RPVCCA_SR_2011_04_05_13_28105_Golden_MeadowDate:
Subject:
PUBLIC HEARING
April 5,2011
Request to Eliminate a 1991 Condition of Approval,Thereby
Allowing New Railing to Remain at the Perimeter of an Existing
Deck for the Property Located at 28105 Golden Meadow (Case No.
ZON2010-00386)
SUbject Property:28105 Golden Meadow
1.Declare the Hearing Open:Mayor Long
2.Report of Notice Given:City Clerk Morreale
3.Staff Report &Recommendation:Leza Mikhail,Associate Planner
4.Public Testimony:
Appellants:N/A
Applicant:Mr.and Mrs.Orlando
5.Council Questions:
6.Rebuttal:
7.Declare Hearing Closed:Mayor Long
8.Council Deliberation:
9.Council Action:
W:\AGENDA\Public Hearing Formats\public hearing format Council-28105 Golden Meadow.doc
13-1
CITY OF
MEMORANDUM
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM:
DATE:
JOEL ROJAS,COMMU
DIRECTOR
APRIL 5,2011
SUBJECT:REQUEST TO ELIMINATE A 1991 CONDITION OF
APPROVAL,THEREBY ALLOWING NEW RAILING TO
REMAIN AT THE PERIMETER OF AN EXISTING DECK
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 28105 GOLDEN
MEADOW (CASE NO.ZON2010-00386)
REVIEWED:CAROLYN LEHR,CITY MANAGER ~
Project Manager:Leza Mikhail,Associate Planner~
RECOMMENDATION
Deny the request to eliminate Condition NO.5 of City Council Resolution No.91-44,
thereby requiring the applicant to relocate the deck railing from the perimeter of the roof
deck to a location approximately 10 feet from the edge of the roof deck,as originally
conditioned by the City Council in 1991.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The following report discusses the background and history behind a 1991 City Council
condition of approval that was imposed on a project located at 28105 Golden Meadow.
The condition required railing for a rear yard roof deck to be located approximately 10
feet away from the deck edge so that a portion of the roof deck could not be used for
viewing or gathering purposes.At a later date,after obtaining building permits to repair
the roof deck and lower floor area due to years of water damage,the deck railing was
unintentionally reinstalled at the edge of the roof and is thereby not in compliance with
the 1991 City Council condition of approval.Although the applicant has requested that
the City Council eliminate the specific condition of approval from Resolution No.91-44
13-2
to allow the railing to remain at the roof deck edge,Staff is of the opinion that the
condition of approval Should remain in full force and effect due to privacy impacts to
neighboring downslope properties to the south.
BACKGROUND
On March 11,1991,an application for an 874 square foot second story addition to the
existing residence at 28105 Golden Meadow was approved by the Community
Development Director.In addition to the second story addition,the approval also
included a roof deck in the rear yard that was accessible from the second story
addition.
On May 14,1991,the Planning Commission heard a duly noticed public hearing for an
appeal of the Community Development Director's decision to approve the second story
addition,which included the roof deck.The approval was filed by Mr.and Mrs.Richard
Van Der Weyde,property owners of 28111 Golden Meadow Drive,who objected to the
compatibility of the proposed structure,view impairment and privacy impacts.The
Planning Commission considered evidence presented by all interested parties and
voted to deny the appeal,thereby upholding the Director's approval of the project.
On July 2,1991,the City Council heard a duly noticed public hearing on the appeal of
the Planning Commission's decision to deny the appeal and approve the project.The
appeal was filed by Mr.and Mrs.Richard Van Der Weyde,property owners of 28111
Golden Meadow Drive,who objected to the compatibility of the proposed structure
based on view impairment and privacy impacts.The City Council considered evidence
presented by all interested parties and voted to deny the appeal and uphold the
Planning Commission's decision to approve the project but added a specific condition
of approval to limit the usable area of the proposed roof deck in order to minimize any
privacy impacts from the deck to adjacent property owners.Specifically,the condition
required the deck railing to be installed even with the exterior wall of the first-story
fayade.This equates to a location approximately 10 feet from the roof deck edge (see
Condition NO.5 of Resolution No.91-44 attached).
On September 21,2004,the current property owner of 28105 Golden Meadow Drive
applied for a Building Permit (BLD2004-00756)to repair the water damaged roof deck
approved in 1991.The Building Permit expired and was reinstated on two separate
occasions:1)on November 16,2006 (BLD2006-00928 -expired)and 2)on April 2,
2009 (BLD2009-00186).During the inspection process for the 2009 permit,the City's
Building Inspector noted that the roof deck,which was accessible from the second
story,did not have a safety railing.As a result,the Building Inspector informed the
property owner that the roof deck repair permit could not be finaled without the
installation of a deck railing.
On March 18,2010 the applicant applied for and was issued a Building Permit
(BLD201 0-00180)to install new deck railing that measured 90 lineal feet along the
perimeter of the deck.On March 23,2010,after installation of the deck railing,the
13-3
building permits for the roof deck repair (BLD2009-00186)and deck railing (BLD2010-
00180)were finaled by the City's Building and Safety Division.
On May 3,2010,the City's Code Enforcement Division was notified by the property
owner at 1476 Via Coronel,a Palos Verdes Estates resident who submitted letters of
concern regarding privacy impacts prior to the Director's and Planning Commission's
decisions in 1991,that a deck railing was installed that did not comply with the
requirements of City Council Resolution No.91-44.After researching the conditions of
the 1991 City Council Resolution which required the deck railing to be setback
approximately 10 feet from the edge of the roof deck,the subject property owner was
notified of the situation.
According to the property owner,the deck railing was removed many years ago even
though the deck continued to be physically accessible from second story French doors.
As the original deck railing did not exist at the time of the original roof deck repair in
2006,the Building Division was not aware of the original deck railing location.
Furthermore,the issuance of a permit to install or replace a deck railing for a previously
approved deck does not require approval by the Planning Division.Due to this fact,the
Building Division issued a building permit for the installation of new deck railing at the
perimeter of the deck,unaware of the 1991 City Council condition that required the
deck railing to be located approximately 10 feet from the deck edge.Notwithstanding,
the applicant was directed to either move the railing so that it is in conformance with
City Council Resolution No.91-44 or apply to revise the 1991 roof deck approval to
eliminate Condition No.5 to allow the railing to remain at the deck perimeter.
On November 1,2010,the property owner of 28105 Golden Meadow formally
submitted an application requesting that the City Council eliminate the condition
requiring the deck railing to be setback and in line with the first floor wall below.After
receiving additional information,the application was deemed complete for processing
on January 3,2011.
On March 7,2011,a public notice was sent to all property owners within a 500 foot
radius of the subject property.The public notice was also published in the Peninsula
News on March 10,2011.As of the preparation of this report,Staff received twenty (20)
comment letters from the public.
DISCUSSION
As noted in the background section of this report,the City Council considered an
appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve a second story addition and
roof deck in 1991.As discussed in the minutes of the July 2,1991 City Council meeting
(attached),the issues relayed in the appeal focused on the incompatibility of the
project,objection to the compatibility of the sundeck in the rear yard,future second
story additions,view impairment concerns and the loss of privacy to adjacent
neighbors.In addition,according to the July 2,1991 minutes,two residents located at
1468 and 1472 Via Coronel in Palos Verdes Estates,downslope from the applicant's
13-4
rear yard,raised concerns with the proposed project at the July 2,1991 hearing.Based
on letters submitted by these individuals as part of the public record,they raised privacy
concerns resulting from deck users looking down onto their rear yards,which are
directly downslope and visible from the roof deck.Furthermore,Staff was able to locate
letters of concern regarding privacy impacts to other downslope neighbors who reside in
the City of Palos Verdes Estates.Specifically,the property owners of 1480 Via Coronel
and 1476 Via Coronel relayed privacy impact concerns at each stage of review.
Although potential privacy impacts resulting from the second story addition or roof deck
were not part of the review criteria required by the Development Code in 1991,it
appears that the City Council attempted to address the privacy concerns of downslope
neighbors by approving the two story structure and roof deck with the condition that the
railing for the roof deck be located directly above the first floor wall so that a portion of
the deck cannot be used for viewing or gathering purposes.
Since it appears that Condition NO.5 was imposed by the City Council in 1991 to
address privacy concerns raised by the downslope neighbors located along Via Coronel
in the City of Palos Verdes Estates,Staff assessed the privacy impacts from the edge
of the deck to the downslope neighboring properties.At the request of the property
owner,Staff walked throughout the rear yard of 1476 Via Coronel.Staff·confirmed that
portions of the rear yard,namely adjacent to the pool and outdoor patio would be visible
to any person standing at the edge of the deck.Likewise,when standing at the edge of
the deck,one can look down into the 1476 Via Coronel property.Therefore,the intent
of the 1991 City Council decision to prevent roof deck users from viewing directly down
into the rear yard of properties along Via Coronel would not be achieved by allowing the
deck railing to be located along the perimeter of the deck edge.
Staff also assessed the difference in the visibility of the downslope rear yards by
standing at the edge of the deck versus the location where the deck railing was
conditioned to be.Staff assessed the visibility difference to three downslope neighbors
(1472 Via Coronel,1476 Via Coronel and 1480 Via Coronel).Staff found that the
difference in visibility onto the neighboring properties was minor when viewing the rear
yards from the edge of the deck versus the City Council-approved location of the railing.
While under both conditions,the deck creates a privacy impact,there is a slight
increase in the privacy impact when viewing the rear yards of the downslope neighbors
at the edge of the deck.Due to this fact,combined with the understanding that the City
Council imposed the Condition NO.5 in an attempt to mitigate privacy impacts,Staff
would not recommend that Condition NO.5 be eliminated to allow the railing to remail at
the edge of the deck.
As such,Staff recommends that the City Council deny the applicant's request to
eliminate Condition NO.5 of City Council Resolution No.91-44 and require the applicant
to restore the deck railing to the previously approved location within 60 days.
13-5
'I--l -
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
On January 27,2011,the applicant approved a 90-day extension to the Permit
Streamlining Act to allow for a later meeting date of the City Council to consider the
matter.The decision deadline for this request is June 2,2011.
ALTERNATIVE
In addition to Staff's recommendation,the following alternative is available for the City
Council's consideration:
1)Eliminate Condition No.5 of Resolution No.91-44,thereby allowing the applicant to
maintain the deck-railing as it currently exists,and direct Staff to bring back a revised
resolution at a future date.
