The URL can be used to link to this page

RPVCCA_CC_SR_2014_10_07_02_Urgency_Ord_Residential_Construction_Permit_RestrictionsCITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: HONORABL AYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS JOEL ROJAS, NITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OCTOBER 7, 2014 ADOPTION OF AN URGENCY ORDINANCE AND INTRODUCTION OF A NON-URGENCY ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH PENAL TIES AND OTHER PERMIT RESTRICTIONS ON RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN ONGOING FOR 4 YEARS OR MORE REVIEWED:CAROL YNN PETRU, ACTING CITY MANAGE~ 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, a group of 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 32039 Sea Ridge Circle (property owned by Mr. and Mrs. Anderson) that had been ongoing for several years. In November 2012, Staff and the City Attorney met with the neighbors to discuss their specific concerns. Staff informed the neighbors that at that . time, the City had no authority to stop the construction project or to stop issuing new permits for the project since the project was being constructed in accordance with the approved City permits. However, in an attempt to address the neighbor concerns, Staff notified the Andersons in writing in January 2013, that due to neighbor concerns, Staff would no longer approve any special construction permits that allowed work on holidays and Sundays and future extensions of certain permits would not be issued. 2-1 During 2013, Staff periodically visited the construction site to monitor progress and address any issues related to noise, trash and vehicle parking. In addition, then-Mayor Susan Brooks met with the Andersons and the neighbors to try to resolve the matter. During this time, the Andersons expressed their disappointment with the slow pace of construction but stated that they anticipated completion of the construction project by July 2013. At the end of July 2013, Staff assessed the project and concluded that the construction appeared to be months from completion. This was confirmed when the Andersons applied for and were issued a new permit on August 1, 2013, allowing the Andersons to continue the ongoing construction for an additional 18 months until February 1, 2015. As a result of these circumstances, Staff presented an Urgency Ordinance to the City Council on September 3, 2013, to 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 prolonged construction project. Said Urgency Ordinance was ultimately adopted by the City Council on October 1, 2013, and a non-urgency version of the same ordinance was adopted on October 15, 2013. Last month, several residents on Sea Ridge Circle alerted staff and the City Council of several concerns with the continuing construction. Specifically, the residents noted that despite the City's ordinance adopted in October 2013 and assurances made by the Andersons that the project would be completed in early 2014, the construction continues to create noise and dust impacts to the neighbors. As a result, the neighbors requested that more be done by the City to end the construction. Given the situation, staff is presenting a status report on the Andersons' construction project, along with a proposed ordinance that imposes additional penalties and restrictions for extended construction projects. DISCUSSION Action Taken by the City Council in 2013 When this matter was brought to the City Council in September 2013, the construction project at 32039 Sea Ridge Circle had just been issued their third permit to complete work that was initiated in 2009 (September 3, 2013 Staff Report is attached). In addition, the Andersons had been issued 12 separate permits (6 open permits at that time) over the years for a variety of associated projects on the property unrelated to the main construction project that was initiated in 2009. This occurred because as of that time, the City's Code did not limit the number of consecutive permits that the City can issue for the same construction project, nor did it limit the number of permits that can be issued at the same time. While prolonged construction projects like the Andersons' are extremely rare in the City, the impacts of such projects can be quite adverse to the neighbors. Therefore, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 549 in October 2013 (attached) that places certain restrictions on construction projects that have been ongoing for a period of at least four years and are adversely affecting adjacent properties based on submitted written requests. Specifically, the Ordinance prevents the City's Building Official from issuing new building permits for any new work or extending any existing permits until all work being performed pursuant to any open building permit has been completed and the City has issued a final approval of said permit. This provision does not apply to emergency work; work that is necessary to preserve the integrity of the structure; work that can be completed within the 2-2 same timeframe as any existing unexpired permit; or work, that in the opinion of the building official, will mitigate impacts to an adjacent property. Current Status of Project at 32039 Sea Ridge Circle Since October 2013, construction at the Andersons' property has continued uninterrupted and additional permit requests have been made by the Andersons during this time. Specifically, on December 2, 2013 and February 19, 2014, the Andersons requested and received approval of permits to install fire sprinklers. These two new permits were granted pursuant to Ordinance No. 549, as the Building Official determined that the permit work could be completed within the time frame of existing permits. Because of Ordinance No. 549, the Anderson's were not granted two separate new permit requests for solar panels and pool re-piping/re-i:>lastering. In addition, an expired permit for completing some interior work was not extended. At the present time, the Andersons have 3 open permits all of which are set to expire on February 15, 2015. A summary of the open permits is attached. The new restrictions imposed by Ordinance No. 549 have had some effect. By not extending a permit associated with interior work (since Staff saw no benefit to the adjacent neighbors of extending said permit}, the exterior work at the Anderson's property progressed and is almost complete. Overall, the Building Official estimates that approximately 80% of the overall work has been completed and should be completed and finaled by the current February 15, 2015 permit expiration deadline. Continued Neighbor Concerns Although much construction progress has been made since October 2013, the neighbors continue to be aggravated by the ongoing construction. Last month, Staff and the City Council received several items of correspondence from Sea Ridge Circle residents expressing their frustration about the continued construction, citing specific examples of noise impacts (see attached correspondence). Based on the submitted correspondence, the residents believe that despite assurances made by the Andersons about the project's completion and the City's Ordinance No. 549, the project continues with no end in sight. Thus, the residents are requesting that the City adopt an additional ordinance that would impose more severe penalties if projects are not completed within certain time frames. Some residents have provided examples to Staff of such ordinances that exist in other cities. The Andersons' Position On September 18, 2014, Staff met with the Andersons at their property and informed them that the subject of prolonged construction and their project was again be~ng placed on the agenda for tonight's City Council meeting. The Andersons communicated that much of the delay was the direct result of their former contractor and his employees and from a continuing water intrusion problem flowing onto their property from their neighbor's property. The Andersons also informed Staff that they have experienced delays in the project because they were denied an extension to complete interior work and because new permits for solar photovoltaic, and pool re-piping I re-plastering were denied. Thus, the Anderson's have expressed their desire and need to obtain additional solar and pool remodel permits. They communicated that if these permits were to be granted, they could complete that work and fill the open trenches by the February expiration date. 2-3 Under Ordinance No. 549, the additional new permits sought by the Anderson's to finish the interior work, install solar photovoltaic panels and re-pipe/re-plaster the pool may only be granted under certain conditions. One of those conditions is whether the work associated with the new permits can be completed within the same timeframe as any existing unexpired permit. Given that the Anderson's have committed to completing said new permit work by the February 15, 2015 deadline, and the Building Official agrees that the nature of said work can be completed by the deadline, the Building Official intends to issue the new permits sought by the Andersons and set the expiration of these new permits to coincide with the February 15, 2015 deadline. This will also benefit the neighbors as it would avoid the Anderson's requesting these permits after completion of the current projects which would prolong construction activity on the property past February 15, 2015. Proposed Ordinance Imposing Penalties and Additional Restrictions for Prolonged Construction Projects (4 years or more) While it is possible that the Andersons' project may be completed soon, given the poor track record and the adverse impacts experienced by the neighbors for the last several years, Staff has conducted research and reviewed Codes and Ordinances adopted by other agencies that impose severe penalties and restrictions on applicants of prolonged construction projects. While prolonged construction projects like the Andersons' project are extremely rare in the City, Staff agrees that the construction impacts of such projects can be quite adverse to the neighbors. Thus, Staff and the City Attorney believe that a stricter City ordinance that is targeted at prolonged projects (4 years or more) would help avoid such projects in the future and not affect most of the residential construction projects that occur regularly throughout the City. As a result, Staff and the City Attorney have drafted a proposed City Ordinance (attached) that would impose financial penalties and other restrictions on applicants of construction projects that continue for more than 4 years. Staff is targeting construction projects that have been ongoing for 4 years or more because that is the threshold agreed upon by the Council for the current permit restrictions imposed by Ordinance No. 549 which was adopted last year. If so desired bythe Council, the threshold forthe new restrictions can be applied to construction projects with shorter or longer durations. Specifically, the proposed ordinance would do the following: 1) Require applicants to establish a construction completion deposit. Before a new building permit is issued for a project that has been under construction for at least 4 years, the applicant must submit a refundable deposit based on the square footage of the work as determined by the City's Building Official. If the project is completed within the permit time limits established by Code, the completion deposit is refunded to the applicant. If the project is not completed within the permit time limit, the deposit will be incrementally forfeited to the City for the period of time the project was not timely completed. 2) Establish penalties for the period of time that a construction project remains incomplete beyond the permit time frame. Unless directed otherwise by the City Council, as currently written, the proposed ordinance imposes no penalty for the first thirty days that a construction project remains in complete. The proposed penalties would be $250 per day for the 31st through 60th day that a 2-4 construction project remains incomplete, $500 per day for the 61 51 through 1201h day, and $2,000 per day for the 121 51 day and beyond. The penalties would be debited from the applicant's construction completion deposit described above. 3) Require an 18-month "Quiet Period" between a prolonged construction project (duration of 4 years or more) and the issuance of any new construction permits. This would provide neighbors with a welcome break in the construction activity. Certain permits could be issued during the "quiet period" provided the City's Building Official determines that the issuance of said permit will not harm or adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood in terms of parking, noise and other environmental impacts. Applicability It is Staff's intent to make the proposed Ordinance applicable to all current and future residential construction projects whereby construction has been performed pursuant to one or more unexpired permits for a period of at least four years. 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 financial penalties and other 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. •September 3, 2013 City Council Staff Report •Ordinance No. 549 •32039 Sea Ridge Circle Chronology •Public Correspondence 2-5 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 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. The City Council previously adopted an ordinance to address this situation, but the construction on that project still has not been completed, even though an additional year has passed. 4. It is necessary to adopt another urgency ordinance that will amend the Municipal Code to address these unusual circumstances to impose financial penalties, to require the payment of a deposit to cover the penalties and to impose a hiatus on issuance of subsequent permits at the property 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: R6876-0001\l 755236v2.doc 2-6 Section 1. Title 15 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding new chapter 15.46 thereto to read as follows: Chapter 15.46 TIME LIMITS FOR COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION* Sections: 15.46.010 Short title. 