CC SR 20180515 02 - 32 Via Del Cielo Fence Wall Permit Appeal
PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL
Date: May 15, 2018
Subject: Consideration and possible action to deny the appeals and uphold the Planning
Commission’s validation of the Director’s approval of a Fence/Wall Permit for property
located at 32 Via Del Cielo (Case No. ZON2016-00377)
Subject Property/Location: 32 Via Del Cielo
1. Report of Notice Given: City Clerk
2. Request for Staff Report: Mayor Brooks
3. Staff Report & Recommendation: Senior Planner Seeraty
4. Council Questions of Staff (factual and without bias):
5. Declare Public Hearing Open: Mayor Brooks
6. Public Testimony:
Principal Parties 10 Minutes Each. The appellant or their representative speaks first and will generally be allowed ten minutes. If the
applicant is different from the appellant, the applicant or their representative will speak following the appellant and will also be allowed
ten minutes to make a presentation.
A. Applicant/Appellant: Jim Hudnall
i. Mayor Brooks invites the Applicant/Appellant to speak. (10 mins.)
B. Appellant: Tom and Kim Vice
ii. Mayor Brooks invites the Appellant to speak. (10 mins.)
C. Testimony from members of the public:
The normal time limit for each speaker is three (3) minutes. The Presiding Officer may grant additional time to a representative speaking
for an entire group. The Mayor also may adjust the time limit for individual speakers depending upon the number of speakers who intend
to speak.
7. Rebuttal: Mayor Brooks invites brief rebuttals by Appellant and Applicant. (3 mins)
Normally, the applicants and appellants will be limited to a three (3) minute rebuttal, if requested after all other interested persons have
spoken.
8. Council Questions of Appellant (factual and without bias):
9. Council Questions of Applicant (factual and without bias):
10. Declare Hearing Closed/or Continue the Public Hearing to a later date: Mayor Brooks
11. Council Deliberation: The Council may ask staff to address questions raised by the testimony, or
to clarify matters. Staff and/or Council may also answer questions posed by speakers during their
testimony. The Council will then debate and/or make motions on the matter.
12. Council Action: The Council may: vote on the item; offer amendments or substitute motions to
decide the matter; reopen the hearing for additional testimony; continue the matter to a later date
for a decision.
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 05/15/2018
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Public Hearing
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action to deny the appeals and uphold the Planning
Commission’s validation of the Director’s approval of a Fence/Wall Permit for property
located at 32 Via Del Cielo (Case No. ZON2016-00377).
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Adopt Resolution No. 2018-___, thereby denying the appeals and upholding the
Planning Commission’s validation of the Director’s approval of a Fence/Wall
Permit to allow the installation of a wrought-iron fence at the top of the slope
along the east property line abutting the upslope property, measuring 3.5’ in
height for a length of 44’ from the front property line, and then 4’ in height along
the east property line for a length of 163’.
FISCAL IMPACT: Both Appellants have paid the applicable appeal fees of $2,275
each. If either of the Appellants are successful, all in-house Staff costs associated with
the processing of the appeal will be borne by the City’s General Fund. An Appellant is
considered successful if a final decision is rendered granting his/her appeal. If either
appeal results in a modification to the project, other than changes specifically requested
in the appeal, then one-half of that appeal fee will be refunded to that Appellant.
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: Amy Seeraty, Senior Planner
REVIEWED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, Director of Community Development
APPROVED BY: Doug Willmore, City Manager
Quasi-Judicial Decision
This item is a quasi-judicial decision in which the City Council is being asked to affirm
whether specific findings of fact can be made in order to support approval of a
development application. Pursuant to RPVMC Section 17.80.070(F) (De Novo
Review), the City Council appeal hearing is not limited to consideration of the
materials presented to the Planning Commission. Any matter or evidence relating to
the action on the application, regardless of the specific issue appealed, may be
reviewed by the City Council at the appeal hearing.
1
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Draft Resolution No. 2018-___ (page A-1)
B. Appellants’ (Vice - Neighbor) Appeal Letter (page B-1)
C. Applicant’s (Hudnall – Fence Owner) Appeal Letter (page C-1)
D. Notice of Decision from March 13, 2018 Planning Commission meeting
(page D-1)
E. March 13, 2018, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (page E-1)
F. March 13, 2018, Planning Commission Memo (page F-1)
G. February 13, 2018, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (page G-1)
H. February 13, 2018, Planning Commission Staff Report (page H-1)
I. November 10, 2017, Director’s Notice of Decision, Staff Report, and
Conditions of Approval (page I-1)
J. Diagram of Condition No. U.1 of Resolution No. 92-27 (page J-1)
K. Project Plans (page K-1)
L. Correspondence (page L-1)
BACKGROUND:
On August 18, 2016, the Applicant submitted a Fence/Wall Permit application (Case No.
ZON2016-00377) requesting a 6’-tall wrought-iron fence at the top of the slope along
the east property line. After completing a preliminary site visit to the subject property,
Staff advised the Applicant that there was a potential for view impairment from the
upslope property, and that the 6’-tall fence would not be supported by Staff.
After submittal of a revised plan and several rounds of correspondence with the
Applicant, on November 10, 2017, the Director of Community Development (“Director”)
conditionally approved a Fence/Wall Permit allowing the installation of a wrought-iron
fence measuring 3.5’ tall from for a length of 44’ from the street-side property line, and
then 4’ tall for a length of 163’, at the top of the slope along the east property line at 32
Via Del Cielo (the “Property”). The Director determined that a fence at the approved
height would not significantly impair the view taken from a standing position in the
viewing area of the property at 70 Calle Cortada, which is the only property that has a
view over the proposed fence.
On November 22, 2017, a timely appeal of the Director’s decision was filed by the
upslope neighboring property owners at 70 Calle Cortada (“Appellants’ Property”), Tom
and Kim Vice (the “Appellants”). On February 13, 2018, the Planning Commission held
an appeal hearing and continued the public hearing to March 13, 2018, to allow
additional time for the property owner (fence owner) of 32 Via Del Cielo, Jim Hudnall
(“Applicant/Appellant”), and the Appellants to identify a mutually-agreeable solution.
On March 13, 2018, the Planning Commission, after considering information introduced
into the record—including the fact that that the parties were unable to come to an
agreement—the Planning Commission denied the appeal as a result of a tie vote (2-2-2
with Commissioner Tomblin absent, Commissioner Nelson and Vice-Chair Bradley
2
dissenting, and Commissioners Perestam and Saadatnejadi abstaining), therefore
validating the Director’s approval of the Fence/Wall Permit.
The Applicant (also now an Appellant) and Appellants both filed timely appeals of the
Planning Commission’s action, with the Applicant requesting that the approval be
modified to allow a 5’-tall fence along the entire length of the top-of-slope; and the
Appellants requesting that the approval be denied and no fence be constructed due to
view impairment concerns.
On April 26, 2018, a public notice was published in the Peninsula News and mailed to
all property owners within a 500’ radius of the property, providing a 15-day time period
for the submittal of comments. Staff received no public comments in response to the
public notice.
DISCUSSION:
The Planning Commission’s tie vote resulted in upholding the Director-approved
Fence/Wall Permit to allow the installation of a wrought iron fence measuring between
3.5’ and 4’ in height along the top-of-slope of the east property line of the Applicant’s
property. The Director and Planning Commission Staff Reports are attached and include
the analysis of the required Fence/Wall Permit findings, letters of concern, and Staff’s
responses to these concerns (Attachments I and H, respectively). The Director’s
approval was initially appealed by the upslope abutting neighbor to the east. Now, the
Planning Commission’s action is being appealed by both the Applicant and the original
Appellants. The reasons for the appeals and Staff’s summarized comments are
provided below (Appeal points in bold/underline and Staff’s response in normal font):
Applicant’s Appeal:
1) A 5’-tall fence should be allowed along the upslope shared property line to be
consistent with the rest of the Oceanfront Estates Development
The Applicant states all properties in the Oceanfront Estates community have a 5’-
tall wrought-iron fence along their property lines, except for his property, and that
while the Tract Conditions specifically prohibit fences within the front-yard setback,
they do not specifically prohibit fences along other property lines including the
requested side-yard fence.
Condition No. U.1 of the original City Council Resolution No. 92-27, which approved
the original Oceanfront Estates Tract, requires the following fencing:
U. FENCING ON INDIVIDUAL LOTS
1. Prior to the sale of any lot within each workable phase, the developer shall install
a decorative, maximum six (6) foot high fence which allows a minimum of 90% light
and air to pass through along the rear property lines of Lots 31 to 79, along the
3
south street side setback line of Lot 31 and within the rear yard setback (rear and
side property lines) of Lots 1 to 30.
This Condition only required a rear yard fence for the Applicant’s property (Lot No.
37) and is illustrated in the attached exhibit (Attachment J). Although most of the
properties in the Tract do have fences in the side yard, these fences were
constructed at the time individual homes were constructed, which Staff believes
were for privacy, security, or swimming pool safety barriers. Additionally, for most
properties, the grade elevation difference between neighboring properties is
approximately 6’-8’ (versus the over 20’ grade difference between the Applicant and
Appellants’ properties), and therefore the residences on the downslope properties
already impair many of the neighboring views, negating any view impairment that
may be caused by a fence or wall that is the subject of the City’s Fence/Wall Permit.
For these reasons, Staff’s believes that a 5’ side-yard fence is not allowed “by-right”
and that the Code’s Fence/Wall Permit applies to ensure neighboring views are
protected pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.02.040. Based on Staff’s
assessment, the Director’s decision achieves view protection from the City-defined
viewing area of the neighboring property.
2) A 5’-tall fence should be allowed due to privacy and liability concerns
The Applicant also raises concerns regarding potential impacts to his privacy with
the approved 3.5’- to 4’-tall fence. Per Staff’s calculations, the proposed wrought iron
fence transmits 80% light and air, and so would not provide privacy to the
Applicant’s property, even at the 5’ height requested by the Applicant. Furthermore,
properties within the City are commonly situated with transitional slopes between
them, which often allow for views of the downslope property from the upslope
property. As for the Applicant’s property, unless the Appellants intentionally walk to
the edge of their property and look down into the Applicant’s property, the
Applicant’s rear yard is not readily visible from the Appellants’ residence as their
property is significantly higher and has views over the Applicant’s property.
Additionally, the Applicant is requesting the 5’-tall fence at the top of the slope to
address his concerns regarding his potential liability, should someone fall down the
slope and injure themselves. Staff believes that the Director-approved fence height
adequately addresses those concerns.
Appellants’ Appeal:
1) Views of the ocean, Catalina Island, and Santa Monica Mountains will be
significantly impaired, and the best primary viewing area is more suitable in a
seated position, not in a standing position
The Appellants’ original appeal to the Planning Commission was on the basis that
their view should be taken from a seated position versus a standing position in their
outdoor patio area, and that a 20’-long portion of the 3.5’-tall wrought-iron fence
adjacent to the outdoor patio be prohibited. The Appellants did not oppose the
4
remainder of the fence at that time but are now requesting that the City Council deny
the entire fence.