FISCAL IMPACT
The applicant has paid the applicable development fees to request a revision to the City
Council Resolution No.91-44,therefore there are no fiscal impacts that-would result
from this request.
ATTACHMENT
•Draft City Council Resolution No.2011-_(Denial)
•Public Correspondence t
•City Council Resolution No.91-44
•City Council Minutes -JUly 2,1'991
•Planning Clearance (Site Plan Review 6881 -Patio Cover Extension)-1992
•Deck Railing Site Plan -Approved March 18,2010 by Building Division
•Deck Railing Building Permit (BLD201 0-00180)-Finaled March 23,2010
•Deck Repair Building Permits (All)-Finaled March 23,2010
13-6
Draft C.C.Resolution No.2011-
13-7
C.C.RESOLUTION NO.2011-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DENYING A REQUEST TO ELIMINATE CONDITION NO.5 OF CITY
COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.91-44,THEREBY REQUIRING THE PROPERTY
OWNER TO RELOCATE A DECK RAILING FROM THE PERIMETER OF THE
ROOF DECK TO A LOCATION APPROXIMATELY 10 FEET FROM THE EDGE
OF THE DECK,WHICH COMPLIES WITH THE ORIGINAL CONDITION NO.5
OF CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.91-44 AT THE PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 28105 GOLDEN MEADOW
WHEREAS,on July 2,1991,the City Council denied an appeal and upheld the Planning
Commission's decision to approve a second story addition and deck with a specific condition of
approval to limit the usable area of the proposed deck to be in line with the first floor addition
below;and,.
WHEREAS,on March 18,2010 the applicant applied for and was issued a Building
Permit (BLD201 0-00180)to install a deck railing that measured 90 lineal feet and the permit was
finaled on March 23,2010 which did not comply with the aforementioned condition;and,
WHEREAS,on May 3,2010,the City's Code Enforcement Division received a complaint
that a deck railing was installed and did not comply with the requirements of City Council
Resolution No.91-44;and,
WHEREASE,the property owner of 281 05 Golden Meadow submitted an application to
the Community Development Department requesting that the City Council eliminate Condition
No.5 of City Council Resolution No.91-44;and,
WHEREAS,on January 'J7,2011,the applicant approved a 90-day extension to the
Permit Streamlining Act to allow for a later meeting date of the City Council to consider the
matter,thereby making the new decision deadline June 2,2011;and,
WHEREAS,on March 7,2011,a public notice was sent to all property owners within a
500 foot radius of the subject property and subsequently published in the Peninsula News on
March 10,2011;and,
WHEREAS,the proposed project is exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),under Article 19,Section 15303(e)(2)(additions)of the
California Guidelines for Implementation of the CEQA.Specifically,the project includes the
minor alteration to an existing structure.Further,the project is in an area where all public
services and facilities are available and the project is not located in an environmentally sensitive
area.As such,this project has been determined not to have a significant impact on the
environment;and,
WHEREAS,the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on AprilS,2011,atwhich
time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence;
NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
DOES HEREBY FIND,DETERMINE,AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
13-8
Section 1:The request to eliminate Condition NO.5 of City Council Resolution No.91-
44 is denied.Therefore,the existing condition of approval shall remain in full force and affect.
The applicant shall be required to restore the deck railing in conformance with Condition NO.5
of City Council Resolution No.91-44 within 60 days from the date of this Resolution.Since the
intent of the 1991 City Council decision was to prevent roof deck users from viewing the rear
yards of properties along Via Coronel,allowing the deck railing to be located at the edge of the
deck,instead of 10 feet from the deck edge,would not comply with the City Council's original
intent.Furthermore,while under both conditions,the deck creates a privacy impact on
downslope properties,there is a greater impact upon the neighboring properties if the railing is
located at the edge of the deck.
Section 2:The time within which judicial review of the decision reflected in this
Resolution must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil
Procedure and other applicable short periods of limitation.
PASSED,APPROVED,AND ADOPTED this 5th day of April 2011.
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
State of California )
County of Los Angeles )ss
City or Rancho Palos Verdes )
I,Carla Morreale,the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,do hereby certify
that the above Resolution No.2009-10 was duly and regUlarly passed and adopted by the said
City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on April 5,2011.
City Clerk
C.C.Resolution No.2011-
Page 2
13-9
Public Correspondence
13-10
Winston and Cathy Chang.1476 Via Coronel •Palos Verdes Estates •CA.90274.(310)377-7148
March 7,2011
Mr.Thomas D.Long,Mayor
Mr.Anthony M.Misetich,Mayor Pro Tern
Mr.Brian Campbell,Councilmember
Mr.Douglas W.Stern,Council member
Mr.Stefan Wolowicz,Councilmember
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
RE EIVED
MAR 09 2011
PLANNING,BUILDING AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT
Re:Variance application for property at 28105 Golden Meadow (against)
Dear members of the City Council,
We are writing to express our concern about the variance application for the property located at 28105
Golden Meadow.We hope that you will vote against this variance application and uphold the
conditions of approval originally developed by the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission in 1991.
We are the residents most directly affected by this variance application.Our house is located at 1476
Via Coronel,which is directly below the subject property.
Photo A:proximity ofresidence
This variance is requesting to extend the rooftop deck by approximately 10 feet towards our property.
The condition of approval which limits the rooftop deck extents was specifically developed by the RPV
Planning Commission to mitigate the already burdensome impacts created by the extensive additions to
this property.By extending this rooftop deck our privacy would become extremely compromised.
Page lof4
13-11
Winston and Cathy Chang.1476 Via Coronel.Palos Verdes Estates.CA.90274.(310)377-7148
This variance application will create a balcony condition where the balcony will be looking directly into
two bedrooms;our bedroom and our daughter's bedroom.Additionally,the 10'extension would
greatly diminish the remaining privacy in our back yard.By maintaining the original conditions of
approval the sightlines would be positioned such that a much higher level of privacy is maintained.
Please note the following excerpts taken from the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code regarding
variances.Our comments follow each item in bold:
17.64.050 -Findings
A.1.That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property involved,or to the intended use of the property,which do not apply generally to other
property in the same zoning district;(The subject property is very consistent with the others
in the area and there are no extraordinary circumstances)
2.That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property
right of the applicant,which right is possessed by other property owners under like conditions in
the same zoning district;(This property has the same dynamics as others in the area.The
original conditions of approval addressed this issue.)
3.That granting the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to property and improvements in the area in which the property is located.(Granting of this
variance would be injurious to my property and a hardship to my family's privacy.)
There has been a history of mutual respect and reciprocity between the neighboring communities of
Rancho Palos Verdes and Palos Verdes Estates.Traditionally the two communities have treated
bordering properties with the rights and protections equal to those of their own residents.
This was recently practiced for an application at 717 Via La Cuesta in Palos Verdes Estates,which had a
direct impact upon residents of Rancho Palos Verdes.Several conditions were enacted by the PVE
Planning Commission on behalf of RPV residents.These included:
Tennis court fence was lowered to 8 feet from surface.
Height of vegetation next to the sports court should not exceed the height of the sports
courts fence.
All vegetation should not exceed roof ridges.
On the southeast property line,vegetation adjacent to the 6 foot high property line fence
shall not exceed 6 feet in height.
Additional conditions agreed to at the RPV City Council meeting included:
Grading in Grandview Park to lower the property line so that the 6-foot fence would not
impede RPV residents view.
No vegetation over 10 feet was to be planted in the "south garden".
Page 2of4
13-12
·Winston and Cathy Chang •1476 Via Coronel •Palos Verdes Estates.CA.90274.(310)377-7148
The following photographs are attached for your use.As you can see,this roof deck extension has a
significant impact upon our privacy.
Photo B:View of Roof Deck from our bedroom.
Page 3 of4
13-13
Winston and Cathy Chang.1476 Via Coronel •PalosVerdes Estates •CA.90274.(310)377-7148
Photo C:View of Roof Deck from our daughter's bedroom.
We invite you to come to my home and observe firsthand the significant negative impacts that this
variance application has upon our home and our family's privacy.As you can see,maintaining the
original conditions enacted by the Planning Commission is a very fair solution.Please feel free to
contact us to set up a meeting time,or stop by any time.We can be reached on Winston's cell phone at
562-810-3719,or at our home phone at 310-377-7148.
Sincerely,
Winston and Cathy Chang
1476 Via Coronel
Palos Verdes Estates,CA 90274
H:(310)377-7148
C:(562)810-3719
cc:Leza Mikhail,Associate Planner
Page 4 of4
13-14
Kenneth I.Delong
6940 Maycroft Dr.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA.90275
Tel No.310377-2426 -Fax 310377-7496
e-mail -ken.delong@verizon.net
Re ZON201 0-00386 (Height Rev.No.697)
I am a neighbor of Mr.&Mrs.Orlando and on Sunday March 13th I visited them to
personally observe the second-story deck railing situation.
First of all,the Zoning condition of where a deck rail is to be placed is absurd,How did
such a condition be included in RPV building code?The two criteria that should be used
are:Is the deck structure sufficient to support persons who may be on the deck and
does the deck offer opportunities to violate neighbor privacy.Did not the RPV Building
department approve the deck construction plans?Therefore would presume the deck
construction is sound and will support approved weight on deck.
On the neighbor privacy matter,my personal observance was that the location of the
deck railing has no impact whatsoever on neighbor privacy.Standing on the Orlando
patio,under the deck,the sight into the rear property,which is located in Palos Verdes
Estates was extremely limited and the property could be totally blocked from Orl¥do.·
view with foliage.I also personally observed that the neighbor in question was blocking
Orlando ocean view with a tree that the neighbor refused to trim to his roof ridgeline
while creating a ridiculous claim that Ortolano was violating his personal privacy rights.
I urge the Planning Commission to deny the adjacent neighbor's privacy violation claim,
grant Orlando's railing request and to amend the bUilding codes that requires safety
railings be located above 1st floor walls.I also urge RPV to write to PVE in seeking their
assistance to have Orlando neighbor trim and maintain tree height at his roof ridgeline.
Ken Delong
13-15
Page 1 of 1
Leza Mikhail
From:Melissa Harris [klibmail@gmail.com]
Sent:Monday,February 28,2011 10:03 PM
To:lezam@rpv.com
Cc:Kathy Chang
Subject:FWd:28105 Golden Meadow Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Hi Leza
This is the email I wrote sometime ago regarding the privacy issues I am having with the above
property.
