The URL can be used to link to this page

RPVCCA_CC_SR_2013_09_03_05_Urgency_ORD_Residential_ConstructionCITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS JOEL ROJAS, CO~N?1 DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR u v SEPTEMBER 3, 2013 ADOPTION OF AN URGENCY ORDINANCE AND INTRODUCTION OF A NON-URGENCY ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH CERTAIN PERMIT RESTRICTIONS ON RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN ONGOING FOR 4 YEARS OR MORE REVIEWED:CAROL YN LEHR, CITY MANAGER@>-Ear <=..L RECOMMENDATION 1) ADOPT URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. __ , AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, REGARDING PROLONGED CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS THAT ARE ADVERSELY AFFECTING NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF; and, 2) INTRODUCE ORDINANCE NO. , AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, REGARDING PROLONGED CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS THAT ARE ADVERSELY AFFECTING NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. BACKGROUND In October 2012, neighbors on Sea Ridge Circle, a small cul-de-sac within the Ocean Terrace tract, contacted the City about their frustrations and concerns with prolonged noise, dust and parking inconveniences caused by a residential construction project at 32303 Sea Ridge Circle (property owned by Mr. and Mrs. Anderson) that has been ongoing for several years (see attached emails). The neighbors were requesting that Staff issue no new permits to the applicants or that any new permits be denied if the work is not completed in a timely manner. In response, the City Attorney explained that there are no provisions in the Code that prevent the City from issuing new permits to the applicants (see attached email). Notwithstanding, the neighbors sought a meeting with Staff so that they could explain in detail the ongoing and disruptive nature of the construction project. Thus, 5-1 on November 20, 2012, Staff and the City Attorney met with several neighbors to discuss their specific concerns. At the November 2012 meeting, the neighbors raised a number of issues and requests. In summary, the neighbors: 1) alleged that construction work was being carried out inconsistent with the City approved plans; 2) requested that the City enforce timeline parameters on the project as it is a public nuisance given the length of construction; 3) questioned how a portion of the residence was approved in a "Building and Grading Restriction Area" of the tract; and 4) questioned whether the City could restrict or prohibit the parking of construction vehicles within their cul-de-sac by instituting permit parking. Staff and the City Attorney looked into all of the issues raised and concluded that: 1) all of the construction work taking place was being conducted in accordance with the approved plans; 2) while the City is not in a legal position to pursue any type of public nuisance proceedings to compel the property owner to finish the construction project within a set deadline, the neighbors have the ability to pursue a private nuisance lawsuit against the construction project; 3) since a small portion (approximately 50 square feet) of an addition was inadvertently approved in a "Building and Grading Restriction Area", the applicant was advised that no permit extensions would be granted to the permit related to this specific work; and 4) temporary construction-related parking cannot be regulated under the City's parking permit program. These determinations were explained by Staff to the neighbors in an email on December 20, 2012 (attached). Furthermore, the Andersons were notified in writing on January 30, 2013 (see attached letter) of their neighbors' concerns. Not satisfied with Staff's response, the neighbors alerted the City Council of the situation in January 2013 (see attached email). As a result, Staff provided the City Council with a summary of the situation by email noting that while the City's code could conceivably be amended to prohibit multiple permits or new permits from being issued until work associated with active permits is completed, Staff felt that such rules would inconvenience many residents who need to obtain multiple permits to perform legitimate improvements to their homes in a timely manner. In order to better understand the matter, Mayor Brooks met with the concerned neighbors in February 2013 and with the Andersons' in March 2013. The Mayor reported to Staff and the neighbors that the Andersons expressed their disappointment with the slow pace of their project but that they were going to pick up the pace of construction with anticipated completion in July 2013. During the time between April and July, Staff periodically visited the project to monitor progress and to address any issues related to construction related noise, trash and vehicle parking. At the end of July, Staff assessed the project and concluded that despite the Andersons' prior statements, the construction appeared to be months from completion. In fact, on July 28, 2013 the Andersons' permit expired and a new permit was issued on August 1 (with all new fees paid) allowing the Andersons to continue the ongoing construction for an additional 18 additional months (until February 1, 2015). Given these circumstances, Staff conferred with the City Attorney and City Manager and it was agreed that Staff would prepare an ordinance that would establish certain permit restrictions on prolonged residential construction projects that have been under construction for 4 years or more where Staff has received written complaints from the neighbors about the project and the effect upon their ability to enjoy their homes over a prolonged period. 5-2 DISCUSSION According to City Municipal Code Section 15.18.050, building permits issued by the City are valid for 18 months for projects up to 5,000 square feet, 24 months for projects between 5,000 and 10,000 square feet and 30 months for projects over 10,000 square feet. For good cause, the City's Building Official may establish different expiration dates when it is anticipated that such different date is necessary to complete construction due to extenuating circumstances. In addition, the City's Code allows the Building Official to grant a one-time 6-month extension to any unexpired permit provided that the permittee has been proceeding with due diligence and that circumstances beyond the control of the permittee have prevented the project from being completed. Due to economic and site inconvenience reasons, a great majority of residential permittees complete their construction within the time frame established by the initial permit. In some cases, permit extensions are requested and granted, typically because of project financing reasons. In even rarer occasions, permittees may need more than the 2 year construction time fram'e allowed by the typical home construction permit and its one extension. In such cases, when the permit expires, the applicant simply pays the necessary permit fees and a new permit is issued to complete the work. This provides the permittee with potentially a new 2-year clock to complete the work (18 months plus a possible 6-month extension). In the case of 32303 Sea Ridge Circle, the applicants have recently been issued the 3rd permit to complete work that was initiated by the original permit issued in 2009. In addition, the applicant at 32303 Sea Ridge has pulled multiple permits for a variety of associated projects on the property unrelated to the main construction project that was initiated in 2009. Specifically, since 2009, the applicant has requested and has been issued 12 separate permits (see attached table). The City's current code does not limit the number of consecutive permits that the City can issue for the same construction project nor does the Code limit the total number of permits that can be open at one time. The adjoining neighbors have noted to Staff that the Code should be changed to establish permit time and frequency limitations for prolonged construction projects. While prolonged construction projects like the Andersons' project are extremely rare in the City, Staff agree~ that the construction impacts of such projects can be quite adverse to the neighbors. While Staff and the City Attorney had an initial reluctance to try to reduce the time periods or frequency of residential permits so as not to inconvenience most of the residents in the City who undertake residential improvements, Staff and the City Attorney believe that an ordinance targeted at truly prolonged projects (4 years or more) would not affect most of the residential construction projects that occur regularly throughout the City without causing neighborhood concerns. Attached for the Council's adoption this evening are an Urgency Ordinance and a non- urgency version of the same ordinance that would set forth the following permit restrictions on residential properties under continuous construction for 4 years or more and which are adversely affecting adjacent properties, as documented by written complaints that have been submitted to Staff; No new building permits shall be issued by the City for any new work until all the work associated with any open permits has been completed to the Building Official's satisfaction. 5-3 No building permit extensions shall be approved. The ordinance states that these restrictions would not apply to new permits or extensions related to emergency work; work that is necessary to preserve the integrity of the structure; or for work that, in the opinion of the Building Official, will mitigate impacts to adjacent neighbors. Adoption of the Urgency Ordinance, as recommended by Staff, would impose these permit restrictions on all applicable construction projects in the City, effective immediately. However, it is important to point out that because the Andersons' project still has validly issued permits, the construction on their property can proceed in accordance with those permits. FISCAL IMPACT There is rio fiscal impact as a result of adopting the proposed ordinance. CONCLUSION Although most residential construction projects are completed within the time frame established by the initial permit, there are rare occasions that residential construction projects may go on for years due to unique circumstances. The construction impacts of such projects can be quite adverse to the neighbors. As a result, Staff and the City Attorney have drafted an ordinance targeted at truly prolonged projects which establishes permit restrictions on residential properties under continuous construction for 4 years or more which are adversely affecting adjacent properties. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the urgency ordinance and introduce the non-urgency version of said ordinance. Attachments •Urgency Ordinance No. _U •Ordinance No. _, •Copies of emails from neighbors of 32039 Sea Ridge Circle •Permit History Table for 32039 Sea Ridge Circle •Letter from the Andersons' 5-4 Urgency Ordinance 5-5 ORDINANCE NO. _U AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES REGARDING PROLONGED CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS THAT ARE ADVERSELY AFFECTING NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF RECITALS· 1. When construction projects are commenced by property owners, they typically are completed within the periods of time specified in the Municipal Code. It is not unusual, however, for a substantial construction project to require the issuance of an extension and the issuance of a subsequent building permit and extension, which means that a project can be under construction for more than two years. 2. There is at least one project in the City that has been ongoing for more than four years, with permits for the same work having been extended and reissued on several occasions. The property owners continue to apply for more permits from the City and still have not completed work that had already commenced. This project has been ongoing for more than four years and has been disrupting the neighbors' ability to enjoy their properties for that time and has become a nuisance. 3. It is necessary to adopt an urgency ordinance that will amend the Municipal Code to address these unusual circumstances so that the Building Official will not issue new permits for additional work until after the prior permits have been completed so that this project and others like it will not continue indefinitely and the neighbors' ability to enjoy their properties will not continue to be adversely affected and their ability to enjoy their properties will be restored. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 15.18.050 of Chapter 15.80 of Title 15 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows [the new language is underlined]: 15.18.050 -Administrative Code amended-Expiration of permits. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 15.18.010 of this chapter, Sections 105.3.2 and 105.5 are amended to read: 105.3.2 Time limitation of application. An application for a permit for any proposed work shall be deemed to have been abandoned 180 days after the date of filing, unless such application has been pursued in good faith or a permit has been issued; except that the building official is authorized to grant up to two extensions of time for additional periods not exceeding not exceeding 90 days each. The extension shall be requested in writing and justifiable cause demonstrated. 5-6 Plan checks for development projects where permits have expired for a period of less than one year shall be assessed a fee equal to % of the amount of the applicable plan check fee, as set forth in the resolution establishing said fee, if the plans that are being resubmitted are identical to the prior plans. Said fee shall be paid when the plans are re-submitted for review by the building official. 105.5 Expiration. Every permit issued by the building official under the provisions of the technical codes shall expire by limitation and become null and void, if the building or work authorized by such permit is not completed through final inspection within the allowed time from the date of issuance of such permit, which time shall be as follows: up to 5,000 square feet, 18 months; 5,000 to 10,000 square feet, 24 months; over 10,000 square feet, 30 months. For good cause, upon initial application for a permit, the building official may establish a different expiration date when it is anticipated such date will be necessary to complete construction due to extenuating circumstances. Upon expiration, before work under the permit can be recommenced, a new permit shall be obtained. Such new permit shall be valid for 24 months, and the fee therefor shall be one-half the amount required for a new permit for such work, if no changes have been made or will be made in the original plans and specifications for the work and not more than one year has passed since the expiration of the permit; otherwise, such new permit shall be subject to all terms and conditions applicable to new permits. Any permittee holding an unexpired permit may apply for an extension of the time within which the permittee may complete work under that permit when the permittee is unable to complete the work within the time required by this section although proceedings with due diligence. Application for extension shall be filed on forms prescribed by the building official and be accompanied by payment of the fee as established by resolution. The building official may extend the time for completion of work under the permit by the permittee for a period of time not exceeding 180 days upon finding the permittee has been proceeding with due diligence and that circumstances beyond the control of the permittee have prevented action from being completed. No permit shall be so extended more than once Notwithstanding the foregoing, for any property where construction has been continuous for a period of at least four years and is adversely affecting adjacent properties or the owners or occupants thereof, as documented in written complaints submitted to the Building Official or Director of Community Development, the Building Official shall not issue a new building permit for any new work or an extension of an existing permit until all work being performed pursuant to any open building permit has been completed and the City has issued a final approval or a certificate of occupancy therefor. This provision shall not apply to emergency work; work that is necessary to preserve the integrity of the structure; or for work that, in the opinion of the Building Official, will mitigate impacts to an adjacent property. SECTION 2. There is at least one project in the City that has been ongoing for more than four years, with permits for the same work having been extended and reissued on several occasions. The property owners continue to apply for more permits from the City and still have not completed work that had already commenced. This project has been ongoing for more than four years and has been disrupting the neighbors' ability to enjoy their properties for that time 5-7 and has become a nuisance. It is necessary to adopt an urgency ordinance that will amend the Municipal Code immediately to address these unusual circumstances so that the Building Official will not issue new permits for additional work until after the prior permits have been completed so that this construction project and others like it will not continue indefinitely to the detriment of the neighboring properties. Therefore, this ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, safety and welfare and shall take effect immediately upon adoption as an urgency ordinance. SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted in the manner prescribed by law. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS_ DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )ss CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ) I, CARLA MORREALE, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of said City is five; the foregoing Urgency Ordinance No. _U was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting thereof held on September _, 2013, and that the same was passed and adopted by the following roll call vote: 5-8 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CITY CLERK 5-9 Ordinance 5-10 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES REGARDING PROLONGED CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS THAT ARE ADVERSELY AFFECTING NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES RECITALS 1. When construction projects are commenced by property owners, they typically are completed within the periods of time specified in the Municipal Code. It is not unusual, however, for a substantial construction project to require the issuance of an extension and the issuance of a subsequent building permit and extension, which means that a project can be under construction for more than two years. 2. Th.ere is at least one project in the City that has been ongoing for more than four years, with permits for the same work having been extended and reissued on several occasions. The property owners continue to apply for more permits from the City and still have not completed work that had already commenced. This project has been ongoing for more than four years and has been disrupting the neighbors' ability to enjoy their properties for that time and has become a nuisance. 3. It is necessary to adopt an ordinance that will amend the Municfpal Code to address these unusual circumstances so that the Building Official will not issue new permits for additional work until after the prior permits have been completed so that this project and others like it will not continue indefinitely and the neighbors' ability to enjoy their properties will not continue to be adversely affected and their ability to enjoy their properties will be restored. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 15.18.050 of Chapter 15.80 of Title 15 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is 'hereby amended to read as follows [the new language is underlined]: 15.18.050 -Administrative Code amended-Expiration of permits. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 15.18.010 of this chapter, Sections 105.3.2 and 105.5 are amended to read: 105.3.2 Time limitation of application. An application for a permit for any proposed work shall be deemed to have been abandoned 180 days after the date of filing, unless such application has been pursued in good faith or a permit has been issued; except that the building official is authorized to grant up to two extensions of time for additional periods not exceeding not exceeding 90 days each. The extension shall be requested in writing and justifiable cause demonstrated. 5-11 Plan checks for development projects where permits have expired for a period of less than one year shall be assessed a fee equal to Yz of the amount of the applicable plan check fee, as set forth in the resolution establishing said fee, if the plans that are being resubmitted are identical to the prior plans. Said fee shall be paid when the plans are re-submitted for review by the building official. 105.5 Expiration. Every permit issued by the building official under the provisions of the technical codes shall expire by limitation and become null and void, if the building or work authorized by such permit is not completed through final inspection within the allowed time from the date of issuance of such permit, which time shall be as follows: up to 5,000 square feet, 18 months; 5,000 to 10,000 square feet, 24 months; over 10,000 square feet, 30 months. For good cause, upon initial application for a permit, the building official may establish a different expiration date when it is anticipated such date will be necessary to complete construction due to extenuating circumstances. Upon expiration, before work under the permit can be recommenced, a new permit shall be obtained. Such new permit shall be valid for 24 months, and the fee therefor shall be one-half the amount required for a new permit for such work, if no changes have been made or will be made in the original plans and specifications for the work and not more than one year has passed since the expiration of the permit; otherwise, such new permit shall be subject to all terms and conditions applicable to new permits. Any permittee holding an unexpired permit may apply for an extension of the time within which the permittee may complete work under that permit when the permittee is unable to complete the work within the time required by this section although proceedings with due diligence. Application for extension shall be filed on forms prescribed by the building official and be accompanied by payment of the fee as established by resolution. The building official may extend the time for completion of work under the permit by the permittee for a period of time not exceeding 180 days upon finding the permittee has been proceeding with due diligence and that circumstances beyond the control of the permittee have prevented action from being completed. No permit shall be so extended more than once Notwithstanding the foregoing, for any property where construction has been continuous for a period of at least four years and is adversely affecting adjacent properties or the owners or occupants thereof. as documented in written complaints submitted to the Building Official or Director of Community Development, the Building Official shall not issue a new building permit for any new work or an extension of an existing permit until all work being performed pursuant to any open building permit has been completed and the City has issued a final approval or a certificate of occupancy therefor. This provision shall not apply to emergency work; work that is necessary to preserve the integrity of the structure; or for work that, in the opinion of the Building Official. will mitigate impacts to an adjacent property. SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted in the manner prescribed by law. 5-12 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS_ DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )ss CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ) I, CARLA MORREALE, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of said City is five; the foregoing Ordinance No. _was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting thereof held on September _, 2013, and that the same was passed and adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: 5-13 ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CITY CLERK 5-14 Copies of e-mails from neighbors of 32039 Sea Ridge Circle 5-15 Joel Rojas To: Paul Christman Subject: RE: 32039 Sea Ridge Circle From: Ross, Randy [mailto:randy.ross@blross.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 3:18 PM To: Paul Christman Cc: Mr. Bruce L. Ross Subject: 32039 Sea Ridge Circle Dear Paul, Thank you for taking the time to talk to me. I glanced at the Code and copied what appears to be the operative language below. 105.5 Expiration. Every permit issued by the building official under the provisions of the technical codes shall expire by limitation and become null and void, if the building or work authorized by such permit is not completed through final inspection within the allowed time from the date of issuance of such permit, which time shall be as follows: up to 5,000 square feet, 18 months; 5,000 to 10,000 square feet, 24 months; over 10,000 square feet, 30 months. For good cause, upon initial application for a permit, the building official may establish a different expiration date when it is anticipated such date will be necessary to complete construction due to extenuating circumstances. Upon expiration, before work under the permit can be recommenced, a new permit shall be obtained. Such new permit shall be valid for 24 months, and the fee therefor shall be one-half the amount required for a new permit for such work, if no changes have been made or will be made in the original plans and specifications for the work and not more than one year has passed since the expiration of the permit; otherwise, such new permit shall be subject to all terms and conditions applicable to new permits. Any permittee holding an unexpired permit may apply for an extension of the time within which the permittee may complete work under that permit when the permittee is unable to complete the work within the time required by this section although proceedings with due diligence. Application for extension shall be filed on forms prescribed by the building official and be accompanied by payment of the fee as established by resolution. The building official may extend the time for completion of work under the permit by the permittee for a period of time not exceeding 180 days upon finding the permittee has been proceeding with due diligence and that circumstances beyond the control of the permittee have prevented action from being completed. No permit shall be so extended more than once. To me, there are a couple of key points. The first is that the extension oftime is predicated on the permittee proceeding with due diligence and that circumstances beyond the control of the permittee have prevented the action from being completed. It seems to me that the granting of a new permit upon the expiration of the original permit (already extended) should not be granted if those same conditions are also not met. It would make those conditions meaningless ifthe permittee does not have to proceed with due diligence and can just go and get a new permit. Therefore, while the Code says that a new permit shall be obtained, I don't necessarily think that the word "shall" means that the section creates an automatic "right" to obtain a new permit. It still may be viewed as a privilege, which is subject to the permittee meeting certain specified conditions. 1 5-16 Where, as here, we have a permit going back to 2009 (set to expire 1/28/13) and may even have something going back to 2002 (according to something you saw during our conversation), there ought not be an automatic grant of a new permit upon payment of a new fee. Obtaining a permit in RPV should be a privilege, not a right, as that distinction is recognized in the law. Moreover, there ought to be some procedure in which the rights of the neighbors to enjoy an area not constantly (for much more than a decade) under construction, with trucks, dumpsters, trash, noise and debris, can be taken into account by the City before it awards additional permits and extensions. At some point, there ought to be a right to be heard on the issue by the people heavily impacted by the award of these multiple permits. At some point, the system, which usually works fine, breaks down. If you have any questions, please feel free to call. Best regards, Randy Randy Ellen Ross ·itll· Attorney at Law CEO Bruce L. Ross & Company 609 Deep Valley Drive, Suite 390 Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274-3629 Office Voice: 310-544-8881 Office Fax: 310-544-8841 Cell: 310-850-2239 This message is intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) and is intended to be privileged and confidential. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete all copies of this email message along with all attachments. Thank you 2 5-17 Joel Rojas From: Sent: To: Cc: Ross, Randy <randy.ross@blross.com> Friday, November 09, 2012 9:52 AM Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com> Joel Rojas; Paul Christman Subject: Re: 32039 Sea Ridge Circle Dear Ms. Lynch, Thank you for your response to my email. No one on Sea Ridge is interested in seeing the work at 32039 abandoned or only partially completed. We are concerned, however, with the ongoing and disruptive nature of the construction on the property. Even a cursory glance at the history of this site reveals that there is nothing typical about this construction. Mere encouragement for the homeowners to complete the work will not likely change the status quo or answer my concerns as a neighbor who has to live on a daily basis in these conditions, year in and year out. To the contrary, the homeowners continually expand the scope of their work and take out additional permits, which the City apparently feels compelled to grant upon a showing that the work conforms to Code. Unfortunately, the work is not contained to their property alone. It is not only visible to all but disruptive to all. A few examples: There is little or no parking on our small cul-de-sac during the week because of all of their trucks. Their workers arrive at 7 a.m. and block the street. Lunch trucks block the street and driveways. Noise levels are intolerable. Often trash is stacked in front of the house. For a long time, there was a dumpster piled high with trash. As neighbors, everyone is willing to live like this for a short time while a neighbor does a little work. However, when years go by, and when there is no end in sight, there has to be an end imposed. If the City keeps granting permits without looking at the big picture, it is complicit in the problem. I am pretty sure that the City does not intend to be a party of the problem. It does, however, play a role. The continual granting and extending of permits is an issue, as is the lack of control over the construction process. To that end, I would be happy to discuss these issues with you so that the City can have a better understanding of how the position of the residents of Sea Ridge Circle. In my opinion, working together may be the best way to resolve our issues. As residents of Rancho Palos Verdes, we want to work with the City as an ally, to restore the quality of our lives on the Hill. Best Regards, Randy Ellen Ross Randy Ellen Ross Attorney at Law CEO Bruce L. Ross & Company 609 Deep Valley Drive, Suite 390 Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274-3629 Office Voice: 310-544-8881 Office Fax: 310-544-8841 Fax to Email: 310-802-7508 1 5-18 Cell: 310-850-2239 This message is intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) and is intended to be privileged and confidential. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete all copies of this email message along with all attachments. Thank you On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 6:52 PM, Carol W. Lynch <CLynch@rwglaw.com> wrote: Dear Ms. Ross: I am writing in response to the concerns that you have expressed about the ongoing construction at 32039 Sea Ridge Circle. I also will be sending this communication by letter, but given your concerns, I wanted to respond to you more quickly by email. It certainly seems that various renovations at that location have been ongoing for a considerable period of time. However, as you know, several building permits have been issued by the City for ongoing work at that property, which still are in effect. Hopefully the issuance of those permits will allow the projects to be completed within the specified timeframes. As you know, under Section 105.5 of the Building Code, initial permits are valid for specified timeframes. Permits can be extended once for a maximum period of 180 days upon a "finding that the permittee has been proceeding with due diligence and that circumstances beyond the control of the permittee have prevented action from being completed. No permit shall be so extended more than once." If the project is not completed within the additional 180 days, then the applicant must obtain an entirely new permit, accompanied by the payment of one-half of the amount of the permit fee. Typically, the payment of additional fees is a sufficient incentive for a property owner to complete the project timely. Of course, there are the rare exceptions, such as the current case. You suggested in your email to Mr. Christman that the City has discretion not to reissue a new permit if the work was not completed timely, and that the new permit may be denied if the applicant cannot demonstrate that the original permit and the extension were not pursued with due diligence. However, the Section 105.5 does not contain the same language requiring due diligence as a condition for the issuance of a new permit that is present in connection with a permit extension request. In the absence of that language, we do not share your view that we can read it into that provision of Section 105.5. In addition, you may not be aware of Section 150.3.1, which states: 2 5-19 105.3.1 Action on application. The building official shall examine or cause to be examined applications for permits and amendments thereto within a reasonable time after filing. If the application or the construction documents do not conform to the requirements of pertinent laws, the building official shall reject such application in writing, stating the reasons therefor. If the building official is satisfied that the proposed work conforms to the requirements of this code and laws and ordinances applicable thereto, the building otfjcial shall issue a permit therefor as soon as practicable. (Emphasis added.) The word "shall" is a directive to the Building Official. Accordingly, we respectfully disagree with your view that the Building Official has the discretion to deny a new permit for work that conforms with all of the requirements of the Building Code and the City's other applicable code provisions or conditions imposed by a planning approval. As you have noted in your email, as designed, the system usually works and provides sufficient incentive to property owners to finish projects timely, especially in circumstances such as are present in this case, where the applicant is living at the property and is pursuing the project, albeit slowly. Frankly, the problem the City encounters far more often is when an owner, due to financial reasons, abandons a project. This is one of the primary reasons that the Code does not prohibit the City from reissuing new building permits, since that would result in more projects remaining unfinished, which is an even greater blight on residential neighborhoods. Staff and I are very sympathetic to the fact that this project has taken such a long time to be completed and has been a burden on your neighborhood. Accordingly, Mr. Christman has been encouraging the property owner to finish the work promptly and will continue to do so. In that regard, staff will carefully evaluate any future requests to extend building permits for the subject property to ensure, prior to issuing an extension, that the work is being processed diligently to completion. If you would like to discuss this matter further, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, Carol W. Lynch City Attorney, Rancho Palos Verdes Richards, Watson & Gershon 355 South Grand Avenue 40th Floor 3 5-20 Joel Rojas From: smithjackanne@aol.com Sent: To: Sunday, November 11, 2012 7:56 PM Joel Rojas; CityManager Cc: Subject: randy.ross@blross.com; bruce.ross@blross.com; phyllisglantz@verizon.net; dora@apolloemb.com; pyz2000@gmail.com; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com> Fwd: 32039 Sea Ridge Circle Mr. Joel Rojas and Ms. Carolyn Lehr: I am Anne Shen Smith. Randy Ross forwarded the string of emails to us because we are one of the four families most directly impacted by the construction. My husband Jack and I live two doors away from the subject property. Jack and I are good friends with Doug Stern, former RPV Councilman -our daughters grew up together in the Portuguese Bend Pony Club, and have been best friends for years. Several weeks ago we sought Doug's advice and counsel on this matter. Along with other recommendations, Doug suggested that we contact the two of you for guidance and assistance. He speaks highly of both of you, so I am hopeful that you can be of help to us. Jack and I are the newest arrival to the cul-de-sac, moving here about 9 years ago from RHE. In the time that we have lived here, we can count on two hands the number of months where the Andersons' house was NOT undergoing one form of renovation or another -some minor, and others very major. (I have been told by neighbors that this pattern of perpetual construction persisted for years before we arrived. Often the construction was the tearing-down and re-doing of previously completed work.) All the impacted neighbors have been extremely patient over the years, because we all very much want to be good neighbors. However, we are truly at our wits end with the nuisance of having construction equipment be a permanent part of the landscape of our cul- de-sac. Can you two help us understand our rights as residents of RPV, and advise us on options we have going forward? We are all reasonable people, simply seeking solution to a nearly intolerable situation and looking to regain some enjoyment of our homes and surroundings. Would you be willing to meet with us (four families) to provide some guidance? Most of us work outside the home, but we will do our best to accommodate your schedules. Thank you very much for your consideration. (By the way, Joel, you recently received an email from Dora Zhang -next door neighbor to the construction, with a description of her experience and some pictures. One of the pictures reflects the typical size of the crew which has been here each day, along with their vehicles and equipmet, for the past 3 years. Would you mind forwarding Dora's message to Carolyn? Thank you.) Sincerely, Anne Shen Smith (and Jack Smith) 32025 Sea Ridge Circle, RPV -----Original Message----- From: Ross, Randy <randy.ross@blross.com> To: Smith, Jack <Smithjackanne@aol.com>; Ngan, Dora <dorahyl@yahoo.com>; Dora Ngan <dora@apolloemb.com>; Zhang, Paul <pyz2000@gmail.com>; Ross, Bruce L. <bruce.ross@blross.com>; Glantz, William <phyllisglantz@verizon.net> Sent: Fri, Nov 9, 2012 2:34 pm Subject: Fwd: 32039 Sea Ridge Circle For your information. Randy 1 5-21 ----------Forwarded message ---------- From: Paul Christman <PaulC@rpv.com> Date: Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 12:43 PM Subject: RE: 32039 Sea Ridge Circle To: Joel Rojas <JoelR@rpv.com>, "Ross, Randy" <randy.ross@blross.com>, "Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>" <clynch@rwglaw.com> Cc: Mike Wiener <MikeW@rpv.com> The trash issue may resurface again but this problem was not evident when I was there on Wednesday of this week. Paul Christman Building Official City of Rancho Palos Verdes tel 310 265-7800 fax 310 544-5293 paulc@rpv.com -----Original Message----- From: Joel Rojas Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 12:16 PM To: Ross, Randy; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com> Cc: Paul Christman Subject: RE: 32039 Sea Ridge Circle Mr. Ross I had not heard that part of the concern was the trash accumulation and conditions of the job site. That is something that we can do something about. I'll discuss this with the building official. Joel Rojas Community development Director From: Ross, Randy [randy.ross@blross.com] Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 