RPVCCA_CC_SR_2014_11_18_02_Ord_Establish_Penalties_Permit_RestrictionsCITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
REVIEWED:
Staff Coordinator:
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
JOEL ROJASWM)4lJNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR GV
NOVEMBER 18, 2014
ADOPTION OF AN URGENCY ORDINANCE AND
INTRODUCTION OF A NON-URGENCY ORDINANCE
TO ESTABLISH PENALTIES AND OTHER PERMIT
RESTRICTIONS ON CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
THAT HAVE BEEN ONGOING FOR 4 YEARS OR MORE
AND REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 548U AND
ORDINANCE NO. 549
CAROLYNN PETRU, ACTING CITY MANAGE~
Paul Christman, City Building Official_.,,,f~
\,
RECOMMENDATION
ADOPT URGENCY ORDINANCE NO._, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, REGARDING PROLONGED CONSTRUCTION
PROJECTS THAT ARE ADVERSELY AFFECTING NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES;
REPEALING ORDINANCE 548U AND ORDINANCE 549; AMENDING THE RANCHO
PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF;
AND INTRODUCE ORDINANCE NO._, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES REGARDING PROLONGED CONSTRUCTION
PROJECTS THAT ARE ADVERSELY AFFECTING NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES,
REPEALING ORDINANCE 548U AND ORDINANCE 549 AND AMENDING THE
RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE.
BACKGROUND
At the October 7, 2014 City Council meeting, Staff presented a Draft Ordinance (in both an
urgency and non-urgency format) to the City Council that would establish certain permit
restrictions on prolonged construction projects that have been under construction for four
years or more where Staff has received written complaints from the neighbors about the
project and the effect of the project upon their ability to enjoy their homes over a prolonged
2-1
period. The ordinance was prompted by concerns raised by several neighbors over the
prolonged noise, dust and parking inconvenience caused by a residential construction
project at 32039 Sea Ridge Circle (property owned by Dr. and Mrs. Anderson) that has
been ongoing for several years. After hearing public testimony from the neighbors and Dr.
and Mrs. Anderson, the City Council continued the matter to an unspecified date to allow
the City Attorney to revise and clarify certain aspects of the proposed Draft Ordinances.
(See attached October 7th Staff Report and approved excerpted minutes).
Staff and the City Attorney have made the modifications to the draft Ordinance discussed
by the City Council on October 7th_ Non-urgency and urgency versions of the modified
Ordinances are now before the City Council for introduction and adoption.
DISCUSSION
Similar to the draft Ordinances that were presented to the City Council on October 7th, the
attached Ordinances set forth the following requirements on projects under construction for
four years or more, which are adversely affecting adjacent properties, as documented by
written complaints that have been submitted to Staff. The proposed Ordinances are
identical to each other except for the urgency findings. The Ordinances:
Require applicants to establish a construction completion deposit;
Establish penalties for the period of time that a construction project remains
incomplete beyond the permit timeframes (penalties are deducted from the
completion deposit); and
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 for
the property.
The Ordinances have been modified since October 7th in accordance with the City
Council's directions on October 7th and to include a few additional clarifications that were
suggested by the Building Official. Red lined versions of the Ordinances are attached so as
to highlight the changes. The significant changes are as follows:
1. Section 15.46.060 was revised in accordance with the request of Mayor Pro Tern
Knight to clarify in paragraph (a) that the eighteen month waiting period before new
permits can be obtained only applies to projects that are subject to the provisions of
Chapter 15.46, meaning projects that have exceeded four years of construction time
and where written complaints from the neighbors have been submitted to the City
documenting the adverse impacts of the project on the neighborhood.
2. Paragraph (a) of Section 15.46.060 also has been amended to include the
exceptions that were included in the Ordinances that were adopted by the City
Council last year so these restrictions would not apply to new permits or extensions
related to: 1) emergency work; 2) work that is necessary to preserve the integrity of
the structure; and 3) work that, in the opinion of the Building Official, will mitigate
impacts to adjacent neighbors.
3. New paragraph (c) has been added to Section 15.46.060 to include the "force
majeure" provisions, as directed by the City Council. Paragraph (c) lists examples
of occurrences that would be beyond the control of the applicant so as to qualify for
2-2
relief from the 18-month building hiatus. Such reasons shall include, but are not
limited to: labor stoppages; acts of war or terrorism; natural disasters; fire; presence
of endangered species, and unforeseen discovery of archaeological remains on the
building site. Reasons that would not be considered in connection with the
imposition of the hiatus are: 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.
4. Finally, new paragraph (d) was added to that Section so that any interested party
may appeal the Building Official's decision to the City Council.
5. Section 15.46.090, which governs appeals, has been amended to clarify that it
applies both to appeals that are filed to challenge the Building Official's decision
under Section 15.46.060 concerning whether to impose the 18-month construction
hiatus or to challenge a decision by the Building Official regarding the imposition of
penalties.