Please respond so that I know you received this email.
Melissa Harris
----------Forwarded message ----------
From:"Melissa Harris"<klibmail@gmail.com>
Date:Nov 8,20108:55 AM
Subject:28105 Golden Meadow Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
To:<PC@rpv.com>
To Whom it May Concern,
I live at 1484 Via Coronel and I am very upset about the limited privacy I know have due to the addition
of28105 Golden Meadow.I have no problem with their addition;however the deck they built on it
lurks over into my backyard and interferes with my privacy and never was I informed that this plan was
going to be put in place,as flags were never put up.I purchased my home because of the privacy it
offered my family and now I do not have any.I would like them to move the deck back;so that I may
enjoy my backyard and not have people looking down at me.I appreciate you taking the time to review
my concerns.
If you should have any other questions I can be reached by phone at (310)4691900.
Thank You,
Melissa Harris
1484 Via Coronel,Palos Verdes Estates 90274
3/3/2011 13-16
To:,J3105445293
,03/25/11 07:15 AM
From:(7032359903)
Page 1 of 3
Debora van der Weyde Luther
1056 Marywood Drive
Davidsonville,Maryland·21035
25 March 2011
TO:
FAXNBR:
FROM:
TELEPHONE:
FAXNBR:
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
ATIN:Joel Rivas
310/544-"~2.1'
Debora Luther
703/235-3816
702/554-6511
MESSAGE:
NUMBER OF PAGES (not including this cover page):.1...
See attached letter concerning ZON 2010-00386 (Revision to Height
Variation No.697)for 28105 Golden Meadow Drive
RECE\VED
M~R 25 20\1
LANNING BUILDING AND
P CODE ENFORCEMENT
13-17
To:\13105445293
,03/25/11 07:15 AM
From:(7032359903)
Page 2 of 3
Debora G.van der Weyde Luther,Trustee
van der Weyde Family Trust
1056 Marywood Drive
Davidsonville,Maryland 21035
25 March 2011
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Attn:Joel Rojas,AICP
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275-5391
By Regular Mail and by Fax (310/544-5293)
Re:ZON2010-00386 (Revision to Height Variation No.697)for
28105 Golden Meadow Drive (Owner:Orlando)
Dear City Council Members:
Your 7 March 2011 notification concerning a variance for the rear,
second-story deck on the property located at 28105 Golden Meadow Drive
was forwarded to me for response.The subject property is immediately
next door to my family's home,which is located at 28111 Golden Meadow
Drive.Presently,I am a trustee of this home and in that capacity as well
as in the personal capacity of one who looks forward to returning to RPV to
reside in the home,I write in support of granting the variance and allowing ..
the railing to remain in place.
Our backyard is the one most affected by the railing,as our property
is nearest the deck and the railing is visible from our backyard.I am not
concerned that the railing extends beyond the first floor wall.What does
concern me that anyone who might use the deck be protected from falling
and for that reason a railing is important.From an aesthetic perspective,it
makes sense for the railing to follow the edge of the deck.
My parents purchased our property as original owners in 1963 and I
grew up in the home at 28111 GM (RHHS 1973).Therefore,I have
witnessed many changes in the area in and around Golden Meadow Drive
over the past 48 years,including the construction of homes immediately
behind ours in the City of Palos Verdes Estates (on Via Coronel and
beyond)and the reconstruction of the home at the subject property from a
--.'--"'"..-.._-._-----_.
w
13-18
To:l!13105445293
03/.25/11.07:16 AM Page 3 o£3
From:(7032359903)
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Attn:Joel Rojas,AICP
Page 2
1-story rancher to a 2-story Mediterranean villa.It is my recollection that
the deck was built at the time the house was remodeled in or around 1990.
Therefore,the deck itself is not new.Apparently,however,the railing is,
and it is my understanding that it was installed this past year in accordance
with a permit from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
The City is encouraged to grant the Orlandos a variance for the
existing railing on their second floor deck.
Sincerely,
.-"'~--'-'-'.'-'
Cc:Sil and Adriana Orlando
13-19
Debora G.van der Weyde Luther,Trustee
van der Weyde Family Trust
1056 Marywood Drive
Davidsonville,Maryland 21035
25 March 2011
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Attn:Joel Rojas,AICP
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275-5391
By Regular Mail and by Fax (310/544-5293)
RECEIVED
MAR 28 2~:~1
PLANNING,BUILDING AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT
Re:ZON2010-00386 (Revision to Height Variation No.697)for
28105 Golden Meadow Drive (Owner:Orlando)
Dear City Council Members:
Your 7 March 2011 notification concerning a variance for the rear,
second-story deck on the property located at 28105 Golden Meadow Drive
was forwarded to me for response.The subject property is immediately
next door to my family's home,which is located at 28111 Golden Meadow
Drive.PresentlY,1 am a trustee of this home and in that capacity as well
as in the personal capacity of one who looks forward to returning to RPV to
reside in the home,I write in support of granting the variance and allowing
the railing to remain in place.
Our backyard is the one most affected by the railing,as our property
is nearest the deck and the railing is visible from our backyard.I am not
concerned that the railing extends beyond the first floor wall.What does
concern me that anyone who might use the deck be protected from falling
and for that reason a railing is important.From an aesthetic perspective,it
makes sense for the railing to follow the edge of the deck.
My parents purchased our property as original owners in 1963 and I
grew up in the home at 28111 GM (RHHS 1973).Therefore,I have
witnessed many changes in the area in and around Golden Meadow Drive
over the past 48 years,including the construction of homes immediately
b.ehind ours inthe City of Palos Verdes Estates (on Via Corohel and
beyond)and the reconstruction of the home at the subject property from a
13-20
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Attn:Joel Rojas,AICP
Page 2
1-story rancher to a 2-story Mediterranean villa.It is my recollection that
the deck was built at the time the house was remodeled in or around 1990.
Therefore,the deck itself is not new.Apparently,however,the railing is,
and it is my understanding that it was installed this past year in accordance
with a permit from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
The City is encouraged to grant the Orlandos a variance for the
existing railing on their second floor deck.
Sincerely,
~~
Debora Luther
Cc:Sil and Adriana Orlando
13-21
MAR-~2-2011 08:50 From:BROWN &BROWN 3107920691 To:913105445293
:law ~#tOe4 0-/
BR.OWN &BROWN
DONALD e,eROWN
AOAM B.BROWN
FAX CO.Y.I.B SBEJrI
3848 CARSON STREET,SUITE 206
TORRANCE,CALIFORNIA 90S03
HL£PliONI;(3.10)HZ-UB
FAX (310)792-0691
www.brownlawofflce&.net
DAre:
FQR:
FROM:
FAX NO:
TeL.NO;
BE.:
March 22,2011
Leza Mikhail,Assooiate Planner
Donald B.Brown
(310)544-5293
(310)544·5228
28105 Golden Meadow Drive
MESSAGE:See attaohed letter.
If you do not receive this transmission in its entirety,or oannot read It clearly,please
call us at (310)792·1315
No.of pages to follow this page:1
OUf fax number is (310)792-0691
3848 Carson St.,Suite 206
Torranoe,CA 90603
Telephone:(310)792-1315
If you do not receive all the pages,please call us.This message is intended only for the use of the Individual or
entity toWhloh It Is addressed,and may contain Information that is priVileged.confidential and exempt trom
disclosure under applioable law.If the reader of this me$$age 1$not th~intended rt;lclplent.you are hereby
notified that any dissemination,dl$trlbution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.If you have
received thIs communication In error,please notify us immediately by telephone and return the original message
to us via the U.S.Postal Service.
oImydocs/Fax cvr to Mikhail.022211 13-22
MAR-e2-2011.08:50 From:BROWN &BROWN 3107920691 To:913105445293
~QtfD re1/PON (),!
BItOWN &BROWN
DONALD B.BROWN
ADAM B.BROWN
Maroh 22.2011
Leza Mikhail,Associate Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd
R.P.V.,CA 90275
Re:28105 Golden Meadow Drive
Property Owner:Mr,&Mrs.Orlando
SENT VIA E-MAIL
3848 CAR.SON STREET,suns 206
TORRANCE,CALJ:FORNIA 90503
TELEPHONE (310)792-1315
FAX (no)792-0691
www.brQwnlawoffleel>.net
Dear Ms.Mikhail,
I reside at,and am the owner of 27923 Golden Meadow Drive.which Is next door to
the above house.I received a notice of a public hearing on April 5,2011,regarding an
application by the owners of that property for a Revision to Height Variation,number 697.
Since I will be unable to attend,I would greatly appreciate whatever information you
might be able to give me,since I am having a difficult time picturing the profile of their
proposed deck,which will not end at the outer south wall of the building.
In other words.are they proposing an addition whose southern edge will extend over
nothing.with a railing at fuat edge?And if SOl how far beyond the southern wall of the house
itself will it extend?
I will greatly appreciate the answers you can give me,whether by phone,e-mail or
whatever.
086:la
C/mydocslMlkhalVLtr to CIt.032111
13-23
3/20/11
RECEIVED,
MAR '2'2 2011
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning,Building and Coder Enforcement
PlANNING.BUILDING AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
RPV,Ca.90275
Re.28105 Golden Meadow Dr.
To whom it may concern,
As neighbors of the parties living at 28105 golden Meadow Drive we support their request to
allow the second story deck railing to be able to remain installed around the perimeter of their
deck.The job was completely permitted by the city in advance.
The neighbor complaining should not be doing so.
The visibility from the end of the deck and from 10'back from the end is no different at all.
Feel free to contact us if you need any further information.
Thank you.,J./
,:i'''/"1#//"".AV.fC.~/"
f"~~
Sincere
Name:
Address:
13-24
3/20/11
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning,Building and Coder Enforcement
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
RPV,Ca.90275
Re.28105 Golden Meadow Dr.
To whom it may concern,
RECEIVED
MAR 23 2011
PLANNING,BUILDING AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT
As neighbors of the parties living at 28105 golden Meadow Drive we support their request to
allow the second story deck railing to be able to remain installed around the perimeter of their
deck.The job was completely permitted by the city in advance.
The neighbor complaining should not be doing so.