15.46.020 Purpose. 15.46.030 Application. 15.46.040 Construction completion. 15.46.050 Time limits for construction completion. 15.46.060 Other time limits. 15.46.070 Effect of failure to comply with time limits for construction completion. 15.46.080 Construction completion deposit. 15.46.090 Appeal of penalties. 15.46.100 Administration and enforcement. 15.46.010 Short title. This chapter shall be known as the "Construction Completion Chapter." 15.46.020 Purpose. It is the intent of this chapter to provide a mechanism to require property owners seeking to improve their properties to complete said construction in a reasonable amount of time as provided in the code. The goal is to ensure neighbors and neighborhoods quality of life is maintained and activities associated with construction such as increased noise, traffic and associated impacts are managed in a way to ensure construction is completed in a timely way. 15.46.030 Application. This chapter shall apply to construction projects, including all additions, alterations, modifications, repairs, and improvements, performed pursuant to one or more unexpired building permits for a period of at least four years and are adversely affecting adjacent -2- 1755553vl 2-7 properties or the owners or occupants thereof, as documented in written complaints submitted to the building official or director of community development, referred to as "applicable work." The obligations imposed by this chapter to timely complete construction and pay all penalties for construction not timely completed shall run with the land and apply not only to the original building permit property owner applicant but to all subsequent owners of the subject property until all obligations imposed by this chapter are fully satisfied. 15.46.040 Construction completion. For the purposes of this chapter, construction shall be deemed complete upon the satisfactory performance of all construction work, including but limited to compliance with all conditions of application approval and the clearing and cleaning of all construction-related materials and debris from the site, and the final inspection and written approval of the applicable work by the City building official. 15.46.050 Time limits for construction completion. The maximum time for completion of construction shall not exceed the time periods set forth in Section 15.18.050 of this Code 15.46.060 Other time limits. No building permit shall be issued within eighteen months of final inspection or expiration of an antecedent building permit unless the building official determines that the earlier issuance of a building permit will not harm or adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood. In making this determination, the building official shall consider traffic, parking, noise and other environmental impacts on the neighborhood from waiving the eighteen month waiting period and the visual, drainage, safety and other environmental impacts of any uncompleted construction. 15.46.070 Effect of failure to comply with time limits for construction completion. (a) Upon failure of a property owner to complete construction of a project that is subject to the provisions of this chapter, as set forth in Section 15.46.030, by the time limits established in Section 15.18.050, the following penalties shall apply: (1) For the first thirty days that the project remains incomplete the City shall not impose a penalty. (2) For the thirty-first through sixtieth days that the project remains incomplete, the City shall impose a penalty of two hundred fifty dollars ($250) per day. (3) For the sixty-first through the one hundred twentieth days that the project remains incomplete, the City shall impose a penalty of five hundred dollars ($500) per day. -3- 1755553vl 2-8 (4) For the one hundred twenty-first day, and any additional days thereafter that the project remains incomplete, the City shall impose a penalty of two thousand dollars ($2,000) per day. (b) Penalties, fees, and costs due to the City pursuant to this chapter shall accrue for each day the project exceeds the construction completion deadline. (c) Upon failure of a property owner to complete construction by the time limits established by this chapter, the building permit shall expire, and the building official shall cause all work at the site for such construction to cease and shall require the submission of an additional construction completion deposit in excess of the amount provided by Section 15.46.080 to ensure that all penalties related to the late construction are fully paid to the City. The amount of the additional deposit shall be computed by the building official's estimate of the amount of time that will be required to complete the construction and the amount of the penalties that will accrue during this time period. The building official may impose additional conditions on the building permit to mitigate any adverse impacts on the surrounding area due to the continued construction. Upon the submission of the additional deposit and new permit fees, the building official may reissue the building permit, and the property owner may recommence work under the permit in accordance with its terms. (d) The building official may declare construction abandoned after the building permit expires and construction activities on the subject property cease for a period of more than 180 days. At that time, the building official may impose conditions requiring remedial measures to be implemented by the property owner that clean-up the site, remove any hazardous or unsightly conditions, and restore the property and all improvements on the property to an attractive condition. The building official shall send written notice to the property owner that abandonment has been declared. This notice also shall state the penalties incurred to the date of the notice. Penalties will continue to accrue when construction has been abandoned until all remedial measures required by the building official have been completed to the satisfaction of the building official. (e) It is declared that any violation of the provisions of this chapter shall, in addition to any other remedy, constitute a public nuisance, and such nuisance may be abated as provided by law. 15.46.080 Construction completion deposit. (a) Before a new building permit may be issued, the property owner shall deliver to the building department a refundable deposit based on the estimated square footage of the work as determined by the building official. The deposit shall be as follows: 1) for projects with an estimated square footage of up to 5000 square feet, the deposit shall be ten thousand dollars ($10,000); 2) for projects with an estimated square footage between 5,000 to 10,000 square feet, the deposit shall be twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000); and for projects with an estimated square footage above 10,000 square feet, the deposit shall be fifty thousand dollars ($50,000). -4- 1755553vl 2-9 (b) When construction is completed within the time limits provided herein, the construction completion deposit shall be refunded to the property owner. (c) Upon failure of a property owner to complete construction by the time limits established in this chapter, the deposit shall be incrementally forfeited to the City for the period of time that construction was not timely completed. The Director of Community Development may waive the imposition of penalties if he or she determines that all construction activities were timely completed but the final inspections by City staff were delayed for reasons not due to the fault of the property owner. 15.46.090 Appeal of penalties. (a) A penalty imposed pursuant to this section may be appealed to the City Council on the grounds that the property owners were unable to comply with the construction time limit for reasons beyond the control of themselves and their representatives. (1) For purposes of this section, the grounds for appeal shall include, but not be limited to: labor stoppages; acts of war or terrorism; natural disasters, presence of endangered species and unforeseen discovery of archaeological remains on the building site. (2) For purposes of this section, the grounds for appeal shall not include: delays caused by the winter-rainy season; the use of custom and/or imported materials; the use of highly specialized subcontractors; significant, numerous·, or late design changes; access difficulties associated with the site; failure of materials suppliers to provide such materials in a timely manner; or delays associated with project financing. (b) An appeal of penalties made pursuant to this section shall be filed in writing with the city clerk within ten calendar days from the date of construction completion, the date that a notice of abandonment is sent to the property owner pursuant to Section 15.46.0?0(c), or the date that the building official determines that the required remedial measures have been completed satisfactorily along with payment of an appeal fee as established by a resolution adopted by the City Council. The City Council will hold a hearing on the appeal and shall affirm, modify, or cancel the penalty. (c) When appealing penalties assessed pursuant to this chapter, the appellant shall submit documentary and other evidence sufficient to establish that design decisions, construction drawings and documents, bids and construction contracts, permit applications, and compliance with all required permit conditions were undertaken in a diligent and timely manner. Required documentary and other evidence shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Council that construction delays resulted from circumstances fully out of his or her control and despite diligent and clearly documented efforts to achieve construction completion within those time limits established in this chapter. Penalties made pursuant to this section shall not be modified or cancelled unless the evidence required in this section is submitted at the time of appeal. 15.46.100 Administration and enforcement. -5- 1755553vl 2-10 (a) The full amount of construction completion penalties due the City under Section 15.46.070 shall be due immediately upon the completion of the construction project or the required remedial measures when abandonment has been declared and the City's subsequent determination of the penalty amount. The City shall notify the property owner by mail of the number of days the project remained unfinished beyond the time limit for completion of construction established by Section 15.46.050 and the resulting penalty amount owed to the City. Any penalty amount in excess of the construction completion deposit shall be paid within 30 days of the date of mailing the letter by first class mail to the property owner. Any penalty amount not paid within 30 days shall be subject to an additional 10% (ten percent) penalty. (b) Any amount in excess of the sum deposited with the City as a construction completion deposit and due to the City by property owner(s) as a result of violation of the provisions of this chapter, including all penalties and interest as provided in subsection (b) above, is not only a personal debt owed to the City by the owner(s) of the subject property but also is an obligation that runs with the land and all subsequent owners of the property pursuant to Section 15.46.030. In addition to all other means of enforcement and collection, any unpaid penalties and interest may be collected through the placement of a lien against the subject real property in the manner provided by law for the collection of costs related to the abatement of a nuisance. (c) The provisions of this chapter shall not be the exclusive remedy for addressing delayed completion of construction. In addition to the remedies provided by this chapter, the City may pursue any other actions and remedies provided by law including but not limited to nuisance abatement proceedings. 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 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 during that time and has become a nuisance. After this issue was brought to the City Council's attention, the City Council adopted an ordinance to address this situation, but the construction on that project still has not been completed, although an additional year has passed. Thus, it is necessary to adopt an urgency ordinance that will amend the Municipal Code immediately to address these unusual circumstances so that financial penalties will be imposed; to require the payment of a deposit to cover the penalties, and to impose a hiatus on issuance of subsequent permits at the property, 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. 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 cause this Ordinance to be posted in three (3) public places in the City within fifteen (15) days after its passage, in accordance with.the provisions of Section 36933 of the Government Code. The City Clerk shall further -6- 1755553vl 2-11 certify to the adoption and posting of this Ordinance, and shall cause this Ordinance and its certification, together with proof of posting, to be entered in the Book of Ordinances of the Council of this City. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this_ of October 2014. 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 numbers of the City Council of said City is five; that the foregoing Ordinance No. _was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting thereof held on , 2014 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINED: City Clerk -7- 1755553vl 2-12 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES REGARDING PROLONGED CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS THAT ARE ADVERSELY AFFECTING NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Title 15 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding new chapter 15.46 thereto to read as follows: Chapter 15.46 TIME LIMITS FOR COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION* Sections: 15.46.010 Short title. 15.46.020 Purpose. 15.46.030 Application. 