6. Because these Ordinances address the same general topic as the two Ordinances
that the City Council adopted in 2013, and to avoid confusion and possible conflicts
between the previously adopted Ordinances and proposed new Chapter 15.46,
Section 2 of the proposed Ordinances will repeal Ordinance No. 548U and
Ordinance No. 549, which added the prior change to Chapter 15.18.050 of the
Code, so that all of the provisions regarding prolonged construction projects will be
set forth in new Chapter 15.46.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Current Status of construction permits at 32039 Searidge Circle
Since the October 7, 2014 City Council meeting, the Andersons have obtained permit
#Bld2014-00819 for pool re-plaster and completion of the pool radiant heating system, and
they obtained permit #Bld2014-00818 for completing the interior work on the tear down and
rebuild of 366 square feet, including 136 square feet of interior remodeling. All of their
permits are set to expire on February 15th, in accordance with the direction that was given
on October 7th by the City Council.
Public Correspondence
Attached are the public comments received since the October 7th meeting.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact as a result of adopting the proposed ordinances.
CONCLUSION
Although most construction projects are completed within the time frame established by the
initial permit, there are rare occasions that construction projects may go on for years due to
unique circumstances. The construction impacts of such projects can be quite adverse to
the neighbors. As a result, Staff and the City Attorney have drafted ordinances that are
2-3
targeted at truly prolonged projects (exceeding four years in duration) and establish
financial penalties and other permit restrictions on properties under continuous
construction for four 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 the ordinance.
Attachments
Urgency Ordinance No._U
Ordinance No.
October 7, 2014 City Council Staff Report
October 7, 2014 Approved Excerpted Minutes
Correspondence since the October 7, 2014 City Council meeting
2-4
ORDINANCE NO. U
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
REGARDING PROLONGED CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS THAT ARE
ADVERSELY AFFECTING NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, REPEALING
ORDINANCE NO. 548U AND ORDINANCE NO. 549, AMENDING THE RANCHO
PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE, 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:
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:
2-5
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 Appeals.
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,
remodels, modifications, repairs, and improvements, performed pursuant to one or more
unexpired building permits for a period of at least four years that 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 but to all subsequent owners of the subject property until all
obligations imposed by this chapter are fully satisfied.
15.46.040 Construction completion.
-2-
1755553v2 2-6
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 for
the expiration of permits that are set forth in Section 15 .18.050 of this Code
15.46.060 Other time limits.
(a) No building permit shall be issued for any project that is subject to the provisions
of this chapter 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 cause significant harm or adverse effects on the surrounding neighborhood. This section
shall not apply to:
( 1) Emergency work;
2) Work that is necessary to preserve the integrity of the structure or the property;
or
(3) Work that, in the opinion of the building official, will mitigate impacts upon
an adjacent property.
(b) In making a determination pursuant to this section, 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.
( c) The building official also shall consider whether the property owner's inability to
timely complete the project was completely beyond the control of the property owner and his/her
representatives.
(1) Such reasons shall include, but are not limited to: labor stoppages; acts of
war or terrorism; natural disasters; fire; presence of endangered species, and unforeseen
discovery of archaeological remains on the building site.
(2) Such reasons 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.
( d) A decision of the building official made pursuant to this section may be appealed
to the City Council by any interested party.
-3-
1755553v2 2-7
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 permit expiration dates
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.
(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. Before a new permit is issued, the building
official 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.
-4-
1755553v2 2-8
(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).
(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 ifhe 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 Appeals.
(a) A penalty imposed pursuant to this chapter may be appealed by the owner of the
property where the construction is occurring, and a decision of the building official made
pursuant to section 15.46.060 may be appealed to the City Council by any interested party. An
appeal of any penalty that is imposed must be based 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 are not
limited to: labor stoppages; acts of war or terrorism; natural disasters; fire; 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 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 15.46.070(c), or the date that the
building official determines that the required remedial measures have been completed
-5-
1755553v2 2-9
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 or modify the
decision of the building official made pursuant to section 15.46.060 or shall affirm, modify, or
cancel any penalty that has been imposed.
( c) When filing an appeal pursuant to this chapter, the property owner 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 the time limits
established in this chapter.
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 upon
completion of 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 and
shall occur prior to the approval of the work by the building official. 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
nmsance.
( 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. Ordinance No. 548U and Ordinance No. 549 are hereby repealed.
Accordingly, Section 15.18.050 of Chapter 15.18 of Title 15 of the Rancho Palos Verdes
Municipal Code is hereby amended to delete the last paragraph thereof to read as follows:
15.18.050 -Administrative Code amended-Expiration of permits.
-6-
l755553v2 2-10
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.
Plan checks for development projects where permits have expired for a period of less
than one year shall be assessed a fee equal to Yz of the amount of the applicable plan check fee,
as set forth in the resolution establishing said fee, if the plans that are being resubmitted are
identical to the prior plans. Said fee shall be paid when the plans are re-submitted for review by
the building official.
105 .5 Expiration. Every permit issued by the building official under the provisions of the
technical codes shall expire by limitation and become null and void, if the building or work
authorized by such permit is not completed through final inspection within the allowed time from
the date of issuance of such permit, which time shall be as follows: up to 5,000 square feet, 18
months; 5,000 to 10,000 square feet, 24 months; over 10,000 square feet, 30 months. For good
cause, upon initial application for a permit, the building official may establish a different
expiration date when it is anticipated such date will be necessary to complete construction due to
extenuating circumstances or when the construction is required to be completed within the time
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.
