RPVCCA_CC_SR_2011_07_19_05_Revise_Condition_No_5_Golden_MeadowCrTYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM:
DATE:
JOEL ROJAS,AICP,COMMU
JULY 19,2011
VELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT:
REVIEWED:
Project Manager:
"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)
.CAROLYN LEHR,CITY MANAGER 0.9--
Leza Mikhail,Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION
Deny the deck owner's request to eliminate Condition NO.5 of City Council Resolution No.
91-44,thereby requiring the applicant to move the deck railing from its current location at
the deck edge to a location approximately 10 feet away from the deck edge as required by
the original 1991 City Council decision.
BACKGROUND
On April 5,2011,the City Council opened the public hearing to consider a deck owner's
request to eliminate a condition of approval (condition No.5)imposed by the City Council
in 1991 in approving a Height Variation permit for the subject property on appeal.The
1991 condition of approval requires the deck railing to be located approximately 10 feet
from the edge of a rear yard roof deck.The purpose of the condition appears to be an
attempt to minimize privacy i.mpacts to downslope neighbors although a privacy finding was
not part of the Height Variation review criteria in 1991.The deck owner is making this
request since he replaced the deck railing and instead of installing the new railing 10 feet
from the deck edge as required,he installed the new railing at the edge ofthe deck and he
would like to keep it there.
The City Council heard testimony from the property owner and neighbors,and discussed
the merits of the request (see attached April 5,2011 Minutes).In summary,the applicant
explained that requiring him to move the deck railing 10 feet from the edge,as was
5-1
originally required by the City Council in 1991,is not necessary as the privacy impact from
either location is marginally discernable.Furthermore,the applicant noted that it did not
make sense to have deck railing in the middle of the roof deck as it creates a potential for
water leakage.On the other hand,several Palos Verdes Estates residents who reside
downslope of the applicant's property urged the City Council to require that the railing be
moved back to its intended location to minimize privacy impacts to their rear yards from
persons standing at the deck edge.
At the conclusion of the discussion,a motion was made to approve Staff's
recommendation to require that the railing be moved back to its original location,
approximately 10 feet from the deck edge.The motion failed on a 2-2 vote with
Councilman Misetich and Mayor Long dissenting.Subsequently,a motion was made to
grant the application change sjilught by the deck owner thus allowing the existing railing to
remain.This motion also failed on a 2-2 vote.As a result,the City Council unanimously
agreed to continue the public hearing to a date when all five council members will be
present.As all City council members are anticipated to be present at the July 19,2011
meeting,the item is now before the City Council for a continued discussion of the matter.
DISCUSSION
No new information has been provided by the applicant since the April 5,2011 hearing.
Therefore,Staffs analysis and recommendation contained in the April 5,2011 Staff Report
remain valid.The April 5,2011 Staff Report (along with all its attachments)is attached to
this report.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Additional Public Input
Because the April 5th public hearing was continued to an unspecified date,on June 20,
2011 a new public notice was sent to all property owners within a 500-foot radius of the
subject property alerting them of the July 19,2011 hearing date.In addition,the public
notice was published in the Peninsula News on Thursday,June 23,2011.
As a result of the new pUblic notice,Staff received 7 additional letters of correspondence
on the matter from neighboring residents (see attachment).The new letters reiterate
concerns expressed by residents in previous letters and public testimony.One of the new
letters from a neighbor located at 1472 Via Coronel in Palos Verdes Estates,included
information stating that the roof deck structure is located within easements on the
applicant's property that are dedicated to Southern California Edison and the General
Telephone Company of California which restrict structures within the easement to a height
of 15 feet.In addition,the neighbor submitted a copy of CC&R's that apply to the
Applicant's property that restrict development within 15-feet from the rear property line.
Although the City does not enforce private CC&R's,the City's Development Code also
requires that structures provide a 15-foot setback from the rear property line.The deck and
5-2
subject railing were constructed outside of the City-required 15-foot rear yard setback.As
such,the deck and subject railing are not in conflict with the City's Development Standards,
or the CC&R's noted in the resident's letter.
While the City does not enforce private easements,Staff investigated the easement issue
for purposes of information.The Tract Map recorded with the County of Los Angeles
(attached)associated with the subject property does not indicate any easement(s)across
the subject property.Staff also contacted the property owner of 281 05 Golden Meadow on
July 7,2011 to alert them of the easement issue and request a copy of a Title Report for
their property to see if there are such easements on the property.As of the preparation of
this report,Staff has not received a copy of the title report from the applicant.Since the
deck and subject railing are approximately 12 feet in height,even if there was an easement
with the restrictions noted,it 8,Iilpears that the deck and subject railing would comply with
the 15 foot height restriction.
ATTACHMENTS:
•Draft City Council Resolution No.2011-_(Denial)
•City Council Staff Report (April 5,2011)with attachments
o Public Correspondence
o City Council Resolution No.91-44
o City Council Minutes -July 2,1991
o Planning Clearance (Site Plan Review 6881 -Patio Cover Extension)-
1992
o Deck Railing Site Plan -Approved March 18,2010 by Building Division
o Deck Railing Building Permit (BLD201 0-00180)-Finaled March 23,2010
o Deck Repair Building Permits (All)-Finaled March 23,2010
•City Council Minutes (April 5,2011)
•Additional Public Correspondence since April 5,2011 City Council meeting
•Tract Map No.25109 -Lot 101
5-3
Draft City Council Resolution
(July 19,2011 City Council meeting)
5-4
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 approye 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 compiy 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 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,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 April 5,2011,atwhich
time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence;
WHEREAS,the City Council continued the pUblic hearing to a date uncertain;
5-5
WHEREAS,on June 20,2011,as a result of continuing the public hearing to a date
uncertain,a new 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 June 23,2011;
WHEREAS,the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on July 19,2011,at
which 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:
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.g'j -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 Iirnitation.
PASSED,APPROVED,AND ADOPTED this 19th day of July 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 July 19,2011.
City Clerk
C.C.Resolution No.2011-
Page 2
5-6
City Council Staff Report
(April 5,2011 City Council meeting)
5-7
CITY OF
MEMORANDUM
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
JOEL ijOJAS,COMMUt..~n~OPMENT
DIRECTOR ,(J 'ty'-.......
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 thatwas 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
5-8
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
fac;:ade.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
5-9
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 281 05 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
5-10
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 loooted 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.
5-11
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~f 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
•City Council Resolution No.91-44
•City Council Minutes -July 2,1991
•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
5-12
Publfc Correspondence
5-13
Winston and Cathy Chang to 1476 Via Coronel to Palos Verdes Estates to CA to 90274 to (310)377-7148
March 7,2011
Mr.Thomas D.Long,Mayor
Mr.Anthony M.Misetich,Mayor Pro Tem
Mr.Brian Campbell,Couneilmember
Mr.Douglas W.Stern,Couneilmember
Mr.Stefan Wolowicz,Council member
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
RECEIVED
MAR 09 2011
PLANNING,BUILDING AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT
Re:Variance application for property at 28105 Golden Meadow (against)
Dear members of the City Countil,
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 of residence
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 speeifically 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
5-14
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 distrl'ct;(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 ofthis
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 Palas 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.
Na vegetation over 10 feet was to be planted in the "south garden".
Page 20f4
5-15
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
5-16
Winston and Cathy Chang ..1476 Via Coronel ..Palos Verdes 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
5-17
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 ZON2010-00386 (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.
-8
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 Orlando
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
5-18
Page I of I
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
I-Ii 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@gm!!il.com>
Date:Nov 8,20108:55 AM .
Subject:28105 Golden Meadow Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
To:<PC@fJ:?v.com>
To Whom it May Concern,
I live at 1484 Via Coronel and I am velY upset about the limited privacy I Imow have due to the addition
of 281 05 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 HalTis
1484 Via Coronel,Palos Verdes Eslales 90274
3/3/2011 5-19
To:13105445293
03/25/11 07:15 AM
From:(7032359903)
Page 1 of 3
Debora van der Weyde Lurher
1056 Marywood Drive
Davidsonville,MaIYland 21035
25 March 2011
TO:
FAXNBR:
FROM:
TELEPHONE:
FAXNBR:
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
ATTN:Joel Rivas
310/544-'.~1.'l'?
Debora Lurher
703/235-3816
702/554-6511
MESSAGE:
NUMBER OF PAGES (not including this cover page):..£.
See attached letter concerning ZON 2010-00386 (Revision to Height
Variation No.697)for 28105 Golden Meadow Drive
RECE\VED
Mf;,R 25 2011
LANNING,BUILDING AND
p CODE ENFORCEMEN1
5-20
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 9lil275-5391
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
5-21
To:13105445293
03/Z5/11 07:16 AM Page 3 of 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,
~.._---~
~
Debora Luther
Cc:Sil and Adriana Orlando
5-22
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 22~1
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,I am a trustee of this home and in that capacity as well
as in the personal capacity of one who looks forward to returhing 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 (onVia Coronel and
beyond)and the reconstruction of the home at the subject property from a
5-23
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 pf 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
~..
5-24
MAR-22-2011 08:50 From:8ROI.jN &8ROI.jH 3107920691 To:913105445293
fZaw f@/fiOe6 <>1
BR.OWN &BROWN
DONALD 6.6ROWN
ADAM 6.6ROWN
FAX COVER SHEET
3848 CARSON STREET,SUITE 206
TORRANCE,CALIFORNIA 90503
TELEPHONI;(310)792-1315
FAX (310)792·0691
www.brownlawofflces.net
DATE:
FOR:
FROM:
FAX NO:
TEL.NO:
RE:
March 22,201;
Leza Mikhail,Associate Planner
Donald B.Brown
(310)544-5293
(310)544-5228
28105 Golden Meadow Drive
MESSAGE:See attached letter.
If you do not receive this transmission in Its entirety,or cannot read it clearly,please
call us at (310)792-1315
No.of pages to follow this page:1
Our fax number is (310)792-0691
3848 Carson St.,Suite 206
Torrance,CA 90503
Telephone:(310)792-1315
If you do not receive all the pages,please call us.This messags is intended only for the use of the individual or
entity to wI1lch It Is addressed,and may oontain Information that is priVileged,oonfidenlial and exempt from
disclosure under applioable law.If the reader of this messaga is not tM intended recipient.you are hereby
notified that any dissemination.distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.If you haY(!
received this communication In error,please notify us Immediately by telephone and return the original message
to us via the U.S.Postal Service.
c1mydocs/P""cvr to MlkhaiLO:J2211 5-25
MAR-22-2011 0B:50 From:BROWN &BROI"o'3107920691 To:913105445293
:::taw 1!Jl/ftoes o,!
BR.OWN &BR.OWN
DONALD B.BROWN
ADAM B.BROWN
March 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
Dear Ms.Mikhail,
3848 CARSON STREET,SUlTE 206
TORJ-tA.NCE,CALJFORNJA 90503
TElEPHONE (310)792-1315
FAX (310l 792-0691
www.brownl~w()fflces.net
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 wili 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 that edge?And if so,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.
D8B:la
C/mydocstMikhalVLtr to Ci1.03~111
5-26
3/20/11
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Plmming,Building and Coder Enforcement
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
RPV,Ca.90275
Re.28105 Golden Meadow Dr.
;!
To whom it may concern,
RECEIVED
MAR 22 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 if you need any further infonnation.
ThmttY~h
SiO/,/'f:::£-
:::,.7 JJ 7 ~rir"k~'/))£5
r:R~P /-t!CZ/-7'o?7~-
5-27
3/20/11
City of Raucho Palos Verdes
Plann.ing,Building and Coder Enforcement
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
RPV,Ca.90275
Re,28105 Golden Meadow Dr,
04
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 [rom the end o~the d~rk and from 10'back from the end is no differ)Jnt at ~~;p j /./
/);71 155N-Ib MY(fhL Iza.'j f'fJrf,/6J itt?,cIY JI1v jlJpy y?M/1'1-(jlo'i/j tt,!/ut!
Feel free to contact us if you need any further information.I-C.It fI'//..['.Iff r t1J~
Thank you.,?}/'.:ZJ;!#.;:~~/t:.
Sincerely,
Name:;/#-IC/?I~T ~k
Address:J<6//1 6~'1 J!C!l}JI,;)J/.
7JJ-j/.)(!r ~d7 !5
)/1 J J 1)'Z-()5-
5-28
3/20/11
RECEIVED
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning,Building and Coder Enforcement
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
RPV,Ca,90275
Re,28105 @olden Meadow Dr,
To whom it may concern,
MAR 22 2011
PLANNING,BUILDING AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT
As neighbors ofthe Orlalldos we suppOli their request to allow the second story deck railing to
be able to remain installed aroUlld the pelimeter 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 pernlits 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 infonnation,
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Name:
Address:70,)0
~'L "'vJv<J
~\I)O Ie fOY tA
(7t,VS Iyl(
\
5-29
3/20/11
D
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 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 infOlmation.
Thank you.
~~~
Sincerely,
Name:7£09"'">
Address:c:e 0 5"{
RPU
!J-ala{-'3,..Me'tCiov..-
ell '10275'
5-30
3/20/11
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning,Building and Coder Enforcement
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
RPV,Ca.90275
Re.28105 Golden Meadow Dr.
.I,
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 ofthe 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,:.}
C!I/IJ~iJV.
Name::J jJrf\.f(;vJ.CIf/LD £.'R--1..hJS[
Address:7 D J..q i"b i£e cJ-I r=lei--I)D 'l2..
f?-P II CA-OJ 0 (;LIS-
3/D -2>Jj -lR f 13
5-31
3/20111
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 infonnation.
Thank you.
5-32
3/20/11
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning,Building and Coder Enforcement
30940 Hawthome Blvd.
RPV,Ca.90275
Re.28105 Golden Meadow Dr.