The visibility from th~.end of the d~k and.from 10'back from the end is no different at,~~.//./
1»1 /55t-L 1£Mt("1'k..leu'l t/5'Ir(/6j I~c.t(y jl-fv J1~tv }4~/)1 /~/ld'V''WJ II~/;J/
Feel free to contact us if you need any furtherinformation.I-t.~It 7l-j/..t.IH P ~J
Thank you._._~%.~~(':2.
Sincerely,
Name:j/#/c/z,;;;F ~k
Address:1<6!11 ~/p vt IIICIIl1h!)/-
J{Jl.//.)6/j--f e1 7!5
)/(-;11~J~{)5
13-25
3/20/11
RECEIVED
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning,Building and Coder Enforcement
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
RPV,Ca.90275
Re.28105 Golden Meadow Dr.
To whom it may concern,
MAR 22 2011
PLANNING,BUILDING AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT
As neighbors ofthe Orlandos we support their request to allow the second story deck railing to
be able to remain installed around the perimeter of their deck.
Weare well aware of the expenses incurred by the Orlandos due to the fact that the former
railing was set back from the far side of the deck causing considerable water leakage into their
walls and ceiling.We also know that they secured all necessary permits from the city before
completing the work that they did.
Standing on the deck there is absolutely no privacy issue with the neighbors as visibility from the
end of the deck and from 10'back from the end is no different at all.
In actuality,they hardly ever go out on to that deck so privacy should not even be a
consideration.
Feel free to contact us if you need any further information.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Name:
Address:
~-&y/
'Vit-T tlOAfJ?
70clG $VJoIC fOY c1 pV
([)J l \'7'VI,(\.,JI AJJ..~{-r.:-."V&W (,V ,7 \./"[l"
13-26
3/20/11
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning,Building and Coder Enforcement
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
RPV,Ca.90275
Re.28105 Golden Meadow Dr.
To whom it may concern,
MAR 28 2011
PlANNING,BUILDING AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT
As neighbors ofthe parties living at 28105 golden Meadow Drive we support their request to
allow the second story deck railing to be able to remain installed around the perimeter oftheir
deck.The job was completely permitted by the city in advance.
The neighbor complaining should not be doing so.
The visibility from the end of the deck and from 10'back from the end is no different at all.
Feel free to contact us if you need any further information.
Thank you.
R~~
Sincerely,
Name:7h,gjV'\.0.$
Address:cE>o 5 t
-RPU
Do.v/?
Cra{of-e",MeeCio\;v
Cit '10275'
13-27
3/20/11
City ofRancho Palos Verdes
Planning,Building and Coder Enforcement
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
RPV,Ca.90275
Re.28105 Golden Meadow Dr.
To whom it may concern,
RECEIVED
MAR 292011
PLANNI.NG.BUILDING AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT
As neighbors ofthe Orlandos we support their request to allow the second story deck railing to
be able to remain installed around the perimeter of their deck.
We are well aware of the expenses incurred by the Orlandos due to the fact that the former
railing was set back from the far side of the deck causing considerable water leakage into their
walls and ceiling.We also know that they secured all necessary permits from the city before
completing the work that they did.
Standing on the deck there is absolutely no privacy issue with the neighbors as visibility from the
end of the deck and from 10'back from the end is no different at all.
In actuality,they hardly ever go out on to that deck so privacy should not even be a
consideration.
Feel free to contact us if you need any further information.
Thank you.
r ,/
smc&e~W0~'~~
Name::r jJr(lj r;vJ.Crlf I LD £1?--1A-t>Sf
Address:7 ();;..q fb €&vl1 F I ~l-l)[)'f?..
f:-P \I cA-'10 ()-1S-
31D -2>11-&f cr.?
f
\
13-28
3/20/11
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning,Building and Coder Enforcement
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
RPV,Ca.90275
Re.28105 Golden Meadow Dr.
To members of the planning council,
RECEIVED
MAR 29 2011
PLANNING,BUILDING AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT
We support their request made by the Orlandos to allow the second story deck railing to be able
to remain installed around the perimeter of their deck.There is no privacy issue here at all.
The neighbor complaining should not be doing so.He is also a resident of the Estates not RPV.
There is no difference in the visibility from the end of the deck and from 10'back.
Feel free to contact us if you need any further information.
Thank you.
13-29
3/20/11
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning,Building and Coder Enforcement
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
RPV,Ca.90275
Re.28105 Golden Meadow Dr.
To whom it may concern,
RECEIVED
MAR 29 2011
PLANNING,BUILDING AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT
As neighbors of the Orlandos we support their request to allow the second story deck railing to
be able to remain installed around the perimeter of their deck.
The neighbor complaining is being unreasonable as his privacy is NOT compromised at all.
Standing on the deck there is absolutely no privacy issue with the neighbors as visibility from the
end of the deck and from 10'back from the end is no different at all.
Feel free to contact us if you need any further information.
Thank you.
13-30
3/20/11
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning,Building and Coder Enforcement
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
RPV,Ca.90275
Re.28105 Golden Meadow Dr.
To whom it may concern,
RECEIVED
MAR 29 2011
PLANNING.BUILDING AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT
As neighbors of the Orlandos we support their request to allow the second story deck railing to
be able to remain installed around the perimeter of their deck.
We are well aware of the expenses incurred by the Orlandos due to the fact that the former
railing was set back from the far side of the deck causing considerable water leakage into their
walls and ceiling.We also know that they secured all necessary peimits from the city before
completing the work that they did.
Standing on the deck there is absolutely no privacy issue with the neighbors as visibility from the
end of the deck and from 10'back from the end is no different at all.
In actuality,they hardly ever go out on to that deck so privacy should not even be a
consideration.
Feel free to contact us if you need any further information.
Thank you.
SinCerelY'~~
Name:'j;,c.ro;~o.P )~L
Address:0<.7 ~(i'I ~~I ~
lZ Vvf<:La rcrJ c5
'1 I (f --
(YU-~olc/1\/f)))-
Y ~ctr-qO 7-7 )""~I
5'-4-'--7~~??
13-31
3/20/11
City ofRancho Palos Verdes
Planning,Building and Coder Enforcement
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
RPV,Ca.90275
Re.28105 Golden Meadow Dr.
To whom it may concern,
RECEIVED
MAR 29 2011
PLANNING,BUILDING AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT
As neighbors of the Orlandos we support their request to allow the second story deck railing to
be able to remain installed around the perimeter of their deck.
We are well aware of the expenses incurred by the Orlandos due to the fact that the former
railing was set back from the far side of the deck causing considerable water leakage into their
walls and ceiling.We also know that they secured all necessary permits from the city before
completing the work that they did.
Standing on the deck there is absolutely no privacy issue with the neighbors as visibility from the
end of the deck and from 10'back from the end is no different at all.
In actuality,they hardly ever go out on to that deck so privacy should not even be a
consideration.
Feel free to contact us if you need any further information.
Thank ~()--(J
~~.
Sincerely,
Name:
Address:
It-t-£CkS"-'rkGrH oL-(5
2J9 l 7 60l--:D EO 1'.l '""~vV WI-.::JE-
RMcttv f'~{~
Ck-9 0 "7--7!::>
~I'D 317 099-z..-------3):24>I(
13-32
3/20/11
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning,Building and Coder Enforcement
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
RPV,Ca.90275
Re.28105 Golden Meadow Dr.
~·t
RE-CEIVED
MAR 29 2011
PLANNING.BUILDING AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT
To the city ofRPV,
We are in agreement with the request made by the owners of28105 Golden Meadow to allow the
second story deck railing to be able to remain installed around the outside of their deck
especially as the city approved their plan and signed off on all permits.
The neighbor complaining is a resident of the Estates not RPV and he is being unfair and
unreasonable in his request.The former railing installed through the middle of the deck caused
water leakage that cost the current owners some $70,000 to repair.
There is not any privacy issue involved here at all.
Thank you for your support of our plea.
13-33
3/20/11
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning,Building and Coder Enforcement
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
RPV,Ca.90275
Re.28105 Golden Meadow Dr.
To whom it may concern,
RECEIVED
MAR 29 2011
PLANNING,BUILDING AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT
As neighbors of the parties living at 28105 golden Meadow Drive we support their request to
allow the second story deck railing to be able to remain installed around the perimeter of their
deck.The job was completely permitted by the city in advance.
The neighbor complaining should not be doing so.
The visibility from the end of the deck and from 10'back from the end is no different at all.
Feel free to contact us ifyou need any further information.
Thank you.
Z~!IL~/i1
1ff2.I c.vLt
Address:103~'Mec~NAlfLI)Dt!-.
/1../J.v
(1(0)11<j-I&jCj5
13-34
3/20/11
City ofRancho Palos Verdes
Planning,Building and Coder Enforcement
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
RPV,Ca.90275
Re.28105 Golden Meadow Dr.
To whom it may concern,
RECEIVED
MAR 29 2011
PLANNING.BUILDING AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT
As neighbors of the Orlandos we support their request to allow the second story deck railing to
be able to remain installed around the perimeter of their deck.
We are well aware of the expenses incurred by the Orlandos due to the fact that the former
railing was set back from the far side of the deck causing considerable water leakage into their
walls and ceiling.We also know that they secured all necessary permits from the city before
completing the work that they did.
Standing on the deck there is absolutely no privacy issue with the neighbors as visibility from the
end of the deck and from 10'back from the end is no different at all.
In actuality,they hardly ever go out on to that deck so privacy should not even be a
consideration.
Feel free to contact us if you need any further information.
Thank you.
Address:
Sincerely,to vr f'r-
Name:~~\A\'j i"¥'j ~
V>Q,e~\,~J \)y.
.Co.-,~O}q\
1'0 X;l.I;v~).'\,1
13-35
3/20/11
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning,Building and Coder Enforcement
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
RPV,Ca.90275
Re.28105 Golden Meadow Dr.
RECEIVED
MAR 29 2011
PLANNING,BUILDING AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT
To whom it may concern,
As neighbors of the parties living at 28105 golden Meadow Drive we support their request to
allow the second story deck railing to be able to remain installed around the perimeter of their
deck.The job was completely permitted by the city in advance.
The neighbor complaining should not be doing so.
The visibility from the end of the deck and from 10'back from the end is no different at all.