Section 3. 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
-7-
1755553v2 2-11
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 4. 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.
PASS ED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this of November 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
-8-
1755553v2 2-12
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES REGARDING
PROLONGED CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS THAT ARE ADVERSELY
AFFECTING NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 548U
AND ORDINANCE NO. 549 AND AMENDING THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MUNICIPAL CODE.
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 Appeals.
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.
2-13
It is the intent of this chapter to provide a mechanism to require property owners seeking to
improve their prope1iies 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, remodels,
modifications, repairs, and improvements, performed pursuant to one or more unexpired building
permits for a period of at least four years that 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 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 for the
expiration of permits that are set forth in Section 15.18.050 of this Code
15.46.060 Other time limits.
(a) No building permit shall be issued for any project that is subject to the provisions of this
chapter 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
cause significant harm or adverse effects on the surrounding neighborhood. This section shall
not apply to:
(1) Emergency work;
(2) Work that is necessary to preserve the integrity of the structure or the property; or
(3) Work that, in the opinion of the building official, will mitigate impacts upon an
adjacent property.
(b) In making a determination pursuant to this section, the building official shall consider
traffic, parking, noise and other environmental impacts on the neighborhood from waiving the
-2-2-14
eighteen month waiting period and the visual, drainage, safety and other environmental impacts
of any uncompleted construction.
( c) The building official also shall consider whether the property owner's inability to timely
complete the project was completely beyond the control of the property owner and his/her
representatives.
(1) Such reasons shall include, but are not limited to: labor stoppages; acts of war or
terrorism; natural disasters; fire; presence of endangered species, and unforeseen discovery of
archaeological remains on the building site.
(2) Such reasons 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.
( d) A decision of the building official made pursuant to this section may be appealed to the
City Council by any interested party.
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 permit expiration dates
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.
(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. Before a new permit is issued, the building official shall
require the submission of an additional construction completion deposit in excess of the amount
-3-2-15
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).
(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 Appeals.
(a) A penalty imposed pursuant to this chapter may be appealed by the owner of the prope1iy
where the construction is occurring, and a decision of the building official made pursuant to
section 15.46.060 may be appealed to the City Council by any interested party. An appeal of any
-4-2-16
penalty that is imposed must be based 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 are not limited
to: labor stoppages; acts of war or terrorism; natural disasters; fire; 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 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 15.46.070( 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 or modify the decision of the building
official made pursuant to section 15.46.060 or shall affirm, modify, or cancel any penalty that
has been imposed.
( c) When filing an appeal pursuant to this chapter, the property owner 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 the time limits
established in this chapter.
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 upon completion of
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 and shall occur
prior to the approval of the work by the building official. 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
-5-2-17
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. Ordinance No. 548U and Ordinance No. 549 are hereby repealed.
Accordingly, Section 15.18.050 of Chapter 15.18 of Title 15 of the Rancho Palos Verdes
Municipal Code is hereby amended to delete the last paragraph thereof to read as follows:
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.
Plan checks for development projects where permits have expired for a period ofless than one
year shall be assessed a fee equal to Yz of the amount of the applicable plan check fee, as set forth
in the resolution establishing said fee, if the plans that are being resubmitted are identical to the
prior plans. Said fee shall be paid when the plans are re-submitted for review by the building
official.
105 .5 Expiration. Every permit issued by the building official under the provisions of the
technical codes shall expire by limitation and become null and void, if the building or work
authorized by such permit is not completed through final inspection within the allowed time from
the date of issuance of such permit, which time shall be as follows: up to 5,000 square feet, 18
months; 5,000 to 10,000 square feet, 24 months; over 10,000 square feet, 30 months. For good
cause, upon initial application for a permit, the building official may establish a different
expiration date when it is anticipated such date will be necessary to complete construction due to
extenuating circumstances or when the construction is required to be completed within the time
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.
-6-2-18
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.
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 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 November 2014.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
-7-2-19
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
-8-2-20
October 7, 2014 City Council Meeting Staff Report
2-21
CITY OF
4
O Rf\NCHO 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. 2-22
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 2-23
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-plastering. 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 being 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.
2-24
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 by the Council, the threshold for the 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 3P1 through 60 1h day that a 2-25
construction project remains incomplete, $500 per day for the 61 51 through 1201h day, and
$2,000 per day for the 12i51 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
2-26
Minutes from the October 7, 2014 City Council Meeting
2-27
Adoption of an Urgency Ordinance and Introduction of a Non-Urgency Ordinance
to Establish Penalties and Other Permit Restrictions on Residential Construction
Projects that have been Ongoing for 4 Years or More
City Clerk Morreale reported that late correspondence was distributed prior to the
meeting and there were seven requests to speak on the item.
Community Development Director Rojas provided a brief staff report regarding this item.
Discussion ensued among Council Members, City Attorney Lynch, and staff.