9:52 AM To: Carol Lynch <clyn~h@rwglaw.com> Cc: Joel Rojas; Paul Christman Subject: Re: 32039 Sea Ridge Circle that Dear Ms. Lynch, Thank you for your response to my email. No one on Sea Ridge is interested in seeing the work at 32039 abandoned or only partially completed. We are concerned, however, with the ongoing and disruptive nature of the construction on the property. Even a cursory glance at the history of this site reveals that there is nothing typical about this construction. Mere encouragement for the homeowners to complete the work will not likely change the status quo or answer my concerns as a neighbor who has to live on a daily basis in these conditions, year in and year out. To the contrary, the homeowners continually expand the scope of their work and take out additional permits, which the City apparently feels compelled to grant upon a showing that the work conforms to Code. Unfortunately, the work is not contained to their property alone. It is not only visible to all but disruptive to all. A few examples: There is 2 5-22 Joel Rojas To: Subject: -----Original Message----- From: Joel Rojas Joel Rojas FW: 32039 Sea Ridge Circle Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 2:34 PM To: smithjackanne@aol.com; CityManager Cc: randy.ross@blross.com; bruce.ross@blross.com; phyllisglantz@verizon.net; dora@apolloemb.com; pyz2000@gmail.com; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; Paul Christman Subject: RE: 32039 Sea Ridge Circle Dear Mr. and Mrs. Smith City Attorney Carol Lynch and I would be happy to meet with you and your neighbors to discuss your concerns and explain the City codes that relate to this ongoing residential construction project. I will also ask that City Building Official Paul Christman join us as he oversees project construction in the City. I'm wondering if you and your neighbors are available to meet sometime on the afternoon of Tuesday, Nov. 20th as I believe the City Attorney will be here at City hall during that time. I did receive the photos from Dora Chung which I will forward to Carolyn Lehr as you request. Joel -----Original Message----- From: smithjackanne@aol.com [mailto:smithjackanne@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2012 7:56 PM . To: Joel Rojas; CityManager Cc: randy.ross@blross.com; bruce.ross@blross.com; phyllisglantz@verizon.net; dora@apolloemb.com; pyz2000@gmail.com; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com> Subject: Fwd: 32039 Sea Ridge Circle Mr. Joel Rojas and Ms. Carolyn Lehr: I am Anne Shen Smith. Randy Ross forwarded the string of emails to us because we are one of the four families most directly impacted by the construction. My husband Jack and I live two doors away from the subject property. Jack and I are good friends with Doug Stern, former RPV Councilman -our daughters grew up together in the Portuguese Bend Pony Club, and have been best friends for years. Several weeks ago we sought Doug's advice and counsel on this matter. Along with other recommendations, Doug suggested that we contact the two of you for guidance and assistance. He speaks highly of both of you, so I am hopeful that you can be of help to us. Jack and I are the newest arrival to the cul-de-sac, moving here about 9 years ago from RHE. In the time that we have lived here, we can count on two hands the number of months where the Andersons' house was NOT undergoing one form of renovation or another -some minor, and others very major. (I have been told by neighbors that this pattern of perpetual construction persisted for years before we arrived. Often the construction was the tearing-down and re-doing of previously completed work.) All the impacted neighbors have been extremely patient over the years, because we all very much want to be good neighbors. However, we are truly at our wits end with the nuisance of having construction equipment be a permanent part of the landscape of our cul-de-sac. 1 5-23 Joel Rojas From: Sent: To: Subject: Dora Ngan [dorahy1@yahoo.com] Sunday, November 11, 2012 5:10 PM Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; Joel Rojas; Paul Christman FW: 32039 Sea Ridge Circle Attachments: Construction_2.jpg; Construction_3.jpg; Construction_ 4.jpg; Construction_5.jpg; Construction_2.jpg; Construction_5.jpg Dear Joel, Paul, and Ms Lynch, My name is Dora Zhang, I live at 32033 Sea Ridge Circle , next door to Anderson 's house. Attached are some construction pictures of Anderson 's house. For at least past 10 years, the residents of Sea Ridge Circle and my family have been frustrated and suffering from continuing construction of Anderson's house. The noise usually starts from ?am, Monday to Friday, sometimes Saturday. Our children (youngest one only 5 years old now) are often waken up by the loud noise next door. My husband Paul can not work at our in-home office because noise level is intolerable; he has to rent an office outside in order to work. Our swimming pool has been covered by daily dust and dirt from next door, our kids are not able to enjoy the pool in the summer. Windows, skylights are so dusty because the next door construction creates. Our cars has flat tires four times last year due to nails on the ground from Anderson construction site. A lunch truck is parking at our front door at two times every day to sell food to the construction workers. There are rats running around from construction sites. At least 14 cars parking at our street, our driveway is often blocked by construction trucks. It seems Andersons have been continuing to dig more big holes on the first floor ground and expand their construction. I urge city developing councils of RPV can look into this, inspect the site, and restore our life style. We want Sea Ridge Circle a peaceful and safe place to live, because we have right to enjoy our home. Thank you in advance for your assistant. Dora Zhang 32033 Searidge Circle, Rancho Palos Verdes Ca 90275. 11112/2012 5-24 5-25 5-26 5-27 5-28 5-29 5-30 Joel Rojas From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Joel Rojas Thursday, December 20, 2012 10:28 AM 'Ross, Randy' smithjackanne@aol.com; CityManager; bruce.ross@blross.com; phyllisglantz@verizon.net; Nicole Jules; pyz2000@gmail.com; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; Paul Christman; Abigail Harwell RE: RE: 32039 Sea Ridge Circle Dear Randy and other adjacent neighbors, Thank you for meeting with us on November 20, 2012 in regards to the concerns that you raised related to this ongoing construction project. As promised, we have completed a thorough review of the permit history for the property and reviewed the construction work for consistency with the city approvals that have been issued. Based on the review of the approved plans and the construction currently taking place, we have concluded that the construction work that has been completed and/or is under construction has been performed in accordance with the approved plans. Notwithstanding, given the concerns that you have expressed, Staff will continue to monitor the project to confirm the work is in compliance with the city approved plans and all applicable codes. Thus, while staff understands your concerns related to the length of time that construction has been taking place, because the construction is being performed in compfiance with the approved plans, the City is not in a legal position to pursue public nuisance proceedings or pursue any other legal remedy to compel the property owner to complete construction sooner that the permit time limits prescribed by the City's current Municipal Code. As noted by the City Attorney at our meeting, it appears that the best remedy for the neighbors to deal with the ongoing construction nuisance is through the filing of a private nuisance lawsuit by the neighbors. Also, since the construction is in compliance with the approved plans, the City has no authority to stop granting new permit requests from the property owner. On that note, the property owner has submitted plans to perform some additional foundation repair to correct an unsafe condition on approximately 100 square feet of the existing residence adjacent to the work currently being done under their current building permit. While we hetd off on issuing a permit for the requested work given our investigation, we are now going to issue the requested permit. Another issue raised at our November 201h meeting involved a memorandum that was issued on February 6, 2012 regarding the re-issuance of a City permit for construction within the Building and Grading Restriction (BGR) area. This involves a building permit that was issued in October 2009 for demolition of 44 square feet of existing residence and a 112 square foot addition at the rear of the property. The permit expired before the work could be completed. Thus, in January of this year, a new permit was applied for to finish the work. At the time of permit re-issuance, it came to staffs attention that a portion (approximately less than half) of the 112 square foot addition that was previously approved and built in 2009 extended approximately 4 feet into the BGR area where construction is not allowed pursuant to conditions that are unique to this tract. Given that the addition was almost completed, Staff issued a new permit to complete the work as Staff felt that it was the most expeditipus way to get the construction completed for the sake of the neighbors. The alternative of requiring the applicant to either demolish the portion of the addition beyond the BGR line or allowing the applicant to exercise his right to apply for a tract amendment to allow the addition portion to remain beyond the BGR line (as other such requests have been granted in the past) would have just prolonged construction even longer. Thus, the permit for this work was re-issued on January 13, 2012 and is set to expire on July 13, 2013. Given the circumstances of this particular permit, the City will advise the applicant that no extensions will be granted past July 13, 2013 thus all the work associated with this particular permit must be completed by then. We understand that the personal vehicles of the construction workers have caused some concerns to the adjacent residents. While staff has informed the contractor of your concerns