Feel free to contact us if you need any further information.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Name:
Address:~~CAU"-
70 J.I ~~fLc-hltRJ J-..'\)y.
e.7J J CA C(o~7f
?;I?'~(f (
13-36
3/25/11
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning,Building and Coder Enforcement
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
RPV,Ca.90275
Re.28105 Golden Meadow Dr.
RECEIVED
MAR 292011
PLANNING,BUILDING AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT
To whom it may concern,
We are responding to your letter of March 7,2011 to inform you that we do not think that the
owners of the above mentioned property should have to move their deck railing back.We
support their request for a variance to allow the railing to remain where it is,seeing as it was
fully permitted in the first place.
We hope you will support our request.
Please contact us if you need any further information.
Sincerely,
_f':'r\.l-~Z~(lA.c.::y 0
Name:E J.-1 ffA-S;6>frL
Address:I Lt 13 Vi e,OoIC-ONe L
PVe
13-37
Leza Mikhail
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teri Takaoka [terit@rpv.com]
Wednesday,March 30,2011 2:41 PM
'Leza Mikhail'
FW:28105 Golden Meadow,Rancho Palos Verdes,CA .90275 Encroachment of our privacy
-----Original Message-----
From:nagy.khalil@cox.net [mailto :nagy .khalil@cox.net]
Sent:Wednesday,March 30,2011 2:40 PM
To:cc@rpv.com
Subject:28105 Golden Meadow,Rancho Palos Verdes,CA .90275 Encroachment of our privacy
>From
Nagy Khalil
1480 Via coronel,Palos Verdes Estates.
I am sending this email to express my serious concerns about my family right of privacy at their own home.It
was shocking to all of us to find strangers overlooking our living room,the bed room,the kitchen as well as our
back yard with the pool and the spa areas are widely exposed.Nobody can sit in the sun without being looked at
by the back neighbors,as if we have a permanent stranger living in all the time.Palos verdes estates used to be
known for being quit,private and everyone is curious about their neighbors,are we loosing that?I hope not.I
was wondering how the city as well as the planning department approved this bizarre construction without any
consideration to others who also have the rights to their privacy and to enjoy their home without 'Worries.I hope
that your honorable committee reverse this invasion to our home,so we can continue to enjoy our home that we
love for long time.Please give us our privacy back.J!'~
Thank you,
Nagy Khalil
1480 via coronel
PVE,90274
(310)541-8332 home
(323)573-7995
1
13-38
Page 1 of 1
Leza Mikhail
From:Nagy F [nagyf23@yahoo.com]
Sent:Wednesday,March 30,20115:13 PM
To:lezam@rpv.com
Subject:encrichment of privacy
From,Nagy Khalil,MD
1480 Via coronel,PVE.CA.90274
Home Tel:(310)541-8332
Cell Tel:(323)573-7995
I am writing this email to express my serious concerns about the encroachment on my family privacy as
a result of the back neighbor's addition with extended deck and the fencining overlooking our back yard,
the bedroom and the kitchen.With this added construction we lost the privacy of our pool,spa,
bedroom,living room and bedroom.I wonder if it is fair to have a permennant intruder to our home
cause someone decided to have a big deck over-riding our home.please share with me and my family
our concerns and reverse this uncomfertable situation.
Nagy Khalil
3/31/2011 13-39
Page 1 of2
Leza Mikhail
From:Leza Mikhail [LezaM@rpv.com]
Sent:Thursday,March 31,2011 8:32 AM
To:'Winston Chang'
Cc:'cc@rpv.com'
Subject:RE:Variance Application for 28105 Golden Meadow (AGAINST)
Dear Mr.Chang,
Thank you for your comments.I will make sure that they are included in the packet to the City Council.
As I noted in our phone conversation this morning,I would also like to take this opportunity to formally
discuss the option/alternative you have brought up below.I am aware that the property owner at 28105
Golden Meadow did not want to put a deck railing on the roof;however they also mentioned that they
did not want to remove the french doors which make the deck physically accessible from the second
story.This creates a safety hazard.Many months ago,it was explained to the property owner that the
only way they could completely remove the deck railing was if they removed the french doors and made
them windows.At the time,the property owner was not amenable to that alternative.Instead,they
wanted to pursue the current location of the deck railing.
If the property owner decided they wanted to remove the french doors and replace them with windows,
thereby making the deck not accessible at all,then there would be no need to go before the City Council
to revise the condition of approval.The property owner could just submit an application for a Building
Permit to change the doors to windows.As I noted above,the property owner did not want to pursue this
option.I have called the property owner this morning to verify that they do not want to remove the
french doors or deck railing and they do want to move forward with their current request.
Thank you again for your comments,
Leza Mikhail
Associate Planner
City ofCRgncfio Pa(os o/enfes
Planning Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
www.palosverdes.com/rpv/planning/planning-zoninglindex.cfin
(310)544-5228 -(310)544-5293 f
lezam@q::!v.com
From:Winston Chang [mailto:winstonchang8@gmail.com]
Sent:Wednesday,March 30,2011 9:02 PM
To:lezam@rpv.com
Cc:cc@rpv.com
Subject:Variance Application for 28105 Golden Meadow (AGAINST)
Dear Leza,
3/31/2011 13-40
Page 2 of2
I am writing to propose a solution which might be considered a win-win for all parties in reference to the
variance application at 28105 Golden Meadow.
As you know,based upon statements by the applicant and my own experience,the current situation is a
lose-lose.I am dismayed by the total erosion of privacy I now experience,and my neighbors at 28105
Golden Meadow are unhappy because they built a railing around a deck that they never wanted.
There is a solution which can resolve both situations.A solution that can turn a lose-lose into a win-
WIll.
The applicant should be allowed to remove the railing around the single story roof completely.To
alleviate the building department's safety concerns,all doors which currently lead out to the single story
roof should be replaced with fixed windows.In this scenario my privacy is greatly restored,and the
applicant doesn't have to have a roof deck which they don't want anyways.
The applicant has stated concerns about relocating the railing because of water intrusion issues and the
cost of constructing a new railing.By removing the railing completely there would be no increased
water intrusion.Also,the cost of implementation would be greatly reduced.Rather than building a new
railing,with the associated water proofing,etc.,the cost would be limited to removing railings,simple
patch and repair (on vertical surfaces which are less susceptible to water intrusion),and replacing the
door which leads to the roof with fixed glass.
This should cost far less than relocating the railing,and will solve our privacy issue at the same time.
I hope that the council can give serious consideration to this proposal.Please don't hesitate to contact
me with any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Winston Chang
3/31/2011 13-41
City Council Resolution No.91-44
13-42
RESOLUTION 91-44
~RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING THE APPEAL OF
HEIGHT VARIATION NO.697,THEREBY APPROVING
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR A SECOND STORY
ADDITION AT 28105 GOLDEN MEADOW DRIVE.
WHEREAS,on March 11,1991,the applicant,Dr.Gary Rinzler,
received administrative approval from the Director of
Environmental Services for an 874 square foot second story
addition to his home at 28105 Golden Meadow Drive which will
measure 21'-3"above existing,adjacent grade;and
WHEREAS,on March 25,1991,within the 15 day appeal period,
adjacent property owner's to the immediate south of the subject
property,Mr.and Mrs.Richard van der Weyde,appealed the
Director's decision to the Planning Commission;and
WHEREAS,after notice issued pursuant to the provisions of
the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code,a public hearing before
the Planning Commission was held on May 14,1991,at which time
after hearing evidence presented by all interested parties,the
Commission unanimously voted to deny the appeal,thereby approving
the project;and
WHEREAS,on May 29,1991,within the 15 day appeal period,
the same appellants filed a written appeal of the Planning
Commission's decision to the City Council;and
WHEREAS,on July 2,1991,after notice pursuant to the
provisions of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code,the City
Council held a public hearing at which time all interested parties
were given the opportunity to be heard and present evidence;and
NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND,DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1:That pursuant to Section 17.02.040 of the
Development Code guidelines,the applicant has complied with the
provisions set forth for early neighborhood consultation,in that
he had obtained a sufficient number of signatures on the Early
Neighborhood Consultation form supplied by the City to satisfy
this requirement.
Section 2:That the applicant constructed a temporary space
frame of the outline of the proposed addition;the height and
location of which were verified by Staff.
13-43
..
Section 10:For the foregoing reasons and based on
information and findings included in the Staff report and evidence
presented at the public hearing,the City Council of the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes hereby denies the appeal of Height Variation
No.697,thereby upholding the Planning Commission's decision to
approve the second story addition at 28105 Golden Meadow Drive
subject to the conditions in Exhibit "A"attached hereto and made
a part hereof,said conditions being necessary to preserve the
public health,safety,and general welfare.
PASSED,APPROVED,AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of July,1991.
lSI DOUGLAS M.HINCHLIFFE
MAYOR
ATTEST:
lSI JO PURCELL
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )ss
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES )
I,JO PURCELL,City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,
hereby certify that the above Resolution No.91-44 was duly and
regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular
meeting thereof held on the 2nd day of July,1991.
CITY CLERK
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
Resolution,No.91-44
Page 313-44
·City Council Minutes
(July 2,1991)
13-45
•Tracey,5 Via Veneta,President of the Villa Capri Homeowner
A ociation,who stated the association's objection to t 1S
ext sion.
(At 1 ·15 P.M.Councilman Ryan returned to the Council dai .)
John Douglass,62 Via capri,reminded Council of h'earlier
testimony o~.this matter requesting an Environmental pact Report
and overturni the negative declaration.He cited e excavation
required for thJ:project,the dust control that wo d be necessary
and the fact that uring the past year their home ners association
had commissioned Sc fer Dixon Associates to pe orm an independent
assessment of the geo cgy for this project a a.
Council then inquired abo the status of the geology performed by
the homeowners association,and the current status of the City's
geological analysis.
Councilwoman Bacharach moved,s,'Onded by Councilman Hughes to
close the pUblic hearing.The,m6ti~arried unanimously.
Council uidcussion continued and cente~d on the reason for the
request for extension;the number of exten~ons that can be granted
for this Conditional Us ermit;and,whethe~there was a right to
such an extens ion.""""'