Jon Anderson, Rancho Palos Verdes, stated that the existing ordinance has had many
unforeseen circumstances, making it difficult for progress to be made on the interior
construction in certain sections of the home. He spoke in opposition to the proposed
ordinance.
Joseph John Anderson, Rancho Palos Verdes, provided information regarding the
construction at their home and the problems with their original contractor. He reported
that the contractor was eventually fired and the family has taken over the management
of the project, noting they are making good progress with timeline commitments from
each of the subcontractors. He spoke in opposition to the proposed ordinance.
Rick Otto, Rancho Palos Verdes, stated that he is the current plumber for the
Anderson's project. He reported that upon being hired he evaluated and discovered
multiple problems with the previous construction work at the house, and noted he had to
City Council Minutes
October 7, 2014
Page 4 of 8
2-28
redo much of the previous plumbing at the home. He added that he and his crew are
working diligently in order to be done by the timeline of February 15, 2015.
William Glantz, Rancho Palos Verdes, stated that the details he heard indicate that the
original contractors were not professional, adding that Dr. Anderson would have much
of the work redone after it was completed, according to the workers. Mr. Glantz
reported that a second commercial vent has been installed at the Anderson house
facing the front door of the Glantz home. He stated he was in agreement with the
concept of having all the permits due on February 15, 2015, but noted the quiet period
should be equal to the construction period. He concluded that in the 14 years he has
lived at the location, they have had 6 months of no construction.
Phyllis Glantz, Rancho Palos Verdes, stated that the construction began on the
Anderson home in June 2009 but noted the quiet period should be longer, so that the
neighbors can have a time period of peace and tranquility. She was in support of the
ordinance although she requested a longer quiet period.
Kathleen Anderson, Rancho Palos Verdes, provided comments regarding the
construction problems with their prior building contractor. She stated that the ordinance
adopted in 2013 has not allowed them to pull new permits, or renew any existing
permits, adding that new permits for solar panels and resurfacing the pool is needed to
complete the radiant heating permit; and requested an extension of their permits to April
15, 2015. She reported on additional construction difficulties, noting she was opposed
to the proposed ordinance with severe financial penalties.
Dr. Joseph Anderson, Rancho Palos Verdes, stated that many of the problems seem to
stem from a lack of communication and provided comments regarding the ongoing
construction problems at his home, as well as recent changes to construction methods
to alleviate some of the construction noise.
Discussion ensued among Council Members, staff, and City Attorney Lynch.
Councilman Misetich moved, seconded by Councilwoman Brooks, to: 1) Require that all
construction be completed by February 15, 2015; 2) Direct staff to grant permits to allow
for completion of the project; 3) Direct staff to incorporate modifications to the ordinance
to address the input from Council that was raised, including a force majeure clause, fee
for appeal, and clarifications to the ordinance language offered by Mayor Pro Tern
Knight; and, 4) Direct staff to return with the item when ready for Council's
consideration.
The motion passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Brooks, Campbell, Knight, Misetich and Mayor Duhovic
None
None
City Council Minutes
October 7, 2014
Page 5 of 8
2-29
Correspondence since the October 7, 2014 City Council
Meeting
2-30
Paul Christman
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Phyllis Glantz < phyllisglantz@verizon.net>
Tuesday, October 14, 2014 6:36 PM
Jerry Duhovic; Susan Brooks; Brian Campbell; Jim Knight; Anthony Misetich
Joel Rojas; Paul Christman; bruce.ross@blross.com; Ross, Randy; dora;
wangpingyuyu@yahoo.com; Rob K
Ongoing Construction at 32039 Sea Ridge Circle and the Andersons' Installation of Two
Commerical-sized Exhaust Fans
Neighbor's house #1.jpg; Neighbor's house #2.jpg; Neighbor's House #3.JPG;
Neighbor's House #4.jpg
Dear Mayor Duhovic and City Council Members,
We appreciate the fact that you listened to us at the recent City Council meeting regarding the ongoing construction
next door at the Andersons' residence. Hopefully, this situation will come to an end on February 15, 2015 and our
neighborhood can return to a state of normalcy.
However, we are very concerned about the two commercial-sized, variable speed exhaust fans that the Andersons have
placed in their exterior wall and both pointed at our home. Needless to say, when the fans are both in operation they
are very loud and obnoxious -disturbing our peace and quiet. We even hear the noise from them in our living room
with everything closed up and the sound collects in the entrance enclosure by our front door. This mechanical noise
certainly affects the enjoyment of our home. The first fan (Images #3 & #4) appears to be the relocation of the large
industrial-type fan and duct system that the Andersons placed on their roof in July 2010 (Images #1 & #2). Originally,
the City ruled that this system was illegal and it was finally removed. Recently, a second similar sized fan was discovered
when the tarps and scaffolding were removed. This new fan is located on the same side but opposite end of their house
and also still facing directly at our property.
