Loading...
RPVCCA_CC_SR_2013_10_01_03_Urgency_Ordinance_Contruction_Projects_Permit_RestrictionsCITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: REVIEWED: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS JOEL ROJAS, C~~y DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR u v OCTOBER 1, 2013 ADOPTION OF AN URGENCY ORDINANCE AND INTRODUCTION OF A NON-URGENCY ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH CERTAIN PERMIT RESTRICTIONS ON CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN ONGOING FOR 4 YEARS OR MORE CAROLYN LEHR, CITY MANAGER Q.$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 At the September 3, 2013 City Council meeting, Staff presented a Draft Ordinance (in both an urgency and non-urgency format) to the City Council for adoption that would establish certain permit restrictions on prolonged 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. The ordinance was prompted by concerns raised by several neighbors over the prolonged noise, dust and parking inconveniences caused by a residential construction project at 32039 Sea Ridge Circle (property owned by Mr. and Mrs. Anderson) that has been ongoing for several years. A copy of the September 3, 2013 Staff Report (minus all the attachments) is attached. 3-1 After hearing public testimony from the Sea Ridge neighbors and Mr. and Mrs. Anderson, the City Council continued the matter to its October 1, 2013 meeting to allow the City Attorney to clarify certain aspects of the proposed Draft Ordinance. The City Attorney has done this and Staff is now presenting the revised Ordinance for adoption. DISCUSSION 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 or commercial projects under 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. No building permit extensions shall be approved. The ordinance states that these restrictions would not apply to new permits or extensions related to: 1) emergency work; 2) work that is necessary to preserve the integrity of the structure; 3) work that can be required to be completed within the timeframe as any existing unexpired permit; and 4) work that, in the opinion of the Building Official, will mitigate impacts to adjacent neighbors. At the September 3rd Council meeting, there was a consensus among Councilmembers that such an ordinance is warranted given the Sea Ridge Circle neighbors' current experience as well as some past prolonged construction projects in the City. However, the Council also felt that certain aspects of the proposed Ordinance could be clarified. Specifically, comments were made about better defining what is meant by continuous construction and avoiding situations were applicants are forced to obtain permits sequentially which could prolong the construction time. In response to these comments, the City Attorney modified the draft Ordinance to clarify that it would apply to "any property where construction has been performed pursuant to one or more unexpired permits for a period of at least four years" and added language which altows the Building Official to issue new permits if the work associated with the new permit can be completed within the same time frame as the open permit. Adoption of the Urgency Ordinance would impose these permit restrictions on all applicable construction projects in the City, effective immediately. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Public Correspondence Attached is all of the late correspondence on this matter from the September 3rd meeting as well as public comments received since the September 3rd meeting. Construction Hours At the September 3, 2013 City Council meeting, the Council also directed Staff to bring back an item for discussion involving possible changes to the City's current allowed 3-2 construction hours. Said item is scheduled to be presented to the City Council at its upcoming October 15th meeting. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact as a result of adopting the proposed ordinance. CONCLUSION Although most construction projects are completed within the time frame established by the initial permit, there are rare occasions that construction projects may go on for years due to unique circumstances. The construction impacts of such projects can be quite adverse to adjoining properties. As a result, Staff and the City Attorney have drafted an ordinance which establishes permit restrictions on properties under 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. •September 3, 2013 City Council Staff Report (minus attachments) •Late Correspondence from September 3, 2013 City Council meeting and any subsequent public comments 3-3 Urgency Ordinance 3-4 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 permitted 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 a permit 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, so 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, unfess 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. 