Councilman Hughes ved,seconded by councilwoma~~charachto deny
the appeal there sustaining the Planning Commiss1~n's action to
approve a one,ar extension of the proposed project:~
The m.~tionfailed on the following roll call vote:'~
AS:BACHARACH AND HUGHES
,ES:McTAGGART,RYAN AND MAYOR HINCHLIFFE
RBSOLUTXON NO.91-44 -HEIGHT VARIATION NO.697 APPEAL (1804),
The Mayor opened the public hearing on this appeal of a
administrative approval of Height Variation No.697 for an 874 sq.
foot second story addition to a home located at 28105 Golden Meadow
Dr.This addition would measure 21 feet 3 inches above the
existing adjacent grade.The city Clerk reported that notice of
the pUblic hearing had been duly published.Director Benard
presented the staff recommendation to deny the appeal thereby
upholding the Planning Commission's decision to approve the
project.
The Mayor announced that,for the record,all members of the
Council had visited the site on Sunday afternoon,that they did not
engage in any conversation with the people at the site and that
they were there simply ,to view the property.He stated that
testimony should be limited to the issue of the height variation
for the second story and should not pertain to the first story
10 CITY COUNCIL -JULY 2,1991
13-46
aspect of this project.
Speaking against the project were the following residents:
appellant Richard Van Der Weyde,28111 _So.Golden Meadow Dr.;"Ron
&Milla Buss,1472 Via-Coronel,Palos Verdes Est.;Sheila &Charles
Hoff,28205 Ambergate Dr.;and Carol J.Ozark,1468 Via Coronel,
Palos Verdes Est.The concerns of these residents focused on the
incompatibility of this project with the homes already existing in
the neighborhood;objection to the fact that the sundeck is in the
rear of the house and does not conform with the architecture in the
neighborhood;the fact that approval of this second story will
encourage other second story additions to be built;the loss of
privacy to other homes adjacent to this second story;disagreement
with-the staff opinion that there was no view impairment caused by
the second story;the mass appearance of the proposed project;and,
some cited the blockage of ocean view by the proposed project.
Speaking in favor of the project were the following residents:Dr.
Gary S.Rinzler,the property owner;Daniel.Gehman,architect for
the project,3643 S.Bear st.,Santa Ana;Robert Reamer,Attorney
for Dr.Rinzler,23505 Crenshaw,Torrance;Howard Dielmann,28220
Golden Meadow Dr.;Jawahar Shah,27901 Golden Meadow Dr.;Ming-Ho
Liu,6918 Maycroft Dr.These speakers focused on the types of
homes that already exist in the area and in,particular,the 24
two-story homes in the neighborhood;cited the fact that the
applicant and his architect have worked with the neighbors to
alleviate their concerns and have worked within the building code
of the City;the fact that the compatibility requirement does not
mean that additions have to be identical with other structures in
the neighborhood;and,the fact that this improvement would~be an
asset to the neighborhood.I
Speaking in rebuttal was Ron Buss who reiterated his concern about
the privacy issue inasmuch as the project would be built on what he
felt was a ridge and requested that the_homeowner stay within the
one story limitation.William Cleary,6935 Brookford,expressed
his opposition to the project and said that this addition would
impair the view from the front of-his house.
The property owner,Dr.Rinzler,presented pictures taken from the
front of Mr.Cleary's house which he said showed that the impact
would be minimal.
Rebutting the appellant's testimony was the applicant's attorney
Robert J.Reamer,who said that privacy was not one of the issues
to be considered in this type of application and that there was not
any significant view impairment presented by the project.
council then discussed the original application which had been
presented for a first story addition and how that addition went out
over the slope;whether the sun deck was part of the first addition
or the second-story addition;if the view impairment covenant
11 CITY COUNCIL -JULY 2,1991
13-47
applied to all of the trees on Dr.Rinzler's property;if there was
some way to eliminate the extension of the deck over the jacuzzi;
how the privacy standard applied to this matter;the fact most of
the ocean view was blocked by city owned trees;and whether the
overhang of the project should be taken off and the deck moved to
the rear of the property.
councilman McTaggart moved,seconded by Councilwoman Bacharach to
close the pUblic hearing.The motion carried.
Councilwoman Bacharach moved,seconded by Councilman Ryan to deny
the appeal with the condition that the upstairs deck be made
contiguous with the wall of the house.The motion failed on the
following roll call vote:
AYES:BACHARACH AND RYAN
NOES:McTAGGART,HUGHES AND MAYOR HINCHLIFFE
The motion failed.
Councilman McTaggart moved,seconded by Councilman Hughes to deny
the appeal and add a condition that no deck be built above the
extension behind the existing house.The motion carried on the
following roll call vote:
AYES:BACHARACH,HUGHES,McTAGGART,RYAN AND MAYOR HINCHLIFFE
RESOLUTION NO.91-44 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
PALOS VERDES DENYING THE APPEAL OF HEIGHT VARIATION NO.697 ,
THEREBY APPROVING THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR A SECOND STORY
ADDITION AT 28105 GOLDEN MEADOW DRIVE was presented by title and
adopted as amended on motion of Councilman Hughes,seconded by
Councilman McTaggart and carried unanimously.
~~SS AND RECONVENE.
'''''........At 1:0 M.the Mayor declared a brief recess.At 1:10 A.M.~
meeting rec Yen~.~~
RBSOLUT:ION NO.91-~RE.SSOLOT:ION NO.91-46 -,.....~,.,/
REFUSE AND RECYCL:ING F~CREASE -(1301)~/
The Mayor opened the PUblic-~'ng 0 /~s rate increase to be
effective JUly 1,1991 for the r ential refuse and recycling
collection services within t~.....e ty.T ~ty Clerk reported that
notice of this pUblic he~g had been duly blished.Assistant
to the city Manager P~~fa Antil presented the s f memorandum of
July 2nd and the .r~60mmendation to:(1)Conduct a p ic hearing.
(2)Adopt.9-..····"resolution establishing the residentl.refuse
collect!pl1""rates for Areas I,II and II (Waste Management.(3)
Ado.¢,~·~a resolution establishing the residential refuse collectl.
"~es for Area IV (Ivy Rubbish Disposal).
12·CITY COUNCIL -JULY 2,1991
13-48
,Planning Clearance
(Site Plan Review 6881 -Patio Cover Extension)-1992
13-49
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
PLANNING CLEARANCE
PROJECT LOCATION:t~\oS ~a4)
LOT AND TRACT NO.:_l&t \0 \,1l2.051 M
i '-----.;;;.....;..--=-----------------
OWNER'S NAME:~---_
AND ADDRESS:4::::ttme------------------_
PROJECT NO.:~_&~PA..-;f2;....,:.J-------------_
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:.~flIGht>~~_
Approval is granted subject to the following conditions:
~M~'~
rVJ NJ vaAllf11 ~ll ~~tbj ~6Yld .-tne.11YLt-
t>{~veox Vljtt;1I ~~.hac).e be-,lw,t1La (=11JfD
cPVeY ~ltlV1 ~I \'16t~.I)~ftr deck-j2!U~~.5.
~UILDING PERMIT REQUIRED.
THIS FORM,ALONG WITH THE TWO COPIES OF THE APPROVED PLANS,MUST BE SUBMITTED WHEN
APPLYING FOR A BUILDING PERMIT.
The City strongly urges the applicant for this project to contact the Homeowners
Association or local Art Jury,if any,to gain any additional approvals that may be
required before applying for a building permit.Homeowners Associations are on file
with the Environmental Services Department of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dump Deposit Required _
Dump Deposit
Receipt No.:-------
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
(213)377-0360
By :-¥~':-W--l--:~~..v.~===:;=:::::::::~-
Services
ES 101/2/88 ~inisterial o Discretionary13-50
Deck Railing Site Plan
Approved March 18,2010 by Building Division
II
13-51
LU~l:.JIIUUl:ld U
I
oL.....
CITY OF RANC~O PALOS VERDES
BUILDING &SAFETY DIVISION APPROVAL
This set of plans &specifications must f~\l \It f-w
kept on the job at all times and it is
Unlawful to make any changes or alterations
on same without written permission from
Building &Safety,City of Rancho Palos
Verdes.The stamping of these plans and
sP8cifications'SHALL NOT be held to permit or
be approved of the Violation of any provisions on
any City Ordinance or State Law.
I !i !
I IO~,~
!!I I
I !I II',1!..
~
I
i !I 1
II"III
I I
IU\LO\NG &.SAfEN
RECE\VED
MAR 182010
1310-
ooo
~
d
0
1
z.ql ~
Ca[ifornia 1«j[ections,""Inc.
4504 Del Arno Boulevard
Torrance,CA 90503
(310)379-8772rr;_\_l..Fax (310)542-4535
::;::J(.J:)f€...C'J~:
HnP05~O ~JH~~I{~h;,m'it.or lANDO f.E.1Jt Dtf.JL£
ZB ~D6 6D~~rYl£RoouJ Dt-
tlAtJtHv PPrWs ~fflleS (I)-C[Ol15
Date:3 ...\e....IO
By:_-__--.._~:;;'-~~;;""L::::=I!!::---=--------
13-52
Deck Railing Building Permit
(BLD2010-00180)Finaled March 23,2010
t
13-53
BUILOIN'G PER'MIT
AND A CERTIFICATE OF USE &OCCUPANCY
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
(310)265-7800 Inspections:(310)541-9809
PERMIT NO.:
APPLIED:
ISSUED:
EXPIRES:
BLD2010-00180
3/18/2010
3/18/2010
9/18/2011
ISITE ADDRESS:28105 GOLDEN MEADOW DR APN #:7584002008
OWNER/APPLICANT
ORLANDO,SILVIO J &ADRIANA H
28105 GOLDEN MEADOW DR
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CA 90275
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Install 90'long by 42"high glass railing on existing 2nd floor deck,
CONTRACTOR
CALIFORNIA REFLECTIONS,INC
4504 DEL AMO BLVD
TORRANCE CA 90503
BLD ELE
IPLANNING
CLEARANCE BY
WORK COVERED
MEC PLM GRD DEMO
NOTES or INSPECTIONS
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAl.:
1 Don't forget to call (310)541-9809 for a FINAL inspection.
2 Inspector to verify conditions in field.
Type
APPL
DATA
PCOT
PRMT
1473
SMP1
FEES
Amount
$35.00
$4.00
$65.00
$184.00
$1.00
$1.00
Total:$290.00
I hereby acknowledge that I have read this permit and state that the all information above and
any attached sheets is correct,and agree to comply with all ordinances and state and federal
laws regulating ac .ities covered by this permit.I authorize representives of this city to enter
upon the abov entioned roperty for inspection purposes.