<I
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 aIL
Feel free to contact us if you need any further information.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
f1i:;~=:(o~~
Address:h _II!d~70 I :3 tf-eRchl-ie /...!./;-.
f\P /,cA 1.-027 S
3(2~/{1
5-33
3/20/11
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning,Building and Coder Enforcement
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
RPV,Ca.90275
Re.28105 Golden Meadow Dr.
01.
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 ihe 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 ofthe 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,A.\2:.LaA)G..l~WN~·
~.).
Name:~hfiJi"'cJl )~1...
Address:;Z 7 <j (;I (..,I c;~(YU ..Co-01 eN f»))-
Y'01~I c,trvt o L 7 )
S;-'-+,-7\''6 ~
5-34
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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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.
Thm~~~
Smcerely,U
Name:~C1cS\f:::J7N OL-l '7
Address:2-79 l7 6Vl.---DE:r-J N\~vi
R,k;J ct\u P N-o ~\f 8R~
~...
C1\:.9 O'7-7~
'!J I D 3 (7 0 3'~-z-.-----"t I
5-35
3/20/11
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning,Building and Coder Enforcement
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
RPV,Ca.90275
Re.28105 Golden Meadow Dr.
<I
RECEIVED
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 ofthe 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.
5-36
3/20/11
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning,Building and Coder Enforcement
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
RPV,Ca.90275
Re,28105 Golden Meadow Dr.
.I,
To whom it may concern,
RECEIVED
MAR 29 2011
PLANNING,BUILDING AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT
Address:7-03 <;'M{;caJfJlF,-/)
(1..1'.v
(ir o )11fj-;t:i95
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 arOlmd 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.
Sincerely,
£(':J:::-J/v,III
OJ...
5-37
3/20/11
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning,Bnilding and Coder Enforcement
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
RECEIVED
MAR 29 2011
PLANNING.BUILDING AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT
RPV,Ca.90275
Re.28105 Golden Meadow Dr.
-/.
To whom it may concern,
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.
6~~3
~S;.\)
Sincerely,
Name:~~\J\\I.J
Address:
5-38
3/20/11
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning,Building and Coder Enforcement
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
RPV,Ca.90275
Re.28105 Golden Meadow Dr.
-I.
To whom it may concern,
RECEIVED
MAR 292011
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 if you need any further information.
Thank you.
Sincerely,(j ~
Name:~
Address:----J~QAvA-
70J I ~xiLc-h~jcL-W.
'f2.?J CA 0 0 ";27f
?;(7&(f {
5-39
3/25/11
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning,Building and Coder Enforcement
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
RPV,Ca.90275
Re.28105 ~olden Meadow Dr.
To whom it may concern,
RECEIVED
MAR 29 2011
PLANNING,BUILDING AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT
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,
r"i r 'tJ
Z)/l1 fl/I l ~lS",M
Name:E J..-1 H fJr S;6;rL.
Address:I Gt 13 Vie,00/GO /V'e L
PUC;
5-40
Leza Mikhail
From:
Sent:
To:
SUbject:
Teri Takaoka [terit@rpv.com]
Wednesday,March 30,2011 2:41 PM
'Leza Mikhaii'
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,Mmch 30,2011 2:40 PM
To:cc@rpv.com
Subject:28105 Golden Meadow,Rancho Palos Verdes,CA .90275 Encroachment of our privacy
;f
>From
Nagy Khalil
1480 Via coronel,Palos Verdes Estates.
I am sending this email to express my serious concems 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 ymd with the pool and the spa meas me 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,me we loosing that?I hope not.I
was wondering how the city as well as the plmming department approved this bizane 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.
Thank you,
Nagy Klmlil
1480 via coronel
PVE,90274
(310)541-8332 home
(323)573-7995
1
5-41
Page 1 of 1
Leza Mikhail
From:Nagy F [nagyf23@yahoo.com]
Sent:Wednesday,March 30,2011 5:13 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
1 am writing this email to express m)if serious concerns about the encroachment on my family privacy as
a result of the back neighbor's addition with extended deck and the fendning 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.1 wonder if it is fair to have a permem1ant 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 5-42
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 conversatiOlJ'lthis morning,I would also like to take this opportunity to formally
discuss the option/alternative you have brought up below.I am awal'e that the property owner at 28105
Golden Meadow did not Wallt 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 hazara.Many months ago,it was explained to the property owner that the
only way they could comQletely 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 cunent location of the deck railing.
If the propelty 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
Pennit 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 Wallt to remove the
french doors or deck railing and they do want to move forward with their ClllTent request.
Thank you again for your comments,
Leza MiidJaii
Associate Planner
City of'1(;lncfzo rpa(os Verdes
Planning Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
www·Ralosverdes.com/rgv/Rlanning/planning-zonin!!lindex.QLm
(310)544-5228 -(310)544-5293 f
iezarn@mv,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 Goiden Meadow (AGAINST)
Dear Leza,
3/31/2011 5-43
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-
Wll1.
The applicant should be allowed to remove the railing around the single story roof comp'letely.To
alleviate the building department's safety concerns,all doors which cunently 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 tile
door which leads to tile 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 cormllents.
Sincerely,
Winston Chang
3/31/2011 5-44
City Countil Resolution No.91-44
5-45
RESOLUTION 91-44
A 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 Marc~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.
5-46
section 3:That the structure does not significantly impair a
v~ew or vista from public property (parks,major thorough~are,
bikeway,walkway,equestrian trail,etc.)which has been'
identified in the City's General Plan,Coastal Specific Plan or
City approved Viewing area.
section 4:That the proposed structure ~s not located on a
ridge or promontory.
Section 5:That there is no significant cumulative impact
caused by granting the application since those properties which
have been identified as enjoying ocean views of which could be
affected by the applicant's proposal,(7002 and 7003 Brookford
Drive),would completel7 lose those views if the neighbors to the
immediate west and downslope from both of these properties were to
legally develop their properties per the City's Development Code
with 16 foot structures.Therefore,the adverse effects of the
applicant's proposal on these views would be immaterial.It has
also been determined,as a result of additional view analyses from
properties on Ambergate Drive,that views from these properties
will not be cumulatively impaired since a significant portion of
the ocean views.will remain if similar additions are constructed
to other homes in the vicinity.
section 6:That the proposed structure has been designed and
situated in such a manner as to minimize view obstruction since
the applicant has situated the second story addition centrally on
the lot (a significant distance from both the front and rear yard
property linesl and has significantly reduced the size and scale
of the original second story addition proposal.
section 7:That based upon view analyses,the applicant's
proposal will not significantly impair views enjoyed by
surrounding properties.Those properties identified above which
do enjoy ocean views,will not be adversely affected by the
applicant's proposal.
section 8:That based upon analysis of the surrounding
vicinity,the proposed structure will be compatible with the
neighborhood.Although the existing residence is larger in terms
of total square footage when compared with other homes in the
area,it complies with all of the applicable criteria in the
Development Code for,development (i.e.open space,setbacks,and
height).The second story addition will utilize common
architectural features and/or materials that are consistent with
those found throughout the area and it is Staff's opinion that the
addition is not excessively bulky nor will it create a massive
structure.
section 9:That the proposed project complies with all other
Development Code requirements.
5-47
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 26105 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.
/S/DOUGLAS M.HINCHLIFFE
MAYOR
ATTEST:
/S/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
5-48
Exhibit "A"
Conditions of Approval for
Height variation No.697
1)Maximum height of the addition shall not exceed a height of
21'-3"as measured from adjacent,existing grade.
2)Required setbacks for the second story addition shall be
maintained:52'-0",front yard;9'-0"and 27'-0"•side yard;
44'-0"rear yard.
3)Maximum eave projections shall not exceed 4"for each'l'-0"of
required setback.
4)The applicant shall~obtain all necessary permits from the
City's Building and Safety Division.
5)The deck overhang shall be modified so as to move the guard
railing back to a line above the rear wall of the house below.
Any extension beyond the rear wall of the house shall not be
accessible for deck purposes.
5-49
City Council Minutes
(July 2,1991)
5-50
·Tracey,5 Via Veneta,President of the Villa capri Homeowner
A ociation,who stated the association's objection to t s
ext sion.
(At 1 ·15 P.M.Councilman Ryan returned to the Council dai .)
John Douglp.ss,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 thI 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 gy for this project a a.
Council then inquired abo the status of the geology performed by
the homeowners asso~iation,and the current status of the City's
geological analysis.
councilwoman Bacharach moved,s~qonded by Councilman Hughes to
close the public hearing.The moti~arried unanimously.
Council ul~cussion continued and centered on the reason for the
request for extension;the number of extensions that can be granted
for this Conditional Us ermit;and,Whether there was a right to
such an extension.'"
councilman Hughes ved,seconded by councilwoma~~charachto deny
the appeal there sustaining the Planning commiss~~nls action to
approve a one ar extension of the proposed project~~
The mi(tionfailed on the following roll call vote:.~
AY S:BACHARACH AND HUGHES
ES:McTAGGART,RYAN AND MAYOR HINCHLIFFE
RESOLUTION 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
5-51
aspect of this project.
Speaking against the project were the following residents:
appellant Richard Van Der Weyde,28111 So.Golden Meadow Dr.;Ron
&MilIa 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 proj ect;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.
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 app~llant'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
5-52
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:
;l
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 I 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.
~ESS AND RECONVEN~
-,,"-
At 1:05'~.the Mayor declared a brief recess.At 1:10 A.M.tjle'
meeting recenzened .~~
~~~
RESOLUTION NO.91':.4-5'~RESOLUTION NO.91-46 -///
REFUSE AND RECYCLING FE~~REASE -(1301)/-/
,~
The Mayor opened the public 'he'ax~~~/~~rate increase to be
effective JUly 1,.1991 for the ~~ential refuse and recycling
collection services within t~~1ty.The~ty Clerk reported that
notice of this public he~±ng had been duly blished.Assistant
to the city Manager P9me1a Antil presented the s f memorandum of
July 2nd and the ,recommendation to:(1)Conduct a p ic hearing.
(2)Adopt ,a 'resolution establishing the resident1-refuse
co 1 lecti,prr'rates for Areas I,II and II (Waste Management •(3)
Adoj;lL·'i!'resolution establishing the residential refuse collect1-
~es for Area IV (Ivy Rubbish Disposal).
12,CITY COUNCIL -JULY 2,1991
5-53
Plahning Clearance
(Site Plan Review 6881 -Patio Cover Extension)-1992
5-54
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
PLANNING CLEARANCE
PROJECT LOCATION:Z,~IOS 601d6YJ ~"",:dO<Leu=>..),-----=.._
LOT AND TRACT NO.:I&t \0\/1l2.c.-:t5I::::....:::~Qtq-!-_
OWNER'S NAME:01nzJa-:
AND ADDRESS:~.,--_
PROJECT NO.:~_ft~Ea:.l.<6~J _
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:~ftVht>~~_
Approval is granted subject to the following conditions:
0Ab~i~
0)N?YlU1inur ~tl ~~tbj ~6Y1d -+he.ll~
t{~veu VJ;eL,lJ ~~.haL.~be.,lCLU.\h.a fd1!'O
(j}Vf)(~~SlOVl ~\YlCJt \a-t)~fer deck:putyo5/S,
~UILDING PERMIT REQUIRED.
THIS FORM,ALONG WITH THE TWO COPIES OF THE APPROVED PLANS,MUST BE SUBMITTED WHEN
APPLYING FOR A BUILDING PER}lIT.
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 :¥UJI:.tLI---I~l-1.<hLt,M'!.!:=====---1
Services
Dated:~S Jqt{~
AP ROVACvor AFTm 180 DAYS
ES 10112/88 ~~inisterial o Discretionary
5-55
Decl<Railing Site Plan
Approved March 18,2010 by Building Division
5-56
II
I i,I
I III
I III
IIIiI •
i
I~!
i
i I,I
I I
I
RECENED
MAR 1 82010
~l6U\..tl6uS
MAl(:5 PI\C€fJEtllJ e:e,J
fO~1-5 '1Z·
f~:i Ht:lbl1'r dt'MJRJ
Ca[ifornia 'R§Jfectio11S,'Inc,
4504 Del Amo Boulevard
Torrance,CA 90503
(310)379-8772
/"r.\0_Fax (310)542-4535
JLdf€.-D~:
VmPLJ5lfO IZAd 1711;5 h:,m
foL OrlANDO &.'fJLOtJJiE.
ZBlD6 eu>1~rYIulODuJ Dl-
f4:lrJt!JV PPritJ6 lfElZilES u.:10l1S
<!
~
I
-01-.;'
CITY OF RANdo PALOS VERDES
BUILDING &SAFETY DIVISION APPROVAL
Th,s set of plans &specifications must ~I:f\"\it ii:...v
Ilept on the job at all times and it is '
Ur:!:-.l'Niu(to make any changes or alterations
on same WiU10ut written permission from
j31lilcllng &Safety,City of Rancho Palos
\icrdes.TI18 stamping of these plans and
spc',:,cations SHALL NOT be held to permit or
be!;3ripfOved of tile Violation of any provisions on
any City Ordinance or State Law.
tt'~.1:.11 IUUtld U
r-------=:::.----r------,-------
I
3-\tJ.>.-I0
5-57
Deck Railing Building Permit
(BLD2010-00180)Finaled March 23,2010
5-58
BUILDING PERMIT
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
DATE:3-Z7:.~IO
APN #:7584002008ISITEADDRESS'28105 GOLDEN MEADOW DR.
OWNER/APPLICANT PROJECT Ot:SCRIP ION:
ORLANDO,SILViO J &ADRIANA H Install 90'long by 42"high glass railing on existing 2nd floor deck.