15.46.040 Construction completion. 15.46.050 Time limits for construction completion. 15.46.060 Other time limits. 15.46.070 Effect of failure to comply with time limits for construction completion. 15.46.080 Construction completion deposit. 15.46.090 Appeal of penalties. 15.46.100 Administration and enforcement. 15.46.010 Short title. This chapter shall be known as the "Construction Completion Chapter." 15.46.020 Purpose. It is the intent of this chapter to provide a mechanism to require property owners seeking to improve their properties to complete said construction in a reasonable amount of time as provided in the code. The goal is to ensure neighbors and R6876-000l\1755236v2.doc 2-13 neighborhoods quality of life is maintained and activities associated with construction such as increased noise, traffic and associated impacts are managed in a way to ensure construction is completed in a timely way. 15.46.030 Application. This chapter shall apply to construction projects, including all additions, alterations, modifications, repairs, and improvements, performed pursuant to one or more unexpired building permits for a period of at least four years and are 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, referred to as "applicable work." The obligations imposed by this chapter to timely complete construction and pay all penalties for construction not timely completed shall run with the land and apply not only to the original building permit property owner applicant but to all sub~equent owners of the subject property until all obligations imposed by this chapter are fully satisfied. 15.46.040 Construction completion. For the purposes of this chapter, construction shall be deemed complete upon the satisfactory performance of all construction work, including but limited to compliance with all conditions of application approval and the clearing and cleaning of all construction-related materials and debris from the site, and the final inspection and written approval of the applicable work by the City building official. 15.46.050 Time limits for construction completion. The maximum time for completion of construction shall not exceed the time periods set forth in Section 15.18.050 of this Code 15.46.060 Other time limits. No building permit shall be issued within eighteen months of final inspection or expiration of an antecedent building permit unless the building official determines that the earlier issuance of a building permit will not harm or adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood. In making this determination, the building official shall consider traffic, parking, noise and other environmental impacts on the neighborhood from waiving the eighteen month waiting period and the visual, drainage, safety and other environmental impacts of any uncompleted construction. 15.46.070 Effect of failure to comply with time limits for construction completion. (a) Upon failure of a property owner to complete construction of a project that is subject to the provisions of this chapter, as set forth in Section 15.46.030, by the time limits established in Section 15.18.050, the following penalties shall apply: (1) For the first thirty days that the project remains incomplete the City shall not impose a penalty. -2- R6876-000l\l 755236v2.doc 2-14 (2) For the thirty-first through sixtieth days that the project remains incomplete, the City shall impose a penalty of two hundred fifty dollars ($250) per day. (3) For the sixty-first through the one hundred twentieth days that the project remains incomplete, the City shall impose a penalty of five hundred dollars ($500) per day. (4) For the one hundred twenty-first day, and any additional days thereafter that the project remains incomplete, the City shall impose a penalty of two thousand dollars ($2,000) per day. (b) Penalties, fees, and costs due to the City pursuant to this chapter shall accrue for each day the project exceeds the construction completion deadline. (c) Upon failure of a property owner to complete construction by the time limits established by this chapter, the building permit shall expire and the building official shall cause all work at the site for such construction to cease and shall require the submission of an additional construction completion deposit in excess of the amount provided by Section 15.46.080 to ensure that all penalties related to the late construction are fully paid to the City. The amount of the additional deposit shall be computed by the building official's estimate of the amount of time that will be required to complete the construction and the amount of the penalties that will accrue during this time period. The building official may impose additional conditions on the building permit to mitigate any adverse impacts on the surrounding area due to the continued construction. Upon the submission of the additional deposit and new permit fees, the building official may reissue the building permit, and the property owner may recommence work under the permit in accordance with its terms. (d) The building official may declare construction abandoned after the building permit expires and construction activities on the subject property cease for a period of more than 180 days. At that time, the building official may impose conditions requiring remedial measures to be implemented by the property owner that clean-up the site, remove any hazardous or unsightly conditions, and restore the property and all improvements on the property to an attractive condition. The building official shall send written notice to the property owner that abandonment has been declared. This notice also shall state the penalties incurred to the date of the notice. Penalties will continue to accrue when construction has been abandoned until all remedial measures required by the building official have been completed to the satisfaction of the building official. (e) It is declared that any violation of the provisions of this chapter shall, in addition to any other remedy, constitute a public nuisance, and such nuisance may be abated as provided by law. 15.46.080 Construction completion deposit. (a) Before a new building permit may be issued, the property owner shall deliver to the building department a refundable deposit based on the estimated square footage of the work as determined by the building official. The deposit shall be as follows: 1) for -3- R6876-000I \l 755236v2.doc 2-15 projects with an estimated square footage of up to 5000 square feet, the deposit shall be ten thousand dollars ($10,000); 2) for projects with an estimated square footage between 5,000 to 10,000 square feet, the deposit shall be twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000); and for projects with an estimated square footage above 10,000 square feet, the deposit shall be fifty thousand dollars ($50,000). (b) When construction is completed within the time limits provided herein, the construction completion deposit shall be refunded to the property owner. (c) Upon failure of a property owner to complete construction by the time limits established in this chapter, the deposit shall be incrementally forfeited to the City for the period of time that construction was not timely completed. The Director of Community Development may waive the imposition of penalties if he or she determines that all construction activities were timely completed but the final inspections by City staff were delayed for reasons not due to the fault of the property owner. 15.46.090 Appeal of penalties. (a) A penalty imposed pursuant to this section may be appealed to the City Council on the grounds that the property owners were unable to comply with the construction time limit for reasons beyond the control of themselves and their representatives. (1) For purposes of this section, the grounds for appeal shall include, but not be limited to: labor stoppages; acts of war or terrorism; natural disasters, presence of endangered species and unforeseen discovery of archaeological remains on the building site. (2) For purposes of this section, the grounds for appeal shall not include: delays caused by the winter-rainy season; the use of custom and/or imported materials; the use of highly specialized subcontractors; significant, numerous, or late design changes; access difficulties associated with the site; failure of materials suppliers to provide such materials in a timely manner; or delays associated with project financing. (b) An appeal of penalties made pursuant to this section shall be filed in writing with the city clerk within ten calendar days from the date of construction completion, the date that a notice of abandonment is sent to the property owner pursuant to Section 15.46.0?0(c), or the date that the building official determines that the required remedial measures have been completed satisfactorily along with payment of an appeal fee as established by a resolution adopted by the City Council. The City Council will hold a hearing on the appeal and shall affirm, modify, or cancel the penalty. (c) When appealing penalties assessed pursuant to this chapter, the appellant shall submit documentary and other evidence sufficient to establish that design decisions, construction drawings and documents, bids and construction contracts, permit applications, and compliance with all required permit conditions were undertaken in a diligent and timely manner. Required documentary and other evidence shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Council that construction delays resulted from circumstances fully out of his or her control and despite diligent and clearly documented -4- R6876-000J \J 755236v2.doc 2-16 efforts to achieve construction completion within those time limits established in this chapter. Penalties made pursuant to this section shall not be modified or cancelled unless the evidence required in this section is submitted at the time of appeal. 15.46.100 Administration and enforcement. (a) The full amount of construction completion penalties due the City under Section 15.46.070 shall be due immediately upon the completion of the construction project or the required remedial measures when abandonment has been declared and the City's subsequent determination of the penalty amount. The City shall notify the property owner by mail of the number of days the project remained unfinished beyond the time limit for completion of construction established by Section 15.46.050 and the resulting penalty amount owed to the City. Any penalty amount in excess of the construction completion deposit shall be paid within 30 days of the date of mailing the letter by first class ma!I to the property owner. Any penalty amount not paid within 30 days shall be subject to an additional 10% (ten percent) penalty. (b) Any amount in excess of the sum deposited with the City as a construction completion deposit and due to the City by property owner(s) as a result of violation of the provisions of this chapter, including all penalties and interest as provided in subsection (b) above, is not only a personal debt owed to the City by the owner(s) of the subject property but also is an obligation that runs with the land and all subsequent owners of the property pursuant to Section 15.46.030. In addition to all other means of enforcement and collection, any unpaid penalties and interest may be collected through the placement of a lien against the subject real property in the manner provided by law for the collection of costs related to the abatement of a nuisance. (c) The provisions of this chapter shall not be the exclusive remedy for addressing delayed completion of construction. In addition to the remedies provided by this chapter, the City may pursue any other actions and remedies provided by law including but not limited to nuisance abatement proceedings. Section 2. The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in three (3) public places in the City within fifteen (15) days after its passage, in accordance with the provisions of Section 36933 of the Government Code. The City Clerk shall further certify to the adoption and posting of this Ordinance, and shall cause this Ordinance and its certification, together with proof of posting, to be entered in the Book of Ordinances of the Council of this City. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 7th day of October 2014. Mayor ATTEST: -5- R6876-000J\l 755236v2.doc 2-17 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 numbers of the City Council of said City is five; that the foregoing Ordinance No. _was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting thereof held on , 2014 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINED: City Clerk -6- R6876-0001 \1755236v2.doc 2-18 CITY OF MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS JOEL ROJAS, CO~N~ 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®-Rx-<:.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, 2-19 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. 2-20 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. 2-21 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' 2-22 ORDINANCE NO. 549 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. 2-23 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; or 3. 