Municipal Code Section 17.76.030(B)(3)(a) states, in part, “Views shall be taken
from a standing position, unless the primary viewing area is more suitable to viewing
in a seated position….” Based on site visits to the Appellants’ property, Staff found
that views of the ocean are more suitable from a standing position as compared to a
seated position from the primary viewing area. Municipal Code Section
17.02.040(A)(15) states that the viewing area shall be where the best and most
important view is taken. Staff determined the primary viewing area to be the living
room, as this area provides the widest and deepest view of the ocean, Catalina
Island, Santa Monica Mountains and Nature Preserve Property. As shown in the
photos on the following page, views of the ocean are more visible from the standing
position, as compared to the seated position. From a standing position, the proposed
fence would impair a minimal amount of the Appellants’ lower periphery of the ocean
view between existing residences. This is not considered a significant view
impairment because the amount of view that is impaired is very small, compared to
the total extent of the view. Also, the impairment would only be of the ocean, while
the view of Catalina Island will be preserved.
Below is a photo of Appellants’ view taken by City Staff in a standing position from
the viewing area (living room):
The Appellants disagree with Staff’s assessment as they believe that views should
be evaluated from a seated position, as they spend a significant amount of time in
the living room and outdoor patio area (west corner of their residence) in a seated
position. However, the City Council-approved Guidelines for Height Variation
Permits, which also require a view analysis, state that in determining the viewing
area on a developed lot, Staff will usually conduct their view analyses in a natural
standing position unless the view can only be enjoyed from a seated position.
Furthermore, upon review of historic Planning Commission and City Council records,
including previous Fence/Wall Permit appeals, it appears that the majority of the
decisions involved assessing views from a standing position. The photos below
compare a section of the view in the same viewing area in a standing and seated
position:
5
Photo of a Portion of a View in a Standing Position (Photo taken by Staff)
Photo of a Portion of a View in a Seated Position (Photo taken by Appellant at
approximately same location)
Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, Staff believes that the best and most
important viewing area is the living room, taken from a standing position, and that
the Director’s decision, which was upheld by the Commission’s action, allows the
Applicant’s fence to be constructed without significantly impairing the Appellants’
view.
2) The newly-planted and future foliage and trees will grow to obscure the views
of the ocean, Catalina Island, and the Santa Monica Mountains.
Municipal Code Section 17.76.030(B)(3)(b) requires that a Fence/Wall Permit may
be approved only if the Director finds that “all foliage on the applicant's lot which
exceeds 16 feet or the ridgeline of the primary structure, whichever is lower, and
impairs a view from the viewing area of another parcel, as defined in Chapter 17.02
(Single-Family Residential (RS) Districts) or a view from public property which has
been identified in the city's general plan or coastal specific plan, as a city-designated
viewing area, shall be removed prior to permit approval.”
Condition No. 16 of the Director’s decision and attached Resolution states:
3.5’ height
3.5’ height
6
“All landscaping on the easterly slope shall be maintained at a height that does not
exceed the top of the approved fence.”
The Appellants are requesting that the City ensure that these trees be maintained at
heights of 4’ and 3.5’ from their building pad level, as stated in the Director's decision
dated November 10, 2017, and that no additional trees or foliage are planted on the
Applicant’s property, including the easterly slope of 32 Via Del Cielo, that would
block any views of the ocean, Catalina Island, or Santa Monica mountains.
According to Municipal Code Sections 17.86.060 and 1.16, and as stated in
Condition No. 7 of the Director’s decision and the attached Resolution, any violation
of a Condition of Approval may be cause to revoke the approval of the project or
require the issuance of administrative citations.
Therefore, based on the conditions of approval, the existing and future foliage on the
eastern slope will be required to be maintained at the prescribed heights in perpetuity.
Violations would be subject to Administrative Citations (commencing at $2,500 for the
first offense and increasing by an additional $2,500 for each subsequent similar
offense).
It should be noted that the Appellant’s request to maintain trees at a height of 3.5’ to
4’ above their pad elevation is in contrast to their request to prohibit the proposed
fence at the same height in the same direction of their view. Furthermore, prior to the
February 13, 2018, Planning Commission meeting, the Applicant removed several
pepper trees that had previously been the subject of concern by the Appellants. The
Applicant also installed new landscaping on his property, including on the easterly
slope, per an approved landscape plan as part of an approved rear-yard remodeling
project. The new foliage does not currently significantly impair the view from the
upslope property and would be subject to the height limitation stated in the above
condition.
Thus, Staff believes that that the Appellants’ concerns regarding foliage-related
potential view impairment are addressed in the Director-approved decision that the
City Council is being asked to uphold.
CONCLUSION:
Based on the foregoing discussion and the findings and Conditions of Approval detailed
in the attached Resolution, Staff believes that the Applicant’s and Appellants’ reasons
for their appeals are unwarranted, and recommends that the City Council deny both
appeals and uphold the Planning Commission’s validation of the Director’s approval of a
Fence/Wall Permit which strikes a balance between installing a fence requested by the
Applicant and protecting views from the Appellants’ residence.
7
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternative actions are available
for the City Council’s consideration:
1. Approve the Appellants’ appeal, thereby denying the Fence/Wall Permit
and direct Staff to return with a revised Resolution to the June 5, 2018,
City Council Meeting. This action would entitle the Appellants to a refund
of their entire appeal fee.
2. Approve the Applicant’s appeal, thereby approving a 5’-tall wrought-iron
fence along the upslope shared property line (outside of the front yard
setback), and direct Staff to return with a revised Resolution at the June 5,
2018, City Council Meeting. This action would entitle the Applicant to a
refund of his entire appeal fee.
3. Modify the Applicant’s and/or Appellants’ appeal(s) and direct Staff to
return with a revised Resolution at the June 5, 2018, City Council Meeting.
This action would entitle either or both the Applicant and Appellants to a
refund of one-half of their appeal fee.
4. Identify any issues of concern with the proposed project, provide Staff
and/or the Applicant with direction in modifying the project, and continue
the public hearing to a date certain.
8
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-__
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES THEREBY DENYING THE
APPEALS AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION’S VALIDATION OF THE DIRECTOR’S
APPROVAL OF A FENCE/WALL PERMIT TO ALLOW THE
INSTALLATION OF A WROUGHT-IRON FENCE AT THE
TOP OF THE SLOPE ALONG THE EAST PROPERTY LINE
ABUTTING THE UPSLOPE PROPERTY, MEASURING 3.5’
IN HEIGHT FOR A LENGTH OF 44’ FROM THE FRONT
PROPERTY LINE AND THEN 4’ IN HEIGHT ALONG THE
EAST PROPERTY LINE FOR A LENGTH OF 163’ FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 32 VIA DEL CIELO (CASE NO.
ZON2016-00377)
WHEREAS, on August 18, 2016, Jim Hudnall (“Applicant”), the owner of 32 Via
Del Cielo (“Property”), submitted a Fence/Wall Permit application for the construction of
a 6’ tall wrought iron fence along the top of their north-easterly side slope on the Property;
and,
WHEREAS, after assessing photos that were taken from the upslope property’s
viewing area, Staff determined that there was potential for view impairment and the filing
fee for a formal Fence/Wall permit would be required; and,
WHEREAS, on January 30, 2017, the Applicant submitted the required application
filing fee for the formal Fence/Wall Permit; and,
WHEREAS, on February 24, 2017, Staff deemed the application complete for
processing; and,
WHEREAS, in April 2017, the Applicant notified Staff they wished to revise the
proposed fence plan and, pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act, the processing of the
application was suspended; and,
WHEREAS, on May 25, 2017, the Applicant submitted a revised plan, and after
several rounds of correspondence with Applicant regarding the revised plan, the project
was again deemed complete for processing on September 13, 2017; and,
WHEREAS, on November 10, 2017, the Director of Community Development
(“Director”) approved a Fence/Wall Permit (Case No. ZON2016-00377) allowing a 3.5’-
to 4’-tall wrought iron fence at the top of the slope along the east property line of the
Property; and,
A-1
Resolution No. 2018-__
Page 2 of 11
WHEREAS, on November 10, 2017, a written notice of the Director’s decision was
provided to all property owners within 500’ radius of the subject site in accordance with
Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC) Section 17.80.090; and,
WHEREAS, on November 22, 2017, Tom and Kim Vice (the “Appellants”), the
property owners of 70 Calle Cortada (“Appellants’ Property”), filed a timely appeal
requesting that the Planning Commission overturn the Director’s decision and modify the
Fence/Wall Permit; and,
WHEREAS, Appellants’ appeal listed the following issues with the Director’s
decision: 1) the proposed fence will significantly impair the view at Appellants’ Property
from a seated position; 2) the design of the fence could vary from the approved plan so
as to impair more of the view; 3) pepper trees located at the Property on the east slope
significantly impair the views of the ocean, Catalina Island, and Santa Monica mountains
from the Appellants’ Property; and,
WHEREAS, on January 25, 2018, pursuant to Section 17.80.090 of the RPVMC,
a 15-day public notice was provided to all property owners within a 500’ radius and
published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News; and,
WHEREAS, on February 13, 2018, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed
public hearing regarding a request to overturn the Director’s approval of a fence at the
top of the slope along the east property line at 32 Via Del Cielo. After considering evidence
introduced in the record, including public testimony by the Applicant and Appellants, the
Commission continued the public hearing to the March 13, 2018 meeting to allow
additional time for the Applicant and the Appellants to come to an agreement for the
Commission’s consideration; and,
WHEREAS, on March 13, 2018, after considering the Applicant’s and Appellant’s
conflicting proposals, the Planning Commission denied the appeal for a Fence/Wall
Permit (ZON2016-00377) as a result of a tie vote, therefore validating the Director’s
approval of the Fence/Wall Permit; and,
WHEREAS, on March 27, 2018, Tom and Kim Vice (the “Appellants”), the property
owners of 70 Calle Cortada (“Appellants’ Property”) filed a timely appeal requesting that
the City Council overturn the Planning Commission’s action and modify Applicant’s
Fence/Wall Permit; and,
WHEREAS, on March 28, 2018, the Applicant filed a timely appeal requesting that
the City Council overturn the Planning Commission’s action and modify the Fence/Wall
Permit; and,
A-2
Resolution No. 2018-__
Page 3 of 11
WHEREAS, on April 26, 2018, pursuant to Section 17.80.090 of the RPVMC, a
15-day public notice was provided to all property owners within a 500’ radius and
published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act,
Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines,
California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA
Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and
Substances Statement), the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt
under Class 3 (Section 15303); and,
WHEREAS, on May 15, 2018, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing,
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 above recitals are hereby incorporated into this Resolution as
set forth herein.
Section 2: The City Council denies the appeals of Appellants and the Applicant,
and upholds the Planning Commission’s decision to uphold the Director’s grant of a
fence/wall permit, and in connection therewith makes the following findings based on the
all evidence and testimony provide in the staff report and at the public hearing.