28105 GOLDEN MEADOW DR
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CA 90275
CONTRACTOR I WORK COVERED ICALIFORNIAREFLECTIONS,INC -I.BLD ELE MEC PLM GRD DEMO
4504 DEL AMO BLVD IPLANNING INO ITORRANCECA90503CLEARANCEBY
NOTES or INSPECTIONS
CONDITiONS OF APPROVAl.;
1 Don't forgello call (310)541-9809 for a FINAL Inspeclion.
2 Inspector to verify conditions in field.
FEES
Type Amount
APPL $35.00
DATA $4.00
PCOT $65.00
PRMT $184.00
1473 $1.00
SMP1 $1.00
Tolal:$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 re~Z:ties covered by this permit I authorize representlves of this city to enter
upon the a~ov '2';erty f~inspection purposes.3d'8;/'ס
APPlican;z:sz~Dite f
~O.-r/
Print Name
,
1-e.;;IS..;..SU..;:E::;D..:;B..;..Y:_T--?..L-11 FINALED BY.AI1,(P~~
5-59
-::ity of Rancho Palos Verdes
Building and Safety Department
Permit I Plan Check Application
Job Address
Date of2Bt06Gvldw~~plication _-=Cf+l:-e,--Ll!O__---'--
PdntAPpli~t N"~~E=il CA&7I=,p,.,"w6~
Applicant SIgnature ~PERMIT #13 \0 ~D.:J \po
Applicant's Best Phone #(Yc..cO:LV-,S"'--'=.D.=<.>5"-------,'.5"--Z=b-l-Z _
(XtAAJJ:JtJPROPERTYOWNER'S NAME:
Mailing address if different :
Phone Number:Email
Commercial use only;Name of Business ~oceupybuilding:-------------
ARCH I ENGINEER:
City Business License #License #
City:Zip:-,---------Email Address
Address:
Phone Number:
Written Description of Work:Square Footage
&~d:ulr/'<J!?''10 r .4u ReT y 42"Iltq/1
MJ /),t.Jcc.I-r!?/lJO YlIif1Y
ICBOorER#Valuation $/O/6CJC)
I hereby acknowledge that I have read this permit application and state that all information including any attached sheets
are correct.I agree to comply with all City ordinances,State and Federal laws regulating activities covered by this permit
for which I am applying,I authorize representatives of this city to enter upon above mentioned property for inspection
purposes.I will ensure that items requiring inspections will not be covered without an approval by the City Building
Inspector.
y Contractor with Worker's Compensation
o Workers Compo Policy .
No.EXD Date:
or Contractor is Exempt
a Exempt
-'=£l."='"'--"~='---,=:::':""<=:..Y..L"'""-__PHONE #($r<.J)50 "3 '5Zb 7
Zi :
I hereby affirm under penalty of peIjury 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 ature:Date:/13
Print Name:4 ~()A.J Email:CA A!i2t..1?drf5(7J !?qL •yM
License Class C 17 License #663/31 Exp.Date
5-60
Deck Repair Building Permits (All)
Finaled March 23,2010
5-61
BUILDING PERMIT
AND A C!='RTIFICATE OF USE &OCCUPANC'(
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:
BLD2009-00186
4/2/2009
4/2/2009
10/2/2010
APN #:7584002008SITEADDRESS-28105 GOLDEN MEADOW DR-
OWNER/APPLICANT PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Reinstate 2-expired permits to achieve final inspection for 804-00756 &
ORLANDO,SILVIO J &ADRIANA H 606-00928 both issued to repair a 500 Sf deck under the 2001 csc
28105 GOLDEN MEADOW DR requirements
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CA 90275
CONTRACTOR
I
WORK COVERED IOWNERBUILDERBLDELEMECPLMGRDDEMO
o/f IPLANNING INO I~LEARANCE BY
NOTES or INSPECTIONS
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAl.;
1 Inspector to verify conditions in field.
2 If deck is not finaled within the tlmeframe 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
FEES according to the current 2007CBC requirements.
3 Don't forget to call (310)541-9809 for a FINAL inspection.
Tvpe Amount
APPL $29.04
DATA $3.96
PRMT $50.63
SMP1 $0.50
1473 $1.00
Total:$85.13
I hereby acknowledge that I have read this permit and state that the all information above and
any attached sheets is correct,and agree to comply with all ordinances and state and federal
laws regulating activities covered by this permit.I authorize representives of this city to enter
upon the above mentioned prope~peeHon s.Lt:::::.. ...-.--
I/-J I}/2/09
~~=re r'.S;Jd'~!L'/a __cL~
A'""-Prlnt Name
~/..7 I FINALED BY diflJlJtJl.:==?wIi3-¥-IISSUEDDATE:3-z':dO
/<--,
5-62
'-.}
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Building and Safety Department
Permit I Plan Check Application
\;,
Job Address
Date of
):..::.-'_-=.id-=--,J"D,-=S,--_&;;=....:-J-.e:tL.:-..:"_J=-o)-",:'l-,-,-,,..:..;d~,,-,o_Application
Print Applicant Name ~=-,-l'--:u,,--,-',~D:::::::~()~(=/o==~::=J::i)::::=;;-__Email
Applicant Signature,:::::::====_=~==::::~=-PERMIT #----Applicant's Best Phone #_-,$=...:.1-,,0,-----=-:;;=-L.;.o.-L,2.-----=5::....::.6..=6'-'2..=-_
PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME::;,)v\-c"~d...{a."",O...-Ion do
Mailing address if different:
Phone Number:S-Lil-l -S to I,'Z.Email ~IVr }G~do ¢:'-J .,.lDV.<'1).-,-,
Commercial use only;Name of Business to occupy building:
ARCH /ENGINEER:
License #City Business License #
Address:City:Zip:
Phone Num-:b:-e-r-:--------"E;-'m-aI-:·:-I-:A-:d:-:d:-re-s-s-----'---
Written Description of Work:Square Footage
e;,.......,,)4"N'd...[r-..,rF>k.<..9 """...,-f e....-..-f ~fcc...(I
I
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 Camp.Policy .
No.Exp Date:
or Contractor is Exempt
a Exempt
CONTRACTOR
Address:
_____---::::-PHONE #
City:Zip:
T
I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury that I am licensed under provisions of Chapter 9 (commencing with
Section 7000)of Division 3 of !be Business and Professions Code,and my license is in full force and in effect.
Contractors Si!!l1ature :Date:
Print Name:Email:
License Class License #-----___________Exp.Date
5-63
BUILDING PERMIT
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:
BLD2006-00928
11/16/2006
11/16/2006
511612008
SITE ADDRESS:28105 GOLDEN MEADOW DR APN #:758 002008
PR JECT DESCRI nON:
Re~i5sue of expired permit bld2004-00756 to repair deck at rear of
house
OWNER/APPLICANT
ORLANDO,SILVIO J &ADRIANA H
28105 GOLDEN MEADOW DR
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CA 90275
CONTRACTOR IBLD ELE
WORK COVERED
MEC PLM GRD DEMO
PERMIT EXPIRED BY liMITATION
DATE 1iTI
FEES
IPLANNING
CLEARANCE BY
NOTES or INSPECTIONS
CONDITIONs OF APPROVAL:
180 Ds,;::.',it
Extension Gi d,:lsd
Type
PRMT
APPL
DATA
Amount
$50.00
$26.40
$3.60
lofal:$80.oo
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 m'party for inspection purposes.
~'i.:::.-=;:===:::;::::,=J'.1/II./"(DC,
Applicant or Owner's Signature Date
-f S;;J</~o Orlo..,cL
Print Name
FINALED BY:DATE:
5-64
~H tbB~~E~uel=~!VIJI
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
9/21/2004
3/21/2006
APN #'7584002008SITEADDRESS:28105 GOLDEN MEADOW DR ,
OWNE;RlAPPLICANT PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ORLANDO,SILVIO J &ADRIANA H rspair deck at rear of house 500 sq ft
.'28105 GOLDEN MEADOW DR
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CA 90275
CONTRACTOR I WORK COVE;RE;D IBLDE;LE;ME;C PLM GRD DE;MO
-I.IPLANNING INO.ICLE;ARANCE;BY
NOTES or INSPECTIONS
,
CONPITIONS OF APPROVAL:fJrWl~Jltit INITIAl oaf1Constructionwastedisposalcartlfl,
2 ContractorlSub..contractor list req IH:lIJ;
3 Inspector to verify conditions In field.
FEES
Type Amount
180 Day PermitAPP[$22.00
"DATA $3.00 Extension Granted
PRMT $101.25 (C~SMIP $0.50 •lotal:$126:75
~
)
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
fecterallaws regulating activities oovered by this permit.I authorize representlves of this
city to enter upon the above mentioned property for inspection purposes.
1~:;;;,
---J q k,.l qu>
Applicant or Owne~s Signeture Date ,
-f S;-/,)~Q ORt,Goln 7
Print Name
I ISSUE;D BY:,I...:.FI;;.N;;.A::;LE;:;D::..;;BY.;.;:~.:D;;.A;;.T:;E;:..:_
5-65
,ty of RanChO J-ClIU::>
...----
2)CONTRACTOR
~I 01"1 0 04,.,
(9)PROJECT DESCRIPTION
"ddress ;;l'b'I oS"C;;;;14",h'k3cb "bl
City 72N Zip '1'lbl7{'
Phone#:3/Q -54u -£/,,6 z..
{3)ARCHITECT/ENGINEER
Address,_
City Zip,_
Phone#_
ill OWNER-BUILDER DECLARATION
t Hereby affirm under penalty of perjury,that I
am exempt from the Contractors License law {Ssc.
7044,Business and Professions Code}for the
following reason:
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 sals .
.j.o (B)I,as owner of the property,am
exclusively contracting with licensed
contractors to construct the project.
(10)BUILDING (Enter Square Footage)
____Rcp~I _
____Rcpl#:......-_
PMT 2004-_
BLD 2004-,_
ELE 2004-_
MEC 2004-'--_
PLM 2004-_
GEO 2004-_
ZON 2004-'--_
Remodel Plan Check Charged?
Yes No~__
Grading Plan Check Charged?
Yes N0--co--_
Geology Review Fee Charged?
Yes No _
Geology Report Required?
Yes No
School Fees?---
Yes __Rcpl#_
EET?
Yes__Rcp~I _
Balconies (Roof Decks)_
New Single Famlly _
Decks (;>30"above grade)_
AddlUon,_
Remodel _
Basement._
Other _
Oarage'_
Altached__Detached__
Tenant Improvements _
Patio Trellis_-;__:=--,-_,-_
Covered __Enclosed__
Retaining Walls _
Conventional__Caissons _
Block Walls _
Caissons/Piles Diameter _
Total Length _
SkylightslWindows/Doors #:......-_
Masonry Fireplaces #'----_
Satellite Dish #_
Valuation ~::5 7 Do -;I
Demolition II
Olher -I
PROCEED TO BACK PAGE7104FORCITYUSEONLY
(8)I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ
THIS PERMIT AND STATE THAT ALL INFORMATION
FRONT AND BACK AND ANY AITACHED 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 UPDN THE ABOVE MENTIONED
PROPERTY FOR INSPECTION PURPOSES.
~-----za-ii?
DATEo(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.
(5)WORKERS'COMPENSATION
DECLARATION
I hereby affirm (Section 3700 of the Labor Code)
under penalty of perjury one of the following
declarations:
Expiration Oat8'-_
(4)LICENSED CONTRACTORS
DECLARATION
I hereby affirm under penally 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 #:....--_
Expiration Date _
Carrier _
Policy No._
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:
o (C)t certify thai 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 J shall
forthwith comply With those provisions,
{This section need not be completed if the permit
is (or one hundred dollars ($100)or less)
5-66
RANCHO PJl.lOS VERDES
8UII.DI~G
ADDRESS
APN:
OWNER
ADDRESS
30940 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD
RANCHO PALOS VERDES.CA 90275
(310)541-7702 FAX (3jO)544-5293,'..
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.
TEMP.GONSTN.POWER
UNDERGROUND PVG-METAl-D.B.O.
ROUGH WIRING REGEPT.SPACING-
SERVlCE~CIRGUrr
ANAL ElECTRICAL
FOUNDATION:LOCATION
REINFORCED 0 UFER 0
SLAB:REINE 0 MEMBRANE 0
FLOOR JOISTIINSULATION
MASONRY
FIREPLACE
ROOF FRAMING
AOOF SHEATtlING
FRAMING
INSULATION
lJ\TH EXTERIOR
LATH INTERiOR
GYPBOARD
SWLDING FINAL
APPRQVEDIINSPECTOA'S
SIGNATURE
DATE OF ISSUANCE PERMIT NUMBER
5-67
r
,<.:"~r
BUILD.Nr.:PERMIT
AND A CERTIFICATE"OF USE &OCCUPANCY
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:
BLD2004-00276
4/9/2004
4/9/2004
1019/2005
SITE ADDRESS:28105 GOLDEN MEADOW DR APN #:7584002008
OWNER/APPLICANT PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ADRIANA ORLANDO water damage repair
28105 GOLDEN MEADOW DR
RNCHO PALOS VRDS CA 902750000
CONTRACTOR I WORK COVERED IOWNEREXEMPTBLDELEMECPLMGRDDEMO
"I PLANNING INO,ICLEARANCEBY
NOTES or INSPECTIONS
IH';-zo~1 ,t;/7lr:I N«7f'ItL,l"'rJ 1<::>'J~r-Y t.;CDPg
DF'~AL...13 NIt,~Rf \\.reJn~o 1J !';AG.\~cP'
mJ2.jY)1"'1
~
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1 Construction waste disposal certification required.oS··LI -\)L\J.5-,
2 Inspector to verify conditions In field.0 tf','f-/.t -o'i ~T$
FEES
Type Amount
180 Day PermitAPPL$22.00
DATA $3,00 Extension Granted
PRMT $121.50
crlInSMIP$0,50 *HIST $13,00
rofaI:$160.00 '!fl
I hereby acknowledge that I have read this permit and state that the all information above
and any attached sheets is correct,and agree to comply with all ordinances and state and
federal ~UliJli a ctlvllles vered by this permit.I authorize represenlives of this
cf,t~7;tn tioned property for Inspeclion Pu;o:'Y//r?~S
ApPlicant or Owner's Signature Date
/\
-j-)}fJ,It I;J-/v'19-£?KLtfl~
Print Name
f-rgsu :~xnJl tW¥I I FINALED BY:././,;/t(J)l2J,..-..t-r~DATE:cJ -7''-0 '-I
U ~-rI'W>.l..'!E"D nJ ISS ~rz.(~t;;:~1?1tG 'F-.')\H"I ~~
~1.1l')~'Y\J./\.1....~7.-\a r<:.:5b V\tl-5-68
•
f
'*"-tSc.aP'c of D6..~~GJA.--s COv~f5D tw F'fC...o00 I IJ-'VPt:s:c...roR-.
