our last hearing, the City Council stated that before approving our fence applicatiorPMV-WRId like us
to work with your office to choose a uniform material for our fence.
We have a proposal that has met the council's request for a uniform fencing material, as well as lowering
the fence to a height that does not present any potential for view impairment.
We would like to modify our fence application as follows:
• The entire proposed fence along the property line is to be solid wood
"The pre-existing fence over the hillside would obviously remain chain-link (Attachment C)
• Section AIB (ZON2014-00415); Remains at the full height (8' combination)
• Section C (ZON2014-00202); Lowered to 4' ('8' Combination with a max of 4' above our neighbor's
building pad as depicted in Attachments A & B]
The fence height does not touch our neighbor's view from the Viewing Area. It far exceeds the criteria of
"No Significant View Impairment" to the point that there is ZERO VIEW IMPAIRMENT.
Thank You
Darrel and Brenda Hesser 1
75
Z v� cl
Attachment A:
Summary graphics of previous and current requests
Current Request (Detailed version attached):
V11�7Tf'��'�%CMl7
20 .14-415
:�-P
nuor 14w
Z 0 N 2014-00202
76
Attachment B:
Fence Diagram
(D
D C,
O � 0CD
o 3 = -6
3 w _-a
Cr m O
6 N
= o
o rn zz
D m a
2 CD h
(D c o
czF :3 Cn (D
Q CD o o cn
3 n Co
CD m
m w 3 x
CD w
_. W o .. 3
3
7 Z3 (D (D U)
z O
(D O- 0- a
00 3 O
(D _
3 0 o
CD (D
n cc
O 3
5'
(n CD p 0
(D -n
7 �
Z 2
7O
CDU)
(n (n
z
6 _.
O
s
O
CL <. N
O
Q 3 0
SI)
v
(n .n.
Ul
C7
cn
O
fl:
1u
0
LD' X
7
N .N+
w n
3
V
CD
a
r
1.1
1
a
3 4;y
D
n
(D
yd
77
Attachment C: 4 of
Position regarding any suggested alterations of the hillside fences.
The chain link fence is both appropriate and consistent with fencing throughout our neighborhood. We
respectfully request that the existing chain-link fence remain unchanged for all of the following
reasons:
1) This pre-existing fence is compliant with city code requirements and further does not affect any
view from a neighboring property. As such, this fence is not subject to review or modification.
2) At the last Hearing, our neighbor (Mrs. Shahbazian) verbally objected to altering the hillside fence.
3) Anything other than a chain-link fence over the constantly sliding hillside would be difficult and
costly to maintain
4) As the fence currently stands, it is also completely in character with the surrounding
neighborhood. The hillsides in our neighborhood already primarily consist of chain-link fences.
a. The other fences surrounding our property on our hillside are chain-link
b. Our neighbor's fence (all the way to the street at the front of their house) is chain-link.
c. Walking the streets of the nearest 50 hillside homes, I could only find 4 hillside yards that
do not have a chain-link fence on at least one side of their hillside
(see graphic below with red circles at homes with no chain-link)
For all of the reasons above, we would like to retain the existing chain-link fence.
0
So Kim
From: Joel Rojas
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 7:35 PM
To: hoss@hawthornemotorsexpress.com; Susan Brooks; Jerry Duhovic; Brian Campbell;
Anthony Misetich; Jim Knight
Cc: So Kim; Ara Mihranian; Doug Willmore
Subject: RE: Shahbazian's 29029 Sprucegrove Dr. RPV
Follow Up Flag: Follow Up
Due By: Thursday, June 04, 2015 8:21 PM
Flag Status: Completed
Mr. Shahbazian
If you prefer that our meeting occur at your residence, that's fine with us. So and I will be there on June 9th at 2pm.
Joel Rojas
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: hoss@hawthornemotorsexpress.com
Sent: 6/4/2015 4:27 PM
To: Joel Rojas; Susan Brooks; Jerry Duhovic; Brian Campbell; Anthony Misetich; Jim Knight
Cc: So Kim; Ara Mihranian
Subject: RE: Shahbazian's 29029 Sprucegrove Dr. RPV
Hello Mr. Rojas,
In reference to my telephone conversation June 3 with Ms. So Kim per the city council's request dated
4/21/2015 we made arrangements to have a meeting June 9th at 2:00 PM at city hall. I think it is better
to meet at my home since more discovery has become apparent after the city council hearing on
4/21/15. New plans are in process from an architect and engineer to correct all drainage and damages to
my property in regards to the permits issued. I reserve all my rights as we move forward.