Section 3: This approval allows the construction of wrought-iron fence (80%
light and air) up to 4’ in height at the top of the slope along the east side property line.
The 3.5’-tall portion of the fencing will begin at the Calle Cortada property line and run 44’
south-east towards the rear property line, while the 4’ tall portion of the fencing will start
where the 3.5’ fencing ends, and will run 163’ south-east towards the rear property line of
the property, at which point the proposed fence will connect with the existing perimeter
fencing.
Section 4: The Fence/Wall Permit is warranted because:
A. The wrought-iron fence would not significantly impair a view from the viewing area
of another property or a view from public property which has been identified in the
City's General Plan or Coastal Specific Plans, as a City-designated viewing area.
The proposed wrought-iron fence meets the definition of a “fence” per Municipal
Code Section 17.96.700, as it would transmit 80% light and air per Staff’s
calculations. The property is located 40’-50’ lower in elevation than the public
viewing area within the visual corridor located along Palos Verdes Drive West as
A-3
Resolution No. 2018-__
Page 4 of 11
identified in the City’s Coastal Specific Plan, the proposed project would not be
visible from public property.
B. There is no foliage on Applicant's lot which exceeds 16' or the ridgeline of the
primary structure, whichever is lower, that impairs a view, as defined in Municipal
Code Section 17.02.040(A)(14), from the viewing area of another parcel, or a view
from public property which has been identified in the City's General Plan or Coastal
Specific Plan, as a city-designated viewing area.
C. The installation of the wrought-iron fence complies with all applicable standards
and requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code and General Plan.
Pursuant to RPVMC Section 17.76.030(C)(1)(b)(i), Fences and walls up to seven
feet in height shall be permitted on any part of a lot not subject to subsection
(C)(1)(a) except as restricted by Section 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility) of this
title… In areas where there is a grade differential of more than 2’ between building
pads of adjacent lots, the top of the fence cannot be taller than the building pad of
the upslope lot, unless a Fence/Wall Permit is processed. As a Fence/Wall Permit
was processed, the project meets the aforementioned Municipal Code standards.
Additionally, the City's General Plan, Policy No, 14 of the Urban Environment
Element states: Prohibit encroachment on existing scenic views reasonably
expected by neighboring residents. The 3.5’- to 4’-tall fence would project into a
minimal amount of ocean view at the lower periphery of Appellants’ view frame,
while the remainder of the ocean and Catalina view would be preserved.
Section 5: The merits of the Applicant’s appeal are not warranted as described
below.
A. Appeal Reason No. 1: A 5’-tall fence should be allowed along the upslope shared
property line to be consistent with the rest of Oceanfront Estates Development
The Applicant states all properties in the Oceanfront Estates community have a 5’
tall wrought-iron fence along their property lines, except for his property, and that
while the Tract Conditions specifically prohibit fences within the front yard setback,
they do not specifically prohibit fences along other property lines including the
requested side-yard fence.
Condition No. U.1 of the original City Council Resolution No. 92-27, which
approved the original Oceanfront Estates Tract, requires the following fencing:
U. FENCING ON INDIVIDUAL LOTS
1. Prior to the sale of any lot within each workable phase, the developer shall install
a decorative, maximum six (6) foot high fence which allows a minimum of 90% light
and air to pass through along the rear property lines of Lots 31 to 79, along the
A-4
Resolution No. 2018-__
Page 5 of 11
south street side setback line of Lot 31 and within the rear yard setback (rear and
side property lines) of Lots 1 to 30.
This Condition only required a rear yard fence for the Applicant’s property (Lot No.
37). Although most of the properties in the Tract do have fences in the side-yard,
these fences were constructed for privacy, security, or swimming pool safety
barriers at the time individual homes were constructed. Additionally, for most
properties, the grade elevation difference between neighboring properties is
approximately 6’-8’ (versus the over 20’ grade difference between the Applicant
and Appellants’ properties), and therefore the residences on the downslope
properties already impair many of the neighboring views, negating any view
impairment that may be caused by a fence or wall, that would be the subject of a
City Fence/Wall Permit. For these reasons, the City Council has determined that a
5’ side-yard fence is not allowed “by-right” and that the Code’s Fence/Wall permit
has been processed pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.02.040 to achieve
view protection from the City-defined viewing area of the neighboring property.
B. Appeal Reason No. 2: A 5’-tall fence should be allowed due to privacy and liability
concerns.
The proposed wrought iron fence transmits 80% light and air, and so would not
provide privacy to the Applicant’s property, even at the 5’ height requested by the
Applicant. Furthermore, properties within the City are commonly situated with
transitional slopes between them, which often allow for views of the downslope
property from the upslope property. As for the Applicant’s property, the Applicant’s
rear yard is not readily visible from the Appellants’ residence as their property is
significantly higher and has views over the Applicant’s property. The Applicant is
requesting the 5’ tall fence at the top of the slope to address his concerns regarding
his potential liability, should someone fall down the slope and injure themselves,
but the City Council believes that the Director-approved fence height already
addresses these concerns.
Section 6: The merits of the Appellants’ appeal are not warranted as described
below.
A. Appeal Reason No. 1: Views of the ocean, Catalina Island, and Santa Monica
Mountains will be significantly impaired and the best primary viewing area is more
suitable in a seated position, not in a standing position.
Municipal Code Section 17.76.030(B)(3)(a) states, in part, “Views shall be taken
from a standing position, unless the primary viewing area is more suitable to
viewing in a seated position….” Based on site visits to the Appellants’ property,
views of the ocean are more suitable from a standing position as compared to a
seated position from the primary viewing area. Municipal Code Section
A-5
Resolution No. 2018-__
Page 6 of 11
17.02.040(A)(15) states that the viewing area shall be where the best and most
important view is taken. The primary viewing area is the living room, as this area
provides the widest and deepest view of the ocean, Catalina Island, Santa Monica
Mountains and Nature Preserve Property, and views of the ocean are more visible
from the standing position, as compared to the seated position. From a standing
position, the proposed fence would impair a minimal amount of the Appellants’
lower periphery of the ocean view between existing residences, which is not
considered a significant view impairment because the amount of view that is
impaired is very small, compared to the total extent of the view. Also, the view of
Catalina Island will be preserved.
Additionally, the City Council-approved Guidelines for Height Variation Permits,
which also require a view analysis, state that in determining the viewing area on a
developed lot, view analyses must be conducted in a natural standing position
unless the view can only be enjoyed from a seated position. Furthermore, upon
review of historic Planning Commission and City Council records, including
previous Fence/Wall appeals, it appears that the majority of the decisions involved
assessing views from a standing position. Therefore, the City Council determines
that the best and most important viewing area is the living room, taken from a
standing position, and that the Director’s decision, which was upheld by the
Commission’s action, will allow the Applicant’s fence to be constructed without
significantly impairing the Appellants’ views.
B. Appeal Reason No. 2: The newly-planted and future foliage and trees will grow to
obscure the views of the ocean, Catalina Island, and the Santa Monica Mountains.
Municipal Code Section 17.76.030(B)(3)(b) requires that a Fence/Wall Permit may
be approved only if the Director finds that ”all foliage on the applicant's lot which
exceeds 16 feet or the ridgeline of the primary structure, whichever is lower, and
impairs a view from the viewing area of another parcel, as defined in Chapter 17.02
(Single-Family Residential (RS) Districts) or a view from public property which has
been identified in the city's general plan or coastal specific plan, as a city-
designated viewing area, shall be removed prior to permit approval.”
Condition No. 16 of the Director’s decision and this Resolution states:
“All landscaping on the easterly slope shall be maintained at a height that does not
exceed the top of the approved fence.”
According to Municipal Code Sections 17.86.060 and 1.16, and as stated in
Condition No. 7 of the Director’s decision and the attached Resolution, any
violation of a Condition of Approval may be cause to revoke the approval of the
project or require the levying of administrative citations.
A-6
Resolution No. 2018-__
Page 7 of 11
Therefore, the existing and future foliage on the eastern slope will be required to
be maintained at the prescribed heights in perpetuity otherwise it would be
considered a violation of the Conditions of Approval and subject to Administrative
Citations (commencing at $2,500 for the first offense and increasing by an
additional $2,500 for subsequent similar offenses).
The new foliage does not currently significantly impair the view from the upslope
property and is subject to the height limitation stated in the above condition.
Therefore, the City Council finds that that the Appellants’ concerns regarding
foliage-related potential view impairment are addressed by the Conditions of
Approval.
Section 7: Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA
Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's
Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste
and Substances Statement), the approval of the Fence/Wall Permit application will not
have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the project has been found to
be Categorically Exempt (Section 15303(e)).
Section 8: The City Clerk shall certify to the passage, approval, and adoption
of this Resolution, and shall cause this Resolution and her certification to be entered in
the Book of Resolutions of the City Council.
Section 9: 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 or other applicable short periods of limitation.
A-7
Resolution No. 2018-__
Page 8 of 11
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 15th day of May 2018.
_________________________________
Susan Brooks, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Emily Colborn, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES )
I, Emily Colborn, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do hereby certify that
the above Resolution No. 2018-__, was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the
said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on May 15, 2018.
__________________________________
CITY CLERK
A-8
Resolution No. 2018-__
Page 9 of 11
EXHIBIT 'A'
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
PLANNING CASE NO. ZON2016-00377
(32 VIA DEL CIELO)
1. Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, Applicant and
the property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have
read, understand, and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this Exhibit
“A”. Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days following the
date of this approval shall render this approval null and void.
2. Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City, and/or any
of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof, from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of
mandamus, and other actions and proceedings (whether legal, equitable,
declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute
resolutions procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and
other such procedures) (collectively “Actions”), brought against the City, and/or
any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void,
or annul, the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and/or any of
its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City), for
or concerning the project.
3. Prior to conducting any work in the public right of way, such as for curb cuts,
dumpsters, temporary improvements and/or permanent improvements, Applicant
shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works.
4. Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and
appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws and
regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of the
City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code shall apply.
5. Pursuant to Section 17.78.040, the Director of Community Development is
authorized to make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the
conditions of approval if such modifications will achieve substantially the same
results as would strict compliance with the approved plans and conditions.
Substantial changes to the project shall be considered a revision and require
approval by the final body that approved the original project, which may require
new and separate environmental review and public notification.
6. The project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards
contained in these conditions of approval or, if not addressed herein, shall conform
A-9
Resolution No. 2018-__
Page 10 of 11
to the residential development standards of the City's Municipal Code, including
but not limited to height, setback and lot coverage standards.
7. Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be
cause to revoke the approval of the project pursuant to the revocation procedures
contained in Section 17.86.060 of the City’s Municipal Code or administrative
citations as described in Section 1.16 of the City’s Municipal Code.
8. If Applicant has not submitted an application for a building permit for the approved
project or not commenced the approved project as described in Section 17.86.070
of the City’s Municipal Code within one year of the final effective date of this
decision, approval of the project shall expire and be of no further effect unless,
prior to expiration, a written request for extension is filed with the Community
Development Department and approved by the Director.