and asked that they not park in the cul-de-sac street to give you some relief, the City cannot dictate where workers or anyone for that matter can park on a public street. Legally, a vehicle (construction, personal, or otherwise) can park up to 72 hours continuously. After that, it becomes subject to ticket and subsequent towing. Enforcement by the Sheriff's Department is the appropriate course of action. We checked with the City's Public Works Department on the possibility of instituting permit parking for the street to help alleviate the problem. As it turns out, a temporary condition like parking impacts due to home improvements does not qualify for permit parking under the terms of the City's permit parking program. Even if permit parking were instituted on Sea Ridge Circle, all of the vehicles associated with the home improvement project would still qualify for guest parking and would be allowed to park there anyway. Thus, it does not appear that permit parking is the solution in this case. 1 5-31 In summary, we have looked into this matter and could not find any cause for the City to stop issuing new building permits at this residence or to impose time frames for completing construction that are stricter than those currently allowed by the City's Municipal Code (except for the permit associated with construction within the BGR line as discussed above). I understand your frustration of having to deal with this very extreme situation of legal construction going on for a number of years. However, as discussed by the City Attorney, the situation does not constitute a public nuisance. It could constitute a private nuisance, which you may have the ability to remedy through private nuisance litigation, and you should seek advice of counsel whether to pursue that course. Of course, I would be happy to meet with you and your neighbors again to explain our findings, if that is your desire. Sincerely Joel Rojas From: Ross, Randy [mailto:randy.ross@blross.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 5:17 PM To: Joel Rojas Cc: smithjackanne@aol.com; CityManager; bruce.ross@blross.com; phyllisglantz@verizon.net; dora@apolloemb.com; pyz2000@gmail.coryi; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; Paul Christman Subject: Re: RE: 32039 Sea Ridge Circle Dear Joel, et al., I am writing to follow up on our meeting of November 20, 2012. We have not heard back from any of the participants regarding the matters we discussed. As we left it, the City was going to look into the various issues that were raised as well as the history of the construction and permits at the subject residence. The City also agreed not to issue any additional permits without letting us know, pending the conclusion of its investigation into the foregoing issues, so that we would have the opportunity to be heard. Please let us know the status of your investigation. I look forward to hearing from you. Randy Randy Ellen Ross Attorney at Law CEO Bruce L. Ross & Company 609 Deep Valley Drive, Suite 390 Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274-3629 Office Voice: 310-544-8881 Office Fax: 310-544-8841 Fax to Email: 310-802-7508 Cell: 310-850-2239 This message is intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) and is intended to be privileged and confidential. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete all copies of this email message along with all attachments. Thank you 2 5-32 Joel Rojas From: Sent: To: Ross, Randy <randy.ross@blross.com> Monday, January 21, 2013 11 :26 AM Joel Rojas Cc: Subject: smithjackanne@aol.com; CityManager; bruce.ross@blross.com; phyllisglantz@verizon.net; Nicole Jules; pyz2000@gmail.com; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; Paul Christman; Abigail Harwell; Susan Brooks; Jerry Duhovic; Brian Campbell; Jim Knight; Anthony Misetich 32039 Sea Ridge Circle Dear Mr. Rojas, We are in receipt of your email (copied below) outlining the conclusion of your investigation following the meeting between City representatives and the four families impacted by the ongoing construction at 32039 Sea Ridge Circle. Your email is not responsive to many of the issues raised at the meeting. By narrowly interpreting the City's role and, therefore, tailoring your response to the four corners of the work permits, the City is simply ignoring the realities of the situation that is going on in our neighborhood. By issuing additional permits and allowing unfettered construction to continue on Sea Ridge Circle, the City is exacerbating the situation. You all admitted in our meeting that the system as set up is not working as intended and yet are unwilling to take steps to prevent any further abuse of the process. The City is taking an active role in allowing one family to destroy the quality the neighborhood, day in and day out, year after year. We have been patient. We have been neighborly. We are stunned at the City's refusal not only to act but to address head on the issues that we raised. We are copying the City Council members on this email. When virtuaHy an entire neighborhood comes together after living with a problem for years on end to seek the City's help and is turned away, the City Council needs to know. All four families (The Smiths, Glantzes, Zhangs and the Rosses have reviewed this response and have consented to it.) We are all of like mind. Very truly yours, Randy Ellen Ross Randy Ellen Ross Attorney at Law CEO Bruce L. Ross & Company 609 Deep Valley Drive, Suite 390 Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274-3629 Office Voice: 310-544-8881 Office Fax: 310-544-8841 Fax to Email: 310-802-7508 Cell: 310-850-2239 This message is intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) and is intended to be privileged and confidential. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete all copies of this email message along with all attachments. Thank you Dear Randy and other adjacent neighbors, 1 5-33 January 30, 2013 Joseph C. Anderson 32039 Sea Ridge Circle CITY OF Rancho Palos Verdes, CA. 90275 Subject: 32039 Sea Ridge Circle Dear Mr. Anderson: RANCHO PALOS VERDES COMMUNITY DEVELOF)MENT DEl::iAr~TMEN r As you are aware, construction has been ongoing on your property for a number of years now. Unfortunately, the ongoing construction has taken a toll on your adjacent neighbors as they asked to meet with City Staff late last year to discuss their concerns. This letter is to inform you of the concerns expressed by your neighbors about your construction project, our investigation into the permits that have been issued by the City to this property and actions that the City will be taking related to the continuing construction work at your property. Your neighbors have expressed concerns with the lengthy duration of construction, parking & access issues, noise, trash, and unsightly conditions during construction that have been ongoing for a number of years at your property. Staff reviewed the permit history and verified that several building permits and permit extensions have been issued over the years for specific work at your property. Our investigation found that all of the permits have been obtained and extended in accordance with applicable laws and that the current work is being carried out in accordance with the issued permits. However, there is one currently active permit that has some unique circumstances. In October 2009, a permit was issued for demolition of 44 square feet and a 112 square foot addition at the rear of the residence. Since the permit expired before work could be completed, a new permit was applied for in January 2012. At that time, it came to City Staff's attention that a portion of the 112 square foot addition that was previously approved and built in 2009 extended approximately 4 feet into the Building Grading Restriction (BGR) area where additions are not allowed pursuant to conditions that are unique to your tract. Given that the addition was almost completed, a new permit was issued to complete the work as it was felt that this would be the most expeditious way to get the construction completed for the sake of your neighbors. Thus, the permit for this work was re-issued on January 13, 2012 and is set to expire on July 13, 2013. Given the circumstances of this particular permit, no extensions will be granted past July 13, 2013. Thus, all the work associated with this particular permit must be completed by then. Another issue to inform you about is construction on holidays. Per the City's Municipal Code, construction is not allowed on any property in the City on federal holidays without approval of a Special Construction Permit. As you know, the Community Development Director has approved special construction permits in the past with the idea that allowing you to work on holidays would JCJDLI 0 11·\W lllUl\NI 1-:1 vu I l\Nll :110 I \1 ():--) \/! l\i)I :-;_ \ :r-\ '10? 7!i-!i'.l~l1 i 'I \~·"ll"lt ',\. '1111 I r'I I il\i :1 :VIU1 I I ll\ISI( JN (:l10) ''"l-l-'i;':'H / l-11 111 JIN<; & SNI I) I ll\ISf( JN crn11 ;-'(j!,-(H(lil' ! 'Ii' i I \.\I lHll ,,.).) !1;,<li:' I . \-).