Thanks,
Hossein Shahbazian
-------- Original Message --
Subject: RE: Shahbazian's 29029 Sprucegrove Dr. RPV
From: Joel Rojas <JoelR@rpvca.gov>
Date: Mon, June 01, 2015 3:55 pm
To: "hoss@hawthornemotorsexpress.com" <hoss@hawthornemotorsexpress.com>,
"Susan Brooks" <SusanB@rpvca.gov>, Jerry Duhovic <JerryD@rpvca.gov>,
Brian Campbell <BrianC@rpvca.gov>, Anthony Misetich
<AnthonyM@rpvca.gov>, Jim Knight <JimK@rpvca.gov>
Cc: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>, Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Mr. Shahbazian
As you may recall, the City Council considered your appeal of the Hesser's Fence/Wall Permit on April 21St and
continued the appeal hearing to July 21. Thus, your correspondence will be included and addressed in the
forthcoming July 21 Staff Report. As you may be aware, we have been corresponding with Cyrus trying to set
79
up a date when we can meet with you, Mrs. Shahbazian and/or Cyrus to discuss the materials for the
fence/wall. I am hopeful, we can find a date that works soon.
Lastly, I should add that staff agrees with you that the grade differential between your two properties
necessitates the approval of a Fence/wall Permit. That is why the Hesser's were required to apply for said
permit and we are now involved in the appeal hearings regarding the decision on said permit.
Joel Rojas
From: bossPhawthornemotorsexpress.com [ma iIto: hoss _ hawthornemotorsexpress.com]
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 3:39 PM
To: Susan Brooks; Jerry Duhovic; Brian Campbell; Anthony Misetich; Jim Knight
Cc: Joel Rojas; So Kim; Ara Mihranian
Subject: Shahbazian's 29029 Sprucegrove Dr. RPV
Dear City Council Members,
It has been brought to my attention that there is a difference in elevation of four -
feet in the building pads between the Hesser's property and mine (29029
Sprucegrove Dr., R.P.V. I had a contractor perform an evaluation on the structural
integrity of our property and foundation following the Hesser's unpermitted
grading, alteration and manipulation of the retaining wall, and the City's neglect in
code enforcement. As part of his analysis, four holes were placed along the property
line into the makeshift retaining wall. In the course of his work, he was able to
conclude that, despite the alterations to the retaining wall, the difference in building
pads remained the same, four feet.
As you are aware, the code provision pertaining to the requirement of a permit
where there is a certain difference in elevation between building pads as applied to
fence/wall permits states, in relevant part, that the "grade differential between the
building pads of adjacent lots, measured perpendicular to the boundary between
the two properties." Because the code indicates that where this elevation is in
excess of two feet, a permit is required. Per the code, the contractor's conclusion
that there remains a four -foot difference in building pads, as the city ultimately
agreed, made the over-the-counter permit issued to the Hesser's for what is being
referred to as sections "A and B" over my objection, erroneous, null and void.
While formal evidentiary rules are inapplicable to administrative hearings, Mr. Rojas
and other staff members were on notice since February 2014, when we initially
informed them of the events that had been transpiring. Code enforcement even
performed a site visit shortly thereafter. Facts were provided by personal visits,
telephone conversations, and emails, which included photographs depicting the
Hessers altering the structural wall between building pads. However, I was ignored
time after time. Throughout this appeal process, it appears that the city does not
have any interest in getting to the truth and is disinterested in examining the city's
participation in the this dispute. With the exception of a few planning
z 80
commissioners and councilmen, we have continuously experienced the same
behavior. A review of the correspondence between Cyrus Shahbazian, Vicky
Shahbazian, myself and city representatives, as well as the footage and transcripts
from the hearings before the planning commission, provides an accurate
demonstration of the above actions.
From May 2014 until the present day, the city has provided various stories in
regards to the Hessers diagram depicting sections "A" "B" and "C", reasons
applications were filed or not filed and so on and so forth. The city maintains that
the structural retaining wall that was initially three feet or four feet is a garden
wall, which gives the inference that the wall is two feet or less and thereby
allowing a six foot fence for a total of eight feet to nine feet in section "C".
Similarly, sections "A" and "B" have been shown to allow a six foot wood fence on
the above mentioned retaining wall. The fence, in its entirety, destroys views of
the ocean, Malibu, and the natural hillside, as well as incoming light into our
garden window. It is hard to imagine that one person, without any formal training
or experience, could maneuver through the complex municipal code and obtain
questionable permits without the aid of someone more experienced.
As a result of the alteration of the retaining wall, portions of the wall in section
"B" and "C" were made lower than two feet and the width of the wall was
thinned, which provided an additional 4 to 4 1/2 inches the Hessers did not have
before, and therefore allowed the Hessers to construct posts on the upper pad
elevation.