Print Name
I_IS_SU_E_D_B_Y_:--t.T--:?--J11 FINALED By:A!q.,[lflY-.:::::::::.~13-54
~ity of Ran~,ho Palos Verdes
Building and Safety Department
Permit I Plan Check Application
..."
Email
Job Address
PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME:
Mailing address if different:
Phone Number:
Date of
28106 Gddw ~~plication
PrintApplicant Name ~~Email ~/l!Zflo,v?t Ao,-,61Y1
.Applicant Signature ~PERMIT 1#J3 \0 -0 -:::0 \po
Applicant's Best Phone #(:t:....-u..,t....V.....;5i.=:..-DS=..-r--=.~;....,:Z~b"'-7l--_
rxt.itlJlJtJ
ARCH I ENGINEER~
City Business License #License #
City:Zip:----------Email Address
Address:
Phone Number:
Written Description of Work:S uare Footage
leBO or ER #Valuation $/lJ/6CJO
I hereby acknowledge that I have read this permit application and state that all information including any attached sheets
are correct.I agree to comply with all City ordinances,State and Federal laws regulating activities covered by this permit
for which I am applying.I authorize representatives of this city to enter upon above mentioned property for inspection
purposes.I will ensure that items requiring inspections will not be covered without an approval by the City Building
Inspector.
~Contractor with Worker's Compensation
o Workers Compo Policy
No.Exp Date:
or Contractor is Exempt
o Exempt
I hereby afftrm under penalty of perjury that I am licensed under provisions of Chapter 9 (commencing with
Section 7000)of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code,and my license is in full force and in effect.
Contractors Si atnre:Date:I B t.
License Class C /7 License #663131 Exp.Date
13-55
Deck Repair Building Permits (All)
Finaled March 23,2010
13-56
BLD2009-00186
4/2/2009
4/2/2009
10/2/2010
BUILDING PERMIT
AND A CERTIFICATE OF USE &OCCUPANC'(;
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
(310)265-7800 Inspections:(310)541-9809
ISITE ADDRESS:28105 GOLDEN MEADOW DR
....--~(.._----------.
PERMIT NO.:
APPLIED:
ISSUED:
EXPIRES:
APN #:7584002008
OWNER/APPLICANT
ORLANDO,SILVIO J &ADRIANA H
28105 GOLDEN MEADOW DR
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CA 90275
"'PI:";:R~O~Jr=E~C'=;:'T";IllD:;=El'llll:S~C';=;:RrrIlP;:;T""IO~N:T::-----------'
Reinstate 2-expired permits to achieve final inspection for B04-00756 &
B06-00928 both issued to repair a 500 Sf deck under the 2001 CBC
requirements
IPLANNING
CLEARANCE BY
CONTRACTOR
OWNER BUILDER BLD ELE
WORK COVERED
MEC PLM GRD DEMO
Type
APPL
DATA
PRMT
SMP1
1473
i
FEES
Amount
$29.04
$3.96
$50.63
$0.50
$1.00
Total:$85.13
NOTES or INSPECTIONS
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1 Inspector to verify condi.tions in fi.eld.
2 If deck is not finaled within the timeframe of this permit,a brand new plan check
and permit will have to be issued and the deck will have to be repair and built
according to the current 2007CBC requirements.
3 Don't forget to call (310)541·9809 for a FINAL inspection.
I hereby acknowledge that I have read this permit and state that the all information above and
any attached sheets is correct,and agree to comply with all ordinances and state and federal
laws regulating activities covered by this permit.I authorize representives of this city to enter
upon the a~o,ve menti.~::~!~~s.
FINALED BY:,{t{(J1ifAP.::==?....;:W=...:ti3:¥:Ifi;;;I,.=-D_A_TE_:..;:3;..;;~l;;.,;'3;;../..::.(O=____.....J
13-57
"
\City of Raik~ho Palos Verdes
Building and Safety Department
Permit I Plan Check Application
.~
Job Address )."__~....;;JT>_~__~_J_tl_A_m_l9',.:t_Jc_,)_~_~::li:~tion _..:-~~JzJ_(}+-f_~_.•_----.-_
Print Applicant Name S"";_,_,_u_"-::.D_()-==:(=/o:::.....:::cl::::;::()==::::::;;;-_Email:;;=...:..;.I:.....:V~{l.-lo.-:.n~Jv~...::.:~:::O..-.:::..1~a:w:).........()O.C071.\..
Applicant Signature PERMIT #
,~
Applicant's Best Phone #"$J 0 -'5;4 y -S 6 6 L.
PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME:
Mailing address if different:
Phone Number:S"L,'-I ~
ARCH I ENGINEER:
City Business License #License #
City:Zip:----------Email Address
Address:
Phone Number:
Written Description of Work:Square Footage
e:........l>}4N ek~t t""-€(F::>b .-.c'"\X ....-f a.-.-.'""+~,c:vl I
Ii .'
ICBOorER#Valuation $
I hereby acknowledge that I have read this permit application and state that all information including any attached sheets
are correct.I agree to comply with all City ordinances,State and Federal laws regulating activities covered by this permit
for which I am applying.I authorize representatives of this city to enter upon above mentioned property for inspection
purposes.I will ensure that items requiring inspections will not be covered without an approval by the City Building
Inspector.
o .Contractor with Worker's Compensation
o Workers Compo Policy
No.Exp Date:
or Contractor is Exempt
o Exempt
I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury that I am licensed under provisions of Chapter 9 (commencing with
Section 7000)of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code,and my license is in full force and in effect.
Contractors Si nature:Date:
Print Name :Email:
License Class License #--------'-Exp.Date
13-58
BUILr111\1f.:PERMIT
AND A CERfifI~ATE15F USE &OCCUPANCY
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
(310)265·7800 Inspections:(310)541·9809
SITE ADDRESS:28105 GOLDEN MEADOW DR
PERrvnT NO.:
APPLIED:
ISSUED:
EXPIRES:
BLD2006-00928
11/16/2006
11/16/2006
OWNER/APPLICANT
ORLANDO,SILVIO J &ADRIANA H
28105 GOLDEN MEADOW DR
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CA 90275
PROJECT DESCRIPTioN:
Re-issue of expired permit bld2004-00756 to repair deck at rear of
house
CONTRACTOR
ELE
WORK COVERED
MEC PLM GRD DEMOIPLANNING
CLEARANCE BY
NOTES or INSPECTIONS
18008\';:;"';',,t
Extension Gt8.,:red
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
$50.00
$26.40
$3.60
Amount
lotal:$80.00
FEES
Type
PRMT
APPL
DATA
PERMIT EXPIRED BY UMfTATION
DATE T;p'~~::::::~I
I hereby acknowledge that I have read this permit and state that the all information above
and any attached sheets is correct,and agree to oomply with all ordinances and state and
federal laws regulating activities oovered by this permit.I authorize representives of this
city to enter upon the above m'perty for inspection purposes.
'/;;C II//'/'!Db
Applicant or Owner's Signature
...,e S;;j",:,c rJ/IA.d,J
Date
Print Name
FINALED BY:DATE:
13-59
RUILDlN~pr:RMIT
=D A CERTIFICATE1f USE rcrcdJJlJIcy
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
(310)541·7702 Inspections:(310)541·9809
PERMIT NO.:
APPLIED:
ISSUED:
EXPIRES:
BLD2004-00756
9/21/2004
9/2*112004
3/21/2006 •
SITE ADDRESS:28105 GOLDEN MEADOW DR APN #:7584002008
IPROJECT DESCRIPTION:
repair deck at rear of house 500 sq ftOWNER/APPLICANT
ORLANDO,SILVIO J &ADRIANA H
."28105 GOLDEN MEADOW DR
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CA 90275
CONTRACTOR I BLD ELE
WORK COVERED
MEC PLM GRD DEMO
IPLANNING I
_C_L_E_AR_AN_C_E_BY N_O_'_
NOTES or INSPECTIONS
\
,
~
If
~
1.."""1..",",,,"'"w,iIU'"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:~~1 Construction waste disposal certlfl ...'NtnM.......
2 ContractorlSub-Contractor list req ,.....
3 Inspector to verify conditIons In field.
FEES
Type Amount .180 Day PermitApPl$22.00
\DATA $3.00 Extension Granted
PRMT $101.25 (f~~SMIP $0.50
Total:$126075 :......k:I.t.
)
I hereby acknowledge that I have read this permit and state that the all information above
and any attached sheets is correct,and agree to comply with all ordinances and state and
federal laws regulating activities covered by this permit.I authorize representives of this
city to enter upon the above mentioned property for inspection purposes.
1---::~"--"""""""'==:;;;;.~_···_··_-_~__-e:_;:_::>~q [Sol (Qtl
Applicant or Owner's Signature Date "
.s::;>v 2 0 OR.!,ea n"P?
Print Name
II-_'S_S_U_E_D_B_Y_:11 FINALED BY:DATE:
13-60
"...
(10)BUILDING (Enter Square Footage)
(9)PROJECT DESCRIPTION
o (A)I,as owner of the property,or my
employees with wages as their sale
compensation,will do the work,and the
structure Is not intended or offered for sale.
I Hereby affirm under penalty of perjury,that I
am exempt from the Contractors License law (Sec.
7044,Business and Professions Code)for the
following reason:
o (B)I,as owner of the property,am
exclusively contracting with licensed
contractors to construct the project.
ill OWNER-BUILDER DECLARATION
/_.\
I PRCi>JECT ADDRESS (6)OWNER
;).f$l OS b~lden rt1t,sdQ~.,)L v:.~Lv's c Or Ittf'\J~
PN#...............('Address :l€lu$~~(cb"YTh'"'4clo.J
'jj City '1:?J Zip tjU;)](
Phone#.s,b-54",-5tf.1...
Z)CONTRA~TOR
..§£J 0,,100 4-0
~ddress :J.«I 05 6;ldo.,h10Acbz h-l
:;ity J2'PJ Zip ~~7{'
Phone#310-5"4 4 -Sb~2..