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 Ordinance No. 549 Page 2 of 3 2-24 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 15th DAY OF OCTOBER 2013. ATTEST: /s/ Carla Morreale CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )ss CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ) /s/ Susan Brooks MAYOR 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; that the foregoing Ordinance No. 549 passed first reading on October 1, 2013, was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting thereof held on October 15, 2013, and that the same was passed and adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: REC USED: 1635891 Campbell, Knight, Misetich and Mayor Brooks None None None Duhovic CITY CLERK Ordinance No. 549 Page 3 of 3 2-25 32039 Searidge Circle Chronology 2-26 Project Chronolgy for 32039 Sea Ridge Circle (Anderson Residence) Date Date Approved/ Reissued/ Reissued Date Case No. Project Descrietion Issued Extension Permt No. Finaled 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 FornewSFR 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 Pool Prmt 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 A/C Unit along eastern side 7/2/1999 BLD #22866 NewA/C 7/2/1999 5/18/2000 BLD 10/26/2000 #24260 BLD2002_00132 Restucco areas on house and change out water heater 3/7/2002 3/8/2002 ZON2008_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 BLD 2009_00429 Upgrade Earthquake engineering of foundation, 7/9/2009 8/1/2013 BLD2013- 276 SF remodel 00575 ZON 2009 _00278 Site Plan Review for 44 SF demo and 112 SF 1- sto!1 addition at the rear (OTC} 7/15/2009 1/13/2012 112 SF addition w/ 148 CY excavation for BLD2013-BLD2009-00606 caissons & 438 SF interior remodel to master 10/30/2009 8/1/2013 00575 bedroom ZON 2010_00240 Special Constr~ction Permit for July 5, 201 o (Fed. Obs. Hohda:t} 7/1/2010 ZON 2010 _00396 Special Construction Permit for November 11, 2010 (Veterns Da:t} 11/10/2010 ZON 2010 _00423 Special Constr~~tion Permit for November 25, 2010 (Thanks91vm9} 11/24/2010 ZON 2011 _00038 Special Co~struction Permit for February 21, 2011 (President's Dai:} 2/18/2011 BLD 2011 _00523 Reissuance of expired BLD2009-00429 to 7/28/2011 8/1/2013 BLD2013- complete work and M.E.& Ps (inc exhaust fan) 00575 ZON 2011 _00322 Special Construction Permit for November 11, · 2011 (Veterns Da:t} 11/10/2011 ZON 2012 _00022 Special Construction Permit for January 16, 2012 (MLK Dai:} 1/13/2012 BLD 2012 _00035 Reissuance of expired BLD2009-00606 to 1/13/2012 8/1/2013 BLD2013- comelete work 00575 2-27 Project Chronolgy for 32039 Sea Ridge Circle (Anderson Residence) Date Date Approved/ Reissued/ Reissued Date Case No. Project Description Issued · Extension Permt No. Finaled ZON 2012 _00061 Special Co~struction Permit for February 20, 2012 (President's Day} Site Plan Review for demo and rebuild 270 SF ZON 2012_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 BLD2012_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 l~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 OTC 10/10/2012 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 Expired 7/12/2014 2/24/2014 2/28/2014 Expires 10/17/2014 Expires 9/14/13 8/28/2013 Expires 2/16/15 2-28 Public Correspondence 2-29 Paul Christman From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Mr. Rojas and Mr. Christman Fineart paintings <fineartpaintings@outlook.com> Monday, September 29, 2014 3:08 PM Jerry Duhovic; Jim Knight; sysan.brooks@rpv.com; Brian Campbell; Anthony Misetich; Paul Christman house update and elimination of noise and dust After I received a copy of the email from Mrs. Zhang, I had a meeting with all the contractors and crew. The best locations were selected in order to minimize the creation of noise and dust. Any cutting should have a minimum to no impact on the neighbors. Over the past week, we have had over a 90% reduction in noise. The front yard will continue to be maintained as a clean area. Of interest is the fact that last week, after I solved the issues with noise and dust, I heard great deal of saw cutting. I ran outside to see who· was making this noise, after we had agreed on what to do about noise and dust. To my surprise, the Glantz's workers were saw cutting in their front driveway. If there are any complaints about our home, please advise and forward a copy to me immediately so I can resolve any problems. We continue to strive to finish this job. Please consider allowing the pool resurfacing permit to be issued. We want to Finish and be done. This action will expedite Finish. Thanks Dr. Joe Anderson Mr. Chrisman would you please send a copy of this to Mr. Rojas 1 2-30 Paul Christman From: Sent: To: Subject: Hi Mr. Christman, Fineart paintings <fineartpaintings@outlook.com> Monday, September 22, 2014 3:21 PM Paul Christman the entire set of emails The emails that I received from you have been helpful. By knowing what the neighbors' complaints are, we can then take actions to answer their concerns. The new location appears to be working just fine. I believe the neighbors will note this improvement. There will be much less noise from the working of tile and hopefully no dirt or dust. Mr. Rojas said that we could receive all of the emails. Kindly forward to us all the emails that you have in your possession. Thank you. The Anderson family 1 2-31 Paul Christman From: Sent: To: Subject: Hi Paul, Fineart paintings <fineartpaintings@outlook.com> Sunday, September 21, 2014 10:43 PM Paul Christman correction actions taken to improve neighbor relations. Thank you for sending the emails. I sat down with the crew and asked them to work out a way so that their work could be done more quietly and to reduce dirt or dust. They came up with a plan and a location. They are now as far away as they can be from the neighbors and there should be minimal effect. I believe this will make a great difference. We will do our best and we are very earnest and focused on the purpose. I will address the issue of smoking on any property. The men were exposing the area around the drainage pipe so that I can show the pipes to an investigator from the plumbers contractor's board. These are the pipes that I showed you and Mr. Rojas that had not been connected to the drainage system. It is disappointing to us that we are forced to continue to lose valuable time for the next three weeks by not being able to address very necessary construction work in order to actually move forward towards the end of the job. This would have made the neighbors happier by getting work done sooner than later. Why waste time that would be beneficial for all concerned. Thank you for your time and attention. Please cc to Joel Rojas for us. Joe, Kathy and the children. 1 2-32 Paul Christman From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Rob K <rfkautz@gmail.com> Wednesday, September 17, 2014 5:50 PM Susan Brooks Dora Ngan; Phyllis Glantz; Paul Christman; Ross, Bruce; Jerry Duhovic; Anthony Misetich; Jim Knight; Brian Campbell; Ross, Randy Ellen; dora; Randy; Joel Rojas; Greg Pfost; Ara Mihranian; CC; wanpingyuyu; Danise Holloway; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; Carolynn Petru; Sandra Ishman; Tom Defazio; Andrew Jensen Re: Continuing Construction by the Andersons on Sea Ridge Circle in Rancho Palos Verdes This one situation raises three major points of regulation that are missing in the Rancho Palos Verdes ordinances, and we hope that all three points will be covered with a comprehensive approach that will avoid unreasonable construction in the future: Penalty fines for exceeding the period of time allowed by the permit -we found and forwarded examples of other California city ordinances with a schedule of serious penalties that would deter this behavior. Some cities also have similar penalties for conducting construction without a permit which seems advisable to cover all bases. Limit on continuous construction annoyance for multiple sequential pernrlts -the inconvenience, noise, and blight that are necessary during construction cannot be considered a nuisance during daytime hours for the normal improvement of real estate property. However, the same condition does become a genuine nuisance if the continuous process does not have a time limit. Other cities' ordinances we researched have a period of one to three years for various complexity of construction. The ordinance should address how long a period of "normal 11 living a neighborhood should enjoy before the process can start over with a new permit that begins another period of construction. Limit on fabrication of construction materials in a residential area -the sawing of large amounts of stone, tile, or lumber should not be considered a normal inconvenience of construction. The noise and dust from the fabrication of large amounts of these materials should not be permitted in residential areas, and even one year is not reasonable to expect in a neighborhood such as ours. These materials can and should be purchased prefabricated to size and installed at the residence with an exception for limited finishing work that cannot be done off site. I summarized my suggestions in previous emails to the staff and am hopeful that all three issues will be addressed in the proposals brought to the council. Also, let me just add a reminder that those of us who live at the end of Pacifica Drive also hear the noise and see all the construction materials and refuse on the hill behind the Anderson's home, and so do the numerous RPV residents who walk the McBride trail and have their otherwise bucolic walk interrupted by the same noise and sights. Thank you, Rob Kautz 32072 Pacifica Drive 1 2-33 Paul Christman From: Sent To: Cc: Subject: Hi Phyllis, Paul Christman Wednesday, September 17, 2014 3:26 PM Phyllis Glantz Paul Christman; Joel Rojas; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; Ara Mihranian; Andrew Jensen; Tom DeFazio; Sandra Ishman; Carolynn Petru; Paul Christman RE: Continuing Construction by the Andersons on Sea Ridge Circle in Rancho Palos Verdes We will be discussing this project and staff plans to propose new code language to help address this matter at the 10/7 /14 City Council meeting. PS I will be visiting the site again tomorrow. Paul From: Phyllis Glantz [mailto:phyllisglantz@verizon.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 201412:35 PM To: 'Dora Ngan'; Paul Christman; 'Ross, Bruce'; Susan Brooks; Jerry Duhov_ic; Anthony Misetich; Jim Knight; Brian Campbell Cc: 'Ross, Randy Ellen'; 'dora'; 'Randy'; Joel Rojas; Greg pfost; Ara Mihranian; CC; 'wanplngyuyu'; 'Rob Kautz'; 'Danise Holloway'; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; Carolynn Petru; Ara Mihranian; Sandra Ishman; Tom DeFazio; Andrew Jensen Subject: RE: Continuing Construction by the Andersons on Sea Ridge Circle in Rancho Palos Verdes Dear RPV Officials, Unfortunately, we are now into the 6th year (it began in June 2009 -you can check the building permits) of the ongoing major construction next door to us at the Anderson's residence. It's business as usual with the noise, clutter and filth coming from their holJse and lot. Every morning (except Sundays) we are awakened to the sound of a mechanical saw cutting their stones. Not very pleasant, especially not in this hot weather. No resident of RPV should have to endure this coming from a next door neighbor for such a long period of time with no end in sight. We understand that the Andersons have applied for additional building permits which the city has denied at this time because of the passing of the Urgency Ordinance by the City Council last October. If and when the Andersons complete their current outstanding building permits (we were told they all expire in Feb. 2015), it is urgent and compelling that the city does not issue any new permits which would continue this neighborhood nightmare. When will the neighbors of the Andersons on Sea Ridge Circle be able to enjoy their homes in peace and tranquility? Please advise, Phyllis & Bill Glantz 32034 Sea Ridge Circln From: Dora Ngan [rn.~:ilto:dora@APOLLOEMB.COM] Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 2:54 PM 1 2-34 To: Paul Christman; Ross, Bruce; Susan Brooks; Jerry Duhovic; Anthony Mlsetich; Jim Knight; Brian Campbell Cc: Ross, Randy Ellen;1 ohyllisglantz@verizon.net; dora; Randy; Joel Rojas; Greg Pfost; Ara Mihranian; CC; wanpingyuyu; Rob Kautz; Danise Holloway; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; Carolynn Petru; Ara Mlhranian; Sandra Ishman; Tom Defazio; Andrew Jensen Subject: RE: Continuing Construction by the Andersons on Sea Ridge Circle in Rancho Palos Verdes Hi Paul, I thought the construction permit for Anderson house the side near my house expired already. Did you issue them another permit? Today I saw they are taking out ground and re do everything. There are so much dust and noise our kids cannot evc-n stny nt home. Nothing beinr 'hanc' d since we complain about the issue three years ago. Construction still going on and our daily life still get interrupted . \Ne a re all tax payer for city of Rancho Palos Verdes, and you do nothing to protect residents safety and right. Please be advised the construction workers are smoking in front of our house and Tang's house. It is really dry these days which can causing fire, very dangerous. Dora Zhang 32033 Searidce Circk From: Paul Christman [mailto:Paulc;@rpv.com] Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 10:50 AM To: Ross, Bruce; Susan Brooks; Jerry Duhovic; Anthony Misetlch; Jim Knight; Brian Campbell Cc: Dora Ngan; Ross, Randy Ellen; phyllisglantz@yerizon.net; dora; Randy; Joel Rojas; Greg Pfost; Ara Mihranian; CC; wanpingyuyu; Rob Kautz; Danise Holloway; Carol Lynch <dynch@rwglaw.com>; Carolynn Petru; Ara Mlhranian; Sandra Ishman; Tom Defazio; Andrew Jensen; Paul Christman Subject: RE: Continuing Construction by the Andersons on Sea Ridge Circle in Rancho Palos Verdes Hi Bruce, I wanted to let you know that Staff has been researching other cities Ordinances, along with some additional information that we received related to the length of time allowed and penalties for certain ongoing construction projects. Staff has met wil 1i t ':. ~ City Manager and the City Attorney, and intends to present recommendations to the City Council at the Tuesd;~'/ i.1c: :. 'r 71h City Council Meeting. You requesteci to be Informed of what additional action is proposed. The Staff report and proposals for consideration by the Council will be made available for all to review by the Thursday (10/2/14) before the meeting. Thanks, Paul From: Ross, Bruce [1.:_1ailto:bruce.ross@blross.