Another issue of contention is the over-the-counter permits issued for the "shed,"
also given the name of '"trellis," and "shade structure." Throughout this dispute, a
primary point of the city's analysis should have been the preservation of our rear
yard view. During this time, August 2014, Mr. Rojas issued a ministerial, over-
the-counter permit for a makeshift fence and called it a trellis. This trellis was
constructed five feet from the property line in section "C" and was roughly twelve
feet tall. Said structure, undoubtedly, was constructed and approved for the
purpose of harassment and spite. Subsequently, after continued objection and
pleading, said trellis was required to be lowered to seven feet, as it was more
appropriately identified as a fence/wall. However, in December 2014, the Hessers
applied for another structure in the rear yard, a "shade structure" and a "wood
shed," comprised of the same structure that had been erected before. The new
December approval was again for twelve feet in height and served the same
purpose as the August 2014 approval. While the Hessers were being issued
permits for structures uncommon in the community, the city was turning a blind
eye to all the code violations that existed on the Hesser property. My
understanding is that there are requirements in both the Planning and Building
3 81
phases and, based on the structural location and material, the Hesser's are not in
compliance.
My rear yard deck has also been an issue. The Hessers provided a formal
complaint on the grounds that one pole, four feet long, was blocking their view.
Then, the Hessers indicated that our deck posed a privacy concern. Ms. Leza
Mikhail came to our home to check on the view issue and indicated that the one
pole was blocking the Hesser view and was indicating removal of a portion of the
deck. While our property was being destroyed through unpermitted grading, Mr.
Roja and Leza Mikhail were scrupulously searching for any minor violation they
could find on our property. This treatment included mental anguish and
embarrassment as a result of my visit to city hall and interaction with Ms. Leza
Mikhail. During a visit, Ms. Leza Mikhail yelled "backup backup" in the presence of
numerous witnesses and bystanders.
As a direct and proximate result of the unpermitted grading and unenforced code
provisions, the structural integrity of our home is compromised and we have
suffered substantial damage in drainage. My property naturally sloped from the
rear yard to the front yard. Water drained naturally with the slope, from back to
front, just like all the other homes located on Sprucegrove Drive. Now, my
property drains in the opposite direction, from the front yard to rear yard, where
Vista Grande Elementary School is located. Unless corrective measures are
immediately taken, my home may sustain even more damage, including that
from water and mold and more structural damage. In addition, we were
continuously required to pay fees and penalties to obtain an approval for my
deck, not to mention Ms. Mikhail's requirements of obtaining three sets of
architect plans, and engineer stamp plans and attorney fees.
The city's disparate treatment and harassment of my family over the past two
years is disheartening and shameful. On a few occasions, the police were called
but unable to provide help as they indicated that we needed to contact the city
for help. Where does a member of the community go where the police can't help
and the city is part of the problem? Where is the equality and equal treatment
regardless of personal characteristics?
Please, I ask you to visit my home again and see the damage that has been done
to my property, my view, and my family. If you have any questions or concerns
you can reach me at the number listed below.
Sincerely,
4 82
Hossein Shahbazian
29029 Sprucegrove Dr.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Cell: 310-251-8407
hoss@ hawthorn emotorsex ress.com
- y
..
A,
ArAl
w r
e
� •w•' i _-�_`�.--�� ,� ' • - N pry
,� r; � it-` e `, j Y"�,/ ,�� yf•, .�, _ � D',
y �� + `� ti fir., �Yr ,' � , v ,' �� {',•.
Ilk
- , ry • + '� ! z '/ '•A' a IV
- ..- , ., � � �'�"'•' fir` � � 4��_,� � ,_� �� W �' .� -
�r _ f � �. , � • * .�;T� ter � ',.
j—�•
op
�11
MU?o E.01? �20n-. 0
J' l
Tr
%� m
,.
J r �
r r •' \ �"
_ r `
}
�"'' q � �` f: ti'° as Y � 1•�, r►"�r'� �� �' � _ t/ �+l *-['� ��
AI �Y r
I w.
t y,
it r_k-� l �, � 1T •;� . .a �� � •� •�
�.
` ,r..� � +!' � 1� � .. „ / _ �^ '�..° _ -!. } y 4�+Ro , '}�� r 'Yf' ,1'r � �•.; A tet. �'we ���..
71
op
ow-
APt-
WEAn
30
qTA',
.._
'� E � ��.
:�,, ',
� r � ,
_ .r _ •n
i _ �
_ i .a' ��.
�{ ` , _
I
1
-�:
� � ���•f
r
ti.
��
_. f
` ..
7 �'
" }rl
- 1
�:
• � i �.. _ � �.'
r• - y � ' �.
_ �
_ � � L _
..
. �y. - - , t
�. � � �
'� ^ ^ , , r y, � '� � 1 .
_ ., ;,:
- ��I
y4 �ey v �'
'.
4 q v
r � �
c r
• 1' .
,� ,
,�
` «.
,4" ,
° ���' .
~ r '��..
n � a',
• �