11'19,2.o 'OLf M..c.A~BS'\..1-
5-69
/
i/-fl/C,H'd/le j?OF<5A,,/
£c ?Ct9cc ,]?LF
Permit Application &
Plan Check Worksheet
T C1 ':t.?t?I..it/,u ,?(...ft![
I/V'cd /J /C f'I'-t?0;1)
rf ?/l/l roE C6/t.../,</(J-.
;\r:PCdCe-,$'/'-'2.5
New Single Famiiy _
Garage'---:",--,----;-_--;:,-.,.--,----:_
Attached__Detached__
Addition,_
Remodel _
Basement _
Tenant Improvements _
Patio Trellis_~--~~~---
Covered __Enclosed__
Other _
Decks (>30"above grade)'_
Retaining Walls'-_-=-",-_
Conventional__Caissons _
Balconies (Roof Decks)_
Skyiights/Windows/Doors #_
Biock Walls _
Caissons/Piles Diameter _
Total Length _
Masonry Firepiaces #_
111l BUILDING (Enter Square Footage)
Satellite Dish #_
"Of)/)Valuation-J1 ~.I'~',
Demoiition _
other _
PROCEED TO BACK PAGE3/04
PMT 2004-'--_
BLD 2004-_
ELE 2004·_
MEC 2004-'--_
PLM 2004·'--_
GEO 2004-'--_
ZON 2004-_
FOR CITY USE ONLY
Remodel Plan Check Charged?
Yes No
Grading Plan Check Charg-ed"'?,----
Yes No~~-
Geology Review Fee Charged?
Yes No _
Geology Report Required?
Ves No _
School Fees?
Yes __RcpHf _
EET?
Yes __Rcpt#c-_
Other Rcpt#_
Other__Rcpt#_
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.
.to (B)L as owner of the property,am
exclusively contracting with licensed
contractors to construct the project.
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:
!!!l OWNER-BUILDER DECLARATION
APPLIC T OR OWNER'S SIGNATURE
"'-fl tJ)Ud,vrJ OIU'&I';J??
~RI~Tf%/oy
(C)I am exempt under S
for this"r~e:as:o:n~:~~::~~i~~:==Owner.}'-
Date 17'-.(?
001 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 purpos
/
Date
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Address
Cily Zip,_
Phone#Lic/l,_
@Architect/Engineer
Address
City Zip,_
Phone#_
ill Contractor
~LICENSED CONTRACTORS
DECLARATION
I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury that I
am a licensed under provjsior.~c[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 #_
Contractor _
Date _
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 polley number:
Carrierc;-_
Policy No.=c:----------Expiration Date _
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.
lID WORKERS'COMPENSATION
DECLARATION
(This section need not be completed if the permit
is for one hundred doffars ($100)or less)
I Hereby affirm that there is a construction lending
agency for the performance of the work for which
this permit is issued (Sec,1097,Civ.C).
Lender's Name,_
Lender's Address _
fID.CONSTRUCTION LENDING AGENCY
Building and Safety
(J tl.tJr:Gr-,-:O...:;oCY~C_f&_"-n:...;.(;;:....:r-/J:..:::Y_(.J~7 ~g;,<-/""{,,,-I/..!..(:::..O_tJ~~_{;.;..4~t<-:J~Q.:..-_
\...111 Proj;JctAudress ill 0Z'n;.t?/$'a{}CPCtv 1)C;;t9jJo,-<-t!..Ql PROJECT DESCRIPTION
AP'T:J#Address ?,//J'------------City lI·{.IF,Zip 7 0,;1 7.J-
•Phone#VI?-..5.-9 Y-s-c (.,2
5-70
Citi Council Minutes
(April 5,2011 City Council meeting)
5-71
John Freeman,Pacific View Homeowners Association,Rancho Palos Ve~d
that there are two issues to be considered:the need for non-profit oJgarfizations to
~
advertize their events and the requirement of the City's G~ral~Plan to conserve,
protect and enhance our natural resources,includinB~parRs.He suggested several
alternate locations for the placement of temporary'signs,so that parks could be
protected from sign pollution a/hle1faffiC safety concerns.
Councilman Wolowicz m9Jl€d;seconded by Councilman Campbell,to approve the staff
recomme7offfinue the public hearing to the May 17,2011 Council meeting.
With~Jection,Mayor Long so ordered.
Request to Eliminate a 1991"8Condition 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)
City Clerk Morreale reported that notice of the public hearing was duly published and
written protests included in the staff report,late correspondence was distributed prior to
the meeting,and there were four requests to speak regarding the item.
Mayor Long declared the public hearing open.
Associate Planner Mikhail provided a staff report regarding the application for Council's
consideration requesting the elimination of a 1991 condition of approval,thereby
allowing a new railing to remain at the perimeter of an existing deck for the property
located at 28105 Golden Meadow.Staffs recommendation was to uphold the 1991
condition of approval,thereby requiring the applicant to move the deck railing to meet
the original condition of approval.
Discussion ensued between Council Members and staff.
Silvio Orlando,applicant,Rancho Palos Verdes,stated that he is seeking a revision to
the replacement of the deck railing to prevent future damage to their home.He noted
that the previous location of the deck railing caused over $70,000 of water damage
involving the deck,the interior family room ceiling,and the outside wall on the south
side of the home.He reported that plans were approved and the work permitted and
inspected;stated that there were errors made by the BUilding Department as explained
in the staff report;and,opined that there were no privacy issues from the deck since the
view into the neighbor's yard from the deck was the same as the view from his yard.
Winston Chang,Palos Verdes Estates,stated that he reviewed the staff report and was
in support of staffs recommendation to require the applicant to relocate the deck railing
from the perimeter of the roof deck to the location approved in 1991,which is 10 feet
from the edge of the roof deck.He noted that his main concerns were due to privacy
City Council Minutes
April 5,2011
5-72
and view issues of his home from the deck.He commented on the challenges of
waterproofing issues and the design of roof decks based on load factors which could
impact safety.
Ronald Buss,Palos Verdes Estates,provided background on the original approval of
the roof deck as he was a co-applicant in the matter.He stated that the privacy issue
was discussed a great deal at that time of the original deck approval and the decision
made regarding the placement of the railing based on the criteria of view corridors and
privacy issues.He commented on the deck balcony extending over existing utility
easements.
Discussion ensued between Council Members and staff.
-/!
Mayor Pro Tem Misetich moved,seconded by Mayor Long,to grant the application
sought by the property owner.
Councilman Campbell moved a substitute motion,seconded by Councilman Wolowicz,
to approve the staff recommendation.
Assistant City Attorney Snow suggested that the applicant be offered a rebuttal
opportunity if he so desired.
Silvio Orlando,applicant,Rancho Palos Verdes,in rebuttal stated that regarding the
privacy issue,the view into the bedrooms is better from the first floor of his home than
from the deck,which he noted was demonstrated in the photos he provided.He
commented on the construction and engineering of the deck and the questions raised
regarding property values.
Mayor Long declared the public hearing closed.
The substitute motion failed on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Campbell and Wolowicz
Misetich and Mayor Long
Stern
The initial motion failed on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Misetich and Mayor Long
Campbell and Wolowicz
Stern
Councilman Campbell moved,seconded by Mayor Long,to continue the public hearing
to a date when all Council Members will be present.
City Council Minutes
April 5,2011
5-73
Without objection,Mayor Long so ordered.
EGULAR NEW BUSINESS:
Ce .ication of Election
City Cle Morreale reported that late correspondence was distributed prior to the
meeting r arding this item.
There was n request for a staff report.
Mayor Pro Tem isetich mov~d,seconded by Councilman Campbell,to approve the
staff recommendaf n to:ADOPT RESOLUTION NO.2011-17,A RESOLUTION OF
THE CITY COUNCID OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES,RECITING THE
FACTS OF THE SPE L MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD IN SAID CITY ON MARCH 8,
2011,DECLARING TH ESULTS THEREOF AND SUCH OTHER MAnERS AS
PROVIDED BY LAW.
The motion passed-on the foiling roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Campbell,Misetich,olowicz,and Mayor Long
None
Stern
By acclamation,Council received the oral report and took no further action.
San Ramon Project-California Storm~erFlood Management Grant
Associate Engineer Winje provided a brief intr~Gtuction to the California Storm Water
Flood Management Grant application for the san~mon Project.
Destin Blais,Grant Writer,Blais &Associates,provideQ an overview of the process
regarding the grant application for the San Ramon Cariy~m Project.
"-,.
Neil Blais,Blais &Associates,provided details regarding the,economic benefit cost
analysis portion of the grant application that was submitted for'the San Ramon Canyon
P~ect.~
Destin Blais,Blais &Associ,ates,provided concluding remarks re~:'~ai(l9 letters of
support that they have sought from Legislators and noted that this type\Qf grant was
unusual at the proposed level of funding level and emphasized the import"lnce of
seeking this particular grant.Ms.Blais also introduced Lead Grant Writer AQdrea Owen
to the Council.\
\,~
"\,
\'.
City Council Mintjt~s
April 6.2011
5-74
Additional Public Correspondence
(since April 5,2011 City Council meeting)
5-75
Winston and Cathy Chang.1476 Via Coronel.Palos Verdes Estates.CA.90274.(310)377-7148
July 11,2011
Mr.Anthony M.Misetich,Mayor Pro Tem
Mr.Brian Campbell,Councilmember
Mr.Douglas W.Stern,Councilmember
Mr.Stefan Wolowicz,Councilmember
Mr.Thomas D.Long,Mayor
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 9027S '"
Re:Revision to Conditions of Approval for the property at 28105 Golden Meadow (against)
To the Members of the City Council,
I am writing to express my dismay over the position taken by Councilmember Long in regards to this
Revision application.J urge that the balance of the members of the Council take a more reasoned and
fair position regarding this application.
Under the scenario proposed by Councilmember Long (approval),the only party (of the three most
affected parties)who did nothing wrong is the party who is being asked to bear the entire burden of this
transgression.
The three parties involved are as follows:
1)The City of Rancho Palos Verdes Building Department.
2)The Applicant.
3)My family.
Each of the respective parties'roles in this application is described as follows:
1)The City
a.Transgression:The City of RPV Building Department required that the applicant build a
railing around the roof deck.However,the Building Department admits that it made a
mistake in approving the proposed railing because that railing was not in conformance
with the requirements of the conditions of approval for this property.
b.Burden:none.
2)The Applicant
a.Transgression:When required by the City to provide a railing around the existing roof
deck,the applicant submitted an application which was in violation ofthe conditions of
approval for this property.The Applicant recognizes this as a mistake and is applying for
a Revision to the Conditions of Approval.
b.Burden:none.
Page lof3
5-76
Winston and Cathy Chang.1476 Via Coronel.Palos Verdes Estates.CA.90274.(310)377-7148
3)My Family
a.Transgression:My family did nothing wrong.All we have done is respected our
neighbors and community for over 30 years at this address.
b.Burden:Extreme and egregious privacy impacts from neighboring property.
Note that this revision application is being submitted In 2011.What Is being requested is an extension
to an existing roof deck.Per the planning and zoning standards in force in the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes today,this deck extension is not allowed on the grounds of privacy impacts.
At the April 2011 Council hearing,however,Councilmember Long created a circular and nonsensical
argument for approval of this revision.The argument goes as follows:This deck should not have had
conditions Imposed in 1991 when ~was approved;therefore I shall approve it today.
The holes in this argument are obvious:
1)Councilmember Long was not present at the original deliberations (FYI-my father and neighbor
Ron Buss were at the original hearings).At the April 2011 Council hearing where this issue was
discussed Mr.Long stated that he had not read the minutes from the 1991 hearing.Thus,for
Mr.Long to s~ggest that the original conditions were too restrictive has no basis in fact,but
rather is an opinion based on personal and seemingly self serving perspective.
2)As mentioned previously,the application is before us today,and not in 1991.By today's
standards in force in the City,this application would not be approved.In fact,the entire roof
deck would be rejected.Additionally,Mr.Long had never visited my property to see the privacy
impacts first hand.
Mr.Long made a point that there is no reciprocity between the cities of Rancho Palos Verdes and Palos
Verdes Estates.Interestingly,as Vice-Chair of the Palos Verdes Estates Planning Commission,i have
consistently applied reciprocity to applications which impact residents of all neighboring communities.
This approach is practiced by the entire planning commission and encouraged by City Council.If Mr.
Long's position holds the City of Palos Verdes Estates would be wise to reconsider its position on
reciprocity.