·\II I 'I -\ Nf'lf't :-kl\! '\ ' I l~ I . \\'\ \ \ \i"\I ( IS\. I 1\1 ll :-; ( :1 i~)il\I '\ 5-34 help expedite construction completion. Unfortunately, this has not been the case as construction has continued 1vr years. Therefore, in order to give your neighbors a much needed break from the ongoing construction the Director will not be issuing any more Special Construction Permits to allow construction on your property on federal holidays. Lastly, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for the efforts that you have taken at my request to try to minimize construction impacts to your neighbors. For example, directing your construction workers to park further from your residence has given some relief to your immediate neighbors within the cul-de-sac. However, I should note that we have started to receive complaints from residents on Ocean Terrace about the construction related parking. I think you can appreciate that the only effective way to eliminate the construction impacts to your neighbors is to get the construction finished as soon as possible. Thus, I encourage you to complete all construction work prior to the respective permit expiration date(s). Thank yo~rfouh ~entio. n to this matter. Please contact me if you have any questions. ~~~- Paul Christman, Building Official City of Rancho Palos Verdes Building and Safety Division cc Joel Rojas, Community Development Director Carol Lynch, City Attorney Carolyn Lehr, City Manager 5-35 Joel Rojas From: Sent: Ross, Randy <randy.ross@blross.com> Thursday, April 18, 2013 1 :48 PM To: Susan Brooks <Subrooks08@gmail.com> Cc: Subject: Ross, Bruce; Paul Christman; Joel Rojas; Smith, Jack; CityManager; phyllisglantz@verizon.net; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; Ngan, Dora; Ngan, Dora; CC Re: 32039 Sea Ridge Circle Dear Susan, How many permits remain after the MBR permit expires in June and for how long? And what does the City intend to do when the Andersons seek yet another permit after that one expires? The problem persists and unless and until the City makes changes in how it deals with problems like this one, there is no end in sight. You cannot look at the progress that the Andersons have made after four years(!) and seriously think that a few more months will make a difference. If city employees won't do anything, then the elected officials must take it upon themselves to make appropriate laws to protect the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes from this type of conduct. It is abusive. Randy Randy Ellen Ross Attorney at Law CEO Bruce L. Ross & Company 609 Deep Valley Drive, Suite 390 Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274-3629- 0ffice Voice: 310-544-8881 Office Fax: 310-544-8841 Fax to Email: 310-802-7508 Cell: 310-850-2239 This message is intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) and is intended to be privileged and confidential. If you have -received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete al! copies of this email message along with all attachments. Thank you On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Susan <subrooks08@gmail.com> wrote: Yes. Your wife emailed me yesterday. Paul Christman visited the site today and I just spoke with him at city hall. The structure is a temporary structure used to support the plastic and will be removed shortly. FYI, the MBR permit expires in June. Paul will confirm in a separate email. Thanks and am so sorry about this situation. Susan Brooks Sent from my iPhone 1 5-36 On Apr 18, 2013, at 9:41 AM, "Ross, Bruce" <bruce.ross@blross.com> wrote: Dear Susan, I did not see you copied on Dora's email. I thought you would want to be in the loop, so I am forwarding to you. Bruce Bruce L. Ross President Bruce L. Ross & Company 609 Deep Valley Drive, Suite 390 Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274-3629 Office Voice: 310-544-8881 Office Fax: 310-544-8841 Cell: 310-738-8881 This message is intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) and is intended to be privileged and confidential. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete all copies of this email message along with all attachments. Thank you. ----------Forwarded message-~-------- From: Dora <apolloembroidery@gmail.com> Date: Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 7:59 AM Subject: RE: RE: 32039 Sea Ridge Circle To: Paul Christman <PaulC@rpv.com>, dora@apolloemb.com, "Ross, Randy" <randy.ross@blross.com>, Joel Rojas <JoelR@rpv.com> Cc: smithjackanne@aol.com, CityManager <CityManager@,rpv.com>, bruce.ross@blross.com, phyllisglantz@verizon.net, clynch@rwglaw.com Thank you Paul. Dora From: Paul Christman [mailto:PaulC@rpv.com] Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 7:38 AM To: dora@apolloemb.com; 'Ross, Randy'; Joel Rojas Cc: smithjackanne@aol.com; CityManager; bruce.ross@blross.com; phyllisglantz@verizon.net; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; Paul Christman Subject: RE: RE: 32039 Sea Ridge Circle 2 5-37 Hi Dora, Thanks for your message. ! will visit the site today and report back my findings afterwards. Paul Christman Building Official City of Rancho Palos Verdes tel 31 O 265-7800 fax 310 544-5293 paulc@rpv.com From: Dora [mailto:apolloembroideiy@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 8:42 PM To: 'Ross, Randy'; Joel Rojas Cc: smithjackanne@aol.com; CityManager; bruce.ross@blross.com; phyllisglantz@verizon.net; dora@apolloemb.com; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; Paul Christman Subject: RE: RE: 32039 Sea Ridge Circle Dear Paul and Joel, ! am writing to you regarding Anderson house. Anderson has a pyramid shape wood frame for a long time, but two days ago, they suddenly extend out the second level of the area. The second level extension is blocking my window lighting and view. This is not acceptable. Here is the photo of the area before tear down year 2008, and picture they try to build out another level yesterday. As Anderson's house has lots of violations, I just don't understand why city is not taking any action to stop the violations? 3 5-38 Joel Rojas From: Paul Christman Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 7:50 AM To: Cc: Phyllis Glantz; 'Dora Ngan'; Susan Brooks <Subrooks08@gmail.com>; 'Ross, Bruce' 'Ross, Randy'; Joel Rojas; 'Smith, Jack'; CityManager; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; 'dora'; Greg Pfost; Sandra Ishman; Tom DeFazio; Mike Wiener; Abigail Harwell; Paul Christman Subject: RE: 32039 Sea Ridge Circle Sure can--I called early this morning and communicated this to the General Contractor Dave Baldwin (310 378-4812). He said he would also communicate this to his site superintendent Stuart. Paul Christman Building Official City of Rancho Palos Verdes tel 31 O 265-7800 fax 310 544-5293 paulc@tP\/.·.E.2.r:!:l_ ... From: Phyllis Glantz [mailto:phyllisglantz@verizon.net] Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 11:33 PM To: 'Dora Ngan'; Paul Christman; Susan Brooks <Subrooks08@gmail.com>; 'Ross, Bruce' Cc: 'Ross, Randy'; Joel Rojas; 'Smith, Jack'; CityManager; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; 'dora'; Greg Pfost; Sandra Ishman; Tom DeFazio; Mike Wiener; Abigail Harwell Subject: RE: 32039 Sea Ridge Circle Dear Paul, Please tell the Anderson's contractor not to unload their building materials onto the public street in the cul de sac area. The other morning I was backing out of my driveway and I came close to hitting a stack of lumber that apparently the delivery truck had dropped there and the workers had not yet carried from the street to the Anderson's property. This unloading method happens quite often and is very dangerous. I am wondering who is liable if my car is damaged by these building materials that are temporarily left in the street? Thanks for looking into this situation. Phyllis Glantz 32034 Sea Ridge From: Dora Ngan [mailto:dora@APOLLOEMB.COM} Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 5:17 PM To: Paul Christman; Susan Brooks <Subrooks08@gmail.com>; Ross, Bruce Cc: Ross, Randy; Joel Rojas; Smith, Jack; CityManager; phyllisglantz@verizon.net; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwgfaw.com>; dora; Greg Pfost; Sandra Ishman; Tom Defazio; Mike Wiener; Abigail Harwell Subject: RE: 32039 Sea Ridge Circle Hi Paul, Thanks for your follow up. I am glad to know it is only for temporary even it looks like they are building flame to make it permanent second floor. Many times they told me is only temporary frames and end up they are building it up. I can't really trust it now, but I will definitely keep my eyes on. Appreciate your information regarding the permit, there have enough permits and please no more. We have been living in a "war zone" every day . All our neighbors are looking forward to a peaceful and enjoyable environment. 1 5-39 Thanks Dora From: Paul Christman [mailto:PaulC@rpv.com] Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 2:54 PM To: Susan Brooks <Subrooks08@gmail.com>; Ross, Bruce Cc: Ross, Randy; Joel Rojas; Smith, Jack; CityManager; phyllisglantz@verizon.net; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; dora; Dora Ngan; Greg Pfost; Sandra Ishman; Tom DeFazio; Mike Wiener; Abigail Harwell; Paul Christman Subject: RE: 32039 Sea Ridge Circle Hi Dora, ! visited the site and verified that some of the framing work that is currently erected is temporary and will be removed shortly. I understand your concerns and appreciate you letting us know. I will ensure these framing portions are removed since they are not part of the plans and go beyond what was approved, and what previously existed. The master Bedroom permit bld2011-00035 expires on 7 /13/13. They have additional open building permits. I have included the permit descriptions and their current expiration dates. Per RPVMC al! building permits are allowed a one-time 180day extension upon request and payment of a $37.00 extension fee. Bld2011-00523 Earthquake engineering & Shear walls expires 7 /28/13 Bld2012-00329 Rebuild 366sf & remodel 136sf expires 1/12/14 Ele2012-00096 Install 4 electrical outlets in the patio area expires 2/28/14 Mec2012-00086 Radiant heating system expires 4/17 /14 Plm2012-00142 Gas line for BBQ, firepit, & fireplace expires 2/27 /14 Paul Christman Building Official City of Rancho Palos Verdes tel 310 265-7800 fax 31 O 544-5293 paulc@rpv:C:::C?r:!l mw••• From: Susan [mailto:subrooks08@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 12:38 PM To: Ross, Bruce Cc: Paul Christman; Ross, Randy; Joel Rojas; Smith, Jack; CityManager; phyllisglantz@verizon.net; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; Ngan, Dora; Ngan, Dora Subject: Re: 32039 Sea Ridge Circle Yes. Your wife emailed me yesterday. Paul Christman visited the site today and I just spoke with him at city hall. The structure is a temporary structure used to support the plastic and will be removed shortly. FYI, the MBR permit expires in June. Paul will confirm in a separate email. Thanks and am so sorry about this situation. Susan Brooks 2 5-40 Permit History Table for 32039 Sea Ridge Circle 5-41 Project Chronolgy for 32039 Sea Ridge Circle (Anderson Residence) Date Date Approved/ Reissued/ Reissued Date Case No. Project Descri~tion Issued Extension Permt No. Fina led SPR #2040 House and Garage improvements (proposed 4/13/1982 5,400 SF eroject} SPR #2252 New Single-Family Home 11/18/1982 SPR #2281 Pool & Equipment & Spa 12/13/1982 SPR#2299 Solar panels 1/4/1983 Elec Prmt Temp. Power Pole 1/6/1983 Bid Prmt 5,000 SF, 2-story dwelling and garage 10/31/1984 Plmb Prmt For new house 10/31/1984 Plmb Prmt Solar panels & water heater 10/31/1984 Elec Prmt For new SFR 10/31/1984 Elec Prmt 1 outlet & 2 power apparatus 10/31/1984 HVAC Prmt 3 Boiler, BTU 10/31/1984 Sewer Prmt House sewer connecting to Public Sewer 10/31/1984 PoolPrmt 500 SF swimming pool and spa 12/13/1982 10/31/1984 HV#823 330 SF 2nd-story addition on the northwest 7/2/1996 elevation {Director Aeeroved} BLD #19291 330 SF 2nd-story addition 6/2/1997 5/18/2000 BLD 10/26/2000 #24260 MC SPR #1023 AIC Unit along eastern side 7/2/1999 BLD #22866 New A/C 7/2/1999 5/18/2000 BLD 10/26/2000 #24260 BLD 2002 _00132 Restucco areas on house and change out water heater 3/7/2002 3/8/2002 ZON 2008 _00243 H~ight Variation for 232.5 SF addition at the rear {Director aeeroved} 10/8/2008 BLD2009 _00248 2~2 SF addition, 250 SF remodel, 4 new windows, 2 new doors 6/17/2009 12/13/2010 3/29/2011 BLD2009_00429 Upgrade Earthquake engineering of foundation, 71912009 7/28/2011 BLD2011- 276 SF remodel 00523 ZON 2009 _00278 Site Plan Review for 44 SF demo and 112 SF 1- sto!