1618521 3-5 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 or when the construction is required to be completed within the time perioc":I of previously issued unexpired permits. 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 proceeding with due diligence. An 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 performed pursuant to one or more unexpired permits 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 unexpired permit until all work being performed pursuant to any unexpired 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: 1. emergency work; 2. work that is necessary to preserve the integrity of the structure; 3.work that can be required to be completed within the same timeframe as any existing unexpired permit, or 4. work that. in the opinion of the Building Official, will mitigate impacts to an adjacent property. SECTION 2. There is at least one construction 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 1618521 3-6 several occasions. The property owners continue to apply for more permits from the City and still have not completed work that they already had 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. It is necessary to adopt an urgency ordinance that will amend the Municipal Code immediately to address these unusual circumstances so that except in emergency circumstances or when a concurrently issued permit can be required to be completed within the timeframe of an existing unexpired permit, 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 OCTOBER 2013. ATTEST: CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )ss CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ) 1618521 MAYOR ) 3-7 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 October _, 2013, and that the same was passed and adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CITY CLERK 1618521 3-8 Ordinance 3-9 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES REGARDING PROLONGED CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS THAT ARE ADVERSELY AFFECTING NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES RECITALS 1. When permitted 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 a permit 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~re 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, so 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. 1635891 3-10 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 or when the construction is required to be completed within the time period· of previously issued unexpired permits. 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 proceeding with due diligence. An 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 performed pursuant to one or more unexpired permits 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 unexpired permit until all work being performed pursuant to any unexpired 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: 1. emergency work; 2. work that is necessary to preserve the integrity of the structure; 3.work that can be required to be completed within the same timeframe as any existing unexpired permit. or 4. 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. 1635891 3-11 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS_ DAY OF OCTOBER 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 October _, 2013, and that the same was passed and adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 1635891 3-12 ABSTAIN: CITY CLERK 1635891 3-13 September 3, 2013 City Council Staff Report 3-14 CrTYOF MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE·: SUBJECT: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS JOEL ROJAS, co~~ 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~-tar c::.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, 3-15 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 inad'ilertently 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. 3-16 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. 3-17 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 no 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' 3-18 Late Correspondence from September 3, 2013 City Council Meeting 3-19 Carla Morreale ~'C'~::~= To: Cc: Subject: Phyllis Glantz < phyllisglantz@verizon.net> Monday, September 02, 2013 10:56 PM cc Joel Rojas; bruce.ross@blross.com; Ross, Randy; dora@apolloemb.com; Susan Brooks <Subrooks08@gmail.com> RPV Urgency Ordinance Dear City Council Members & Mr. Rojas, We have read the Anderson letter which is attached to the Urgency Ordinance text and other documentation and we beUeve that is an attempt by them to divert attention from the real issue before the Council -namely the Urgency Ordinance regarding the four plus years of ongoing construction at the Anderson residence and its effect on our neighborhood. We have only recently become aware of the Andersons' allegations when we began our landscaping project. We are now working with our landscaping project manager, our engineer and the City to address any issues. However, the real question is can the citizens of Rancho Palos Verdes have the expectancy of enjoying their homes in their own neighborhoods after what should be a reasonable period of home construction and renovation by their neighbors -not one that continues for years and years? Bill & Phyllis Glantz 32034 Sea Ridge Circle 1 3-20 Carla Morreale [ .. From: \t Sent: "..::.