It appears that ifthis application is approved my only recourse will be to protect my constitutional right
to privacy from my own property.This will likely involve the planting of large specimen trees which will
provide year round foliage protection.Although this will be an expensive approach,it appears that this
might be the only plausible solution.
We teach our children that two wrongs don't make a right.Certainly we don't want to teach them that
three wrongs make a right.In this case the first two wrongs were the cities approval of a non
conforming railing and the applicant's submittal and subsequent illegal construction of a non
conforming railing.Let's not commit the third wrong by approving this application.
Page 2 of 3
5-77
Winston and Cathy Chang.1476 Via Coronel.Palos Verdes Estates.CA.90274.(310)377-7148
Do the right thing.Please deny this application.
Respectfully Submitted,
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 3 of 3
5-78
Page 1 of 1
Leza Mikhail
From:Sassan Guilani [ssagc@msn.com]
Sent:Wednesday,JUly 13,2011 10:05 AM
To:lezam@rpv.com
Subject:28105 Golden Meadow Dr.
Dear Council,
I am writing you to let you know that I am very concerned about the proposed railing revisions at 28105
Golden Meadows.The proposed railings have a major privacy impact on the neighbors,particularly
those at 1476 Via Coronel.
..!
As an Rancho Palos Verdes resident and a neighbor to this property I think that it is very important that
we follow the laws and rules established in our community,and that the council uphold those laws and
rules.
Please vote against the proposed railings.
Thank you,
Sassan GlIilani
7/13/2011 5-79
Page 1 of 1
Leza Mikhail
From:Sassan Guilani [ssagc@msn.com]
Sent:Wednesday,july 13,2011 10;09 AM
To:lezam@rpv.com
Subject:FW;28105 Golden Meadows
Dear Members of the City Council,
I am writing to let you know that I am very concerned about the
proposed railing revisions.lfat 28105 Golden Meadows.The proposed
railings have a major privacy impact on the neighbors,particularly those
of Winston and Cathy Chang and their family at 1476 Via Coronel.
We have known the Changs since Winston first coached our sons'flag
football team to a division championship in 2009.The Changs are
upstanding citizens and strong contributors to the community.They
have never hesitated to offer a helping hand to my family and my
children have even gone swimming in their backyard pool.
It seems a terrible shame that the railing at 28105 Golden Meadows has
been allowed to stay in it's current position for so long when it is in clear
violation of a city ordinance.The position of this rail is a severe
encroachment of privacy on the Changs backyard and has caused undue
stress and anxiety on the Chang household.As a Rancho Palos Verdes
resident and a neighbor to this property I think that it is very important
that we follow the laws and rules established in our community,and that
the council uphold those laws and rules.
Please vote against the proposed railings.
Thank you,
Sassan Guilani
28116 Golden Meadow
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
7/13/2011 5-80
Page 1 of 1
Leza Mikhail
From:Eric Wang [holeinoneff@yahoo.com]
Sent:Wednesday,July 13,2011 10:20 AM
To:lezam@rpv.com
SUbject:28105 Golden Meadows revision
Dear members of the City Council,
I am writing you as a very concerned resident of Rancho Palos Verdes.My concerns are several.First of
alii am concerned that the Council is considering a revision to a highly deliberated condition of
approval.To my understanding this condition has been in effect since 1991,and has served its function
well.The neighbors have all gotten along amicably.However,because of a mistake caused by the RPV
.j,
Building Department,the Council is being asked to repeal a successful condition.This is highly
disconcerting.
Secondly,I am highly concerned that the council is considering allowing this revision which would
cause an extreme imposition upon the privacy of one of the neighbors.I have seen the impact of this
revision and I am shocked that the Council would even consider this revision.As a resident of RPV
which began in my childhood and continues to this day with my wife and children,I would hope that
the council would be interested in protecting the privacy and rights of all residents within the
peninsula community.
I urge you to vote against this revision to the original conditions of approval.
Best Regards,
Eric Wang
7/13/2011 5-81
Page 1 of 1
Leza Mikhail
From:Steve Shiang [sshiang@gmail.com]
Sent:Tuesday,July 12,2011 2:47 PM
To:lezam@rpv.com
Subject:28105 Golden Meadows Appeal of Existing Condition of Approval
As a resident in Rancho Palos Verdes and a licensed Civil Engineer,I am deeply concerned about the
building permit issued to the house on 28105 Golden Meadows and now the subsequent appeal of an
existing condition of approval.The owners misrepresented themselves to the Building and Planning
Departments and extended the railing and roof deck area 10 feet to the edge of the existing roof.Since
the original permit was only for a new glass railing,the original roof was never designed for a new deck
loading,making the new deck area s1ructurally unsafe.Also,the existing roofing material was never
designed as an approved walking deck,which would further cause leaks and deteriorate the existing
roof.These issues and requirements were never approved or inspected by the Building &Safety
Department.The owners claim of not building the railings on the roof deck because of causing leaks in
their roof is outlandish.There are thousands of buildings with guardrails and mechanical equipment
attached and anchored to roofs without causing leaks.Should we not allow solar panels attached to
roofs because they would all cause leaks since they were attached the same way as his old rails?The
issue is not the attachment,but of the construction and installation methods.Any reputable contractor
could install it properly without leaks.In fact,I am still surprised that the City would still allow them to
keep the railings installed with so many code violations.Under Section 105.6 of the current Building
Code,it states that "The building official is authorized to suspend or revoke a permit issued under the
provisions of this code wherever the pennit is issued in error or on the basis of incorrect,inaccurate or
incomplete information,or in violation of any ordinance or regulation or any of the provisions of this
code."The owners are allowed by the City to currently use this roof deck in an unsafe condition.Since
the new railings and deck area do not have any Planning Department approvals,it should have been
removed innnediately when this was noticed and they Imew they could not have obtained the proper
approvals.I would hope the City would not retroactively approve of this since it would set a bad
precedent.Imagine building a fence wall without the proper setbacks and being allowed to keep it
because it was too much trouble to move it and it was originally missed by the Building and Planning
Departments and was only noticed after the fact.The fact that the City is considering an appeal to an
existing condition of approval that was passed by a previous Council is also disturbing.Is there not a
statute of limitations on such decisions?Should we go back and veritY or challenge every decision
made by previous City Councils are correct?Could you imagine the confusion if you challenge every
view ordinance decision?There was a reason for the original condition of approval that the previous
Council and previous owner agreed to and abided by and that the railing should be set back 10 feet from
the roofs edge.I agree with the Plmming Department that this application should be rejected and the
railing should be set back 10 feet f;lS to the original condition of approval.
Steve Shiang,PE
Rancho Palos Verdes Resident
7/12/2011 5-82
Kenneth I.Delong
6940 Maycroft Dr.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA.90275
Tel No.310377-2426 -Fax 310 377-7496
e-mail -ken.delong@verizon.net
July 12,2011
Re ZON2010-00386 (Height Rev.No.697)
This is a repeat of my past correspondence supporting the Orlando Height Variation
request #697.I am a neighbdr of Mr.&Mrs.Orlando and have personally observed the
second-story deck railing situation.
First of all,it disgusting tbat two RPV Councilmen did not support this request when it
first appeared on the RPV Council agenda,the resulting tie vote (2 vs.2,Stern being
absent)thus a waste of time and effort by both Mr.&Mrs.Orlando as well as the RPV
planning staff having to again bring this matter back to the Council.
Clearly the PVE neighbors are at fault and that two RPV Councilmen would support a
PVE resident,who could easily resolve this matter,is beyond belief.The PVE neighbor
could plant shrubbery that would soon provide whatever privacy they may believe is
lacking.Of course that neighbor has already demonstrated his lack of responsibility by
refusing to trim trees that block Orlando's view.What kind of neighbor is that?
I urge the RPV Council 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 roof ridgeline.
Ken Delong
5-83
Ronald L.Buss
1472 Via Coronel
Palos Verdes Estate,CA 90274
City Council
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275-5391
Re:Height Variance Revision
Condition No.5 Elithination
Resolution No.91-44
Gentlemen:
The applicant at 28105 Golden Meadows Drive is requesting that the height variance be eliminated
to allow a second level glass line to be moved to the deck's edge,clearly invasive to tlle neighbors
below and on the immediate south side,and in conflict with a previous decision by the City
Council in 1991.While a structure can be built under tlle power and telephone lines pursuant to
easements granted in 1962,there is both a IS-foot height limit as well as a IS-foot rear property
line setback.The height limit issue is the most offensive.None of the neighborhoods to the west or
south had a problem with the prior positioning of the glass panels at the original approved location;
it is an issue as it currently is constructed.
We require the Council to reaffirm the 1991 Condition No.5 and require the applicant to relocate
the glass line to its fOimer location assuming the structural integrity of the decking will allow.
Absent the relocation,the undersigned will be forced to seek viewshed damages as the current
deck configuration is a property invasion that previously did not exist.
Respectfully,
Ronald L.Buss
5-84
IFEE $350 3B I
JUL 072011
1I1!C00D'D IN 0"1<'-'f DEVELOPMENT
or L05 ,l,N(iEt.E$cOUNTY,CAUF
FOil Tm.l!INSURANCE a.TRUlH cC:D PARTMENT
.0 ':',';,2 P.M.OEC 14 1002 (I
RAY Eo LEE,Counly R"••rdor
_PACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE
GRANT OF EASEMENT
[CQRf'ORATION}
,.,.,.,}<;;H:i\!iL~4¥f§.ot<t;;~J ct ,,":tt,~1;1,iJ,.:,.,
G~NUV:I:F.;iV ~.~.~~~Q_.C9..~.,_~__ ______M _•••••_.
'1 ·:"TJ.uralillll,orgallj~el!under CIt:!laws of the Slate oL...Q.t!:7.4.f.9.tP.~_ _.•_".., _and having its
~::;~~~~;a~~;~;.e 1~:r:~~i~:~~~..~~,14B~WkI~t~lr1ri~~t~~i~:~MpANX:T~··bij;~~;;;~i~~~"'i~~
~un~~'j(~llrli IUlll ll~lIlgll&,:10 easement llnd right of way to construct,U:le,'maJntain.alter.add to,repair.
ft'lllacr:.:mil/uf rCllIllve.in,lin nnd o,'er the real property herclnaiter described,situated In the County of
,tQs ,AngaJ.o~n •••••••••••__State of California,1m electric line,consisting of pote:;,
,l::~"lIr."guYli anti <Inetmrs,CtoHI-arms,wires and other fi:tturcll and applhllll~e5.fui'conveying e1ectrir
!'1It-TlO't"lIe \Ilit!U fur lill'ln,hellt,poweT,telephone and/oT other pllfpOlll:S,
~lli,1 rO:<l1 pruperty ill defirriLed;:ltt follows;
!bose certain stripIJ at l.and of various widths,lying 1d.tbin Traot No.25109,as per
Il!ap reoorded 1n Book &2,pages 51 to 54,1nolU51ve,et lIBPS~:Ln "the o!fice of the
County Recorder at sai.d COllntYJ 'the e:ent-er 1inss and "'R1dths'ot 'Ah1ah strips of land are
designated and dellneated 80S licentel:'llri8 at·fuisement'to Benthem CalitorIIia Edison
Oompa~and General Telephone Cotnpa1V"on TIral'l1ng }larked EXHIBIT "A"attached hereto and
made a part hereo!.
Exoept with respeot.to that portion o:r sua ea,eement and l"1ght of way '11i~within
the easterly S5 teet,measured a10 right ang1:e.i','or ,-"i.c:Jt .33 or.said 'lract Ho.25109,the
said easement and right of way shall be limited'totlut right to construct,ulSe,maintain,
alter,add to,repair,replaoQ and/or remove overhead ld.res tor conveyitJg'slect.ri:r:l!Itl!l'i1
to ..be ..t1l:1'e(jr~~ght,heat,ponr,telephClne ..and/Clr ..ot:.b."r ..p11rF0SllS'.~lJl"S?torr'es15~fUJ
I#i~~11:*#;~~#;M~¥~~~bt!j~o;rorr~~~'~rZ:ir~,8~#c~~O~f;:;crfStl
BtruC~tl:r~9i ..nCl ••port1on ..ot 1d:dc~.·.•9ha11·.·.exceed.~·teen(:L5)·.reetoii.nl1et:l8"ltt,and .•i;o0:thel"'"
'Ri.SIJ ..llS8/Baidpl)rtJ,.0tl!l.··Hf ~a:ld ..ef18l!111ent .ancJ:l'i~t .•.of ..lJilritt8•....'mllnner th.iit··.·'itill·.·not
intArler"..ldth said essf'!llf!Tlt ··ror····oVo!Jrhead··ld.rea:;,
IN WITNESS WHERE01·~,~aid QnA.WV'IEYL.ID1lLIlIHa...C.Q __.M._~..____,,_.
1,'1"O:ll\llieU hs corporate name nnr..!seal tn be affixed hereto lind this inlltrtlment to be executed by itl!
...Prellident :Iud Seeretary,the'l't'lInto dilly :Hlthflrh:ed,Z:hil'l'"d _".
,1,,~"e De:emnber.19.62.'···m...."~"~,_jJQ,:m)..
.~=:;~:t;::;:d,~:••••-
....'"--B.R.J.brr111
....Sc:cret...ny
~'1'..\Tl·:OF C.\L1FOUNIA,
1'4 l\'NTY OF....l.OS ..ANOEIJ!.S:
The Grantee,Iu.5uceeS:iOrs and assigns.and its and their resptetlvc agents and enlployeell,shall have
lh...right 10 trim or top sudl trees as mny endanger or interfere with said eleetrlc Hne.and shalt have fr~
:ICl·e.~;I to said electric line and ever)'part thereof.at nil times.for the purpose oi exercising the rights
herein granted.