Apparently, none of these fans were on the original submitted plans and according to the Planning Dept., the Andersons
will only be required to screen these fans visually. This has never been completed as the images show. The fans can
emit any level of noise (even as loud as a jet engine) as long as they have met the setback requirements. This is very
disturbing to us. Why does RPV not have a sound ordinance? We have checked and learned that many cities do have
such an ordinance to preserve peace and quiet and protect property values.
When we potentially put our home on the real estate market, we will be required to disclose the existence of these two
noisy commercial-grade exhaust fans at our neighbor's house. This situation will certainly have a very material negative
impact on the value of our home. We believe that no other home in RPV has such large, noisy fans in a residential
neighborhood.
Please look into this situation and request that the fans be either relocated or removed. We urge you to address this
issue before the Planning Dept. indicates it has no choice but to approve the fans.
Respectfully,
Phyllis & Bill Glantz
32034 Sea Ridge Circle
310-377-1250
1
2-31
Paul Christman
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Glantz
Joel Rojas
Tuesday, October 14, 2014 6:45 PM
Phyllis Glantz; Jerry Duhovic; Susan Brooks; Brian Campbell; Jim Knight; Anthony
Misetich
Paul Christman; bruce.ross@blross.com; Ross, Randy; dora; wangpingyuyu@yahoo.com;
Rob K
RE: Ongoing Construction at 32039 Sea Ridge Circle and the Andersons' Installation of
Two Commerical-sized Exhaust Fans
! would Hke to visit your home to hear and see the fans form your
concern 1 as I noted to the the the current
within the setback and we have confirrned that these
and l arc into we can use other ordinances to address your concenL To that
contact me or email to schedule a site visit to your
.Joel Hojas
From: Phyllis Glantz [mailto:phyllisglantz@verizon.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 6:36 PM
To: Jerry Duhovic; Susan Brooks; Brian Campbell; Jim Knight; Anthony Misetich
Cc: Joel Rojas; Paul Christman; bruce.ross@blross.com; Ross, Randy; dora; wangpingyuyu@yahoo.com; Rob K
Subject: Ongoing Construction at 32039 Sea Ridge Circle and the Andersons' Installation of Two Commerical-sized
Exhaust Fans
Dear Mayor Duhovic and City Council Members,
We appreciate the fact that you listened to us at the recent City Council meeting regarding the ongoing construction
next door at the Andersons' residence. Hopefully, this situation will come to an end on February 15, 2015 and our
neighborhood can return to a state of normalcy.
However, we are very concerned about the two commercial-sized, variable speed exhaust fans that the Andersons have
placed in their exterior wall and both pointed at our home. Needless to say, when the fans are both in operation they
are very loud and obnoxious -disturbing our peace and quiet. We even hear the noise from them in our living room
with everything closed up and the sound collects in the entrance enclosure by our front door. This mechanical noise
certainly affects the enjoyment of our home. The first fan (Images #3 & #4) appears to be the relocation of the large
industrial-type fan and duct system that the Andersons placed on their roof in July 2010 (Images #1 & #2). Originally,
the City ruled that this system was illegal and it was finally removed. Recently, a second similar sized fan was discovered
when the tarps and scaffolding were removed. This new fan is located on the same side but opposite end of their house
and also still facing directly at our property.
Apparently, none of these fans were on the original submitted plans and according to the Planning Dept., the Andersons
will only be required to screen these fans visually. This has never been completed as the images show. The fans can
emit any level of noise (even as loud as a jet engine) as long as they have met the setback requirements. This is very
disturbing to us. Why does RPV not have a sound ordinance? We have checked and learned that many cities do have
such an ordinance to preserve peace and quiet and protect property values.
1
2-32
When we potentially put our home on the real estate market, we will be required to disclose the existence of these two
noisy commercial-grade exhaust fans at our neighbor's house. This situation will certainly have a very material negative
impact on the value of our home. We believe that no other home in RPV has such large, noisy fans in a residential
neighborhood.
Please look into this situation and request that the fans be either relocated or removed. We urge you to address this
issue before the Planning Dept. indicates it has no choice but to approve the fans.
Respectfully,
Phyllis & Bill Glantz
32034 Sea Ridge Circle
310-377-1250
2
2-33
Paul Christman
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Dora Zhang <dorahyl@yahoo.com>
Tuesday, October 14, 2014 9:57 PM
Joel Rojas
Phyllis Glantz; Jerry Duhovic; Susan Brooks; Brian Campbell; Jim Knight; Anthony
Misetich; Paul Christman; bruce.ross@blross.com; Ross, Randy;
wangpingyuyu@yahoo.com; Rob K
Subject: Re: Ongoing Construction at 32039 Sea Ridge Circle and the Andersons' Installation of
Two Commerical-sized Exhaust Fans
Dear Mayor, Joel and City Councils,
There is another same size big industrial fan on the wall of Anderson house on the side next to our house and directly
point to our window upstair. We are only a fence away, the noise and appearance will really bother us. They have not
use their fan yet because they are still working their interior. But the shape and appearance of it already scare our
children, it looks like a giant bullet head pointing to our property. Our kids feel really uncomfortable and we have to
close our curtain.
I am sure when they start using it, the dust air will directly blow to our window and noise will affect us.