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 3:36 PM To: Susan Brooks; Jerry Duhovic; Anthony Misetich; Jim Knight; Brian Campbell Cc: Paul Christman; Dora Ngan; Ross, Randy Ellen; phyllisglantz@verizon.net; dora; Randy; Joel Rojas; Greg Pfost; Ara Mihranian; CC; wanpingyuyu; Rob Kautz; Danise Holloway; Carol lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com> Subject: Continuing Construction by the Andersons on Sea Ridge Circle in Rancho Palos Verdes 2 2-35 Dear Council Members of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, On September 1, 2013, Dr. Joseph Anderson stood before you and said that he would be finished with construction on his house on Sea Ridge Circle in Rancho Palos Verdes "within a month or two". It is now a year later and construction continues at full force despite a Resolution passed by the City Council stating that no new permits would be issued if the construction on existing permits was not completed on projects that have gone on for more than four years. We are aware that the City gave a 90 day extension in January of 2014, but that is long passed as well. Those of us who have lived through the more than five years of construction on the Anderson house have been told often that Dr. Anderson was going to be done in a month or two. As has been proven through the Council's own experience, these statements cannot be relied upon. We believe that now is the time the Council must take additional action. We suggest the following possibilities: Pirst, the Council could pass an ordinance imposing a penalty for every day until the Andersons complete construction of the projects they have undertaken. Second, the Council can seek to put into place a receiver or other professional to manage the construction to its completion. Leaving the matters in the discretion of the Andersons and on their timellne has proven to be unacceptable. Please let us know what additional action you propose taking. Since it has been a full year since the matter was taken up before you, it is clear that action at this time is required. Bruce L. Ross 32026 Sea Ridge Circle Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-8881 3 2-36 Paul Christman From: Sent: To: Cc: Susan Brooks Wednesday, September 17, 2014 2:37 PM Dora Ngan Phyllis Glantz; Paul Christman; Ross, Bruce; Jerry Duhovic; Anthony Misetich; Jim Knight; Brian Campbell; Ross, Randy Ellen; dora; Randy; Joel Rojas; Greg Pfost; Ara Mihranian; CC; wanpingyuyu; Rob Kautz; Danise Holloway; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; Carolynn Petru; Sandra Ishman; Tom DeFazio; Andrew Jensen Subject: Re: Continuing Construction by the Andersons on Sea Ridge Circle in Rancho Palos Verdes Dora ( et al), I am so very sorry for this ongoing problem. This sounds torturous. Staff has pledged to present viable alternatives for Council to consider for the October 7th meeting. We all want this to stop, but are clearly not as compromised as you folks on Sea Ridge Circle. Regards, Susan Susan Brooks, Councilwoman Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca (310) 541-2971 On Sep 17, 2014, at 12:51 PM, "Dora Ngan" <dora@APOLLOEMB.COM>wrote: Dear All, This is kind of noise we have to live with. You only listen to this 20 seconds, imagine this noise is next to our window on and off 8 hours everyday last 6 years, no to mention all the dust that is covering our pool . Dora Zhang From: Phyllis Glantz [mailto:pbyllisglantz@verizon.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 12:35 PM To: Dora Ngan; 'Paul Christman'; 'Ross, Bruce'; 'Susan Brooks'; 'Jerry Duhovic'; 'Anthony Misetich'; 'Jim Knight'; 'Brian Campbell' Cc: 'Ross, Randy Ellen'; dora; 'Randy'; 'Joel Rojas'; 'Greg Pfost'; 'Ara Mihranian'; 'CC'; 'wanpingyuyu'; 'Rob Kautz'; 'Danise Holloway'; clynch@rwglaw.com; 'Carolynn Petru'; 'Ara 1 2-37 Mihranian'; 'Sandra Ishman'; 'Tom DeFazio'; 'Andrew Jensen' Subject: RE: Continuing Construction by the Andersons on Sea Ridge Circle in Rancho Palos Verdes Dear RPV Officials, Unfortunately, we are now into the 6th year (it began in June 2009-you can check the building permits) of the ongoing major construction next door to us at the Anderson's residence. It's business as usual with the noise, clutter and filth coming from their house and lot. Every morning (except Sundays) we are awakened to the sound of a mechanical saw cutting their stones. l\ or very pleasant, especially not in this hot weather. No resident of RPV should have to endure this coming from a next door neighbor for such a long period of time with no end in sight. We understand that the Andersons have applied for additional building permits which the city has denied at this time because of the passing of the Urgency Ordinance by the City Council last October. If and when the Andersons complete their current -outstanding building permits (we were told they .all expire in Feb. 2015), it is urgent and compelling that the city does not issue any new permits which would continue this neighborhood nightmare. When will the neighbors of the Andersons on Sea Ridge Circle be able to enjoy their homes in peace and tranquility? Please advise, Phyllis & Bill Glantz 3::?fl~-l Sea Ridge Circle From: Dora Ngan [mailto:dora@APOLLOEMB.COM] Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 2:54 PM To: Paul Christman; Ross, Bruce; Susan Brooks; Jerry Duhovic; Anthony Misetich; Jim Knight; Brian Campbell Cc: Ross, Randy Ellen; phyllisglantz@verizon.net<mailto:phyllisglantz@verizon.net>; dora; R:mdy; Joel Rojas; Greg Pfost; Ara Mihranian; CC; wanpingyuyu; Rob Kautz; Danise Holloway; C:!nil Lynch <clvnch@rwglaw.com<mailto:clynch@rwglaw.com>>; Carolynn Petru; Ara 11 i!iranian; Sandra Ishman; Tom DeFazio; Andrew Jensen Suhjl'Ct: RE: Continuing Construction by the Andersons on Sea Ridge Circle in Rancho Palos Ven ks Hi P:ml. I tb011ght the construction permit for Anderson house the side near my house expired air•':!• ly. Did you issue them another permit? Today I saw they are taking out ground and re do everything. There arc so much dust and noise our kids cannot even stay at home. Not'1ing being changed since we complain about the issue three years ago. Construction still going on and our daily life still get interrupted. We are all tax payer for city of Rancho Palos V L'r~ ks, and you do nothing to protect residents safety and right. Please be advised the construction workers are smoking in front of our house and Tang's 2 2-38 house. lt is really dry these days which can causing fire, very dangerous. Dorn Zhang 32033 Scaridgc Circle From: Paul Christman [mailto:PaulC@rpv.com] Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 10:50 AM To: Ross. Bruce; Susan Brooks; Jerry Duhovic; Anthony Misetich; Jim Knight; Brian Campbell Cc: Dora Ngan; Ross, Randy Ellen; phvU~g.l.'.ll!.!Z..(f~lverizon.net<mailto:phyllisglantz@verizon.net>; dora; Randy; Joel Rojas; Greg Pfost; Ara l\1ihranian; CC; wanpingyuyu; Rob Kautz; Danise Holloway; Carol Lynch <clynch1<i:rw!.!law.com<mailto:clynch@rwglaw.com>>; Carolynn Petru; Ara Mihranian; Sandra Ishman; Tom Defazio; Andrew Jensen; Paul Christman Subject: RE: Continuing Construction by the Andersons on Sea Ridge Circle in Rancho Palos Verdes. Hi Drucc. I wnnted to Jct you know that Staff has been researching other cities Ordinances, along with some additional information that we received related to the length of time allowed and penalties for cc11ain ongoing construction projects. Staff has met with the City Manager and the City Attorney, and intends to present recommendations to the City Council at the Tuesday October 7th City Council Meeting. You requested to be infonned of what additional action is proposed. The Staff report and proposals for consideration by the Council will be made available for all to review by the Thursday (I 0/2/14) before the meeting. Thanks, J>nu l From: Ross. Bruce [mailto:bruce.ross@blross.com] Scn1: W edncsday, September 03, 2014 3:36 PM To: Susan Brooks; Jc1Ty Duhovic; Anthony Misetich; Jim Knight; Brian Campbell Cc: Paul Christman; Dora Ngan; Ross, Randy Ellen; Q!~.~iisl'.l;iDJ!:~i·vcTizl)n.net<mailto:phyllisglantz@verizon.net>; dora; Randy; Joel Rojas; Greg Pf0~ t: Ara l\lihranian; CC; wanpingyuyu; Rob Kautz; Danise Holloway; Carol Lynch <~l;·n~h 1?~rn:_gJaw.com<mailto:clynch@rwglaw.com>> Subject: Continuing Construction by the Andersons on Sea Ridge Circle in Rancho Palos Verdes Dear Council l\kmbers of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, On Sept em her I, 2013, Dr. Joseph Anderson stood before you and said that he would be finished wi'.h construction on his house on Sea Ridge Circle in Rancho Palos Verdes "within a month or t\\'tl 11 • It : " no\\' a year later and construction continues at full force despite a Resolution passed by the Cty Council stating that no new permits would be issued if the construction on existing pennits wa" not completed on projects that have gone on for more than four years. We are aware that the Ci~y gave a !.JO d<\y extension in January of2014, but that is long passed as well. Those of us who have lived through the more than five years of construction on the Anderson 3 2-39 house have been told often that Dr. Anderson was going to be done in a month or two. As has been proven through the Council's own experience, these statements cannot be relied upon. We bclieve that now is the time the Council must take additional action. We suggest the foJIO\ving possibilities: First, the Council could pass an ordinance imposing a penalty for every day until the Andersons complete construction of the projects they have undertaken. Second, the Council can seek to put into place a receiver or other professional to manage the construction to its completion. Leaving the matters in the discretion of the Andersons and on their timeline has proven to be unacceptable. Please kt us know what additional action you propose taking. Since it has been a full year since the matter was taken up before you, it is clear that action at this time is required. Bruce L. Ross 3'.;026 SL'a Ridge Circle R:mcho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 31 D-544-8881 <l\1G '3350.mov> 4 2-40 Paul Christman From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Hi Dora Paul Christman Tuesday, September 16, 2014 5:16 PM Dora Ngan Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; Joel Rojas; Ara Mihranian; Sandra Ishman; Tom Defazio; Andrew Jensen; Carolynn Petru; Paul Christman RE: Continuing Construction by the Andersons on Sea Ridge Circle in Rancho Palos Verdes No new permits were issued and you are correct that one did recently expire. They still have 3 older permits that allow work to be done up until February. We will be visiting the: site Thursday morning to take a look. At the meeting I mentioned below, the matter will be discussed and considered. Your input is valuable and very much important. This issue is of significance to us which is why it is on the agenda. We have and are considering modifying more of our codes in an attempt to address this project, and any others like it that may arise in the future. Thanks, Paul From: Dora Ngan [mailto:dora@APOUOEMB.COM] Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 2:54 PM To: Paul Christman; Ross, Bruce; Susan Brooks; Jerry Duhovic; Anthony Misetich; Jim Knight; Brian campbell CC: Ross, Randy Ellen; phyllisglantz@verizon.net; dora; Randy; Joel Rojas; Greg Pfost; Ara Mlhranlan; CC; wanpingyuyu; Rob Kautz; Oanise Holloway; Carol Lynch <dynch@rwglaw.com>; carolynn Petru; Ara Mlhranian; Sandra Ishman; Tom DeFazio; Andrew Jensen SUbject: RE: Continuing Construction by the Andersons on Sea Ridge Cirde in Rancho Palos Verdes Hi Paul, I thought the cor~<:trn '. .. ;n permit for Anderson house the side near my house expired already. Did you issue them another perrnif:' Tod , I saw they are taking out ground and re do everything. There are so much dust and noise our kids cannot even sta·; .:t horne. Nothing being ch.:rnc :' -;ince we complain about the issue three years ago. Construction still going on and our daily life still get interrupted . \Ne are all tax payer for city of Rancho Palos Verdes, and you do nothing to protect residents safety and right. Please be advised the ·onstruction workers are smoking in front of our house and Tang's house. It is really dry these days which r 1 11 r.1usir' · fire, very dangerous. Dora Zhang 32033 Searidge Circle 1 2-41 From: Paul Christman [mailto:PaulC@rpv.com] Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 10:50 AM To: Ross, Bruce; Susan Brooks; Jerry Duhovic; Anthony Misetich; Jim Knight; Brian Campbell Cc: Dora Ngan; Ross, Randy Ellen; phyllisglantz@verizon.net; dora; Randy; Joel Rojas; Greg Pfost; Ara Mihranian; CC; wanpingyuyu; Rob Kautz; Danise Holloway; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; Carolynn Petru; Ara Mihranian; Sandra Ishman; Tom Defazio; Andrew Jensen; Paul Christman Subject: RE: Continuing Construction by the Andersons on Sea Ridge arde in Rancho Palos Verdes Hi Bruce, I wanted to lr1 ~ yo ti I· :'.:-.v that Staff has been researching other cities Ordinances, along with some additional informatio•1 · -..,, v1P: __ .. ~ived related to the length of time allowed and penalties for certain ongoing construction projects. Staff has mf'!t wit ii th:~ City Manager and the City Attorney, and intends to present recommendations to the City Council at the Tue~<i ·~· Octoi' 'f 711 ' City Council Meeting. You requested to be informed of what additional action is proposed. The Staff report and proposals for consideration by the Council will be made available for all to review by the Thursday (10/2/14) before the meeting. Thanks, Pa11! From: Ross, Bruce (r":~;ii:to:bruce.ross@blross.