Un Ihk,3m "rllly or.De.1riembCl"_,19..62...bdure me,tin:ullI.lcrsigned.a Notary Public in
11I1II fur ~l\id CUUllty nlld State.persQnally aPll.mred __a .aA.k~ZU.aK:E:HMAIi _ _ _~M ,
!:nllwn to !OJ!lillie "Pre,;!dent,and :att..R m.RHI.6.a MM __..
IIn,,\\'n III me ttl he Secretar)'.of~G~.ll1ILn!Hfl..CQ _dle
,·urIJurnth.ll that llxecU!ed the within In.!ltrtllnellt.nud knllwn lu me to be the persons who executed the
within instrument un hehnH uf the suit!curporation.and ackllowledgcd to me lhat such corporation c,.-eetlleu
lhl'lI:Ullll !IUrSllnnt tu its B::.lnws lIf 11 rcsohnlun of itl!Bo~r~of~ire~turll._'';C •.'
/iflj~tii.'«.;I',.I (,,,'/'•.
WITNESS my hnnd llU11 officinlltcnl.M'"~''''''''~'''M !_)~!;:____
NOlll')'bUt III Ind for said COllnl)'Ind Slit!:,
My 00>Jzd••1.on ex;p1re._1:12,1966
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
WIlEN RItCOROED IdAIL.TO
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
P,a.BOX "J
LOS ANQELRS U,CALIF.
ATTENTION-R,W tlI ~fD OItPT.
.-X;~._,r-0.j h~.l·4~'?ff-f'-£K..>.
~<>n."0''..
~OUTlII[1IN CIILII"ORtIlA,I:Dl.0N COM,.A"".,/..1
A..cnuOlIl'"'r-;;-::-flJ4:),t 1 ~0 {)-~I
''':C;Qht>INQ Nl:nU••TlII:D DY'
TR...lSI09
-""".:-'
Redondo
~-
llS?
--j,f."i!l:--'
45-82
r
5-85
tom 'W'f(W \..,-.6--691 CorpoMltlon ~&IIlDrai
5948200 -!'IS
..;.,,.ji)'!:fr~~::-"REQUESTED BY 5321
GEMERA1.TELEPtlDIiE CtmPAM'I'OF CALIFDRHIA
\""JI1 Rllcol"ded Ha 11 to
GENERAL TELEPHOIlE CQM?AKy OF CALIFORNIA
!)t'"...u..~///7'
I!CQIOfD 11'4 omcw.IIfCQIDS
Of l.O$~SCOVNJ)'.,OJJf.
fOR rm.e'INSU~,'TRUST CO.
10 ';'':;;2 P.M,PEC14 1962\
flAY Eo LEE,~'r'llii.onlo<rm $3.60 ai[J
O~A~TiD.F •••'••E.~SE~MT
THE GRAMTOR_,ri:EulliriitElwInJILDlNG co o ;a.",CcJ:1i'ornill corpo::;""::::~::1;;on7'':--;::-::':=;:-:C~
II corporat ion"horeby qrantl la'thol1E"ERl~TEl£PH~~~CGl-4PA~rOr'~~I,.I~~RII1Al~eorpor&t:lofttherllinafterrofllrro~tolleGRlIlTEE;itll lluccoasorll','andallllgn,;an ll~IllI~,nt:".to~'1:·o_Mt~uctl"ulo,llIIlnh in,o.pe.~tet alter,
Ilddtil,repalri-replace,end/or rO!IQVD Ita facl1Hlel,cort'lill/'lg;o:f:f~~l~"',"bles,CrOlSllr1d~:\lires,anchors;
gl'Yo;.br'cCI,undorqround conduit)',M.nllollls.and appurtenances,.for,ftho,tranlllnission of clactrlc energy for,
cOllllllunlcnlen and other purpolf,!S upon,over,In,under,Dcrou,IlfI,It;.:OJllnlr that certain renl property llitullbd-
In tho Co,"nty of lon A.ngolea •state;o!i:Callfoml.,dDlcrlblld III follO'lllll
'l"hol'lPl cert.f\in ntr:lpe of land (.or wl'iOU~widths lying ,~;hin ''J'1'1il1f.'NO:~25}09,ac:m:rdlnl.,;
to ~hn m,p tharaof rQoordod in Book 6S2,PagB8 51~to 5~~inclusive,or }bps,1n the
or{'tc~"r t,ho Fecord<,:T'"of R>'l10 County of :L08 Angel'ea,.,.the:cantp-rl1nes llnd widtbs of said
stl"!Pf\"r 11'md at'~desI.gtlflt.ed ntld delineated 8S 1I'C:en~~,;,Jjin9'of easoment to S0I7l'HF.?11
('liT.Tli"('lfl'!Tt,F-msOtr GClMPANi"M;]J GF.NEllJL TELEPHDNF.r.Ol4PA~1Ylf'on 11 collY of Smet 2 fmd Sheet 3
or thn 'lp(IVe racol'cled m'1jl mnrkHd EXHTlUr lIAll o.ttaChed·~heT'eto and by rerara-nce oode a rmrt
hq'r.'tloC.
[
F.XCEP!'wH,h roapQl!t to t.hnt nO'rt.ian of flllld se.cernent and r'ieht of way lying within t.h"
RA8terJ~8?f~qt,measured at t'1~ht angles,of tot 33 of aald Tract No.25109,tho eo{d .
l!Osomeni find l'lf.!ht (If way sholl bll Ulllit.l'ld to t.he right -t.o conatruct,ut'''J,maintAin,Illt'Jl';'
/ldd tn,1'npn i l'l'Elp]n CIl und/or )"f3mQVO ovel'hafl d .wir98 ..~0l'..o~m'l~Y'il1gelf)~tri~f'n~1"gy'i:.o<'b"\lfJl:l;d
for 11 ~m:t.~..·..htlllt·.·pl)~~r.·.·te~l;!f1hoD.€f.·•.·lltl~/C1r .••.·••()tl1~r.·..·ptl11JlJ.~e8 .•.•..•....••..q.all'tl:l"L'.··.··l'P.fJ~l'~.s.thf'•..·.rlS~·~.·•••··fl:l1'·.···.··•.·i·•.-1.~!l~J(',)tflry~~ClEl!fa(Jl"a.•.•..·•.ttpdaRai,gt1f1,...ttl1ir~epecrtt!J .•an.i~1J()r:ti(Jndfl!.JC1"i~.j·.··..~lli~i1ifJ·..·••e"eElrtioll,
to.·..·.llC)nlltruc.t;tJ'l'llt}t(l1".•'\i>1P.d .•bu:l14illga'••Tl8'1ing,f'<jn~8110;rCl-tPf'}r·.··.·fJtJ"\1~~Ellllll0pQt"tiol1 •.·.ot .\Jl1j('J1nhtJ]l<ex:cl,er,1rirt!'lntl(l?}:('t1~t:tnhe~~llfJ and to'o.thorWlao·uno paid'porti(tns of SAid
elljl?mn,.t.IIIlU l"lf::hl.of wIlY in'"mannlll"Hlntwil'J not.inl''lrfm'o I"lth uaid oJlsement fOr QVOr_
he~u wirlZll5-.
1ft WITNESS WHEREOF I lIlIld Grantor hilI!caulled fts corporate nllM Dnd lll!al to lie-affixed hereto
and this Inatrulllllnt to be executed by ito'-;;;':;-;"'~;;;;:ho;j';;,j:ttii;==liiL:p:r:'~'~':d.:n:I~.:nd~=--:--:---
:
=::;;;;;;;;;;;;;:c::===::socretarYI thereunto duly ltuthorh:lld"t~l."iN day of _
Dtmenmer t 1962..
THE GRANTEE,It.luccelllorD lind lIi;ulgnll Dnd their rlllJpCletlvD Aljunb and GlIlPleyt:o'll lJhall hA'IO
thai r111ht of lngren to and tlgrelll from nld ellJU~llnt and ol/cry pari tharagf.At All tll1lO.,for tha purpo ••
of ellercislng the rl~hts horeln QrAntod and .hllli 'h....e thllrlg,htte trim or top true andler ~uch otMr
qrcWth aa uy endanr;er or Interfore with tho US8 of ,ald.e.5~Mn,t~.Such rights shall be reUa,nably ellerclsed
and the Granteo Shall be Ilablo for IIny damaVCl neg1l9linth 'donl'~Dy.It ~the a!u)vo ducrltMId iiroparty.
A Corporation
GRAllllV:IE1i roILD1JiG CO.Corporllota
51lo1l1
day of Dooembor .UI~bIlfero 11'18,Ha.rrtvo:tl$tW;eruteJ·
1 a Notary Public In and tor .ald County lind Stato.ilarioniil1Y IPpearlld
]1,K.ZUck'rman •kncwn to \III to be the p.ra~ldent,anti
13 B,Hin:HA I kno;!n to 1M to blJ"tht Sccr,o~l,ry of the
corpora.\lon that otCecutod He within InatruMnt.Ilnd knewn to lift to btl the perlioM Who e~lIcutad tho wlthlit
lnltrullWlnt on bellalf of tMi eorporll.tlon tlt!!raln neMd,Inti aCknowlodged to me'that IHlen (lIB'iteration uaclltl!d
th.SlllIC.
Ilf ,"ITJlESS WHEREOf,I haYe herllUnto let illY hind and .Hlnd
In thll corllflclta f1r.l aboye wrlttan.
5-86
I I
'{bat GMHMDI IlJlUlDiG 00.,u aU-Cornia eOll'O",t.too.hm"elitllLttar "terred
to lUI "wne••~Olllll:r or Uw TeIlol l'r~..ty 11l tbe er....mty or J.oa ~'.llell.Gte.te of
AU thlLt.rtal property coota1nod vltbln tile tlxurlol'
bWrldGry I1nea of 'l'n1ct.1iQ.25-10),/UJ i'C-l':n'.IJ>recorded
in llook.682.rav::>51 to 54,inclU$lve,<;If )1)1>11,lJ:I tbl
orrleo of the camt.y l\'!co~r or 001<\CQ.mty.
does hllreby certify mid declaw tMt it bas e,f.o.bUGhlffi aDd l!oeo hereby eatl1bl1uc.
6.ilenc~l 'P"J,Il.tI tor t,.be 1wp~l1t Iloo ckvolOJ'CCtlt Qf'1lll>1d tra-ct.,Il.lld oloel lHI~1Iy
etlwb!1Jlh ~p%'Olf!iol«Ul,coOOlt;.looo,ri!lltrlct1~,COV(!l)3lltll,etlSe4I:lnt.ll Bnd
Nservu.Uons,\lpOU und IIllb!Cct to whlclJ 1l11.low llnQ 1'Ort161'\$of loU!In JW1d
•tl1lct 6hall be ~t"(l'(C(1 or &Old,or COOVllyed by 11.P4 ouclJ.ovuer,ooc1l lln':1 p.U
•of \/bleb ~for the ben!!t!t of ea-cll OIIJ'.eT of In,:d in 00.11\'-'raet liT lUl,)"lDt.e;reot ;;Q
tlWreln a.od uooU lnuro w aU<i pwlll-vlUl woo 11m}e'lCry 1'nr1.'01 of &/lid toNet..3nIl ~
:
(
!,
I
I
!
!
1
E,
6Mll apply to DI'IiJ b1n<1 the l1::Jpcctlve oue«UQl'll'iD lnterellt of tuv prcoent
evner <1r 0IIner:l U>f:reot,MIl urc:l~ed upor.MId tJ'UC't Ull II Ilervitudoll 1.1:1 fllvor
or C4cl1llJJd evert psxccl or lBnd UwreLu,ll1I \bl:tktt1nUJ:lt tcrneJlll!nt or t(!ue=entll as
I
(llo}thltll ~'.lllJ)'11 1992.Lou 1 throush 102.illc1'U!l1vc.llr'ti'hereby
dcligDl)te<1IUI ol.ng1e rwl,y rellj~nt:1!ll b.lild1Dg olV:Il.
(b)tlntll,l4mlbry),.1992,nr;J tlo~Ie.a1:ly Wlell1q ho.me IlhaU be
erected,altere-d.plllted or pcral:t.tlld to ~00 (my Wilding:tllW roCon1!'11 to
in ra~;pb (a)b!lregf,~v1ng IL CtoOT arta or leBB than J200 IIlj.Ullt'1l ree-t!
~clusiV(l III tbC'floor aru.cQOtA1:led 10 open por<:bC6,open entrlcJ,buli~nta.
cel1JU11 Illld gIlr1l6fll1,lIMther Iltmcl:led 01'I'Mtt8.ebed.