9. In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations and/or
requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter standard
shall apply.
10. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be
completed in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the
City with the effective date of this decision.
11. This approval is only for the items described within these conditions and identified
on the stamped APPROVED plans and is not an approval of any existing illegal or
legal non-conforming structures on the property, unless the approval of such illegal
or legal non-conforming structure is specifically identified within these conditions
or on the stamped APPROVED plans.
12. The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall
be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that
material used for immediate construction purposes. Such excess material may
include, but not be limited to: the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap
metal, concrete asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or discarded
furniture, appliances or other household fixtures.
13. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly
manner, to the satisfaction of the City’s Building Official. All construction waste and
debris resulting from a construction, alteration or repair project shall be removed
on a weekly basis by the contractor or property owner. Existing or temporary
portable bathrooms shall be provided during construction. Portable bathrooms
shall be placed in a location that will minimize disturbance to the surrounding
property owners, to the satisfaction of the City’s Building Official.
A-10
Resolution No. 2018-__
Page 11 of 11
14. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday
through Friday, 9:00AM to 5:00PM on Saturday, with no construction activity
permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section 17.96.920 of
the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. During demolition, construction
and/or grading operations, trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at the project
site or in the adjoining street rights-of-way before 7AM Monday through Friday and
before 9AM on Saturday, in accordance with the permitted hours of construction
stated in this condition. When feasible to do so, the construction contractor shall
provide staging areas on-site to minimize off-site transportation of heavy
construction equipment. These areas shall be located to maximize the distance
between staging activities and neighboring properties, subject to approval by the
building official.
Project Specific Conditions:
15. This approval shall allow the construction of wrought iron fence (80% light and air)
up to 4’ in height at the top of the slope along the east side property line. The 3.5’
tall portion of the fencing will begin at the Calle Cortada property line and run 44’
south-east towards the rear property line, while the 4’ tall portion of the fencing will
start where the 3.5’ fencing ends, and will run 163’ south-east towards the rear
property line of the property, at which point the proposed fence will connect with
the existing perimeter fencing.
16. All landscaping on the easterly slope shall be maintained at a height that does not
exceed the top of the directly adjacent portion of the approved fence.
17. Pursuant to RPVMC Section 17.48.070, no fence, wall, hedge, sign, structure,
shrubbery, mound of earth or other visual obstruction over 30” in height, as
measured from the adjacent street curb elevation, shall be erected, placed, planted
or allowed to grow within the triangular space referred to as the "intersection
visibility triangle”.
18. All fences walls and hedges shall be limited to 3.5’ in height within the front yard
setback area, outside of the intersection visibility triangle.
19. No grading is authorized as a part of this approval.
20. Construction of the approved project shall substantially comply with the plans
stamped APPROVED on May 15, 2018, with the RS-1 zoning district, the site
development standards of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, and all
Conditions of Approval for Tract 46628 and CUP No. 158.
A-11
Tom and Kim Vice
70 Calk Corlada• Haucho Palos Verdes, California 11027.'i • Phone: ((i(il) li09-aoaa
E-Mail: kimvicc@dl.rr.mm
Date: March 24, 2018
Ara Mihranian
City Council
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275
Copy: Amy Seeraty, Associate Planner
Dear Ara Mihranian :
RECEIVED
MAR 2 7 2018
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
We are in receipt of your letter, dated March 14, 2018, regarding the denial of our appeal for a fence/wall permit
(ZON2016-003 77) as a result of a tie vote. We were appealing the installation of a wrought iron fence at the top of the
slope along the east property line of the residence at 32 Via Del Cielo. Our property, 70 Calle Cortada, is the abutting
upslope property. The Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes also had a tie vote regarding approval of
the Director's original decision as stated in the notice of decision letter dated November 10, 2017. Therefore, the
director's original decision remains valid according to your letter dated March 24, 2018.
This letter is to inform you that we are appealing this decision once again under the grounds that our views of the ocean,
Catalina Island, and Santa Monica Mountains from our property will be significantly impaired. This letter details the
specific areas that form the grounds of our appeal, as well as the specific actions requested.
The Ocean front estates began development in 1999. Our home in this development has always enjoyed unrestricted views
of the ocean, Catalina islands, and mountains. There has never been a fence on the top the stated slope, nor foliage that
has blocked our protected views. We purchased our home in 2012 primarily because of the majestic unrestricted views.
Rancho Palos Verdes City General plan, policy 14, states "prohibit encroachment on existing scenic views reasonably
expected by neighboring residents." It is our argument, that allowing this fence to be constructed, our existing scenic
views will be encroached upon.
It is our belief, that the specific actions that we are requesting will not impact the landowners at 32 Via Del Cielo. The
homeowner is already putting a 5-foot fence around his pool at the bottom of the slope. There is no reason to also put a
second fence at the top of the upslope. However, the issues detailed below will have significant ocean, Catalina Island,
and Santa Monica mountain view impairment consequences from our property; effecting the value of our property, and
our quality of living that our beautiful community currently offers.
Grounds for appeal -issue #1
The construction of a wrought iron fence across the entire upslope will significantly impair our views of the ocean,
Catalina Island, and Santa Monica mountains.
B-1
The director's approval of the fence all the way to the front (north) property line on top of the upslope was based upon the
level of view impairment from a standing viewing position, as stated in the approval recommendation from Amy Seeraty.
The approval recommendation letter stated, "As the views of the ocean from the viewing area would typically be enjoyed
in a standing position, the view assessment for this application was conducted in a standing position. A viewing area is
established by determining which area of the structure or lot that the best and most important views exists."
The ground of our appeal, is that the best primary viewing area is more suitable to viewing in a seated position, not in a
standing position. Rancho Palos Verdes' municipal code states "Views shall be taken from a standing position unless the
primary viewing area is more suitable to viewing in a seated position ." It is definitely the case, that the primary viewing
area is more suitable to viewing in a seated position. We spend the vast majority of our time in our seating in the living
room, and on a section of the property lot just off the living area where we have patio chairs and table. The significant
amount of time we spend in these areas is from a seated position, as we enjoy the panoramic and majestic views of the
ocean, Catalina island, and the Santa Monica Mountains for extended periods throughout the day, including late afternoon
and at sunset. Several council members that have visited our home agree that the primary viewing area is more suitable to
viewing in a seated position.
To show the substantial level of viewing impairment and harm that this fence would cause, I constructed a section of a
wrought iron fence, and placed it at the front of the property line on the east upslope of 32 Via Del Cielo. As you can see
from the photos previously provided, there will be significant impairment of our ocean view if the fence were constructed.
You can also see that the top of the proposed fence exceeds, and many cases blocks, the horizon (sky/ocean) line.
Allowing this fence to be installed would put the entire remaining ocean view below the top of the fence, or completely
block the horizon line.
As just one example as to the significance of the proposed fence, on many afternoons, extending into sunset, our family
sits in our living room, or the outside patio off our living room, and watches the gorgeous California sunsets, often
wondering if we will see the majestic and very brief green flash that sometimes occurs as the sun just touches the
sky/ocean horizon line. If the proposed fence is installed, we will never be able to sit in many of our favorite positions and
watch the sun as it dips down on the horizon -the top rail of the fence from several seated viewing positions will now
obscure the sky/ocean line. Throughout the day, as well as at sunset, in the other seated positions the ocean views will be
significantly impaired below the fence height, with much of the viewing area blocked by the type of wrought iron fence
constructed, the fence top rail, down rails, as well as railheads, and ornament leaves.
By allowing this fence to be constructed, and therefore, this fence to block our existing views, both the spirit and the
legality of the city's ordnances will be violated.
Specific action request
The specific action we are requesting is to stop the fence from being constructed along the upslope from the property at 32
Via Del Cielo. We have attempted to find reasonable solutions to this matter, including paying for a shorter fence. Every
solution we have proposed has been rejected.
Denying the proposed fence would represent little if any impact to the homeowners, as little homeowner activity would,
could or should occur on the very steep slope. There is no planned building in this area, and no reasonable concerns over
B-2
privacy. Making this change would allow us to continue all of the existing beauty of the ocean views, the beautiful
sunsets, Catalina Island, and the Santa Monica mountains, while it does not result in the landowner at 32 Via Del Cielo to
sacrifice any backyard living area, or privacy. This would have little impact to their quality oflife or living/playing
backyard area-you can't safely play on the steep slope nor would you want to. But the impact to installing the fence
would have a substantial impact to our quality of life.
Foliage Concern
We are greatly concern as to the 24 new trees that have been planted on the upslope property at 32 Via Del Cielo. These
trees were planted after the Director's decision letter dated November 10, 2017. We do not want these new trees to grow
and obscure our existing views of the ocean, Catalina Island, and Santa Monica mountains.
We are requesting that the specific action be taken by the city to ensure 1) these trees be maintained to the height of 4
feet and 3.5 feet as stated in the Director's decision dated November 10, 2017, and 2) that no additional trees or foliage
are planted on the property, including the slope on the east property line, of 32 Via Del Cielo, that would block any
view of the ocean, Catalina Island, or Santa Monica mountains.
Thank you for your careful consideration of our appeal.
:·\
B-3
The Project at
32 Via Del Cielo
C-1
I believe the decision restricting the height of the wrought iron fence
around my property, unjustly singled out my property and in effect,
unjustly penalized me and my property. The Development is new and
uniform. The CCR’s and Architecture Guidelines call for wrought
fences. There are wrought iron fences on every single property line
except the one between 70 Calle Corta and 32 Via Del Cielo.
C-2
Facts:
•The Ocean Front Estates is a new housing development. It still has empty lots and newly constructed homes.
•The project was debated for years in the community with extensive input from the City and the California Coastal Commission.
•There are 79 lots in the Ocean Front Estates development.
•The developer (CPH) of the Ocean Front Estates placed uniform pillars at the rear corner of every property (about 2’ x 2’
and about 6 feet tall). The pillars are a statement piece of the development.
•“Uniformity” is the theme of the development. The HOA and CC’R (both negotiated with the City), require the houses,
fences, mailboxes, etc to be the same look and style, all the way to the matching color of the fences and pillars.
•Every single side and rear property line in the development has a 5 foot wrought iron fence directly on top of the property
line (except for one between 32 Via Del Cielo and 70 Calle Cortada —the fence line in question).
•Each fence connects the rear corner pillars with either a pillar on the front corner of the property, or in-line with a surveyor
mark on the sidewalk at the corner of the property.
•There is a 5 foot wrought iron fence with a thick privacy hedge between 70 Calle Cortada and 68 Calle Cortada (the house
immediately to the east / opposite my house).
•In early 2013 the current residents of 70 Calle Cortada fenced in their back yard with a 5 foot wrought iron fence
that fit within the slope of the CC’R. The portion of the fence between 70 Calle Cortada and 32 Via Del Cielo
starts at the rear corner pillar and runs directly on top of the property line for approximately 40 feet. There is a
thick privacy hedge that runs the length of that fence.