<.,: Ross, Randy <randy.ross@blross.com> Tuesday, September 03, 2013 7:19 AM Phyllis Glantz To: Cc: Subject: CC; Joel Rojas; Ross, Bruce L.; Dora Ngan; Susan Brooks <Subrooks08@gmail.com> Re: RPV Urgency Ordinance Dear City Council Members and Mr. Rojas, We agree. W-e look forward to seeing you this evening. Bruce and Randy 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 On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 10:55 PM, Phyllis Glantz <phyllisglantz@verizon.net> wrote: Dear City Council Members & Mr. Rojas, We have read the Anderson letter which is attached to the Urgency Ordinance text and other documentation and we believe that is an attempt by them to divert attention from the real issue before the Council -namely the Urgency Ordinance regarding the four plus years of ongoing construction at the Anderson residence and its effect on our neighborhood. We have only recently become aware of the Andersons' allegations when we began our landscaping project. We are now working with our landscaping project manager, our engineer and the City to address any \SSUeS. 1 3-21 1 However, the real question is can the citizens of Rancho Palos Verdes have the expectancy of enjoying their homes in their own neighborhoods after what should be a reasonable period of home construction and renovation (~·,: by their neighbors -not one that continues for years and years? Bill & Phyllis Glantz 32034 Sea Ridge Circle ·. 2 3-22 Carla Morreale Joel Rojas (~····;·····~::~= To: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 11:31 AM Teresa Takaoka Cc: Carla Morreale Subject: FW: Urgency ordinance From: Ross, Randy [mailto:randy.ross@blross.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 11:28 AM T~: Joel Rojas; Susan Brooks <SubrooksOB@gmail.com>; Paul Christman; Glantz, William; Dora Ngan; Ross, Bruce L. Subject: Urgency ordinance Dear All, .. As I was reading the documents on the website, I noticed several references to "32303 Sea Ridge Circle" as the property owned by the Andersons. Please note that the property is actually located at 32039 Sea Ridge Circle. These references begin on page 5-1 and continue throughout. Thank 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 1 3-23 w I\.) 0 w co (./) CD D> ;a ca cc CD () -· 0 -CD -;a 1J < pato4 VeutU r~"'l#9 Corporation etv4 ad S~ (!M4/dti119 Site Reconnaissance & Documentation at East Sideyard Masonry Fence Wall Taken on 8/26/13 By Rick Morales, P.E. Prepared For Dr. & Mrs Joe Anderson Project Address 32039 Sea Ridge Circle Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Palos Verdes Engineering Corporation 27520 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 250, Rolling Hills Estates, California 90274 PVEC F.N.: 1-13-0241 3-24 Dr. & Mrs. Joe Anderson 32039 Sea Ridge Circle Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Site Reconnaissance & Documentation at East Sideyard Masonry Fence Wall Taken on 8/26/13 by Rick P.E. PVEC F.N.: 1-13-0241 -Opinions -Geotechnical Report -Site Plan Test Location 1 Test Location 2 Test Location 3 Test Location 4 Test Location 5 Test Location 6 Test Location 7 3-25 ANDERSON 32029 Sea Ridge Circle Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 PRIMARY ISSUES: A. The subject property @ 32029 Sea Ridge Circle receives subsurface runoff from the neighboring property to the east at 32034 Sea Ridge Circle. B. The existing masonry fence wall along the east property line of the subject property is surcharged by the higher elevated soil and root influences by several mature trees from the adjacent neighboring property to the east forcing it to behave as a retaining wall causing tilted conditions. C. The existing masonry wall on the adjacent property may be encroaching over the east property line and onto the subject property. D. The vertical height of the existing masonry wall on the adjacent neighboring property extends 2 feet above than the 6 foot tall masonry fence wall on the subject property which exposes an approximate 8 foot tall total height tall wall from viewing on the subject property. 