-1-L
5-87
I .1
,,.
loetl.tlon or rno:b bu1ld.1.D8 Dtr..lCt.ure,renee or \II\ll.In.."'\'!ool!n D~in vr!Ung
up.to Coc:l!IHu.1:ty n.cd.bu:w,\qy Qi extl!nnl dcll~"iLh trx1"~b~tuKll 1r.tb4
(e)Unt.U ~1,19$12,DO I~ture mnu 0.Onl<:ted,ILltend,
placed.Of'poro.1tted t.o reentn on C.IiY bu11d1J1,jJ <1!o dcrocrlbed 1n ~pb (4)
lulreorI other tho.u ooe 4c Wlbed ~1I\gl*tadly dWll.1n«llJld cuoto=r.f OU~P
bU1l.d.lnelJ aut e~ne.nce!l 1ne1u:U;18 gart4l;'U ••
(Ii)110 W11dtnB OQ allY b11ld1r.g oite!deliCr!bed In plnlgllt!h (II.)
honor lJxet!J1t a.~or oUl!.lr ouUllJ.11d1oe;lo¢O,tcd 6Q l\l'et.W'llX)\"'Q trca the
rront Lot line llball tc loeated Drot'CT UItU1 5 ·teet to lUlY IJ1do lot llllD,1iXC1!I'l,
lim ~Uaw ~be rcduc-ecl to not I.e"t..Ian 3 foot,p:'OYl.d.OO.t2:Dt.t.he dlllw.n<:e
beMlID II.QU'ngll and llV1JJ6 quart.exo on a.d.)l1c~~<l lilte~II>wt.leal'
or 41~au lUl,y bui!d11l8 /lotte de!ICrlb.!d 1n ~ph ta)he.roor \Itltll the
bull.d.Lng plnn IlpecUtC4t1onG and tlet:<:rJptlt:>n 'thereof lIDd plot NAnIl QbrNln8 tho
detorlbed prop>rty WId v1t11 tho ,/jcueml p1.an or t.~nt of Illl.a deacr.1be4
I'ropll"~tLn1 nao.110 npprowd o.tI 'to 1oeatton Q.Ill)bc1.e,b.t or t.he bu.1.J.4ll::I&l!ttrotlWn,
l'llr.ce 0:'\Ill.U vltb l'Illlpe'Ct to t.o~JbY IUld f1n1llbc:<1 groo.wd.e1JmLtion by IllI
Arch.1toatuml Ct:=PJ,ttee contl.ltul.ed at!bero:!.mt'Ut'&l!t forth.Il1lll4.k1ng lbJ
d~l.e1'l:l:1r.atlOQ lW to l1ppro1'&l of UlO 1J:IeQ.tl.on IUd W:1gbt or tM bu1.ltU.oe:,lit~ture~
ter.cc or w.ill the ArebiteetunrJ,.Cam1ttoo 1b111lnve too rliht to COO81der o.rd
~·oI'lI1ua.ta 1.tI Ita d18eNt.l<m.llJilQC6 DtbeT tb.1ng.ll,the ertect ot lSUCh bulld!ns:,
&tnJcbU-e,r~~Dr Vl\).l on too vla1l tn:o ~~Dt lmd otha!lr nee.rb.Y .lotI or
,he P\U'l'C'Ge~or th1s cove:nnt,e.,yee,Btep&,¢!:l1.I«le1'1 and
opm e.hall no"be con&1d.o.re<i;'l.;1\ptirl..~,(L bu11.dS.ng~~l~,baIrrrver,
Unto thh lItnll DOt be cooatnlCd to pantSt any I-Ortl<:a or ..bu.U.rl1Jl&\Xl ~~~
bU.1ld.11l8:llJ.tetoe~~~.n;..;.~.~~Ilite.
tlnn 8 reM;tmd the d.1l1tlWec bctvlleP
--:rt1A-;;.h Mt .lelll!'th!u:l 10 retl:..
--
!.;
I
I
1:,
i .
iJ(
C
I
.>.
5-88
i
I
!
I I
.,.
bulllUng tilteD.Frovldlld,llll'WVer,twt u-\l<lb .~l tl::oU not.bO requ1red ,for
pleket,apllt,rau or 11Jl1lar decorll.tlve nneeD not over thrw (3)teet.1n
bt:!ljJht.f'r"O'ftded,rurtber thlLt I"IQ ht:dge 00 ~lot or W11<tir.&r;1t..1 in r;:u.La.
dCGCl'lbed roNIert)'4h1oU be perWt;~t.o eJtceod ~belsht of tbr1:le {J}teet.
vltl:m'L u;pecULc \f.t1tteu o.wroVlll or the l\f'Ch1t.<:cLurul ~tteo llhere Mid 1~
in 1.tU<1,f-n wbolll Dr 1D ptrt.,a:)n :nWlltiW.W rtlr II.ren<:e,or vllere IfUlOIl hedge
!\mctt<ms,11.1.'o'oolll or ira {lIU1;,n:l Oi llUb6t.l1;ute for a renee,lthdtber or not web
l~00.,other UDell or ttn:tlQlll;;the l1etendoo.tloo of 1Ibcther or not U\(I 001<1
hedgll 16 \ltotd 0./"l'UncU(l(UI,in \/OO1e 01'1n plrt,lW ll.ol;1lGUt.uw fOT II.:ieJwC 1>1',
1f 1<0,'oIheUler #ipproval tJ:>ereof alll\ll 'be glvtJ1,,bLUl:c Il\de 1n tbe J.1.U1.e d1u •
•CJ'l!t1w of tblI ArchtteeturuJ.C<x=.1tt<>c ~dectGl.oa tllen.'Ou.tlha.ll \::>0 t1Ml
lU>d cp/)c1l:ll1V(!on all pu-Ueo.
/oJT:i ~iflt.on or Approval.or d1l1l1~l or !$11llTCl to IIIll1tn n <1ecblQn
";"tl;,)Arch1Le<::tunll Clo:'»1tt.cQ,1.1.11 herein provtdl!d .to.r,aMll t>e t1m.l aod Cf)llM
clutJ1ve on aJ.J.farll.l'G eolJo.:I!1"nN l>O 1tmG lUI I:ll.dc 1D QllOd.MUI.6h.1d A.Nh1~tll11l.l.
Cc:t:cdtrec-l:lh...ll l;c CQlIp;J1>C<1 or B.Ie.~."70 Goutb Dever!)'~lve,Jle'wl'.1Y
Uill.n,CBlitorn1o.;n.R.H3lmll;,JqO South Beverly DrlYC::,DcverlY 1U.ll/I,OJ.1Uot"n!n;
IUd JOOEl-f{m:r~,liTO SOUth l\eVI':Tly Ik'J.vCI U6vcaJ.;y iUllA.('"lJ.llfOT'l:l1ll.,01"b:r Po
roprellCntnt.~vu d~51tMt.ed by a =-Jorlt:r Qf t1ll)JDml.>em 01 cald ~t'Uc.In tbU
event of dCl'tb or rt!1I~t.1.on or eny mmber or ooid Ct=llt.U1:l,the ~
u:aber or etQbe.rIJ Ghal.l l.ll\.va ~uutborUy to IlftJca t1'.e opPl"OYlLl.u:or d1li&wrovalll
In t1Je eYtlnt.lIll.ld t'ctJl.tt.t.c:e Dr ito dlla4!;n8.t.ed.rcp1'tl&entot.1YC fa.UD to
npp.rove OJ"d.1unWrove 4UCb d.a~l.g!:ll J»cnt.lou,belabt.am 'lltt.er IIll.\tto:rll \fitbtn 45
00,'"arur 1UI1t1 pllullJ and GpcciCicat10M and.d.e~pt1.on !nVc been llu\Q1tted to it,
or,in DJtY ev~nt,it 00 ilul"t to enJoin t:.be l,lr«tticn ot Ilucb bu!.l.d.iD,;,Jitructuro,
r~nee or wU or tbe ~ot tluch Illt.eratlcci baa \leoll eal:llleuclld prlor t.o ooe
the b\d1J.Ung stroetUl'!:',rence or VIlll or Alten.t.1oo in ~lrt.lon t1ball ODt be
d~to be In vlolat.lon ot W,cO"fll.lZWt.
-3-
'..
L
5-89
,
M61e,n 86:>(1.an ~jt.6 teet 111 V1(1~l,yl1J6 ~lleL~Dd c<ultla;wlUll to tbe
:MAt'bui141re ;1t.e Una of ~b <m:!ntry bU1lrl1tt6 01t.e boro1nooforo refen"'lld.to
In ~l'h {o)IQr UiU p.lrfX:l1C of plJIclng tbe"reoo pJpHc utlllt{l.1nl!1l..lX'lco..>~
('On:llJit~~1'1f(=1l nnd W'lrea.
(k)~ch ;;t&tltce,ovr.cl',lessee lU1'i o<:ev.plotor r.ny r.ro~r")'eovered
Jlcre'uy,or bolder ut u c::ontl:'W:t or ll6le co\lllrina an)"Eucb propeny,sueCG fol'
bbllclf and Mil.:be'ro.tlollllle;nli.or lIucec:lliUJ:'.a in JntcTe!>t Unt be ll.Cilept.s tho.
drnlllBgC (ucll.1Uoe,Olofell l1r.il ltlof¢eroillon eontrol p1,c.nt\.Oll.ou tb4 GI:lld prop::rt::r
at iho time of t.he COtlVlll1l'JlCC t.llerellf by the prtl4CnL OVlll!oI'or o\IDeru theteor nn:l
ttnt be vill -.:J,llJtIJ,lu the 5ll.Jle "t lUll O\ln CllpeniC,lln1 l'\1r1.her &grel:::tb'lt 00 'lI111
..Ltc Cro:z.adjolIl1lJB or other buJldtll&81wtl 10 lIOid dcl>Cl1.~properQ-.or tbo.t be
vl11llm.ke M0'l\Jrlote provl.atona tor l'h!i'tr drtUnt'.S*111 t.fl,e event it 1110 oeeil"lIlJ(U")'to
ctnnoe the elto.bll11bod dnI11X1&e"over hlo bulUl~Bite,IUI<l turthU"o.qees thAt
he vUl ~it f'Tee w:lt:euo"by O'JDer~of ~nt or lIIl,}Qlnll'.(I bdb1ina aHoell to
nl,oll¢1l 01'dro.l~I.U)'1Io J,oc:1tei1 on hill Jl1"Qper1¢'IIb1cli 4rtect 1U11d lU1JeCent or adJOf.n·
lne;bulllUll6 nltClI,vben such I\cctn 10 eUGeot1Dl for the utI1nWM.QC:.ot peol'l!ltU"l('Ill;
utabUlrationB on &aid Qlopell,or m1l:ltlllnB:lCC or tb!!dnl1oo£~~lU.t1'''I,J'or the
protectiQn and nlW ot ~pnt.)'other tbao the butl.d1na u1.w on vh1eh tho 'lO;Ie Dr
drMJzl~~)'h U>cated.lor the ~ae~hereof)~tablhbcd"d.ra.1m8<l'18
oor1nN:/UI tba dnt.1oo&e wt11ch oecu:ned at.the t1M tbe uvtrUl tp'lld1nB ot uutd
dcaaribed property,10eltxUng the lnMl!e4JlLng of <each b'Jlld1llg dtc ll1 lII:Iid
deGcr1be'd ~perty,va.(I co=.plcted by UIa undero~ovne.r.
1.&Lch &f'lUltce,ov:vn'.l.c/l~or OCcuJO.tlL or IWY FoI-CTt.y l:Onnd
hereby or boldtU'or /I.cor.tmct of t&1u t'>Ovn1ng CX1'J lJUah FOpClrty,or aort(;aBce
under rceordcd llIOt't£J4IQ Ol"t.n1J:tco Ut:Kicr N«Irded dr:c4 of truJ.t,Ill.lP'"II tor
Il.1mMl!1UX1 b111 b4trA,.aul6IlD or WIlCCU.ON,or II\lCCCD!lOril 10 1n.blnlllh Ultlt
oot\l'l1Mt.<md1na:tho Ft"CV1ullXlf cootaioc:d in Ulet ·'!lecJ..o.nUOIJ or h\.l\>114hoent DC
ProtecUve ReDtt'1etloMI CoIxl1t1ons l\.Ull COY'eDDJU,lI"re<:orded on AIJ6USt.2.!j,19'jS,tn
-~-I.".•
•~o
~ill .-
I~I
~I
II
.''.'I .,"
_~''''..~---"-~..__.:-._-"_.._-..__.t'·
.::','~~.l,...~".:,.'.\.:,.-··.._~-·....'..i-:.......,,~'~'..'.
I .',.•
5-90
t I
"
Book.W'/ltB,hv:237,itlftlcLlU.~rdI,be Mreb)'~.tvell ~obJecUM Nll1111
bIlro:by d~to COn6':ot to 1;1I1f a:difuo.Uon tberoot,pendtt1na ~property
Mt.vlthln Mota 'l'rIlct.25'10')covered by 1lG14 ~1i>.t"a-tllJn or g,tnbl1~ot.ot
1'rot=t.1ve ReBtdctl.o!w,COOOttJonll nn1 OovenantGj'"to \)C U«d Cor ~~&
o.llOlled umer tiN:~t or .future law,O~"$lWIS/~r :wn1r.Q ~Dta-or
~IIi
I
I
I
II
iVory a.ct.or tlIL1llS1on Vhcl'e'by o:lJ;J provision,l"tllW"letl00,I:OYeOtll1t,01'
co!p.Ulml 1n thlB dl'C1aratLon cat toMh 16 V1ollL-w.l,in "l~lD or l.lI.{4X't,1IJ
j
-I•
•~
0
"
I.,':1:00
'00<
f\)
-l::"
c'$
~
II!
1V
the oto:rcna.1d pl'l:r;<mt.OVQl:r or 1'b succco.r.orl or by \;he then OIIner or tUtY bUl1dlJl«
nitA:or ,pu'I;:cl ~lt1'thin cu.1d de~erlbod property.El~lt re:Il.'<l:t'p-""OVidN tor
1n t:.b-fo"dee1..n.rBUon tOO.ll be d~C1.D'.L1.a'tSve .ro:1101<exclUJ)iV'C:.