C-3
From CC’R EXHIBIT “D”
U. FENCING ON INDIVIDUAL LOTS
1.Prior to the sale of any lot within each workable phase, the
developer shall install a decorative, maximum six (6) foot high fence
which allows a minimum of 90% light and air to pass through along
the rear property lines of Lots 31 to 79, along the south street side
setback line of Lot 31 and within the rear yard setback (rear and
side property lines) of Lots 1 to 30.
2.No fencing shall be permitted within the required front yard
setback on all residential lots.
C-4
•The Developer was mandated to enclose the building areas from the
public areas for safety.
•Most of Lots 1-30 were “two tiered” lots meaning there was a steep
slope in the middle of each one separating a top pad from a bottom
pad. For safety, they were forced to fence the lower area in.
•All the fences were wrought iron and satisfied the “90% light and air”
requirement.
•This “mandate” specifically calls for no fences within the front yard
setback. It specifically does not call out any other area that cannot
have a fence including every other property line.
•No property was singled out as being different.
C-5
C-6
C-7
C-8
•This is the view of the fences that the developer installed separating
the public area and street from the construction sites as each new
home was build.
C-9
C-10
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
RESOLUTION NO. 92-27
Section 3
B. That the grading and/or construction does not significantly adversely
affect the visual relationships with, or the views from, neighboring sites since
the proposed grading will lower the pad elevation of the proposed
residential lots to preserve view corridors of the ocean, Point Vicente
Lighthouse and Catalina Island, as identified in the Coastal Specific Plan,
when viewed from Palos Verdes Drive, Hawthorne boulevard and adjacent
properties.
C. That the nature of the grading minimizes disturbances to the natural
contours and finished contours are reasonably natural since the site was
extensively graded in the past to form terraced building pads for a multi-
family development in 1972 and the construction and grading for the
proposed residential development and open space will create a more
natural, sloping topography on the site.
C-11
•The grading was designed to minimize the view impact for both the
“adjacent neighbors” and the view impact from each lot.
•The “terraced building pads” were designed to show the “natural,
sloping topography.”
•There is nothing in this statement to single out any one property or
property line as being special or different.
C-12
C-13
Oceanfront
Design Guidelines
Page 2
By way of illustration but without limitation, submission to the
Architectural Committee for approval are required for the following
Improvements:
1. … fences…
Page 8
FENCES
Fencing must be of a wrought-iron or tubular steel fencing material.
Fence finish colors should match the dwelling stucco color or existing
community walls, if any. All other fencing materials are prohibited.
C-14
•All home improvement projects must be submitted to the HOA
through the Architectural Committee. Fences are included.
•All fences are to be uniform ---both in color and wrought iron style.
•Other fence types are prohibited.
•No single property is singled out.
C-15
C-16
C-17
•This next slide is from the HOA’s monthly news letter (April 2017)
dictating the exact shade of color for both the pillars and wrought
iron fences.
•The pillars and fences are all uniform in the community.
•No single property is singled out.
C-18
C-19
•The slope is steep. If I’m forced to install a shorter than 5 foot fence
and someone were to fall down the slope, who is liable?
•The CC’R imply I would be liable as they mandate liability insurance.
•The Development Agreement states that the City can’t be liable. I
think that is debatable.
•My property being singled out with additional liability risk.
C-20
CC’R 12.2 INSURANCE OBLIGATIONS OF
OWNERS (paragraph 2)
It is the responsibility of each Owner to provide insurance on his
personal property and upon all other property and improvements
within his Dwelling Unit. It shall also be the responsibility of each
Owner to carry public liability insurance in the amount such Owner
deems desirable to cover his individual liability for damage to person or
property occurring inside his Dwelling Unit or elsewhere upon his Lot.
C-21
C-22
C-23
C-24
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
(Pursuant to Government Code
Sections 65864 –65869.5)
16.4 City Not Liable For Damages.
It is acknowledged by the Parties that City would not have entered into
this Agreement if it were to be liable in damages under or with respect
to this Agreement or the application thereof. Consequently, City shall
not be liable in damages to Developer, or to any assignee, transferee or
Developer or any other person, and Developer covenants not to sue for
or claim any damages
C-25
C-26
C-27
RESOLUTION NO. 92-27
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
H. CCR’s
1.Prior to approval of the final map, copies of Covenants, Conditions
and Restrictions (CCR’s) shall be submitted to the Director of
Environmental Services and City Attorney for review and approval.
2.… Said CCR’s shall include …
c. Identification of all materials which affect structures and appearance
and use restrictions, including …. Walls/fences.
C-28
•The City was an integral part in drafting the CC’R
•Fences fall under the jurisdiction of the CC’R
•No property is singled out.
C-29
C-30
C-31
RESOLUTION NO. 92-27
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
B. PROJECT DESIGN REVIEW
3. All residential development shall conform to the specific standards
contained in this permit or, if not addressed herein, the RE-1
development standards of the Development Code shall apply.
F. COMPLETION PER APPROVED PLANS
1.All lots shall be rough graded concurrently in accordance with the
approved grading plans and mitigation measures specified in
Environmental Impact Report No. 35. All mitigation measures set
forth in Environment Impact Report No. 35 are incorporated as
conditions of approval of this resolution.
C-32
•“All lots” are graded to mitigate the environment impact.
•No lot is singled out.
C-33
C-34
C-35
C-36
•Our project planning started in December of 2013
C-37
C-38
•We purchased our home as a new construction and are the first to
live in it.
•When we purchased our house in 2007 we had plans for a pool drawn
•The financial crisis put a hold on the project
•The previous owner of 70 Calle Cortada asked us not to fence the
property until our pool was put in.
•It was never a question of “if” but “when” a fence would go in.
C-39
•The fence enclosing the backyard at 70 Calle Cortada.
•Wrought iron with a thick privacy hedge.
C-40
C-41
•The fence line between 70 Calle Cortada and 68 Call Cortada
•Wrought iron with a thick privacy hedge
C-42
C-43
C-44
•70 Calle Cortada side yard gate
•Thick privacy hedge
C-45
C-46
•The view into my backyard from a standing position on the property
line.
•There is no privacy.
C-47
C-48
C-49
C-50
C-51
C-52
•The view from a standing position on the property line.
•My roof line completely blocks any view of the ocean.
C-53
C-54
C-55
CITY OF
March 14, 2018
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
NOTICE OF DECISION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
denied an appeal for a Fence/Wall Permit (ZON2016-00377) as a result of a tie vote, therefore
the Director's decision approval of the Fence/Wall Permit for a 3.5' to 4' tall fence at the top of
the slope along the east property line at 32 Via Del Cielo remains valid.
LOCATION: 32 Via Del Cielo
APPLICANT: Jim Hudnall
APPELLANTS: Tom and Kim Vice
Said decision is subject to the Conditions of Approval set forth in the attached Director's
Decision.
The Planning Commission's action may be appealed, in writing, to the City Council. The appeal
shall set forth the grounds for appeal and any specific action being requested by the appellant.
Any appeal letter must be filed within fifteen (15) calendar days of the approval date, or by 5:30
p.m. on Wednesday, March 28, 2018. A $2,275.00 appeal fee must accompany any appeal
letter. If no appeal is filed timely, the Director's decision will be final at 5:30 p.m . on Wednesday,
March 28, 2018.
If you have any questions regarding this application, please contact Amy Seeraty at (310) 544-
5231 or via · at amys@rpvca.gov .
Ara I CP
Director of Community Development
Enclosure
Cc: Tom and Kim Vice I 70 Calle Cortada I Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Jim Hudnall I 32 Via Del Cielo I Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
30940 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD I RANCHO PALOS VERDES. CA 90275-5391 I (310! 544-5228 I FAX (310! 544-5293 WWWRPVCAGOV
0 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
D-1
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
RECOMMENDATION:
ARA MIHRANIAN, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
AMY SEERATY, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
NOVEMBER 10, 2017
FENCE/WALL PERMIT (CASE NO. ZON2016-00377) FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 32 VIA DEL CIELO (APPLICANT-KYLE
ROBERTSON/PROPERTY OWNER -JIM HUDNALL)
Conditionally approve a Fence/Wall Permit to allow the installation of a wrought iron fence at the
top of the slope, along the east property line abutting the upslope property, measuring 3.5' in
height for a length of 44' from the front property line and then 4' in height along the east property
line for a length of 163'.
BACKGROUND
On August 18, 2016, the Applicant submitted a Fence/Wall permit application, and the fee for a
preliminary site visit. Staff sent a letter to the upslope property owner, but as there was no
response, conducted a site visit at the subject property. After assessing the photos taken from
the top of the slope at 32 Via del Cielo, Staff advised the Applicant that there was a potential for
view impairment and the required filing fee for a formal Fence/Wall permit would be required.
On January 30, 2017, the Applicant submitted, on behalf of the property owner, the required
application filing fee for the formal Fence/Wall Permit. On February 24, 2017, Staff deemed the
application complete for processing. On March 8, 2017, Staff conducted an additional site visit to
the upslope property to assess view impacts. Additionally, the upslope neighbor submitted the
attached emails expressing view impairment concerns, which are discussed in more detail under
Fence/Wall Permit Findings below.
In April 2017, the Applicant notified Staff that they wished to revise the proposed fence plan, so
pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act, the processing of the application was suspended. On
May 25, 2017 a revised plan was submitted, and after several rounds of correspondence with the
Applicant regarding the revised plan, the project was again deemed complete for processing on
September 13, 2017 . The decision deadline for the revised application is November 12, 2017.
D-2
ZON2016-00377
November 10, 2017
Page 2of9
SITE & PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The subject property is a pad lot with a slope at the east side of the property that ascends to the
building pad of an abutting neighbor's property located at 70 Calle Cortada ("upslope property").
As a result of the elevation difference (approximately 15') between the building pads of both
properties and the height of the Property Owner's residence, the upslope neighbor has a view of
the ocean over the subject property.
The proposed project is a request to install a wrought iron fencing at the top of the slope, along
the east property line abutting the upslope property, measuring 3.5' in height for a length of 44'
from the front property line and then 4' in height along the remainder of the east property line. The
height of the wrought iron fence is measured from adjacent grade to the top of the fence.
DISCUSSION
Fence/Wall Permit
Pursuant to RPVMC Section 17.76.030, a Fence/Wall Permit shall be required for any fence or
wall placed within the rear yard or side yard setback adjacent to any contiguous or abutting parcel
if the fence or wall is located where the grade differential between the building pads of adjacent
lots is more than 2' in elevation and if the top of the fence or wall is at a higher elevation than that
of the pad of the upslope lot. In this case, the building pad difference between the two properties
is more than 2' and the fence is proposed along the east side property line, within the side yard
setback, that is higher in elevation than the building pad of the upslope property. As such, a
Fence/Wall Permit is required, which may be approved only if the Director finds as follows:
a. That the fence or wall would not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of
another property or a view from public property which has been identified in the city's
general plan or coastal specific plans, as a city-designated viewing area.