Please please have them remove those giant industrial fans or point to the roof. Why a residential home need to have a
commercial fan? With these many years of suffering the noise and dusting, do we need to continue same issue with this
big giant fan?
Help! For safety of our children and our good neighbors.
Dora Zhang
On 14 Oct, 2014, at 6:45 pm, Joel Rojas <JoelR@rpv.com> wrote:
Dear Mr. and Mrs.
! would to visit your home to hear and see the form your While vJe
Council the other night, the current ordinances only
within the confirrned that fans
Joel
From: Phyllis Glantz [mailto:phyllisglantz@verizon.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 6:36 PM
""''"''''''"''we can use other
or email to
To: Jerry Duhovic; Susan Brooks; Brian Campbell; Jim Knight; Anthony Misetich
Cc: Joel Rojas; Paul Christman; bruce.ross@blross.com; Ross, Randy; dora; wangpingyuyu@yahoo.com;
1
2-34
Rob K
Subject: Ongoing Construction at 32039 Sea Ridge Circle and the Andersons' Installation of Two
Commerical-sized Exhaust Fans
Dear Mayor Duhovic and City Council Members,
We appreciate the fact that you listened to us at the recent City Council meeting regarding the ongoing
construction next door at the Andersons' residence. Hopefully, this situation will come to an end on
February 15, 2015 and our neighborhood can return to a state of normalcy.
However, we are very concerned about the two commercial-sized, variable speed exhaust fans that the
Andersons have placed in their exterior wall and both pointed at our home. Needless to say, when the
fans are both in operation they are very loud and obnoxious -disturbing our peace and quiet. We even
hear the noise from them in our living room with everything closed up and the sound collects in the
entrance enclosure by our front door. This mechanical noise certainly affects the enjoyment of our
home. The first fan (Images #3 & #4) appears to be the relocation of the large industrial-type fan and
duct system that the Andersons placed on their roof in July 2010 (Images #1 & #2). Originally, the City
ruled that this system was illegal and it was finally removed. Recently, a second similar sized fan was
discovered when the tarps and scaffolding were removed. This new fan is located on the same side but
opposite end of their house and also still facing directly at our property.
Apparently, none of these fans were on the original submitted plans and according to the Planning
Dept., the Andersons will only be required to screen these fans visually. This has never been completed
as the images show. The fans can emit any level of noise (even as loud as a jet engine) as long as they
have met the setback requirements. This is very disturbing to us. Why does RPV not have a sound
ordinance? We have checked and learned that many cities do have such an ordinance to preserve
peace and quiet and protect property values.
When we potentially put our home on the real estate market, we will be required to disclose the
existence of these two noisy commercial-grade exhaust fans at our neighbor's house. This situation will
certainly have a very material negative impact on the value of our home. We believe that no other
home in RPV has such large, noisy fans in a residential neighborhood.
Please look into this situation and request that the fans be either relocated or removed. We urge you to
address this issue before the Planning Dept. indicates it has no choice but to approve the fans.
Respectfully,
Phyllis & Bill Glantz
32034 Sea Ridge Circle
310-377-1250
2
2-35
Paul Christman
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dear Dora
Joel Rojas
Wednesday, October 15, 2014 11:51 AM
Dora Zhang
Phyllis Glantz; Jerry Duhovic; Susan Brooks; Brian Campbell; Jim Knight; Anthony
Misetich; Paul Christman; bruce.ross@blross.com; Ross, Randy;
wangpingyuyu@yahoo.com; Rob K; Carolynn Petru
RE: Ongoing Construction at 32039 Sea Ridge Circle and the Andersons' Installation of
Two Commerical-sized Exhaust Fans
have seen the fan that is your sldc the Anderson's house but l would like to sec and to it your
Can you me a call at 310 544 5223 to see vvhen I can by your Thank you,
Joel
From: Dora Zhang [mailto:dorahy1@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 9:57 PM
To: Joel Rojas
Cc: Phyllis Glantz; Jerry Duhovic; Susan Brooks; Brian Campbell; Jim Knight; Anthony Misetich; Paul Christman;
bruce.ross@blross.com; Ross, Randy; wangpingyuyu@yahoo.com; Rob K
Subject: Re: Ongoing Construction at 32039 Sea Ridge Circle and the Andersons' Installation of Two Commerical-sized
Exhaust Fans
Dear Mayor, Joel and City Councils,
There is another same size big industrial fan on the wall of Anderson house on the side next to our house and directly
point to our window upstair. We are only a fence away, the noise and appearance will really bother us. They have not
use their fan yet because they are still working their interior. But the shape and appearance of it already scare our
children, it looks like a giant bullet head pointing to our property. Our kids feel really uncomfortable and we have to
close our curtain.
I am sure when they start using it, the dust air will directly blow to our window and noise will affect us.
Please please have them remove those giant industrial fans or point to the roof. Why a residential home need to have a
commercial fan? With these many years of suffering the noise and dusting, do we need to continue same issue with this
big giant fan?
Help! For safety of our children and our good neighbors.