3-26 ANDERSON 32029 Sea Ridge Circle Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 PRIMARY ISSUE A: A.I The February 25, 2013 Hamilton & Associates geotechnical report indicate on page 3, "Based upon our observations of the site conditions, in our opinion, the moisture intrusion affecting the eastern portion of the subject lot is likely caused by one or a combination of the following: 1. Migration of subsurface water derived from irrigation and rainfall on elevated yard and planter areas on the adjoining lot to the east. 2. Inadequate provision of surface and subsurface drainage systems to collect and dispose of water accumulating within planters and retaining wall backfill on the adjoining lot to the east. 3. Moisture infiltration through the block retaining wall on 32034 ~Sea Ridge Circle. 4. Unidentified subsurface contributions such as broken or leaking subgrade lines. It is our recommendation that the neighboring retaining wall subdrain system be researched and equipped with appropriate drainage improvements, as neccessary." 3-27 ( A.2 We (PVEC) recommend that a proper waterproofing barrier on the neighbor's retaining wall and a proper drain device at the base of the wall be designed by a licensed Civil Engineer. The runoff collected by the drain system will likely require a sump pump system to direct water to the street. PRIMARY ISSUE B: B.1 All Test Locations 1 - 7 provide vertical readings indicate that the masonry fence wall at the subject property is tilted away from the neighboring property with readings between 89.0 degrees -89.9 degrees where 90 degrees is true vertical. B.2 The rear section of the subject masonry fence wall at Test locations 1 & 2 improperly retains the neighbor's rearyard soil. We noted that there is no retaining wall along the neighbor's property to support their rearyard. B.3 There are several very tall trees that occur in the planter adjacent to the neighbor's retaining wall. It is possible that the neighbor's retaining wall is also tilted due to the absence of any base drain device as well as from tree root influences. B.4 We recommend that a new retaining wall be designed at the neighbor's rearyard to support the lateral pressures introduced by the soil grade. B.5 We recommend that a licensed Arborist be consulted to examine the neighbor's trees to determine the affect of the existing root growth to the existing retaining wall. 3-28 PRIMARY ISSUE C: C.1 The nail point in the street curb may indicate the location of the east property line. If this is the case, we noted that the east edge of the masonry fence wall on the subject property may be constructed away from the property line by 3 5/8 inches. C.2 The horizontal distances between the masonry fence wall and the neighbor's retaining wall at Test location 4 is 1 7/8 inches and at Test location 6 is 1 Yi inches. This may indicate that the neighbor's retaining wall may be encroaching onto the subject property. C.3 We recommend that a licensed Surveyor be hired to determine the location of the east property line for the subject property and the location of the masonry fence wall in relationship to the masonry retaining wall. PRIMARY ISSUE D: D.1 The vertical height of the masonry fence wall on the subject property does exceed 6 feet above the concrete walkway. With the construction of the neighbor's retaining wall, we noted that it extends another 2 feet above the masonry fence wall. D.2 We recommend that this issue of a wall condition exceeding 6 feet visibly from the subject property be brought to the attention of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Building Department. 3-29 ,~~, b I lo ..- = 0 I lo .- b I lo = GJ ~ f ~EsT\ I \ I: I II \ 0 I lo .... I llo.¥ II CATION 6 ly I ll~n~ l GARAGE ;... .. '91' ,_.T ' CATION 7 TEST LOCATIONS AT SOUTH PROPERTY LINE CMU FENCE WALL RESIDENCE 3 - 3 0 3-31 3-32 3-33 m HAMILTON & Associates 1641 Border Avenue • Torrance, CA 90501 T 310.618.2190 888.618.2190 F 310.618.2191 W hamilton-associates.net February 25, 2013 Project No. 08-1279 Dr. Joseph and Kathy Anderson 32039 Sea Ridge Circle Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275 Subject: Memorandum of Geotechnical Engineering Observations of Moisture Jntrusion Along Eastern Edge of Property, 32039 Sea Ridge Circle, Rancho Palos Verdes, California. Dear Dr. & Mrs. Anderson: We are providing this memorandum summarizing observations of moisture seepage conditions along the eastern property boundary recently encountered in the course of site remodeling activities. Site visits were made to the subject property between December 3, 2012 and January 15, 2013 to observe the moisture intrusion conditions along the eastern property boundary and provide, from a geotechnical/geological viewpoint, the likely contributing causes of the moisture intrusion and recommendations for remediation. The moisture-affected area, in relation to the residence and neighboring properties, is shown on Plate A, Geotechnical Site Schematic. SITE CONDITIONS The subject site (32039 Sea Ridge Circle) is located at the southernmost end of the Sea Ridge Circle cul-de-sac in Rancho Palos Verdes. According to available data, the subject lot was originally developed in 1985, and included a concrete block