Staff conducted a total of two site visits to the upslope property located at 70 Calle Cortada
(Mr. & Mrs. Vice) to assess the potential view impairment as a result of the proposed fence.
In visiting the property, Staff found that ocean views would not be significantly impaired by the
proposed fence, as shown in the photographs below.
D-3
ZON2016-00377
November 10, 2017
Page 3 of 9
These panoramic photographs were assembled using several photos that were taken in a
standing position from just outside the window of the viewing areas (living room) of the upslope
residence. Although the upslope neighbor raised view impairment concerns in a seated
position, RPVMC Section 17.76.030(8)(3)(a) states, "Views shall be taken from a standing
D-4
ZON2016-00377
November 10, 2017
Page 4of9
position, unless the primary viewing area is more suitable to viewing in a seated position ... "
As the views of the ocean from the viewing area would typically be enjoyed in a standing
position, the view assessment for this application was conducted in a standing position . A
viewing area is established by determining which area of the structure or lot that the best and
most important view exists. After examining the panoramic views from each of the rooms in
the structure and the south-west side yard, Staff observed that the best view was taken from
the living room, as it contained the most components, and the deepest ocean view. The view
captured in the photographs above consists of the ocean, Catalina Island, and the Santa
Monica Mountains . Although the view is wide horizontally, it is relatively shallow vertically, as
other homes located on Via Del Cielo already block the lower portion of the view. As shown
in the photographs above, the fences would impair a minimal amount of the lower periphery
of the ocean view between existing residences from Vice's viewing area, which would not be
considered a significant view impairment. Additionally, wrought iron fencing is generally
designed to allow at least 80% transmission of light, air or vision . Additionally, as the subject
property is located 40'-50' lower in elevation than the public viewing area within the visual
corridor located along Palos Verdes Drive West as identified in the City's Coastal Specific
Plan, the proposed project would not be visible from public property. Therefore, this finding
can be met.
b. That all foliage on the Applicant's lot which exceeds 16' or the ridgeline of the primary
structure, whichever is lower, and impairs a view from the viewing area of another
parcel, or a view from public property which has been identified in the city's general
plan or coastal specific plan, as a city-designated viewing area, shall be removed prior
to permit approval.
On April 24, 2017, Staff measured several pepper trees located towards the top of the
northeast slope of the subject property, and found that although a few feet of the tops of the
tallest trees are over the ridgeline of the primary structure, these portions of the trees only
obscure views of the sky, which is not a protected view per Municipal Code Section
17.02.040(A)(14). As for other foliage below the ridgeline, even assuming some growth has
occurred since the April site visit, these areas of growth would remain below the ridgeline of
the primary structure. Therefore, no foliage removal is required and this finding can be met.
c. That placement or construction of a fence or wall shall comply with all applicable
standards and requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code and general
plan.
Pursuant to RPVMC Section 17.76.030(C)(b)(i), " ... Fences and walls up to seven feet in
height shall be permitted on any part of a lot not subject to subsection (C)(1)(a) except as
restricted by Section 17. 48. 070 (Intersection Visibility) of this title ... " However, in areas where
there is a grade differential of more than 2' between building pads of adjacent lots, the top of
the fence cannot be taller than the building pad of the upslope lot, unless a Fence/Wall Permit
is processed, as currently requested by the property owner. Based on the above analysis,
the proposed fencing up to 4 ' in height does not significantly impair the view, and thus meets
the aforementioned Municipal Code standards .
D-5
ZON2016-00377
November 10, 2017
Page 5 of 9
In regards to the consistency with the City's General Plan, Policy No. 14 of the Urban
Environment Element states the following : "Prohibit encroachment on existing scenic views
reasonably expected by neighboring residents". As discussed in finding (a) above, Staff
believes that the proposed wrought iron fences up to 4' in height would not result in significant
view impairment as a minimal amount of ocean view between two existing structures at the
lower periphery of the view frame of the upslope neighbor's viewing area would be impaired,
while the remainder of the view would be preserved. Additionally , no other neighboring
properties have views over the proposed project area . As such , Staff feels that the proposed
project complies with all applicable standards and the requirements of the Municipal Code
and General Plan and is therefore consistent with the City's General Plan . Therefore, this
finding can be met.
d. Notwithstanding finding (a) of this subsection, the Applicant's request shall be
approved if the director determines that findings of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this
section listed above can be made and either:
i. Denial would constitute an unreasonable invasion of the privacy of the occupants
of the Applicant's property and there is no method by which the property owner can
create such privacy through some other means permitted by this title that would
not significantly impair a view from a viewing area of another property; or.
ii. Denial would prevent compliance with the swimming pool fencing requirements and
there is no reasonable method to comply that would not significantly impair a view
from a viewing area of another property.
Findings (b) and (c) can be made as discussed above and Staff is recommending approval
of the proposed project. Nevertheless, Staff does not believe that denial of the proposed
project would constitute an unreasonable invasion of the Applicant's privacy as the rear
yard of the Applicant's property is already visible from the abutting neighbor's viewing
areas. Therefore, this finding does not apply.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Environmental Assessment
Staff has reviewed the proposed application for compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). Upon completion of this review, it has been determined that this request is
categorically exempt from CEQA, pursuant to Guideline Section No. 15303 (New Construction or
Conversion of Small Structures). Categorical Exemptions are projects, which have been
determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and have been exempted from the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Intersection Visibility Triangle
D-6
ZON2016-00377
November 10, 2017
Page 6 of 9
Pursuant to RPVMC Section 17.48.070, no fence, wall, hedge, sign, structure, shrubbery, mound
of earth or other visual obstruction over thirty inches in height, as measured from the adjacent
street curb elevation, shall be erected, placed, planted or allowed to grow within the triangular
space referred to as the "intersection visibility triangle". The proposed fencing is not within the
intersection visibility triangle on the property .
CONCLUSION
Based on the discussion above, Staff concludes that the required findings can be made and
recommends that the Director of Community Development approve a Fence/Wall Permit to allow
the installation of a wrought iron fence at the top of the slope, along the east property line abutting
the upslope property, measuring 3.5' in height for a length of 44' from the front property line and
then 4' in height along the remainder of the east property line, subject to the Conditions of
Approval in the attached Exhibit 'A' (Case No . ZON2016-00377):
ALTERNATIVES
In addition to the Staff's recommendation, the following alternatives are available for the Director's
consideration:
1. Identify any issues of concern and direct the Applicant to re-design and resubmit the
application (Case No . ZON2016-00377); or,
2. Deny, without prejudice, the Fence/Wall Permit (Case No. ZON2016-00377).
Approved pursuant to Staffs recommendation.
Accepted : ~
Director of Community Development
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 'A'
Plans
Public Correspondence
Dated:
D-7
ZON2016-00377
November 10, 2017
Page 7 of 9
EXHIBIT'A'
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
32 Via Del Cielo
CASE NO. ZON2016-00377
1. PRIOR TO THE SUBMITTAL OF PLANS INTO BUILDING AND SAFETY PLAN
CHECK, the Applicant and the property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in
writing, that they have read, understand, and agree to all conditions of approval contained
in this decision. Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days following
the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void.
2. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City, and/or any of
its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities
thereof, from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other actions
and proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in
nature), and alternative dispute resolutions procedures (including , but not limited to
arbitrations, mediations, and other such procedures) (collectively "Actions"), brought
against the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments,
agencies , and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set
aside, void , or annul , the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and/or
any of its officials, officers, employees, agents , departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City), for or
concerning the project.
3 . Prior to conducting any work in the public right of way, such as for curb cuts, dumpsters,
temporary improvements and/or permanent improvements, the Applicant shall obtain an
encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works.
4 . Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and appropriate
zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws and regulations . Unless
otherwise expressly specified , all other requirements of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Municipal Code shall apply.
5. Pursuant to Section 17.78.040, the Community Development Director is authorized to
make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions of approval if
such modifications will achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance
with the approved plans and conditions. Substantial changes to the project shall be
considered a revision and shall require approval by the final body that approved the
original project, which may require new and separate environmental review and public
notification .
6. The project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards contained in
these conditions of approval or, if not addressed herein, shall conform to the residential
development standards of the City's Municipal Code, including but not limited to height,
setback and lot coverage standards .
D-8
ZON2016-00377
November 10, 2017
Page 8 of 9
7 . Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be cause to
revoke the approval of the project pursuant to the revocation procedures contained in
Section 17.86.060 of the City's Municipal Code or administrative citations as described in
Section 1.16 of the City 's Municipal Code.
8. In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations and/or
requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter standard shall
apply.
9. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be completed in
substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the City with the effective
date of this decision.
10 . This approval is only for the items described within these conditions and identified on the
stamped APPROVED plans and is not an approval of any existing illegal or legal non-
conforming structures on the property, unless the approval of such illegal or legal non-
conforming structure is specifically identified within these conditions or on the stamped
APPROVED plans.
11 . The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall be kept
free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that material used for
immediate construction purposes. Such excess material may include, but not be limited
to : the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap metal, concrete asphalt , piles of
earth , salvage materials, abandoned or discarded furniture, appliances or other household
fixtures.
12. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly manner, to
the satisfaction of the City's Building Official. All construction waste and debris resulting
from a construction, alteration or repair project shall be removed on a weekly basis by the
contractor or property owner. Existing or temporary portable bathrooms shall be provided
during construction. Portable bathrooms shall be placed in a location that will minimize
disturbance to the surrounding property owners, to the satisfaction of the City's Building
Official.
13. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday
through Friday , 9:00AM to S:OOPM on Saturday, with no construction activity permitted on
Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section 17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos
Verdes Development Code. During demolition, construction and/or grading operations,
trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining street rights-
of-way before ?AM Monday through Friday and before 9AM on Saturday, in accordance
with the permitted hours of construction stated in this condition. When feasible to do so,
the construction contractor shall provide staging areas on-site to minimize off-site
transportation of heavy construction equipment. These areas shall be located to maximize
the distance between staging activities and neighboring properties, subject to approval by
the building official.
D-9
ZON2016-00377
November 10, 2017
Page 9of9
14 . All landscaping and construction activities shall exercise effective dust control
techniques, either through screening and/or watering.
PROJECT SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
15. This approval shall allow the construction of wrought iron fence up to 4' in height at the
top of the slope along the east side property line . The 3.5' tall portion of the fencing will
begin at the Calle Cortada property line and run 44' south-east towards the rear property
line, while the 4' tall portion of the fencing will start where the 3.5' fencing ends, and will
run 163' south-east towards the rear property line of the subject property, at which point
the proposed fence will connect with the existing perimeter fencing .
16. All landscaping on the easterly slope shall be maintained at a height that does not exceed
the top of the approved fence.
17 . Pursuant to RPVMC Section 17.48.070, no fence, wall, hedge, sign, structure, shrubbery,
mound of earth or other visual obstruction over 30" in height, as measured from the
adjacent street curb elevation, shall be erected, placed, planted or allowed to grow within
the triangular space referred to as the "intersection visibility triangle".