Dora Zhang
On 14 Oct, 2014, at 6:45 pm, Joel Rojas <JoelR@rpv.com> wrote:
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Glantz
1
2-36
I would like to visit your horne to hear and see the fans form your
understand your concern, as I noted to the Council the other
rnechanical noise from within the setback and we have
are outside the setback. and I are into whether we can use other
ordinances to address your concern. To that contact me or email to
schedule a site visit to your
.Joel
From: Phyllis Glantz [mai!to:phy!lisglantz@verizon.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 6:36 PM
To: Jerry Duhovic; Susan Brooks; Brian Campbell; Jim Knight; Anthony Misetich
Cc: Joel Rojas; Paul Christman; bruce.ross@blross.com; Ross, Randy; dora; wangpingyuyu@yahoo.com;
Rob K
Subject: Ongoing Construction at 32039 Sea Ridge Circle and the Andersons' Installation of Two
Commerical-sized Exhaust Fans
Dear Mayor Duhovic and City Council Members,
We appreciate the fact that you listened to us at the recent City Council meeting regarding the ongoing
construction next door at the Andersons' residence. Hopefully, this situation will come to an end on
February 15, 2015 and our neighborhood can return to a state of normalcy.
However, we are very concerned about the two commercial-sized, variable speed exhaust fans that the
Andersons have placed in their exterior wall and both pointed at our home. Needless to say, when the
fans are both in operation they are very loud and obnoxious -disturbing our peace and quiet. We even
hear the noise from them in our living room with everything closed up and the sound collects in the
entrance enclosure by our front door. This mechanical noise certainly affects the enjoyment of our
home. The first fan (Images #3 & #4) appears to be the relocation of the large industrial-type fan and
duct system that the Andersons placed on their roof in July 2010 (Images #1 & #2). Originally, the City
ruled that this system was illegal and it was finally removed. Recently, a second similar sized fan was
discovered when the tarps and scaffolding were removed. This new fan is located on the same side but
opposite end of their house and also still facing directly at our property.
Apparently, none of these fans were on the original submitted plans and according to the Planning
Dept., the Andersons will only be required to screen these fans visually. This has never been completed
as the images show. The fans can emit any level of noise (even as loud as a jet engine) as long as they
have met the setback requirements. This is very disturbing to us. Why does RPV not have a sound
ordinance? We have checked and learned that many cities do have such an ordinance to preserve
peace and quiet and protect property values.
When we potentially put our home on the real estate market, we will be required to disclose the
existence of these two noisy commercial-grade exhaust fans at our neighbor's house. This situation will
certainly have a very material negative impact on the value of our home. We believe that no other
home in RPV has such large, noisy fans in a residential neighborhood.
Please look into this situation and request that the fans be either relocated or removed. We urge you to
address this issue before the Planning Dept. indicates it has no choice but to approve the fans.
Respectfully,
Phyllis & Bill Glantz
32034 Sea Ridge Circle
2
2-37
Paul Christman
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Dora Zhang <dorahyl@yahoo.com>
Wednesday, October 15, 2014 12:07 PM
Joel Rojas
Phyllis Glantz; Jerry Duhovic; Susan Brooks; Brian Campbell; Jim Knight; Anthony
Misetich; Paul Christman; bruce.ross@blross.com; Ross, Randy;
wangpingyuyu@yahoo.com; Rob K; Carolynn Petru
Subject: Re: Ongoing Construction at 32039 Sea Ridge Circle and the Andersons' Installation of
Two Commerical-sized Exhaust Fans
Sure, next week is fine with me. I will call you.
Dora Zhang
On 15 Oct, 2014, at 11:50 am, Joel Rojas <JoelR@rpv.com> wrote:
Dear Dora
I have seen the fan that is your side of the house but I would like to see and !isten to it
your Cm you me a call at 310~544~5223 to see when I can your
Thank you.
Joel
From: Dora Zhang [mailto:dorahyl@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 9:57 PM
To: Joel Rojas
Cc: Phyllis Glantz; Jerry Duhovic; Susan Brooks; Brian Campbell; Jim Knight; Anthony Misetich; Paul
Christman; bruce.ross@blross.com; Ross, Randy; wangpingyuyu@yahoo.com; Rob K
Subject: Re: Ongoing Construction at 32039 Sea Ridge Circle and the Andersons' Installation ofTwo
Commerical-sized Exhaust Fans
Dear Mayor, Joel and City Councils,
There is another same size big industrial fan on the wall of Anderson house on the side next to our
house and directly point to our window upstair. We are only a fence away, the noise and appearance
will really bother us. They have not use their fan yet because they are still working their interior. But the
shape and appearance of it already scare our children, it looks like a giant bullet head pointing to our
property. Our kids feel really uncomfortable and we have to close our curtain.
I am sure when they start using it, the dust air will directly blow to our window and noise will affect us.
Please please have them remove those giant industrial fans or point to the roof. Why a residential home
need to have a commercial fan? With these many years of suffering the noise and dusting, do we need
to continue same issue with this big giant fan?
Help! For safety of our children and our good neighbors.