Address _
Phone#_
Cily Zip _
{3)ARCHITECT/ENGINEER
DATE
Tenant lmprovements._
Other _
Patio Trellis_--:---:_=--=-_-:--_
Covered __Enclosed__
Basement~_
Decks (>30"above grade)_
Balconies (Roof Decks)_
Block Walls,_
New Single Family _
Addition,_
Retaining Walls__-o--:--_
Conventional__Caissons _
Remodel _
Masonry Fireplaces #_
Garage-..,.-:--:--:-_--:::_--:---:-_
Attached__Detached__
Caissons/Piles Diameter _
Total Length _
SkylightslWindows/Doors # _
Other _
Demolition,_
Satellite Dish # _
.$-:;::>-Valuation ...::>7 bo
PROCEED TO BACK PAGE
Remodel Plan Check Charged?
Yes No,~__
Grading Plan Check Charged?
Yes No.-----,.,,--_
Geology Review Fee Charged?
Yes No._
Geology Report Required?
Yes No _
School Fees?
Yes __Rcpl#_
EET?Yes __Rcpl#_
_____Rcpl#_
_____Rcpl#_
PMT 2004-_
BLD 2004-_
ELE 2004-_
MEC 2004-_
PLM 2004-_
GEO 2004-_
ZON 2004-_
PRINT NAtAE)
e'J 121 'O¥
FOR CITY USE ONLY 7/04
(8)I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ
THIS PERMIT AND STATE THAT ALL INFORMATION
FRONT AND BACK AND ANY ATTACHED SHEETS
ARE CORRECT,AND AGREE TO COMPLY WITH ALL
ORDINANCES AND STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS
REGULATING ACTIVITIES COVERED BY THIS
PERMIT.I AUTHORIZE REPRESENTATIVES OF THIS
CITY TO ENTER UPON THE ABOVE MENTIONED
PROPERTY FOR INSPECTION PURPOSES •..-------:::~~ER'SSIGNATURE
,.s;L«J t £<Og'ebb.,
Carrier _
(This section need not be completed if the permit
is for one hundred dollars ($100)or less)
o (8)I have and will maintain workers'
compensation insurance for the performance
of the work for which this permit is issued.
My worker's compensation insurance carrier
and policy number:
(5)WORKERS'COMPENSATION
DECLARATION
o (C)I certify that in the performance of the
work for which this permit is issued,I shall
not employ any person in any manner so as
to become sUbject to the workers'
compensation laws of California,and agree
that if I should become subject to the
workers'compensation provisions I shall
forthwith comply with those provisions.
Expiration Oate._
Policy No._
o (A)I have and will maintain a certificate of
consent to self-insure for worker's
compensation for the performance of the
work for which this permit is issued.
Expiration Date _
I hereby affirm (Section 3700 of the Labor Code)
under penalty of perjury one of the following
declarations:
(4)LICENSED CONTRACTORS
DECLARATION
I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury that I
am a licensed under provisions of Chapter 9
(commencing with Section 7000)of Division 3 of
the Business and Professions Code,and my
license is in full force and effect.
License Class #_
13-61
(,~...
•RANCHO PALOS VERDES
BUILDI~G
ADDRESS
APN:
OWNER
ADDRESS
30940 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD
RANCHO PALOS VERDES.CA 90275
(310)541-7702 FAX,(3~0)544-5293
~~l>
BUILDING INSPECTIONS RECORD
POST IN CONSPICUOUS
PLACE ON THE JOB
CITY
GROUND WATER
TOP OUT
SewER
GAS TEST
SHOWER PAN
ROUGH
AIRCOND.
F.A.U.
FINAL MECHANICAL
ZIP PHONE
FOR NEXT DAY INSPECTION CALL
(310)541-9809 BEFORE 4:00 P.M.
GIVE JOB ADDRESS,PERMIT NUMBER,
OWNER'S NAME AND TYPE OF INSPECTION.
ELECTRICAL I DATE I APPROVED/INSPECTOR'SSIGNATURE
TEMP.CONSTN.POWER
UNDERGROUND PVC-METAL·D.B.C.
ROUGH WIRING RECEPT.SPACING-
SERVICE-GIRCUIT
FINAL ELECTRICAL
STRUCTURAL I DATE I APPROVED/INSPECTOR'SSIGNATURE
FOUNDATION:LOCATION
REINFORCED 0 UFER 0
SLAB:REINF.·O MEMBRANE 0
FLOOR JOIST/INSULATION
MASONRY
FIREPLACE
ROOF FRAMING
ROOF SHEATHING
FRAMING
INSULATION
LATH EXTERIOR
LATH INTERIOR
GYPBOARD
B.UILDING FINAL
APPROVEDIINSPECTOR'S
SIGNATURE
DATE OF ISSUANCE PERMIT NUMBER
13-62
BLD2004-00276
4/9/2004
4/9/2004
10/9/2005
II'
f c~r
BUILDlN~PERMIT
AND A CERTIFICATE<5F USE &OCCUPANCY
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
(310)541-7702 Inspections:(310)541-9809
:u-_---------_PERMIT NO.:
APPLIED:
ISSUED:
EXPIRES:
ISITE ADDRESS:28105 GOLDEN MEADOW DR APN #:7584002008
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
water damage repairOWNER/APPLICANT
ADRIANA ORLANDO
28105 GOLDEN MEADOW DR
RNCHO PALOS VRDS CA 902750000
CONTRACTOR
OWNER EXEMPT I BlD ElE
WORK COVERED
MEC PlM GRD DEMO
Type
APPL
DATA
PRMT
SMIP
HIST
FEES
Amount
$22.00
$3.00
$121.50
$0.50
$13.00
Total:$160.00
1_~_~_EAR_N_~_NG_C_E_B_y I_N_O_._
NOTES or INSPECTIONS
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1 Construction waste disposal certification required.09··<.../-~l-\,..-:l.r
2 Inspector to verify conditions i~field.0 ~t.f r /A.~0'1 ~'1.,5
180 Day Permit
Extension Granted
I hereby acknowledge that I have read this permit and state that the all information above
and any attached sheets is correct,and agree to comply with all ordinances and state and
federal ,~a;W::~~UI'ti activities vered by this permit.I authorize representives of this
city to e~/:o ab~tioned property for inspection purposes.
f./(/;"',/g/--.t iJ Y;//?ft~
Applicant or Owner's Signature Date /
-J-ItfJA /1J-f</!9-t/K'{.4~
Print Name
FINALEDBY:
~-r"~'(LR.Jo rz-.'7 ~~~c:....~
~lL')(Q 'Y\.J./\'1-...7--1 ~...ctb13-63
J
\,"
.:.1"....b .
'*~cef>c of ~rnuc~L0A.--s Gov~lAP J=R..Q00 }i.J~P~c...(OK
It,19,2o'OJ.{M..<:ArY-?~t.1-
13-64
v--fl/e,H'tf/te f?0/<5&./
£c-?c t9c t:;-C-:J?L F
~'/'fLL \?
Basement.._
Tenant Improvements _
P'Other _
Other _
r:f ?/9/t roE CQ/t..-/;</t?-
;<.E PC-dee-,S'rr./Js
Patio Trellis__~__:_-----
Covered __Enclosed__
Permit Application &
Plan Check Worksheet
PROCEED TO BACK PAGE
Skylights/Windows/Doors #_
Garage.--:-..,.,..---:--:-_-."._--:---:-_
Attached __Detached__
Balconies (Roof Decks),_
Caissons/Piles Diameter _
Total Length._
Decks (>30"above grade),_
Remodel._'_
Block Walls._
Demolition._
New Single Family _
Addition _
Retaining Walls.__-::--:--_
Conventional__Caissons _
Masonry Fireplaces #_
Satellite Dish #_
Valuation-.d ..3 I 0 iJO;'
1111 BUILDING (Enter Square Footage)
o (A)I,as owner of the property,or my
employees with wages as their sole
compensation,will do the work,and the
structure is not intended or offered for sale.
o (B)I,as owner of the property,am
exclusively contracting with licensed
contractors to construct the project.
Remodel Plan Check Charged?
Yes No,_
Grading Plan Check Charged?
Yes No,_
Geology Review Fee Charged?
Yes No,_
Geology Report Required?
Yes No,_
School Fees?
Yes__Rcpt#-:..-_
EET?
Yes __Rcpt#_
Other__Rcpt#,_
Other__Rcpt#_
PMT 2004-_
BLD 2004-_
ELE 2004-,_
MEC 2004-,_
PLM 2004-~_
GEO 2004--_
ZON 2004-,_
FOR CITY USE ONLY 3/04
00 OWNER-BUILDER DECLARATION
fill I hereby acknowledge that I have read
this permit and state that all information
front and back and any attached sheets
are correct,and agree to comply with all
ordinances and state and federal laws
regUlating activities covered by this
permit.I authorize representatives of this
city to enter upon the above mentioned
property for j s ction pur os .,..
I Hereby affirm under penalty of perjury,that I
am exempt from the Contractors License law (Sec.
7044,Business and Professions Code)for the
following reason:
(C)I am exempt under
for this reason:~~;tL-------;~---
owner·...!Jt-~-....:~~~::;;::::;.2~~=_-_
Date G"-
License Class #'_
Contractor _
Date _
Phone#:..--_
Address
City Zip,_
Address
City Zip,_
Phorle#,Lic#_
mContractor
I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury that I
am a licensed under provisions of Chapter 9
(commencing with Section 7000)of Division 3 of
the Business and Professions Code,and my
license is in full force and effect.
@ LICENSED CONTRACTORS
DECLARATION
I Hereby affirm that there is a construction lending
agency for the performance of the work for which
this permit is issued (Sec.1097,Civ.C).
Lender's Name _
Lender's Address,_
(This section need not be completed if the permit
is for one hundred dollars ($100)or less)
{§}WORKERS'COMPENSATION
DECLARATION
I hereby affirm (Section 3700 of the Labor Code)
under penalty of perjury one of the following
declarations:
o (A)I have and will maintain a certificate of
consent to self-insure for worker's
compensation for the performance of the
work for which this permit is issued.
o (B)I have and will maintain workers'
compensation insurance for the performance
of the work for which this permit is issued.
My worker's compensation insurance carrier
,and policy number:
Carrier=-:-_
Policy No._
Expiration Date _
o (C)I ce'rtify that in the performance of the
work for which this permit is issued,I shall
not employ any person in any manner so as
to become sUbject to the workers'
compensation laws of California,and agree
that if I should become subject to the
workers'compensation provisions I shall
forthwith comply with those provisions.
ill Architect/Engineer
{IDCONSTRUCTION LENDING AGENCY
13-65