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 3:36 PM To: Susan BrMks; Jerry Duhovic; Anthony Misetich; Jim Knight; Brian Campbell Cc: Paul Christman; Dora Ngan; Ross, Randy Ellen; phyllisglantz@verizon.net; dora; Randy; Joel Rojas; Greg pfost; Ara Mlhranian; CC; wanpingyuyu; Rob Kautz; Danlse Holloway; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com> Subject: Continuing Construction by the Andersons on Sea Ridge Circle in Rancho Palos Verdes Dear Council Members of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, On September 1, 2013, Dr. Joseph Anderson stood before you and said that he would be finished with constructior. on his house on Sea Ridge Circle in Rancho Palos Verdes "within a month or two". It is now a year later and construction continues at full force despite a Resolution passed by the City Council stC!'ing that no new permits would be issued if the construction on existing permits was not completed on projects that have gone on for more than four years. We are aware that the City gave a 90 day ext0nsion in January of 2014, but that is long passed as well. Those of us who have lived through the more than five years of construction on the Anderson house have been told often that Dr. Anderson was going to be done in a month or two. As has been proven through t'"'i; Council's own experience, these statements cannot be relied upon. We believ'"' that now is the time the Council must take additional action. We suggest the following possibi!a:c : First, the Council could pass an ordinance imposing a penalty for every day until the AnderSC'!l!:' complete construction of the projects they have undertaken. Second, the Council can seek to r' ·~ into place a receiver or other professional to manage the construction to its completion. Leaving t'1c matters in the discretion of the Andersons and on theirtimellne has proven to be unaccep:, 'Je. 2 2-42 Please let us know what additional action you propose taking. Since it has been a full year since the matter was taken up before you, it is clear that action at this time is required. Bruce L. Ross 32026 Sea Ridge Circle Rancho P::ilos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-8881 3 2-43 Paul Christman From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Paul, Ross, Bruce <bruce.ross@blross.com> Saturday, September 13, 2014 8:08 AM Paul Christman Susan Brooks; Jerry Duhovic; Anthony Misetich; Jim Knight; Brian Campbell; Dora Ngan; Ross, Randy Ellen; phyllisglantz@verizon.net; dora; Randy; Joel Rojas; Greg Pfost; Ara Mihranian; CC; wanpingyuyu; Rob Kautz; Danise Holloway; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; Carolynn Petru; Sandra Ishman; Tom Defazio; Andrew Jensen Re: Continuing Construction by the Andersons on Sea Ridge Circle in Rancho Palos Verdes Thank you for. keeping us informed. It is much appreciated. Bruce Bruce L. Ross President Bruce L. RQ:$S &_(:QJDJ1.8ny 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 Nror, please immediately notify the sender and delete all copies of this email message along with all attachments. Thank you. On Thu, S C'p 11, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Paul Christman <PaulC@mv.com> wrote: Hi Bruce, I wanted tr1 let y":: ~~r '.w that Staff has been researching other cities Ordinances, along with some additional informativn that we received related to the length of time allowed and penalties for certain ongoing construction projects. Staff has rn0t v 1ith the City Manager and the City Attorney, and intends to present recommendations to the City Council at the Tues:!;;iy October 7th City Council Meeting. 1 2-44 You requested to be informed of what additional action is proposed. The Staff report and proposals for consideration by the Council will be made available for all to review by the Thursday (10/2/14) before the meeting. Thanks, Paul From: Ross, Bruce [mailto:bruce.ross@blross.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 3:36 PM To: Susan Brooks; Jerry Duhovic; Anthony Misetich; Jim Knight; Brian Campbell Cc: Paul Christman; Dora Ngan; Ross, Randy Ellen; phyllisglantz@verizon.net; dora; Randy; Joel Rojas; Greg Pfost; Ara Mihranian; CC; wanpingyuyu; Rob Kautz; Danise Holloway; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com> Subject: Continuing Construction by the Andersons on Sea Ridge Circle in Rancho Palos Verdes Dear Council Members of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, On September 1, 2013, Dr. Joseph Anderson stood before you and said that he would be finished with construction on his house on Sea Ridge Circle in Rancho Palos Verdes "within a month or two". It is now a year later and construction continues at full force despite a Resolution passed by the City Council stating that no new permits would be issued if the construction on existing permits was not completed on projects that have gone on for more than four years. We are aware that the City gave a 90 day extension in January of 2014, but that is long passed as well. Those of us who have lived through the more than five years of construction on the Anderson house have been told often that Dr. Anderson was going to be done In a month or two. As has been proven throug!1 the Council's own experience, these statements cannot be relied upon. We bel!cve that now is the time the Council must take additional action. We suggest the following possibilities: First, the Council could pass an ordinance imposing a penalty for every day until the Andersons complete construction of the projects they have undertaken. Second, the Council can seek to put Into place a receiver or other professional to manage the construction to its completion. Leavin: the matters in the discretion of the Andersons and on their timeline has proven to be unacc' . ·table. · Please let us know what additional action you propose taking. Since it has been a full year since the matter v.1as taken up before you, It is clear that action at this time is required. Bruce L. Ross 32026 ~ea Ridge Circle Raner"' Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-Sl ':8881 2 2-45 Paul Christman From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Carol W. Lynch <CLynch@rwglaw.com> Friday, September 05, 2014 6:50 PM 'Rob Kautz' Anthony Misetich; Susan Brooks; Jerry Duhovic; Brian Campbell; Jim Knight Carolynn Petru; Paul Christman; Joel Rojas; Ara Mihranian RE: Continuing Construction by the Andersons on Sea Ridge Circle in Rancho Palos Verdes Thank you so much for providing these examples. Staff and I will review these examples as well as some of the examples that I found and present options to the City Council. From: Rob Kautz [mailto:rfkautz@gmail.com] sent: Friday, September OS, 2014 6:33 PM To: carol W. Lynch Cc: Anthony Misetich; Susan Brooks; Jeny Duhovic; Brian campbell; Jim Knight; carolynn Petru; Paul Christman; Joel Rojas; Ara Mihranian Subject: Re: Continuing Construction by the Andersons on Sea Ridge Circle in Rancho Palos Verdes Hi Carol, I appreciate that you are researching various municipal codes, and wanted to provide this additional infonnation to further your efforts. Unfortunately, I have not located the name of the individual that I originally mentioned as of yet, but the better half in our household (my wife Danise) already went online and found an excellent example in the San Bruno municipal code here in California. The attachment to this email from the San Bruno code is nice in that it is a stand alone section which addresses nearly all the issues around time limits, and it could be adapted to an existing code relatively easily. It takes a simpler approach to defining and calculating the fines than what I was originally suggesting, and it is fairer in that the maximum construction time is set based on the size of the job, with a range from 12 months for smaller projects up to 36 months for projects exceeding $3 million. The fmes are material and start at $200 per day and increase to $1000 per day after 120 days with a cap of $250,000. In addition, the attachment from Atherton is a nice example of a one page notification that can be done when pennits are pulled to avoid misunderstanding. I also found it interesting that Atherton defines the time limit based on the square footage involved in the project rather than the project cost. The square footage would be more easily detennined by the building department; the project cost may be a more reliable indicator of construction complexity which often drives the timelinc in constmction. I hope these examples will be helpful in detennining the right approach for RPV. My main concern would be to have an cffccti\-c deterrent which I believe requires a material penalty. Regards. Rob 1 2-46 On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Carol W. Lynch <CLvnch@rwglaw.com> wrote: We certainly do ncit v:lsh to impose on your time and can do some global research on line. From: Rob K [mailto:rfkautz@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 2:27 PM To: carol W. Lynch Cc: Anthony Misetich; Susan Brooks; Jerry Duhovic; Brian campbell; Jim Knight; carolynn Petru; Paul Christman; Joel Rojas; Ara Mlhranian Subject: Re: Continuing Construction by the Andersons on Sea Ridge Circle in Rancho Palos Verdes Carol, Thank you for your interest. I do not know the name off hand, but I may be able to find out. It was a few years ago in a town back east, and I will have to sec if I can reconnect with th,em and then get back to you. In tem1s of how this might apply to the Andersons, I would suggest looking at including a remediation provision to address unreasonable construction existing at the time the rules are enacted. Regards, Rob On Sep 5, 2014, at 12:34 PM, 11 Carol W. Lynch" <CLynch@rwglaw.com> wrote: 2 2-47 Hello Mr. Kautz: Please let me introduce myself. My name is Carol Lynch, and l am the City Attorney for Rancho Palos Verdes. We had hoped, based on representations from the Andersons and the ordinance that the Council approved previously, that this project would have been completed by now. Obviously, this is not the case. I thought your discussion of the content of the ordinance that your co-worker mentioned was very interestjng. Do you happen to know the municipality to which your co-worker was referring? I imagine that I would be able to obtain a copy of that ordinance so we could evaluate its effectiveness to the Anderson sit u;Jtion, as well as to other similar situations that may arise in the future, and present options for consideration by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council. Regards, Carol Lynch From: Rob K [mailto:rfkautz@gmail.com] sent: Friday, September OS, 201412:05 PM To: Anthony Misetich; Susan Brooks; Jerry Duhovic; Brian campbell; Jim Knight Cc: Ross, Bruce; Paul Christman; Dora Ngan; Ross, Randy Ellen; phyllisglantz@verizon.net; dora; Randy; Joel Rojas; Greg Pfost; Ara Mihranlan; CC; wanplngyuyu; Danise Holloway; carol w. Lynch Subje'"'':~ Re: Continuing Construction by the Andersons on Sea Ridge Orcle in Rancho Palos Verdes Dear Counci [ Members: My wi r\? and I moved into our home at 32072 Pacifica Drive a little over three years ago. We are dircc: ~_'across the ravine from the southeast side of the Andersons' home and appreciate the effo11s made to date to bring this construction saga to a close. 3 2-48 I would like to provide some additional insight into the situation and a specific example from my experience for potential city council action that would prevent this type of situation from developing in the future. For three years we have been looking at debris and construction materials scattered across the rear slope of the Andersons' yard and piled on the rear patio. Starting approximately eighteen months ago, we started hearing the sound of sawing stone using what appear to be a table saw on the rear patio. This is a plainly audible screeching sound which causes us to close all the windows and refrain from using our back porch occurring 3-4 days each week, including most Saturdays, for over a year. It has become a joke with people who do work around our house as to whether it will be a peaceful or annoying day depending on whether the stone fabrication will be undenvay at the Anderson's that day. This is also an annoyance for everyone who walks the McBride Trail which passes directly behind our home and the Anderson's home. I would like to share with you the experience of a co-worker of mine who's municipality had an ordinance that addressed these issues and put the onus on the person causing the problem. Although I do not have legal training and may misstate some details, they had an effective "unreasonable construction" ordinance which based on my conversations at the time was very interesting in the way it built self-enforcement into the process through these basic outlines: *A limitation on issuance of building permits such that after a period of three years during which a pcnn it was issued or outstanding, a quiet period of eighteen months would be required prior to issuing an additional permit for the property. * A significant fine for construction extending for more than three years after a permit had been issued, assessed per-day-per-linear foot of external wall under construction and per-day-per- square foot of external space occupied by construction materials, debris, or equipment, including workers' cars not parked in the resident's driveway. *A commercially persuasive fine for the outdoor fabrication of building materials (or other building activity that should be conducted in an area zoned for manufacturing) assessed per day after four weeks of consistent fabrication. *Relief from fines to be given in a maximum of three month increments only if either city council pro\'idcs a general relief period for all residents following a natural disaster, or if a resident makes un in-person appearance at a city council meeting explaining compelling localized c\'cnts that are causing the continuation of unreasonable construction (such as a hill slide or other disaster) and that justify partially resetting the three year time clock. 