18 . All fences walls and hedges shall be limited to 3.5' in height within the front yard setback
area, outside of the intersection visibility triangle.
19. No grading is authorized as a part of this approval.
D-10
Amy Seeraty
From:
Sent:
To:
Kim Vice <kimvice@cfl.rr.com>
Monday, April 24, 2017 5:28 PM
Amy Seeraty
Subject: Re: fence permit
Thank you for trying. I believe we will have to get legal advice on the front then. We aren't asking much and a fence in
our front year is just not ok. We are not asking much for him to run it straight up his hill. I believe we can fix it with legal
advice. It will hurt out home value and our view.
Thank you Amy.
Kim
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 24, 2017, at 7:52 PM, Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Hi Kim-
I have spoken with the applicant and he stated that the property owners do not wish to move the
fence so that it starts at the grey line versus the black line. However, as I have requested, they
have modified the plan so that although the fence is 5' tall (per pool safety requirements), it will
only extend 4' up from the top of slope. I will be finishing up the report today and will send a
copy to you by tomorrow via email and first class mail. Thank you.
<image003.jpg>
Amy Seeraty
Associate Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd .
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www .rpvca.gov
amys@rpvca.gov -(310) 544-5231
From: Kim Vice [mailto :ki mvice@cfl.rr.com ]
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2017 10:49 AM
To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca .gov >
Subject: Re: Site Visit?
Thank you Amy!
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 21, 2017, at 11:34 AM, Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca .gov> wrote:
Hi Kim-
1 D-11
I understand what you mean. I will ask and get back to you . Thanks .
Sincerely ,
Amy Seeraty
Associate Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd .
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
amys@rpvca.gov -(310) 544-5231
From: Kim Vice [ma i lto :kimvice@cfl.rr.com ]
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 7:09 PM
To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: Site Visit?
Amy,
Thank you for the careful consideration and approval. Can you please stop the fence at
the edge of his house as to not run into our front yard but stop at the corner of our
house as to not impair our views from the viewing circle? I hope that is clear if not I'll be
happy to explain but basically run it up from the corner of his house straight up so not to
block our front yard. No one has a fence in their front yard. His side/ back is our front
and will not hinder his plans.
Thank you,
Kim Vice.
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 20, 2017, at 8:30 PM, Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca .gov> wrote:
Hi Kim-
I have finished the review, thank you for your patience . I will be
advising the applicants that the City will not be able to approve a
6' tall fence, but only one that is 4' tall. This is because a 6' tall
fence or even a 5' tall fence (as measured from the top of slope)
would still significantly impair the view . The 4' tall fence height is
indicated below in yellow, while the 5' level is indicated in white
and the 6' is indicated in red.
Regarding the pepper trees , their landscape plan for the backyard
improvements indicates that they will be removed, but I will still
measure them to see if there are any portions over 16' in height
that significantly impair your view. If there are, those portions of
the tree would be trimmed prior to approval of the fence/wall
permit. I should be obtaining a revised plan from the applicant
shortly so I can finish up the report early next week . Please let me
know if you have any questions, thank you.
2 D-12
Amy Seeraty
From:
Sent:
To:
Kim Vice <kimvice@cfl.rr.com>
Monday, March 20, 2017 2:11 PM
Amy Seeraty
Subject: Re: Site Visit?
Ok. Thank you Amy. I appreciate all your doing.
Kim
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 20, 2017, at 11:27 AM, Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Hi Kim-
There is no action thus far on my part; I have not approved anything yet as I still need to finish reviewing
the photos. They may end up needing to remove the fence . I'll keep you posted as soon as I make any
preliminary determinations. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Amy Seeraty
Associate Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www .rpvca .gov
amys@rpvca.gov -(310) 544-5231
From: Kim Vice [mai lto :kirnv ice@cfl.r r .co m]
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 10:07 AM
To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca .gov>
Subject: Re: Site Visit?
Hi Amy,
Any update? It seems my neighbor is moving forward as he has a temporary fence up. I just want to
make sure it will not affect our view and home value as this is why we bought here .
I hope all is well. Have a great day.
Kim Vice.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 14, 2017, at 4:55 PM, Arny Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca .gov> wrote :
Hi Kim-
Thanks for your email but I haven't had a chance to review all the photos yet. I'll let you
know when I do, thank you.
Sincerely,
Amy Seeraty
Associate Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd .
1 D-13
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
amys@rpvca.gov -(310) 544-5231
From: Kim Vice [mailto :kimvice@cfl.rr .com ]
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 7:01 PM
To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca .gov >
Subject: Re: Site Visit?
Hi Amy. Any update on fence? We really don't want to have any issue with the view as
that is why we bought the property and it will hurt our value . He has an option to drop it
a bit. I hope it all works out. Let me know if any decisions been made.
Thank you
Tom and Kim Vice
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 6, 2017, at 5:44 PM, Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> wrote :
Hi Kim-
Ok, let's try for lOam on Wednesday then. Thank you.
Amy Seeraty
Associate Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
amys@rpvca.gov -(310) 544-5231
From: Kim Vice [ma i l to :kimvice@cfl .rr.com ]
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2017 2:25 PM
To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: Site Visit?
That works might want to come 10 or 10:30 then. It's been foggy almost
every morning then blows off. But I'm flexible just let me know.
Kim
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 6, 2017, at 1:22 PM, Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov > wrote:
Hi Kim-
i would like to come by at 9am on Wednesday, if that
works for you. If it's very foggy though, I will contact
you to reschedule. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Amy Seeraty
Associate Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
2
D-14
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
amys@rpvca.gov -(310) 544-5231
From: Kim Vice [mai lto:kimvice @c fl .rr .com ]
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2017 9:33 AM
To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov >
Subject: Re: Site Visit?
Amy,
Wednesday or Thursday are great. Let me know what
time you'd like to come by .
Thank you
Kim
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 6, 2017, at 8:32 AM, Amy Seeraty
<AmyS@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Hello Kim-
Please let me know if you are available
today(3/6), Wednesday(3/8)or
Thursday (3/9) for me to visit your
property to take some additional
measurements of the views for your
neighbor's fence permit. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Amy Seeraty
Associate Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
amys@rpvca.gov -(310) 544-5231
3 D-15
Approved 3/27/201 :1 ik
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 13, 2018
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:06 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room,
29301 Hawthorne Boulevard.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Leon led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.
ATTENDANCE
Present: Commissioners Leon, Nelson, Perestam, Saadatnejadi, Vice Chairman
Bradley, and Chairman James.
Absent: Commissioner Tomblin
Also present were Community Development Director Mihranian, Assistant City Attorney
Gerli, Deputy City Attorney Laymon, Contract Planner Art Bashmakian, R.F. Consultant
Lee Afflerbach via telephone, and Senior Planner Seeraty.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The agenda was unanimously approved as presented.
COMMUNICATIONS
City Council Items: Director Mihranian reported that the City Council, at its March 6th
meeting, authorized Staff to file with the state the City's annual reports on the Housing
Element and General Plan, and received and filed the mid-year budget and CAFR.
Staff: Director Mihranian reported that late correspondence was handed out for Agenda
Item Nos. 2 and 6; that the mandatory sexual harassment training for public officials will
be held on Monday, March 26th at Hesse Park; and that the Chase Bank appeal was
withdrawn today after the Applicant and Appellant came to agreement with the parking lot
E-1
design. Director Mihranian presented an overview of the Community Development
Department and Assistant City Attorney Gerli provided an overview on the Planning
Commission's Rules and Procedures and the Brown Act.
Commission: None
COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): Sharon Loveys
talked briefly about her history and involvement with Green Hills Memorial Park and
expressed her appreciation for the Planning Commission's review of the Green Hills
Master Plan.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Approval of the February 27, 2018 P.C. Minutes
Vice Chairman Bradley moved, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to
approve, with a modification to the roll call vote, the February 27, 2018
Planning Commission minutes on a vote of 5-0-1 with Commissioner
Saadatnejadi abstaining.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. Appeal of Director-Approved Fence/Wall Permit: (Case No. ZON2016-00377):
32 Via del Cielo (AS)
Senior Planner Seeraty presented the Staff Report providing the Commission with a
brief overview of the project's history and the various options considered by both the
Applicant and the Appellants. She noted that at this time, both parties have not come
to an agreement and that Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission
uphold the Director's decision since in strikes a balance between the requests made
by both parties.
Discussion ensued between the Commission and Staff on the various options and
the outcome of the discussions with the Applicant and Appellants.
Chairman James opened the public hearing.
James Hudnall, Applicant, addressed the Commission describing his negotiations
with the Appellants. He also reviewed pictures of the neighboring property and
explained the impacts to his privacy without the fence he is requesting.
Discussion ensued between the Commission and Mr. Hudnall regarding his privacy
concerns, foliage, and fence length, height and coverage.
Planning Commission Minutes
March 13, 2018
Page 2
E-2
Tom Vice, the Appellant, gave a brief overview of his property and a presentation on
other fences with the Oceanfront tract and described how he feels the City's View
Ordinance should protect his view.
Discussion ensued between the Commission and Mr. Vice regarding his view, the
viewing area, and his request.
Chairman James closed the public hearing then reopened the public hearing to allow
rebuttals.
James Hudnall, on rebuttal, stated he did not agree with the Appellant's statement
that the fence would affect the value of their home and clarified that he obtained the
required approvals from the Homeowners Association to construct the fence.
Tom Vice, on rebuttal, questioned why the price of his home when purchased was
relevant to this discussion and application, and reiterated that he was told the HOA
had not reviewed all of the Applicant's improvements.
Chairman James closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Nelson moved, seconded by Vice Chairman Bradley, that the
Planning Commission approve a 4' tall fence along the eastern slope (running
163' from the south east property line), a 3.5' tall fence that ends 17' from the
end of the 4' tall fence, and that all landscaping on the easterly slope be
maintained at a height that does not exceed the top of the approved fence. The
motion failed on a tie vote of 2-2-2, with Commissioners Perestam and
Saadatnejadi abstaining.
Commissioner Leon moved, seconded by Chairman James, to approve Staff's
recommendation to deny the appeal, and uphold the Director's decision to
approve a Fence/Wall Permit allowing a 3.5' to 4' tall fence at the top of the
slope along the east property line at 32 Via Del Cielo. The motion failed on a
tie vote of 2-2-2, with Commissioners Perestam and Saadatnejadi abstaining.
The Director's decision to approve a Fence/Wall Permit allowing a 3.5' to 4' tall
fence at the top of the slope along the east property line at 32 Via Del Cielo was
upheld due to the tie vote.
Director Mihranian stated that the Commission's action is appealable to the City
Council.
3. Major Wireless Telecommunications Facility Permit ASG No. 25: 27659 Longhill Drive
Crown Castle (AB)
Contractor Planner Bashmakian presented the Staff Report for ASG No. 25 to install
antennas encased in a canister measuring 2' tall and 14.6" in diameter mounted on a
Planning Commission Minutes
March 13,2018
Page 3
E-3
4' mast arm to an existing 37'-5" tall wood utility pole with vaulted mechanical
equipment.