1
2-38
Dora Zhang
On 14 Oct, 2014, at 6:45 pm, Joel Rojas <JoelR@rpv.com> wrote:
Dear Mr. lVlrs.
would to visit your home to hear see the fans
understand your concern, as I noted to
mechanical noise
that these
contact me by
site visit to your
Joel Hojas
From: Phyllis Glantz [mailto:phyllisglantz@verizon.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 6:36 PM
your \Nhlle we
the
To: Jerry Duhovic; Susan Brooks; Brian Campbell; Jim Knight; Anthony Misetich
Cc: Joel Rojas; Paul Christman; bruce.ross@blross.com; Ross, Randy; dora;
wangpingyuyu@yahoo.com; Rob K
a
Subject: Ongoing Construction at 32039 Sea Ridge Circle and the Andersons' Installation
of Two Commerical-sized Exhaust Fans
Dear Mayor Duhovic and City Council Members,
We appreciate the fact that you listened to us at the recent City Council meeting
regarding the ongoing construction next door at the Andersons' residence. Hopefully,
this situation will come to an end on February 15, 2015 and our neighborhood can
return to a state of normalcy.
However, we are very concerned about the two commercial-sized, variable speed
exhaust fans that the Andersons have placed in their exterior wall and both pointed at
our home. Needless to say, when the fans are both in operation they are very loud and
obnoxious -disturbing our peace and quiet. We even hear the noise from them in our
living room with everything closed up and the sound collects in the entrance enclosure
by our front door. This mechanical noise certainly affects the enjoyment of our
home. The first fan (Images #3 & #4) appears to be the relocation of the large
industrial-type fan and duct system that the Andersons placed on their roof in July 2010
(Images #1 & #2). Originally, the City ruled that this system was illegal and it was finally
removed. Recently, a second similar sized fan was discovered when the tarps and
scaffolding were removed. This new fan is located on the same side but opposite end of
their house and also still facing directly at our property.
Apparently, none of these fans were on the original submitted plans and according to
the Planning Dept., the Andersons will only be required to screen these fans
visually. This has never been completed as the images show. The fans can emit any level
2
2-39
of noise (even as loud as a jet engine) as long as they have met the setback
requirements. This is very disturbing to us. Why does RPV not have a sound
ordinance? We have checked and learned that many cities do have such an ordinance
to preserve peace and quiet and protect property values.
When we potentially put our home on the real estate market, we will be required to
disclose the existence of these two noisy commercial-grade exhaust fans at our
neighbor's house. This situation will certainly have a very material negative impact on
the value of our home. We believe that no other home in RPV has such large, noisy fans
in a residential neighborhood.
Please look into this situation and request that the fans be either relocated or
removed. We urge you to address this issue before the Planning Dept. indicates it has
no choice but to approve the fans.
Respectfully,
Phyllis & Bill Glantz
32034 Sea Ridge Circle
310-377-1250
3
2-40
Paul Christman
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Carolynn Petru
Wednesday, October 29, 2014 9:11 AM
cc
Joel Rojas; Paul Christman
Anderson's Fans
Dear Mayor & City Council -
As you will recall, questions were raised at the October 7th City Council meeting regarding the exterior fans that have
been installed on the Anderson residence. In response, both Joel and Paul Christman have inspected the property. Joel
let me know that there are a total of three exterior fans on the property that are bothersome to the neighbors. They are
described below:
1. Kitchen fan (east): This fan vents the kitchen and acts as the kitchen stove exhaust (with different settings). It
has a permit, which was issued about a year ago, and the specifications indicate that the noise it produces is less
than 65 dba.
2. Garage fan (east): This fan vents the garage, but also acts as a fan for cooling the garage. The City has not
issued a permit for this fan. However, it also exhausts the sounds from a central vacuum system for the garage,
which is very noisy when in use. Joel described the noise level of the vacuum as similar to a leaf blower. He and
Dr. Anderson had to shout at each other to be heard while it was running. The noise level it produces in normal
operation is similar to the kitchen fan.
3. House Cooling fan (west): This fan is for cooling the house. The noise level in normal operation is similar to the
other two fans, but it also exhausts the sounds from a central vacuum system for the house similar to the one
over the garage on the east side to the building. No permit has been issued for this fan.
On October 22, the Andersons were given a written correction notice to cease operation of the Garage fan and House
Cooling fan as they are currently unpermitted. The Anderson's have submitted applications to allow the fans. Joel will
need to confer with Paul Christman regarding the unpermitted fans that have been installed on the property, and any
appropriate conditions, such as screening or muffling devices, that should be applied. However, he does not feel that
the fan for the central vacuum complies with the following Code section, regarding the City's property maintenance
standards:
RPVMC 8.24.060A -Prohibited Activities and Unlawful Conditions
A. It shall be unlawful for any person owning, leasing, occupying, or having charge or possession of any
property in the city to cause, or to permit, or to maintain thereon any condition which is at variance
with the level of maintenance of surrounding properties, or which results in substantial detriment to
the comfortable enjoyment of life or property by others in the immediate vicinity thereof." (emphasis
added)
I hope this information is helpful. Please let Joel or I know if you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
CP
1
2-41