4 2-49 *A requirement that notice be given in the permit application that no further notification is required for the fines associated with "unreasonable construction" to be assessed and collected in arrears. *Fines to be collected prior to clearing any outstanding permits; fines and interest collectible via a lien on the prope11y that automatically springs to life once the building department determines unreasonable construction fines are delinquent. *An escalation in the per-day fine after each successive month period; substantial interest assessed quarterly on unpaid fines; fines and interest due as incurred. My co~workcr's experience in their neighborhood was that the threat of the significant fmes and substantial interest was enough to cause almost every project to be wrapped up externally with focus well nhcnd or the three yer limit, especially because projects can be organized to have ongoing interior design and interior remodeling work beyond the three year point if necessary. The story I heard was about a resident who had turned up at a city council meeting to request relief for ninety days due to a water main break that had flooded their basement near the end of their new home's construction. They were granted relief after showing also that construction had not stmted until nine months after the issuance of their initial permit. This approai:h seems to me to put the onus on citizens to plan ahead and get the work done while also allowinµ substantial property improvement to progress. This approach also avoids neighbors ha\'ing to get involved and the community :friction that can ensue. Lastly, since these fines are colkdiblc ultimately in the sale of the property, it creates a real incentive but avoids the city having to take direct collection activity and nullifies pleas ofan inability to pay the fines. I am writing bcl'ausc adopting this type of ordinance can prevent problems in the future, whereas the C<'ur~i: ul' a pri\'atc civil legal action under nuisance statutes does not seem to be a viable ahcrrath·c: it i:; \'i11t1ally impossible to prove financial damages are caused by an annoyance, the costs of lili~.it:<'n make it an untenable remedy for most individuals, and it creates a difficult, personal con :·1, 1ntat ion with unpredictable results. Our experience in Sea Crest with this construction project shows me that there is a real life need for th;~ type (1r Ndinance. If your staff members are going to work on this and they would like total': t.1 nll' :1'.'nut my thoughts and experience, I would be happy to do some further thinking on ti: is t 1 as~i:;t i:1 drafting language and estimating effective levies. 5 2-50 Unreasonable cnnstruction should be discouraged by effective fines and substantial interest penalties. This would ensure that property owners give proper consideration to their neighbors and that the City Council will most likely not have to hear about this type of problem again, except in circumstances that are truly unusual or during general disasters where general relief can be granted in ;idvance. Thank you again for taking an interest in our predicament. Best regards. Rob Kautz On Sep 3, 2014, at 4:57 PM, Susan Brooks <Susan.Brooks@rpv.com> wrote: Thank you, Bruce. I'm sorry for this ongoing dilemma. Therefore, I'm requesting that staff agendize this matter as an update from the previous Council action with suggested next steps to address the situation at the Anderson property. Regards, Susan Brooks Susan Rrooks Councilwoman, Rancho Palos Verdes {310 )_s.11-291.1. 6 2-51 From: Ross, Bruce <bruce.ross@blross.com> S<?nt: Wednesday, September 3, 2014 3:35 PM To: Susan Brooks; Jerry Duhovic; Anthony Misetich; Jim Knight; Brian Campbell Cc: Paul Christman; Dora Ngan; Ross, Randy Ellen; phyllisglantz@verizon.net: dora; Randy; Joel Rojas; Greg Pfost; Ara Mihranian; CC; wanplngyuyu; Rob Kautz; Danise Holloway; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com> Subject: Continuing Construction by the Andersons on Sea Ridge Circle in Rancho Palos Verdes rear Council Members of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, O:i September 1, 2013, Dr. Joseph Anderson stood before you and said tt:at he '.Vould be finished with construction on his house on Sea Ridge Crclo in f~ancho Palos Verdes "within a month or two11 • It is now a year later and construction continues at full force despite a Resolution passed by the City Council stating that no new permits would b0 is~t !cd if the construction on existing permits was not completed on r ::Jee:.:-; th0t have gone on for more than four years. We are aware that tl18 City gnve a 90 day extension in January of 2014, but that is long p:ssc~i ;'.::; well. ThY''3 cf us who have lived through the more than five years of construction on the Anderson house have been told often that Dr. f..ndcrson was going to be done in a month or two. As has been proven t' '.:-ouc:h the Council's own experience, these statements cannot be relied \" 'c bi:: c 11e that now is the time the Council must take additional action. V ·:~~:'~A~ .:~t the following possibilities: First, the Council could pass an c-::1nance imposing a penalty for every day until the Andersons complete c ·0 :· •:·'.!r:l:::in of the projects they' have undertaken. Second, the Council c ·: :1 : ·cc k to put into place a receiver or other professional to manage the cn'.'_,:~uction to its completion. Leaving the matters in the discretion of the I ;cJe:··::ons and on their timeline has proven to be unacceptable. F'•::-::r' 1et us know what additional action you propose taking. Since it has l · ::~ :. '11:1 './Gar since the matter was taken up before you, it is clear that 2 -'. .. ':· · l '.'"s time is required. r ·:'.:I I. :::0ss 7 2-52 3'.102G Sea Ridge Circle P;inch~ Pv~os Verdes, CA 90275 310-54•1-8881 Click here to report this email as spam. NOTICJ-::: Thi:-: l·nmnmnication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you are not tl·..: ink:"Ji:d recipient of this communication, or an employee or agent responsible for deliverin~'. th is communication to the intended recipient, please advise the sender by reply email and immL·di;1t1,:!y delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you. Rob Kautz 310-418-8016 8 2-53 Paul Christman From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject Dear Mr. Rojas, Ross, Bruce <bruce.ross@blross.com> Friday, September 05, 2014 11:46 AM Joel Rojas Paul Christman; Dora Ngan; Ross, Randy Ellen; phyllisglantz@verizon.net; dora; Randy; wanpingyuyu; Rob Kautz; Danise Holloway Re: Continuing Construction by the Andersons on Sea Ridge Circle in Rancho Palos Verdes Thank you for following through. Please let us know if we can provide any additional information. Bruce Bruce L. Ross President Bruce L. Ross &.~ompan~ 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 ls 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 Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Joel Rojas <JoelR@rpv.com> wrote: Dear Mr. Ross The City BuildinP n;Tichl and I will be meeting with the city attorney to discuss your ideas so that we can present something to tile City Coundl fo.r consideration. We'll contact you if we have any questions or need your input. Joel Rojas From: Ross, flruce [mailto:bruce.ross@blross.com] Sent: Wedr:esl.!Jy, September 03, 2014 3:36 PM To: Susan Brooks; Jerry Duhovic; Anthony Misetich; Jim Knight; Brian Campbell Cc: Paul Christman; Dora Ngan; Ross, Randy Ellen; phyllisglantz@verizon.net; dora; Randy; Joel Rojas; Greg pfost; Ara Mihranian; CC; wanpingyuyu; Rob Kautz; Danise Holloway; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com> · Subject: Continuing Construction by the Andersons on Sea Ridge Circle in Rancho Palos Verdes 1 2-54 Dear Council Members of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, On September 1, 2013, Dr. Joseph Anderson stood before you and said that he would be finished with construction on his house on Sea Ridge Circle in Rancho Palos Verdes "within a month or two". It is now a year later and construction continues at full force despite a Resolution passed by the City Council stating that no new permits would be Issued if the construction on existing permits was not completed on projects that have gone on for more than four years. We are aware that the City gave a 90 day extension in January of 2014, but that is long passed as well. Those of us who have lived through the more than five years of construction on the Anderson house have been told often that Dr. Anderson was going to be done in a month or two. As has been proven through the Council's own experience, these statements cannot be relied upon. We believe th8t now is the time the Counci.I must take additional action. We suggest the following possibilities: First, the Council could pass an ordinance imposing a penalty for every day until the Andersons c:amplete construction of the projects they have undertaken. Second, the Council can seek to put i~to place a receiver or other professional to manage the construction to its completion. Leaving the matters in the discretion of the Andersons and on their timeline has proven to be unacceptat!e. Please let us l:now what additional action you propose taking. Since it has been a full year since the matter was taken up before you, it is clear that action at this time is required. Bruce L. P')sc; 32026 Se:i r:dge Circle Rancho Pal:-s Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-0 c ".'._ 2 2-55 Paul Christman From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Dora <apolloembroidery@gmail.com> Friday, February 14, 2014 8:51 PM Paul Christman; 'Dora Ngan'; 'Ross, Bruce'; Susan Brooks; 'Ross, Randy Ellen'; phyllisglantz@verizon.net; 'dora'; 'Randy' Joel Rojas; Greg Pfost; Ara Mihranian; CC RE: 32039 Searidge IMG_1424.JPG; IMG_1422.JPG; IMG_1420.JPG; IMG_1425.JPG Dear Paul, Joel, Greg, Susan and Ara, I need to report an urgent issue. Anderson(house 32039) has started to tear down our common fence wall illegally. This whole week, the workers are watching me leaving home and start to tear down the wall that dividing our property line. The action is really sneaky and cover by a trash can. Tonight I come home and move the trash can and see the wall was taken down !itt!e by little. Now has been taken down two feet from original. This need to stop right away, it is serious issue. They are destroying our property, I need the wall to restore back to the way it was. Urgently await for your response! We had been suffered too long, you guys are paid to protect RPV citizen and I hope you do the right thing for us. Dora Zhang From: Paul Christman [mailto:PaulC@rpv.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 11:48 AM To: Dora Ngan; Ross, Br:.JCe; Susan Brooks; Ross, Randy Ellen; phyllisglantz@verizon.net; dora; Randy Cc: Joel Rojas; Paul Christman; Greg Pfost; Ara Mihranian; CC Subject: 32039 Searidge Dear Sea Ridge Circle Neighbors As you know, the City Council adopted an ordinance in response to the negative impacts associated with lengthy construction projects within the City. The new ordinance prevents the issuance of new building permits or extensions to previously issued permits where construction has been ongoing for at least four years with the following three exceptions. 1. Emergency Work 2. Work that is necessary to preserve the integrity of the structure 3. Work that, in the opinion of the Building Official, will mitigate impacts to an adjacent property Recently, the property owner at 32039 Sea Ridge Circle requested a 180-day extension for Permit No. BLD2012-00329 which was previously issued for the tear down and rebuild of 366 square feet of existing residence and 136 square feet of interior remodeling. Cv2n the new ordinance regulations that have been triggered by the construction at this property, the 180-day e: cnsion request was not automatically granted but was reviewed by the City to see if it met any of the exceptions noted : !Jove. 1 2-56 After careful consideration and consultation with the City Attorney, the extension request was partially denied and partially granted. Specifically, a 90-day extension. was granted for solely work associated with completion of the exterior work on this specific permit. We determined that allowing this exterior work to be completed preserved the integrity of the structure by protecting it from the elements and would mitigate the appearance of an unfinished exterior as observed by the surrounding neighbors and from the public right-of-way. The Permit extension was denied for any interior work related to this permit. I simply wanted to inform you of this action and assure you that we will continue to monitor the construction work at this address. Please be advised that this conditional extension applies to only the above mentioned building permit. However, as time goes on if other permit work is not completed, these other permits will also become subject to the terms of this new ordinance. Sincerely Paul Christman Building Official 2 2-57 Paul Christman From: Sent: To: Cc: Dora Zhang <dorahyl@yahoo.com> Tuesday, April 15, 2014 12:32 PM Paul Christman phyllisglantz@verizon.net; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; Joel Rojas; Carolynn Petru; Ross, Randy Ellen; wanpingyuyu@yahoo.com; CC; Paul Christman; Sandra Ishman; Tom DeFazio; Andrew Jensen Subject: Re: 32039 Searidge Why Anderson couple never consider neighbors but themselves . I feel like I live next to a giant trash can last 6 years. Dust, noise, trucks, strangers and etc. Yesterday I need to wait for big truck to leave in order to back my car out from my garage. You people from City, please do something. Many thanks. Dora Zhang On 15 Apr, 2014, at 11:44 am, Paul Christman <PaulC@rpv.com> wrote: Hi Phyllis, Thanks for your message informing staff of the inconvenience and driveway obstruction caused by your neighbor's materials delivery person(s). I visited the project twice last week and again this morning in regards to monitoring the work and progress. As you know, I met with you just last week in regards to the noise issues you were experiencing. The central vacuum system motor and canister will be relocated to the interior and the associated noise will be decreased significantly. Once this is done the wall patching in that area can be completed as well. The good news is they have been bringing in dirt and concrete to be used for covering the open tranches. Exterior work is progressing and has improved the appearance of the project to the neighbors. I am working with them within the terms of the urgency ordinance. Prior to the ordinance taking effect, they had already obtained certain permits that allow for work to be done up until February 16, 2015. Under the terms of the new ordinance, no additional permits may be issued for any new work until all existing work permitted under the existing permits is finalized. Staff believes the ordinance has worked to redirect their attention and focus toward completing the exterior and all other work prior to their respective permit expiration deadlines. They were denied a permit extension due to the terms of the ordinance. They have been allowed to complete the exterior work only on a permit under the terms of the ordinance, as staff felt this would help mitigate the impacts to the ;irljzicent properties. 