privacy wall along the eastern property boundary. We understand that the neighboring residence to the east (32034 Sea Ridge Circle) was built in 1987 at approximately the same elevation grade as the subject residence. Hamilton & Auociate5, Inc. Geotechnicol Engineering Construction Testing & Inspection Materials Laboratory 3-34 ; j Subsequent improvements to the rear yard of the neighboring lot include a swimming pool and surrounding deck area, elevated approximately 8 feet with respect to the adjoining Anderson property. The elevation difference is accommodated by a retaining wall constructed adjacent to, and approximately 2 feet taller than the original 6-foot privacy wall on the Anderson property. An irrigated planter area extends along the outer edge of the neighbor's pool area, along the top of the retaining wall. Recent remodeling work on the subject property has involved shallow excavations to reconfigure utility trenches beneath the existing pavement along the eastern edge of the lot. Persistent moisture seepage and standing water have been encountered within recent trenching work along the east side of the subject lot. OBSERVATIONS It is reported that the eastern portion of the subject lot along the property boundary has exhibited unwanted moisture intrusion for many years in the form of wetness on and surrounding the block wa'~ separating the subject property from the easterly neighboring property. A utility trench recently excavated along the eastern side of the property revealed the presence of open 'head joints' acting as weep holes in between the bottom-most concrete blocks of the privacy wall. During and shortly after excavating, several inches of water was observed collecting in the trench. A portion of the 'privacy wall' and footing were subsequently removed to observe the condition and proximity of both walls. Water was noted to immediately collect in the excavation by the owner and on-site crew. On December 3, 2012, observations were made of the utility trench and exposed privacy wall footing by a geologist from this facility in the company of Dr. Joseph Anderson, owner, and Mr. Stuart Cuellar, contractor. On this and subsequent site visits, persistent standing water was observed along the base of the privacy wall and in the adjacent trench excavation. It is our understanding that a portable sump pump has been repeatedly utilized to remove unwanted water from the work area, however water has collected immediately upon removal of the sump. According to the owner and site crew, the easterly neighboring property discontinued use of their sprinkler irrigation system during the last week of December 2012. On January 15, 2013, this office was requested to perform a site visit to observe the condition of the eastern block wall and trench excavation. No seepage or collected water was observed, and the work area along the southeast property boundary was generally dry to the touch. Anderson -Residence Addition 08-1279 J~1N@ & Associates 3-35 FINDINGS Judging by the wall foundation and review of original grades, it is considered likely the block wall on the eastern boundary of the subject property was constructed as a free- standing privacy wall. The retaining wall on the neighboring property at 32034 Sea Ridge Circle was likely constructed to create the rear elevated pad area presently occupied by the swimming pool, deck and planter areas. Foundation and drainage system details for the neighboring retaining wall are not known at this time. Based upon our observations of the site conditions, in our opinion, the moisture intrusion affecting the eastern portion of the subject lot is likely caused by one or a combination of the following: 1. Migration of subsurface water derived from irrigation and rainfaH on elevated yard and planter areas on the adjoining lot to the east 2. Inadequate provision of surface and subsurface drainage systems to collect and dispose of water accumulating within planters and retaining wall backfill on the adjoining lot to the east. 3. Moisture infiltration through the block retaining wall on 32034 Sea Ridge Circle. 4. Unidentified subsurface contributions such as broken or leaking subgrade pipes. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that on-site and neighboring sources of water be checked and monitored to ensure that no leaks or broken pipes contribute unwanted moisture at the subject site. It is recommended that neighboring yard-and planter-irrigation areas behind and along the top of the neighboring retaining wall backfill be maintained and regulated as to not over water. It is recommended that the neighboring retaining wall subdrain system be researched and equipped with appropriate drainage improvements, as necessary. The drainage system should be designed in such a way as to not allow water to be released and build up between the neighboring retaining wall face and the Anderson screen wall and subsurface soils. At a minimum, the retaining wall would require a continuous backdrain to collect and alleviate buildup of hydrostatic pressure. All surface and subsurface Anderson -Residence Addition 08-1279 mw HAMILTON &. Associates 3-36 drainage systems should conduct collected water to the street, or other approved outlet, via engineered, non-erosive devices. Other subdrainage alternatives may be considered but should first be reviewed and approved by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to implementation. If unwanted seepage persists, a French Drain may be constructed on the Anderson property as a secondary measure to collect and dispose of subsurface water. We thank you for the opportunity of working with you. We look forward to assist!ng you during construction-related activities. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact the undersigned. Respectfully submitted, HAMIL TON & ASSOCIATES, INC. ~nay Staff Engineer d.~aii~ Principal Engineer VT/DTH/:rsm Distribution: (4) Addressee Attachments: Plate A -Geotechnical Site Schematic Anderson -Residence Addition 08-1279 m® HAMILTON &. Associates 3-37 3-38 3-39 .=k· I &: :f.-::i @ LI :::- 3-40 .. ::;. ,. . . .".~:; ., .. · . ,., ;~.· ."· ::-.. ., :l' • .. • / \.. •.. 'ef ~"'.· ~ .•. ··,,, .. . ·• . ..... '., . -. __ ~· '•" . , \ . ~· .. 3-41 3-42 ·· 1 n• Palos Verdes Engineering Corporation W Consulting Structural Engineers JOB Anderson 01-13-0241 SHEET #__,1~ ___ 0,F 3 CALCULATED BY RM DATE 8-29-13 CHECKED BY RM DATE 8-29-13 /·'.'.·.'.·'.'.'.·.~ .,_ 27520 Hawthorne BL e Suite #250 "' Rolling Hills Estate, CA 90274 IQ.;> Tel (310) 541 ·5055 •Fax (310) 541 ·032 l "'email: info@pvec com SCALE: N.T.S. 90" .. I PROPERTY LINE (ASSUMED) 32034..._.. __ lo--_ .. 32039 CMU FENCE WALL ORIGINAL GRADE LEVEL EXCAVATION =111==1 i 1==11 ~ 1111111111111111 ·11111111111111111 11 111 111 111 11 )1111111111 11---- 42" I I I CURRENT ANGLE OF CMU WALL 90" WALKWAY SLAB DR. AND MRS. JOE ANDERSON 32039 SEA RIDGE CIRCLE RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275 TEST LOCATION 2 S1 3-43 3-44 3-45 3-46 3-47 (.:' ti* ...... ; '·~#!..JiM ·" · ·''Vdf.:t.941 ·····•· ,. ' ··~ ··.·-:-:,:-:····· 3 - 4 8 3-49 3-50 3-51 3-52 3-53 3 - 5 4 3-55 3-56 3-57 3-58 ORIGINAL GRADE LEVEL 100" (· l ·, JOB Anderson 01-13-0241 SHEET #_,2.___ ___ 0F 3 CALCULATED BY RM DATE 8-29-13 CHECKED BY RM DATE 8-29-13 SCALE: N.T.S. PROPERTY LINE (ASSUMED) 320344-----181---• 32039 1 7/8" ORIGINAL LOCATION OF CMU WALL 19-3/8" 1:-L---CURRENT ANGLE OF CMU WALL I I 89.1° WALKWAY SLAB DR. AND MRS. JOE ANDERSON 32039 SEA RIDGE CIRCLE 90" RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275 TEST LOCATION 4 S2 3-59 3-60 3-61 3-62 3-63 3-64 3-65 3-66 92" JOB Anderson 01-13-0241 Palos Verdes Engineering Corporation Consulting Structural Engineers SHEET#~ ____ OF 3 CALCULATED BY RM DATE 8-29-13 CHECKED BY RM DATE 8-29-13 27520 Hawthorne 81. • Suite #250 ~ Roiling Hills Estate, CA 90274 Tel (3 !O) 54 1-5055 •Fax (310) 541-0321 •email: info@'pvec.com SCALE: N T.S. ORIGINAL GRADE LEVEL EXCAVATION PROPERTY LINE (ASSUMED) 320344---te--• 32039 ORIGINAL LOCATION OF CMU WALL 19-3/8" CURRENT ANGLE OF CMU WALL 89.2° WALKWAY SLAB DR. AND MRS. JOE ANDERSON 32039 SEA RIDGE CIRCLE 77" RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275 TEST LOCATION 6 S3 3-67 3-68 3-69 'I 3-70 3-71 3-72 3-73 .rm··· . . · .. J, .... AfWdf&ffi 3-74 Joel Rojas From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Hi Joel/Carol - FYI CP Carolynn Petru Thursday, September 12, 2013 8:12 AM Joel Rojas; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com> Carolyn Lehr FW: Construction Periods From: Don [mailto:dreeves895@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 8:06 AM To: CC Subject: Construction Periods Good Morning The article last week about construction periods gave me a wry chuckle. The folks at 6409 Via Canada have been engaged in construction projects of one kind or another for about 7 years. The close neighbors have been exceptionally permissive for various reasons including what I suspect to be fear of reprisals. Instead, they complain to me about a new wine cellar, major patio and pool work, drainage including continual (muddy) runoff on to Via de Anzar, driveway work/rework. property encroachment including tree/bush cutting, etc. Fortunately, we live a few lots down the street and are only impacted by large trucks (traffic), workmen parking and occasional noise -other than the 4 flat tires from large nails in front of their residence. I am not personally aware of any code infractions or lack of permits. II also realize that it is very difficult to enforce any ordinance such as what has been proposed -this input is intended as a bit of information as I think it would be up to the close neighbors who have endured the 7 years of construction to file a complaint. Don dreeves895@aol.com 1 3-75 Joel Rojas From: Sent: To: Paul Christman Tuesday, September 17, 2013 8:36 AM Joel Rojas Subject: FW: Lengthy construction code From: Jane Payne-Dunn [mailto:jane1128@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 6:08 PM To: Paul Christman Subject: Fwd: Lengthy construction code Trying again. Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Jane Payne <janel 128@sbcglobal.net> Date: September 13, 2013, 3:53:06 PM PDT To: "PaulC@rpv.com" <PaulC@rpv.com> Subject: Lengthy construction code Reply-To: Jane Payne <janel 128@sbcglobal.net> Dear Paul, I am not sure you are the right person to receive this letter I have written, but could you please make sure it gets in the right persons capable hands. Thank you, September 12, 2013 Confidential to CITY PERSONNEL only City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission/Building & Safety Paul Christman Dear Sir, I am writing regarding the attached article I was thrilled to see in the Peninsula News dated September 5, 2013. "Lengthy construction prompts city to created new ordinance." I am asking that you submit my letter to the commission for review so that they can understand the real problems that are going on in our city regarding building permits, and attempt to improve 1 3-76 them. I applaud to such an ordinance to refine current code and protect the residents of our city from prodigious abuses, which currently are not a violation. I am a resident of "Seaview". In 2001, a neighbor began a massive tear down renovation to the property located at 3930 Admirable. The project finished in 2009. Immediately following final, the homeowner pulled several consecutive permits for a pool, sunroom, and further renovation to the new property. The renovations appear to be unresolved as there is still a toilet in front of the home, as well as randomly scheduled construction vehicles. This is a total of approximately 12 years and counting, of perpetual construction, leaving the neighbors to endure the noise, traffic, unsightly dumpsters and toilets in front of said property. I write with confidentiality because it has been reported that letters for city eyes have been shared with the property owner escalating bad feelings. Neighbors have written to the city to contest what seems to be incessant work. The homeowner objects to any complaints and responds with threatening retribution and intimidation, leaving the neighborhood bitter with the disregard for a quiet place to live. We also face th·e fact that another application for further construction could potentially be submitted any time soon. The issue at hand is that said homeowner is following current code, which does not limit the number of permits pulled in a given time frame nor the length of time it may take to close a permit. Renewal of a permit is an easy task and requires little by the homeowner. I have had unneighborly words with a different homeowner, also on Admirable after requesting that they honor the noise ordinance for leaf blowers taking place 6-7pm on a Saturday night in the summertime. The neighbor was very annoyed with my request and cited the many many years of being awaken at 7a.m. with construction, explained above, and was not enthusiastic about being compliant since he felt wronged. I explained that situation is also a problem and cited the leaf blower code (8.16.010). As illustrated, the code governing construction work times also has room for improvement. PVPUSD elementary schools start at 8:30 am leaving children to wake up to saws and banging. Many lower grade students are in bed by 7pm again listening to construction. I have not spoken with that unneighborly neighbor since, so you see the loose guidelines regarding construction and work times in our city is causing unrest and animosity between neighbors. This will continue as our homes age. We can do better! I am familiar with the permit process and feel that there should be a term on the amount of total construction time, no matter how many permits it takes. I feel a homeowner has the responsibility to prove to the city that they are being pro-active to complete the project or face a stiff fine. So in my example, our homeowner should have had a few years to complete the massive rebuild and unable to take out any further permits for a few years, giving the neighborhood a calming period. It should be the planning department's vision to consider the total inconvenience to the neighborhood when issuing permits over a 12 year span. This would be similar to a complaint of "obstruction of a view." I understand the city considers the obstruction of the total view before acting. In the end, 12 years of perpetual building is terminal for any neighborhood. I hope you will act to preserve our peaceful Rancho Palos Verdes. Sincerely, 2 3-77 Jane Payne-Dunn Seaview Resident Rancho Palos Verdes. additional emails: Peninsula News Article Photo 3930 Admirable -Aug 2013 3 3-78