Aa to ea.ch.bu1ldinl;ait.e or p:m:cl owner 1n GOold.der.eribed property,the
pt"OYblolt.ll.COooUt1QIUl,re3tT.1etlQ.l1!i AD:!.COvenlUlta bo;-e1l1 conln1nN.60011 be
coveuwt4 J'\1:llU:ln8"vlth the lIuld lUld the broe.cb or any "thereot or the ~t1lluaoee
'IbeUi i!'OYCflW1U1 ~to run nUl.\he Imd IWd shall be b1:1dJ..u.B:UJXlO all
sarlo1ell IUlO all PQ.r1lQ1111 elbt.1Il&und.ar thea until ~I,1992.u:rU.snll lUlOUlCr
date of explnlt.tcn or 44id coveoonW M4 been llpllcl!'1.cnll:r IUlt forth heJ:'ltin.ct
ot ten yClJXt.wUellll by vol.<l ot tilt'then oYn4I'l or a.lIlOJotlt..1 of tM b\l.1.1d1ng dteQ
In 461.11 dellCi1~property,1t 111 agrtled \1J cbwlgo /laid COvent/Jlt6 in ilMl.e Qr 1n
i
I
!I
'I
;Jr
i
I
I
1+
I
5-91
r I I
f'·1I
i
'I.\
,
It any ~1I'Itt or s:craona.llha.ll.y1Qlatc ~.\lot.tb~pt to vlo:to.te at<1 of l.bll
"
CC.VllMOtS ~:re1n,it.aInU be lD.v:t'Ul tOT \be ooid pre~nt lWl.,t!T or tt.&IU->ctll;80nI
or Cor BIJ:;/oUlIl.r pe::SQll.or r.crill,lns oVn1t1ij rm'J n:ol proy:rLy Gl't.Wot.e in lULl.d de:J_
edbed property to l'tOlle<:UW OIly :proeeed~1l at-JAIi or ill e'1\111.1 .agn.ifl&t.the
p:ll:1lOn or-p!.rOOn"vloln.tlng or a:t.tee~~to v10lAte nr&Queh covell4.l'lt eel):!.cllher
W prevuo.t h1II or t.hcIiI ~00 doing or to rec(J'l'l':r ~ll r"r llucb viulatlon.
}i;l da:l1.c.)'or lXI'ILlI5ion on 1M ~t of 6&14 prc:oont.OImer orL1.U II\lCCelll:<OT/>
or-or IWJ'O'lnfl.T ot n.ny ~rropcrty 1J1t\x1t.c In raid dlll>Cl'l'tK:d J't'OP"rty M tQ the
excrc:hl1ll6 or ~~lul.-:.iD l\".vl\led 10 tho cvent or lUll lo=h or U1c CQU-
d1tlonJ1,rIl51.T.h:.tl.oiU,C!l'l<:M.nt~l,lT l'C~UO~herein CQntll.Lned llha.ll be CQn_
Il~oo....4 vt\.lvcT t.bef'COf or I\£:qu1c~c therein.
'il
LL-I'
o
•1'f(]YJ1BD,OOIlh'VID,~t bNacb at tJJl1"o(;(\1t1 COVIlMtltli rmd rcllltrlcUunG :;c
",
oT Uii J:'C-<:nU"y by reaaon of Il-..:b bl'el!.':b,n1nl.l JXlt defeat or r-ender 1nvu.Ua the C')
at'~&Cnera1.plnn tor the b.JllVtl.w.mL or the arort:1:lld l1eGcr1~r.ro;party and trot ~ld
eooo1,'t.10I11J ~l'lItit.rkUor.&o.re tor the beoot1t.ot'~lA trnet urll1 t!lleh BOd,.r:.very
jC:cC'l of ~th~in &lI U',tl d.uI:Wlant ~Ilt Dr te~nw..
VIII
l.h:m or IL1lY IllCl~C or deed uC trust.m.dJ:.in «ood.t4lth l1lXl toT YJt.1Ue'all to n:ny
01'll'a:t.d build1n8 61tell or :rfQ~rt)'.or any lart 1Ilercor,but &ueb proYl1l1on~,
rentrlct10lUl or cQVeon,nts llooU be b1ndtna IlJld errect1vc ngGllIOt.o.ny O'ltI.er or !'.l11d
,I
An1 or .all at'the r10lw 1U",d ~ra nn1 :re$e1'YlLl.1o~or dec1anuJt herein
cont4"lMd ~hl'l eGo1j;M<l to tlm Ar.:h1tllcturol r:a:mUit~D Dr to nuy cln'p)l'\ltloo or
IIoIGOC!.r.lUonl/JUch 111 ~orGlnlLed or \/bleb.DJ¥oor'fflt'tcr be orgnnl~au:1 "Well
vl_ll IUSl,IW lbe du.t1Cll,11 lW)',or dec14nmt ~l'1lUN1r:r J-CTtD-1nlllO to the
I
11
I
I
·1·
5-92
REVISto I
l'·M~6;:
IZ"-:,,w:
~.':.i0
/I.t5-(.!c.
U'PI;7j'
CHERTY
OR.
I2Q\V
L
PIQ..
ITEm NO,G iI
I T!3m NO,G 6 ul1!lf£TI
'.:"''..:~ii5i
I\IcL '1
s.
15
~
0«LARKVALEWOR.
::2
Zw
0
81 @
"'
e
A~S~S~O~'S "4~
·v ~c _ry3 ~.3El[S
\
'",059 ,
@60 ,
@61
IV 62
@63
.@64
~@65 ,
,.."
;;!
u.;::
zw
9
(~
~I'~,
@
@
TRAILRtOERS
OR
~«w
:::i:
Zwo
..Ja
"
s
a:o
"'
CHERTY)OR.
~/
v..S,663 -37-39
TRACT NO.27132
"'-..
t,~7
,@51 0
@52
@53
@54 .
@ 55 'I~
N~-"">o:.r.!.i
I'
@56 ,
@57 .
,@5B ~
/17
(
v.3.682 ~51 -54
RECEIVED
:t/llf;l#'
0 98 ..~
!~
'1.'51;#'
"@99 •
'1'~."C
f?\101""
~
92!C';",~
~0100 ~
110 ~
,
,,3 BRO~~O/RD
SliO1-'...."',;,.,"-"':;;"4:7',-,<5
~8 102 <.,,"@ /
N (/
\~TRACT NO 25109
CODE
7e?9
-(0,~t:Ev ASSl,l"T'$:!:,7579·5;;
6K\\~
AI 2----'(0 L
LOFTYGROVE
_.til;OR
t<CI:I'''
,
I~-8 94 -,
:;,..,
1t:~f)8 ~..
,(t4{1U'
•095~D\0)
tt,,,~:tr
096
"'"'"..
'"'"•'fi
....
a
'"...
I
j
t
T
"m
0."
mQ"'=....-i'.......,.......-.......----------------:~----------------------~~,·'7 I ,
'0 5F
:::~I.....g SCALE Iff =80'J
n "i ~"
§!Jl r-
~~
,,'fia....
"m"~,
'"&J~"."""~
"g
jj:
'0
JUL 07 2011
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
5
-
9
3
5-94
5-95
5-96
<ITract Map No.25109
(Lot No.1 01 is 28105 Golden Meadow)
5-97
Bcc i \li)l PAGESL
SHEET 'I 'OF 4 SHEETS'
STATE OF CALlfOUUA I
CQUNTY OF LOS ANGEL£S ss.
ON THIS e~DAY OF JANUARY',l"t aEl'OU'~,~.'.~'"
A NOiARY PUBLIC IN ANO FOR THE COUNTY,rERSONAUy"J,"EA.lm
£.'tlU'lfE/lI1...11 KNO'."'N TO ME TO BE TIlE PRESIDE/U AND
B,R ./"'loRI!;IS KNOWN TO ME TO BE THe SECIEl'AlIY OF
THl!Glt ...."'O'lIEW S>UILCllNG\Co.,TIlE CORPOItATlON
THAT £X£CUTED nu WITHIN INSTRUMENT AND I:NOW~1 TO ME TO n
THE PEllSONS WHO l:XECUlED THE WiTHllfiNSTRUt.tENT em BEHALF
Of THE CO.PO~ATION THEilEIN NAMW mD ACKHOWUDGW TDldE
THAT SUCH CO.PORA110N EXEClITED THE SAME,•
M.l.Il.GAI1.ET E..~ttt'H"~"
IKt COWJIUlON EX1IU~AU<:.;:z./f.C::.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
AS SET ARE 6"BEl.OW SURFACE OF GROUND
BY ENGINEERING SERVICE CORPORATIONSURVEYED
,WE 5E.U1NG (n.WT.l'S3'W.)OF TilE CmTU LlIl.E Of I.IOiJUO DRIVE OF TRACT N!Z'lI07,MAP ~OOIl.(on FAGES 1110 G-:.
INC~U5IVE OF MAPS,2EC0l105 OF TIl!;'OIINl'i Of Ull ANGELES,STAU 01'C'\~IFOll,1l1A I WAS T...·dN A'i TilE BASIS OF 8tARUU::l,
'iI/aWN ON 11llS MAP.
Al.L 2"IRON PIPES SHOWN HEREON
UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY OF THE
BEING A SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF LOT 'H'PARTITION OF
THE RANCHO LOS PALOS VERDES,ALLOTTED TO ~OTHAM BIXBY
BY DECREE OF PARTITION IN ACTION 'BIXBY ET AL·VS·BENT ET
AL'AS SHOWN ON MAP FILED IN CASE N!2373 IN THE DISTRICT
COURT OF THE 17 TH ~UDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA,IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,AND
ENTERED IN BOOK 4 PAGE 57 OF JUDGEMENTS IN THE SUPERIOR
COURT OF SAID COUNTY,RECORDS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY,
STATE OF CALI FORNIA.
IN
'''..~''''CI",""l1lU T'",ou_u~~.,tJt ....onettto "d'!t _0 '"".~V"Q~'M"_n,,""
""0 _~...:.:'.~~......."';•.,-..<~;,~..;.,-,:.:'__
g;".,,,;\,;~"W";;<ta~,?~'.t",'f,','!'i ~:,~~~=
~,.s;:L.:.~,:.,::.t<._-;~~L...._OVI/Il'
COUNT\{OF LOe;;,AWC;,ELE:S
A aOPT eo~POlt"'..,.c:"'~D pal.lT'(.u..~EMENT 1l11~DU..
A':>D£P,C,ATlloP llH""E.........1"c:o"yr..J.t.T iii"U'=7 ;:~G<>l:.l>I!.C>,..,
&Ql>><....~-:.,1''''<O~'Io"f7 To 113 O"M ...P$..
--5-98
SCALE I r II",601 SHEET 2 OF 4 SHEETS
#JmC~t1$;j@f)
IN UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
SURVEYEO BY ENGINEERING SERVICE CORPORATION
l-
UI
UI
::I:
III
IU
W
III
1Q71:P'3;;:=
'.:'1Il In
'"
38
"'"'in26~g,
GI5.25'n'
,,13.46'__
71'
,,;
"5 ~g,
17
'"
47
70'
n'
601AO'·~i.,g
DRIVE ~
'"
n'
DRIVE:
OS'
61
w
~-69 E:~
2
700.1Z'1 -,
65'r-
70'
70'
39
'"
,2.'
4
,
(,<'O,l~'
,"'
62
73'70'
p,""~S ~~83 i-J.('tl84~"
g~'g ci
~~a!:
2 ""
68
n'
85
24 25
'"'"71'71'
19 '8
'",,',n·,'
1<1'1,
",''"
7"
,"'
63
4B.1'1''0'
67
BS'
64'
23
B~'1Z.'
64'
20
86
64
10'
'""~~"b~•p.
2 ~2f"0-,
44 4S 46
1l&1'~'j6'W ",1\,."GO'G'l.Bo·
10'1.-50'10'10'10'
"
----~"LOFTYGROVE
Ga'VlZ'
22 ,
»,W5fI6"W
10$.15'
42 ~~4.40
~~~~~i,l1J';rOo\-":i.
...1>~l\'I~~~,,,,10'70'
""0 in 485.<'1'
...lU~·$"~6"YJ.~_==~_
"'\{l MAYCROKl"
Bl.5B'
Of T\-\E CITY OF PA.LOS VERDES ESTA.TES·,U!,E,.•...•·50UTJ.1ERLY
;,
89
4:'.lEi'"
",<'ft,;~q
90
lJ,74 ./1'47"JiO,,,;;l!4
i;91.
W.B •'4r
11a'
~92
p '4I"
I~O'
"93
IM,'O,'4 "E,I!~
n•.11'
94
<fl
Wo
Cl!w>
)-
l-
I,)
"-a
<fla
..Jg,
0
0
~
~
W
:I:"I-2
::;
""e0
w ~
z
:i w
2
~
::;~
ffi
01 ~w ~1;;\.~
5-99
I
21
~.O·OO'\~"W.~
g,al\-'9,,I)'"~~
~...':--
o...,~~
~~ll!)~·::.;:;"::?i~'f~~k.'~I:i'::':~.::;;!j'+-;::.n~_=-:e--B ~
c..!J""r--
k::::.-.!/.,...w·"W·'O~\J..911°IW42."E..lor;
MCIl:l
•
Dt;n I N.66"3 '2fD"W,>_~_
W o:::t I"!-128,ZO'~>~;J 3'~......w b <0 -~O!::b <:iI_I t.fl .::-P1 -II\oJ "'"V"~__I.;~~q~O I ~
~-!S..,f-'00 t--"A l 0--.....¢=~..,...:::Z:"I.-:W r-'""T"'- __W ,:2. .i'.",~In",_<,,~&.o~'''~~, U ...,4:.---
: '99.75'•
......../~8~a Q'4Z."e::·.~-
".---\Z1'--,".E'I~line ofavariable)of.., , . . T I I iWidTheasement10tM/'.:S'ly line Of A10 Easement to the,County .....
County of l.oS An~les iCr :Of LO;Angelcs-!Or Storm Dl3Jn pusp65e\
<;l.rm DM!..,purposes ~:::.'0 •
FND.Z"l.P.11\1 ..lEU OF
CONC.RETE:MONUME.t-lT
CO~NE~!'c:."TRfo.Ci N ~
4400,M ..B.72.-C)SJ~c,
,
5
-
1
0
0