1 2-58 The Anderson's have expressed their frustration both orally and in writing with the conditions and restrictions imposed upon them by staff under the terms of the ordinance. Thanks, Paul 2 2-59 Paul Christman From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Paul, Phyllis Glantz <phyllisglantz@verizon.net> Tuesday, April 15, 2014 12:56 PM Paul Christman Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; Joel Rojas; Carolynn Petru; 'Ross, Randy Ellen'; dorahyl@yahoo.com; wanpingyuyu@yahoo.com; CC; Sandra Ishman; Tom DeFazio; Andrew Jensen RE: 32039 Searidge Thank you for your response to my email of yesterday. I think you could surmise that we were very frustrated. I know that we will have to live with the current situation until "all existing work permitted under the existing permits is finalized". However, our concern is at that point, "when all existing work permitted under the existing permits is finished", will the city be obligated to issue any new permits for which the Andersons might possibly apply? This would in effect start the whole construction process anew with an 18 month permit and a possible 18 month extension of that permit. After almost five years of continuous construction in our neighborhood and next door to our home, we need to be able to look forward to some closure to this issue of continuous construction and not that it could possibly continue into the future under a new string of permits. I would feel much better if the city could address this potential issue. Regards, Phyllis Glantz From: Paul Christman [mailto:PaulC@rpv.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 11:45 AM To: phyllisglantz@verizon.net Cc: carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; Joel Rojas; Carolynn Petru; Ross, Randy Ellen; dorahyl@yahoo.com; wanpingyuyu@yahoo.com; CC; Paul Christman; Sandra Ishman; Tom Defazio; Andrew Jensen Subject: 32039 Searidge Hi Phyllis, Thanks for your message informing staff of the inconvenience and driveway obstruction caused by your neighbor's materials delivery person(s). I visited the project twice last week and again this morning in regards to monitoring the work and progress. As you know, I met with you just last week in regards to the noise issues you were experiencing. The central vacuum system motor and canister will be relocated to the interior and the associated noise will be decreased significantly. Once this is done the wall patching in that area can be completed as well. The good news is they have been bringing in dirt and concrete to be used for covering the open tranches. Exterior work is progressing and has improved the appearance of the project to the neighbors. I am working with them v"''hin the terms of the urgency ordinance. Prior to the ordinance taking effect, they had already obtained certain permits tint ;;ill ow for work to be done up until February 16, 2015. Under the terms of the new ordinance, no additional permits may be issued for any new work until all existing work permitted under the existing permits is finalized. 1 2-60 Staff believes the ordinance has worked to redirect their attention and focus toward completing the exterior and all other work prior to their respective permit expiration deadlines. They were denied a permit extension due to the terms of the ordinance. They have been allowed to complete the exterior work only on a permit under the terms of the ordinance, as staff felt t:1is would help mitigate the impacts to the adjacent properties. The Anderson's have expressed their frustration both orally and in writing with the conditions and restrictions imposed upon them by staff under the terms of the ordinance. Thanks, Paul 2 2-61 Paul Christman From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Paul, Ross, Randy <randy.ross@blross.com> Tuesday, April 15, 2014 2:18 PM Paul Christman Phyllis Glantz; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; Joel Rojas; Carolynn Petru; dorahyl @yahoo.com; wanpingyuyu@yahoo.com; CC; Sandra Ishman; Tom DeFazio; Andrew Jensen Re: 32039 Searidge In response to your last email, in my opinion, the City should be proactive and anticipate the flurry of applications for new permits after February 2015. With no new restrictions on the books, the neighborhood is in jeopardy of additional difficulties. During the City Council meetings leading up to the Urgency Ordinance, the issues regarding the future were discussed and the need was noted for future action. The time to get those restrictions on the books is now. Thanks. Randy Randy Ellen ss CEO Bruce L. Ross & C0mpany 609 Deep Valley Drive, Suite 390 Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274-3629 Office Voice: 310-544-&.8.(?J_ Office Fax: 310-544..:.BS.4.1 Fax to Email: 310-B.02:.Z.5Q~ Cell: 310-850-2239. This message is inten confidential. If you : ail copies of this em; for the use of the addressee(s) and is intended to be privileged and this message in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete along with ail attachments. Thank you On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 1: 54 PM, Paul Christman <PaulC@rpv.com> wrote: Our energy is cutTCP' 1'' · vused on getting them to complete all of the work they started prior to the expiration date. The ctment 1 ·s not restrict additional pennits from being granted after completion of all of the outstanding wo ·:' i o the open pennits. From: Phyllis Glantz [1rn1ilto:pbyllisglantz@verizon.net] Sent: Tuesday, Ar 15. :::'!J 14 12:56 PM 1 2-62 To: Paul Christman Cc: Carol Lynch <clvnch@rwglaw.com>; Joel Rojas; Carolynn Petru; 'Ross, Randy Ellen'; dorahyl@yahoo.cnn3; 2.~'.;_mpii}gyuyu@yahoo.com; CC; Sandra Ishman; Tom DeFazio; Andrew Jensen Subject: RE: 3203(> Sc<iridge Dear Paul, Thank you for your 10 my email of yesterday. I think you could surmise that we were very :frustrated. I know ''.::;t \. ' 11 have to live with the current situation until ''all existing work permitted under the existing permits is fl However, our concern is at that point, "when all existing work permitted under the existing i ! ·; is finished", will the city be obligated to issue any new pennits for which the Andersons might pr,c;sibly apply? This would in effect start the whole constmction process anew with an 18 month permit and a 18 month extension of that permit. After almost five years of continuous construction in otir neighborhood and next door to our home, we need to be able to look forward to some closure to this issue of continuous construction and not that it could possibly continue into the foture under a new string of permits. I would feel much hettcr i r the city could address this potential issue. Regards, Phyllis Glantz From: Paul Christman [m9Jlto:PaulC@rpv.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 11:45 AM To: phyllisglantz@v<;r·izon,nr:;t Cc: Carol Lynch <.Qy·Jch@rwgl<;ilf\l,C.:o.tJJ.>; Joel Rojas; Carolynn Petru; Ross, Randy Ellen; dorahyl@yahoo.com; wanpingyuyu@yahqq,~orn; CC; Paul Christman; Sandra Ishman; Tom Defazio; Andrew Jensen Subject: 32039 Searidge Hi Phyllis, Thanks for your message informing staff of the inconvenience and driveway obstruction caused by your neighbor's materi "delivery pcrson(s). I visited the project twice last week and again this morning in regards to monitoring the\\ ork rind progress. 2 2-63 As you know, I met with you just last week in regards to the noise issues you were experiencing. The central vacuum system motor and canister will be relocated to the interior and the associated noise will be decreased significantly. Once this is done the wall patching in that area can be completed as well. The good news is they have been bringing in cl i rt and concrete to be used for covering the open tranches. Exterior work is progressing and has improved the appearance of the project to the neighbors. I am working with them within the terms of the urgency ordinance. Prior to the ordinance taking effect, they had already obtai 1w I ccrtnin permits that allow for work to be done up until February 16, 2015. Under the terms of the new o: :i :rnncc, no ~idditional permits may be issued for any new work until all existing work permitted under the existing permits is finalized. Staff believes the ordinance has worked to redirect their attention and focus toward completing the exterior and all other work prior to their respective permit expiration deadlines. They were denied a permit extension due to the terms of the ordinance. They have been allowed to complete the exterior work only on a permit under the terms of the ord:n:wcc, ~is stiff felt this would help mitigate the impacts to the adjacent properties. The Anderson's have expressed their frustration both orally and in writing with the conditions and restrictions imposed upon them by staff under the terms of the ordinance. Thanks, Paul 3 2-64 Paul Christman From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Paul, Ross, Randy <randy.ross@blross.com> Tuesday, April 15, 2014 2:18 PM Paul Christman Phyllis Glantz; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; Joel Rojas; Carolynn Petru; dorahyl @yahoo.com; wanpingyuyu@yahoo.com; CC; Sandra Ishman; Tom DeFazio; Andrew Jensen Re: 32039 Searidge In response to your last email, in my opinion, the City should be proactive and anticipate the flurry of applications for new permits after February 2015. With no new restrictions on the books, the neighborhood is in jeopardy of additional difficulties. During the City Council meetings leading up to the Urgency Ordinance, the issues regarding the future were discussed and the need was noted for future action. The time to get those restrictions on the books is now. Thanks. Randy Randy Ellen CEO Bruce L. Ross & Company 609 Deep Valley Drive, Suite 390 Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274-3629 Office Voice: 310-544-8881 Office Fax: 310-544-8$.11 Fax to Email: 310-802-7508 Cell: 310-850-223<_! This message is intf>nded so!e!y for the use of the addressee(s) and is intended to be privileged and confidential. If you \ this message in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete all copies of this email message along with all attachments. Thank you On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 1 :54 PM, Paul Christman <PaulC@rpv.com> wrote: Our energy is cm-re"·' !v fl•cuscd on getting them to complete all of the work they started prior to the expiration date. The ctment c. · 1 ···::cc not restrict additional pennits from being granted after completion of all of the outstanding work all of the open pennits. From: Phyllis Glantz [mailto:phyllisglantz@verizon.net] Sent: Tuesday, Ar : 15, 2014 12:56 PM 1 2-65 To: Paul Christman Cc: Carol Lynch <~Jvnch({vnvglaw.com>; Joel Rojas; Carolynn Petru; 'Ross, Randy Ellen'; dorahyl@yahoo.coi11; :__\_':mpingyuyu@yahoo.com; CC; Sandra Ishman; Tom DeFazio; Andrew Jensen Subject: RE: 32039 Searidge Dear Paul, Thank you for your to my email of yesterday. I think you could surmise that we were very frustrated. I know have to live with the current situation until "all existing work permitted under the existing permits is finalized". However, our concern is at that point, "when all existing work permitted under the existing pennits is finished", will the city be obligated to issue any new permits :for which the Andersons might possibly apply? This would in effect start the whole constmction process anew with an 18 month permit and a possible 18 month extension of that permit. After almost five years of continuous constmction in our neighborhood and next door to our home, we need to be able to look forward to some closure to this issue of continuous construction and not that it could possibly continue into the future under a new string of pern1i1s. I would feel much better if the city could address this potential issue. Regards, Phyllis Glantz From: Paul Christman [mailto:PaulC@rpv.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 11:45 AM To: phyllisglantz@yqri Cc: Carol Lynch <gyr,H·~rf!)I\''gl9w_.com>; Joel Rojas; Carolynn Petru; Ross, Randy Ellen; dorahyl@yahoo.com; wanpingyuyu@yahoo .. rnrn; CC; Paul Christman; Sandra Ishman; Tom DeFazio; Andrew Jensen Subject: 32039 Searidge Hi Phyllis, Thanks for your message informing staff of the inconvenience and driveway obstruction caused by your neighbor's materials 1i.:livery person(s). I visited the project twice last week and again this morning in regards to monitoring the work and progress. 2 2-66 As you know, I met with you just last week in regards to the noise issues you were experiencing. The central vacuum system motor and canister will be relocated to the interior and the associated noise will be decreased significantly. Once this is done the wall patching in that area can be completed as well. The good news is they have been bringing in dirt and concrete to be used for covering the open tranches. Exterior work is progressing and has improved the appearance of the project to the neighbors. I am working with them within the terms of the urgency ordinance. Prior to the ordinance taking effect, they had already obtained ':crt1in permits that allow for work to be done up until February 16, 2015. Under the terms of the new ord• .1~111cc, no additional permits maybe issued for any new work until all existing work permitted under the existing permits is finalized. Staff believes the. ordinance has worked to redirect their attention and focus toward completing the exterior and all other work prior to their respective permit expiration deadlines. They were denied a permit extension due to the terms of the ordiP~1~1cc. They have been allowed to complete the exterior work only on a permit under the terms of the ordi:1a11 . ns stnff felt this would help mitigate the impacts to the adjacent properties. The Anderson's have expressed their frustration both orally and in writing with the conditions and restrictions imposed upon them by staff under the terms of the ordinance. Thanks, Paul 3 2-67