}'. addition at the rear {OTC} 7/15/2009 1/13/2012 112 SF addition w/ 148 CY excavation for BLD2012-BLD2009-00606 caissons & 438 SF interior remodel to master 10/30/2009 1/13/2012 bedroom 00035 ZON 2010 _00240 Special Constr~ction Permit for July 5, 2010 {Fed. Obs. Holldal'.} 7/1/2010 ZON 2010 _00396 Special Construction Permit for November 11, 2010 {Veterns Dal'.} 11/10/2010 ZON 2010_00423 Special Constr~~tion Permit for November 25, 2010 {Thanks91v1ng} 11/24/2010 ZON 2011 _00038 Special Co~struction Permit for February 21, 2011 {President's Dal'.} 2/18/2011 BLD2011 _00523 Reissuance of expired BLD2009-00429 to 7/28/2011 8/1/2013 BLD20123-Expires complete work and M.E.& Ps (inc exhaust fan) 00575 1/28/2013 ZON 2011 _00322 Special Construction Permit for November 11, 2011 {Veterns Dal'.} 11/10/2011 zoN2012 _00022 Special Construction Permit for January 16, 2012 {MLK Dal'.} 1/13/2012 BLD 2012 _00035 Reissuance of expired BLD2009-00606 to 1/13/2012 Expires comelete work 7/13/2013 5-42 Project Chronolgy for 32039 Sea Ridge Circle (Anderson Residence) Date Date Approved/ Reissued/ Reissued Date Case No. Project Description Issued Extension Permt No. Finaled zoN2012 _00061 Special Co~struction Permit for February 20, 2012 (President's Day) Site Plan Review for demo and rebuild 270 SF zoN2012 _00128 portion of existing residence, in same location, size & height (OTC) **SF listed differs from BLD prmt due to incorrect number listed on app. 2/16/2012 4/16/2012 BLD 2012 _00329 Tear down and rebuild 366 SF portion of 711212012 residence and 36 SF interior remodel, M.E. & Ps Site Plan Review for new firepit, bench, ZON2012-00274 remove/replace BBQ in the rear yard patio area 8/23/2012 OTC PLM 2012 _00142 !~stall g~s line from meter to proposed BBQ, fire 812412012 pit and fireplace ELE2012-00096 Install 4-exterior GFI receptacles in patio area 8/28/2012 Install pool radiant heat system under existing MEC2012-00086 pool decking by connecting to existing pool 10/17/2012 um Site Plan Review for exhaust fan vent and ZON2012-00337 screening along easter side wall of residence 10/10/2012 OTC ZON 2012 _00380 Special Construction Permit for November 12, 111912012 2012 (Obs. of Veterns Day) ZON 2013 _00104 Minor Site Plan Review for solar panels installed 311812013 on the roof BLD2013-00391 ATF 2,653 SF reroof 5/29/2013 PLM2013-00163 Install radiant heating system 8/16/2013 Expires 1/12/2014 Expires 2/24/2014 Expires 2/28/2014 Expires 4/17/2014 Expires 9/14/13 8/28/2013 Expires 2/16/15 5-43 Letter from the Andersons' 5-44 Safety issues and code violations with 32034 Sea Ridge Circle Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5762. The high wall on the property of 32034 Sea Ridge Circle was built above code. Safety Issue There has been excessive water flowing from the property of 32034 Sea Ridge Circle to the property of 32039 Sea Ridge Circle for many years. This has caused the walls to be undermined and both are leaning towards the property of 32039 Sea Ridge Circle. There is no doubt that both of the walls will fail and collapse over time. The main concern is that someone could be injured. Of concern, is the fact that there has been damage to our house from wood rot and water damage. The wood rot and water damage was corrected. At the time, we didn't know where the water was coming from. We discovered, after cutting through the concrete walkway, that the water was coming mainly under the property line walls. Water was also coming above the foundation of the property line walls. The water at times is over a foot deep. The water is a perfect breeding ground for mosquitoes. Many times the neighbor was told of the water corning from their property, and no actions were taken. We're trying to complete our construction. However, we cannot complete that side of the construction without the walls being removed and rebuilt. The water coming on to the property has to be stopped. There is now a landscaping contractor doing work on their property. It was recommended that the trees be removed because the trees were causing pressure on the walls. Not all the trees were removed. Our civil engineer has recommended that the trees be removed. A trench drain is being put into place. From our observations the trench drain is not deep enough. Water can still go under the walls. Street level is higher than the drains. No sump pump is being put into place on the 32034 property which is of grave concern. On our property, (32039] a sump pump [required} is being put in place to pump the water to the street-away from the hillside. Please note the selected pages from Osborne Geotechnicaf Engineering Incorporated. Osborne Geotechnical Engineering Incorporated was the engineering firm used by the builders of the property of 32034 Sea Ridge Circle (see letter June 9, 1981}. Please note under 7. Drainage "drain all planter areas using French drain systems." From our investigation and observation no French drain system was done at the time of the construction of the wall. Under the same item 7, "collect roof drainage with gutters and downspouts, and dispose of this water in a suitable storm discharge" in addition, "all patio areas should be drained, and discharged to suitable storm discharge." 5-45 Please verify that there is a suitable storm discharge. From the permits for the property of 32034° note Geologic Review Sheet dated August 3, 1981 in handwriting "the recommendations in the above report must be followed". The report mentioned is the Osborne Geotechnical Technical Incorporated report. Wall heights and degree of leaning of the walls Please see the enclosed drawing. The wall of 32039 Sea Ridge Circle is at the height of 109 Yi inches. This is above what is allowed in the permits. The 32034 Sea Ridge Circle wall is leaning 1 Yi inches from its base towards the property of line of 32039 Sea Ridge Circle. The wall 32039 Sea Ridge Circle is being pushed 1 inch from its base by the wall of 32034 Sea Ridge Circle. In addition, dirt is piled onto the wall of 32039 Sea Ridge Circle and this has allowed the wall to be twisted. Please note that the wall of 32039 is completely on the property of 32039 Sea Ridge Circle. Dirt from 32034 is being put up against the wall on the property of 32039 Sea Ridge Circle. Part of the dirt is on the property of 32039 Sea Ridge Circle and should be removed. The wall of 32039 Sea Ridge Circle was not built as a retaining wall and will not withstand the forces. New studies are being done by the engineers for additional measurements. There is no cap in the space between the walls. Debris is falling in between walls which is causing moisture and fungus to form. This area between the walls needs to be filled. Please review and take appropriate measures to protect both properties now and in the future. si·n· rely, ·µJi!~ ( 0---z/~~~ J eph Anderson 5-46 ··.r_ i•: . \ .;::.:. !.r. i .. •. '."! ·~ ~-·:.. 1 .. ( .. : """' City Staff comment: quality as received. '' '-·• '~ . . .. ·.,.·,'l"•.,.:' ~ ~· . : f· c .~-' E'' 'r ..:. ,:: ": ~' .. ~ : I . .. ~ .· •. ! , " •• ~·· .. ' ~. ' 5-47 ' '· ·-"' , r, l' ' ' ) ' \. ' ' ,.,•" i.: ' :. : :, ,. : 'L: f. ·!: : i. .. • i\: .. · ~ (, !:· i:; l' :t 1~~~ ... s ~}1·r, City Staff comment: quality as received. 5-48 , .... GEOLOGIC REVIEW SHEET F.-1(_NF_ COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SHEET DEPARTMENT OF COUNTY ENGINEER -FACILITIES ENVIRONMENTAL DEVELOPMENT DIVISION ENGINEERING GEOLOGY SECT}ON -r-!:JJ"J 7 I OF I 738 · 2161 ,,I.. 07"' d 7 / Y'v t> DISTRIBUTION: ~::a::~ress °i°::to 6lrla~"i¥;b~ C/cc/ee ~ :\:~.:::~eer Developer/Owner 7ii It! r' 6'£1.Ia M II,· b !er D Developer-Owner Engineer ____________________________ _ D Site Engineer Geologist------------------~---------- Soifs €ngineer _ __.CJ-.1._.1".....,,lo.......,11'-Lr:-'V1._.....e;;..-.... G,'-"-... ~""''-f;,_t"'.._...,.c_l...,11'"""'.4.-L't ... C4 ........ ..,./ __ ·:E}"""'-'l.!l ... {j-'-f-''""'IJ.....,c.Lvt...,c......., •• ..___ D Geologist Review of: Remarks: [!! Soils Engineer PLAN CHECK NO. OR DATE OF REPORT(S) [/J Geo!. Sect. File D Grading Section D Grading Plan No·----------------------------- ~ Building Plan No. _ _.C)....._._.0~3..__.2..~----------------------- 0 Geologic Report Dated--------------------------- ~ Soils Report Dated 'J7i Vl e.-9 7 I q B J 6 1-0 c;=-006 D Other--------~------------------------ D Plan is approved I}(! Plan approved subject to conditions below /he-re:..c..ovnYH~tt.daf1 1 on.s /YI f-h e. a ho ye. l"'t!.)° o,.. f-m v :s T ht!-lo l/o wed .. D Plan is not approved for reasons below D Submit plans for recheck D Sec. 309 Code requirements met (not met) D Sec. 308(b) 3c & e code requirements met (not met) Prepared by __________ ""'~"' by A £: a,,. ~rt,~ I 'Z/'/ 5-49 ; "·~ ~) the 32034 wall is leaning towards 32039 1 1/2 inches at the top.this wall is pushing 32039 wall towards the 32039 house. 32039 wall appears to be twisted by the pressure from the other side .. ·~·' ,, :-?t' ., :;'•, ~l. ·~ i ' ..-1 '· wall 32034 Sea Ridge Cii"ele height of the ~II. 109 ft 1 /2 inches ...... '· wall 32039 Sea Ridge Circle height of the ~all 88 ft 1/2 inches If '!~-~~ ,~:f 5-50