Chairman James opened the public hearing.
Stephan Garcia supported Staffs recommendation and requested that the
Commission adopt the P.C. Resolution approving ASG No. 25.
William Furlong stated he lives in a dead zone area and that he was very thankful for
the location of the wireless telecommunication facility which will improve his wireless
services. He thanked the Commission and Crown Castle.
Jeff Calvagna spoke in favor of the location and installation.
Chairman James closed the public hearing.
Vice Chair Bradley moved, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to adopted P.C.
Resolution No. 2018-09, approving, with conditions, the installation of antennas,
encased in a canister measuring 2' tall and 14.6" in diameter mounted on a 4'
mast arm, extending from an existing 37'-5" tall wood utility pole, with
underground vaulted accessory equipment, on the north side of Longhill Drive
between Warrior Drive and Flaming Arrow Drive, on a vote of 6-0.
4. Major Wireless Telecommunications Facility Permit ASG No. 33: Northeast corner of
Chartres Drive and Cartier Drive (AB).
Contract Planner Bashmakian presented a brief Staff Report and stated that Staff is
working with the Applicant to relocate the proposed wireless facility to an alternative
location on Hawthorne Blvd. as requested by the Commission.
Chairman James opened the public hearing.
Stephan Garcia representing Crown Castle stated he believes that the new design
combined with the alternative location will be well received by the Commission.
Jeff Calvagna spoke in favor of the location and installation.
Chairman James closed the public hearing
Commissioner Nelson moved, seconded by Commissioner Leon, to continue
the public hearing to a date uncertain in order to allow the applicant additional
time to proceed with the mock-up and public notification process for the
alternative location at the intersection of Hawthorne Blvd. and Los Verdes drive,
on a vote of 6-0.
Planning Commission Minutes
March 13,2018
Page 4
E-4
CONTINUED BUSINESS
None
NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS
5. Major Wireless Telecommunications Facility Permit ASG No. 44: Armaga Springs
Road adjacent to 28642 Meadowmist Drive (AB)
The Commissioners indicated whether they had visited the project site.
Contractor Planner Bashmakian presented the Staff Report reviewing the original
proposed location and the revised proposed location for the requested wireless
telecommunication site. He stated that Staff's recommendation is to place the wireless
facility on an alternative street light pole on Armaga Spring Road adjacent to the
church parking lot.
Chairman James questioned the R.F. Consultant on the 3G, 4G and 5G signal levels
discussed in the technical report and the differences between these signal levels.
Lee Afflerbach, the City's R.F. Consultant, stated that 3G is a legacy level and that all
new installations are now 4G/5G.
Chairman James opened the public hearing.
Stephan Garcia representing Crown Castle provide a slide presentation on the
proposed site analysis and alternative sites considered, and supported Staffs
recommendation as a viable alternative.
Jeff Calvagna spoke in favor of the location and installation.
Chairman James closed the public hearing
Commissioner Nelson moved, seconded by Vice Chairman Bradley, to adopted
P.C. Resolution No. 2018-10 approving, with conditions, the installation of
antennas encased in a canister measuring 2' tall and 14.6" in diameter to a
replacement streetlight pole not to exceed 30' in total height with related vaulted
mechanical equipment at alternate site in front of Mt. Olive Lutheran Church on
the north side of Armaga Spring Road, on a vote of 6-0.
6. Major Wireless Telecommunications Facility Permit ASG No. 39: Groveoak Place
between Grayslake Rd. and Hyte Rd. (AB)
Planning Commission Minutes
March 13, 2018
Page 5
E-5
Contractor Planner Bashmakian presented the Staff Report to install a wireless
telecommunication facility with related mechanical equipment to a utility pole, and
stated that Staff is recommending to continue the public hearing to March 27th to allow
the Applicant additional time to adjust the mock-up to address the view concerns
raised by Staff and the neighbors.
Chairman James opened the public hearing.
Stephan Garcia representing Crown Castle addressed the Commission asking to
continue the item to allow time to modify the existing mock-up and capture additional
photos to avoid potential view impacts.
Chairman James closed the public hearing
Commissioner Leon moved, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to continue
the public hearing to March 27, 2018 in order to allow the Applicant additional
time to make modifications to the proposed facility in order to avoid potential
view impacts, on a vote of 6-0.
NEW BUSINESS
None
ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS
7. Pre-agenda for the meeting on March 23, 2018
Approved as presented.
8. Pre-agenda for the meeting on April 10, 2018
Approved as presented.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 P.M.
For the complete video archive of this Planning Commission meeting go to:
http://rpv.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view id=5&clip id=3111
Click on the agenda item number on the video.
Planning Commission Minutes
March 13, 2018
Page 6
E-6
CrTYOF Rt\NCHO PALOS VERDES
Memorandum
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Project Planner:
RECOMMENDATION
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
ARA MIHRANIAN, AICP, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPM ~
MARCH 13, 2018
APPEAL OF A DIRECTOR-APPROVED FENCE/WALL PERMIT
(ZON2016-00377); PROJECT ADDRESS-32 VIA DEL CIELO
APPLICANT/RESPONDENT -JIM HUDNALL, PROPERTY OWNER
APPELLANTS -TOM AND KIM VICE
Amy Seeraty, Associate PlannerKJ
Adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2018-_; denying the appeal and upholding the Director's decision
to approve a Fence/Wall Permit allowing a 3.5' to 4' tall fence at the top of the slope along the
east property line at 32 Via Del Cielo.
BACKGROUND
On February 13, 2018, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to
consider an appeal requesting to overturn the Director's approval of a fence at the top of the slope
along the east property line at 32 Via Del Cielo . After considering evidence introduced in the
record, including public testimony from the Applicant and the Appellants, the Commission
continued the public hearing to the March 13, 2018 meeting to allow additional time for the
Applicant and the Appellants to work together to come to an agreement for the Commission's
consideration.
DISCUSSION
At the February 13, 2018 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the Applicant's fence
proposal approved by the Director on November 10, 2017, and appealed by the neighbors on
November 22, 2017. Specifically, the Director-approved fence consisted of a wrought iron fence
at the top of the slope, along the east property line abutting the upslope property, measuring 3.5'
in height for a length of 44 ' from the front property line and then 4' in height along the east property
line for a length of 163.
In summary, the Appellants appealed the Director's decision to maintain unobstructed views from
F-1
their front patio area from a seated position (see attached February 131h PC Staff Report). The
Appellants are requesting that the proposed 3.5 ' tall fence stop at the northwesterly corner of their
residence.
In response to the Appellants' concerns expressed during the public hearing, the Applicant offered
to install a 5' tall fence along the majority of the property line that stops at the northwesterly corner
of the Appellants' residence, then runs down the slope to the Applicant 's residence . This
alternative would eliminate all fencing in the viewing area as requested by the Appellants and
would provide the required pool fence enclosure needed by the Applicant without having to
construct a secondary fence at the toe of the slope. The Applicant and Appellants were asked at
the meeting to identify an agreeable solution, but both parties were unsuccessful to reach an
agreement at the meeting . In light of this, the Commission continued the public hearing to March
13, 2018 to allow the Applicant and Appellants additional time to identify a mutually agreeable
solution.
Since the February 13th meeting, Staff facilitated discussions (via telephone and email) between
both parties in an effort to come to a mutually acceptable solution regarding the fence heights . To
date, both parties presented their desired proposal but were unable to come to an agreement.
The proposals are described below:
Applicant's Proposal
The Applicant is proposing a 5' tall fence along the shared property line up to the northwesterly
corner of the Appellants' residence, at that point, a 2' tall fence would extend north, down the
slope in the direction of the street. The Applicant agrees to maintain all foliage on the slope,
between the two properties, at a height that would not exceed the top of the fence.
The Applicant has also suggested that the Appellants pay for half the cost of a 5' tall glass fence
on the property line, to address their view concerns. However, the Appellants are not amenable
to this option, due to concerns which include the future maintenance of a glass fence.
Appellants' Proposal
As part of the negotiation with the Applicant, the Appellants first offered to pay for the installation
cost of a reduced 2' tall wrought iron fence along the entire length of the shared property line.
However, this offer was rejected by the Applicant. In response, the Appellants then offered to pay
for the installation cost of a 3.5' tall wrought iron fence from the rear of the shared property line
up to southern corner of their living room, then 2' for the remaining length of the shared property
line. This subsequent offer was also rejected by the Applicant. The Appellant then lastly offered
to pay for the installation of a 4' tall wrought iron fence from the rear of the shared property line
up to the southern corner of their living room, then 3' for the remaining length of the shared
property line. This was also rejected by the Applicant.
In addition to the fence designs, the Appellants also proposed that the Applicant maintain all
foliage on the eastern slope at a height of 4' between the rear property line and the southern
corner of their living room, then 2' or 3' in height from that point to the street (for proposals II and
Ill, respectively), as shown in the diagram on the next page. These heights are based on the
Appellants' building pad level.
F-2
I' 4' or 3 5' or 2' tall wrought iron fence 3.! V1 A De-t.
.\
e1.1'n"1 \ '"'~•f/'/ r \"_· ____ ]
I fl•"
Pe11<f
Staff Recommendation
7° om1: C.r-mM· l+o u.>€
J\,i, f::'o'-'Af tr T7J l?"/(CEFJ)
2' or 3 ' ,PRf7.N tor
In light of the impasse between the parties, Staff believes that the Director's original decision
approving a 3.5' to 4' tall fence is a good compromise in that it provides the Appellants view
protection, per the View Ordinance, and the Applicant the desired property enclosure.
Furthermore, all required findings can be made with the Director's decision, including that the
fence does not significantly impair a view, that there is no foliage which exceeds 16' in height or
the ridgeline of the primary structure that significantly impairs a view, and that the placement of
the fence complies with all applicable standards and requirements of the Municipal Code.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Establishing a Viewing Position
At the February 131h meeting, Commissioner Nelson expressed a concern on how the viewing
position was established, and that for this case, it should have been taken from a seated position.
According to Municipal Code Section 17.76.030{B){3)(a), Views shall be taken from a standing
position, unless the primary viewing area is more suitable to viewing in a seated position. The
standard practice for all applications, including View Restoration/Preservation permits, is to
assess views from a standing position, not in a seated position. A view from a seated position is
only considered in cases where the view can only be enjoyed from a sitting position versus a
standing position . As the view from the Appellants' viewing area (living room) can be enjoyed from
a standing position, the view analysis was completed from a standing position.
Permit Streamlining Act
The original decision deadline per the Permit Streamlining Act was February 20, 2018. However,
at the February 13th Planning Commission meeting, the Applicant granted a one-time, 30-day
extension, setting the new decision deadline as March 20, 2018 to allow the public hearing to be
F-3
continued to March 13, 2018 .
Appeal Fees
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.80.120, if the Planning Commission grants the appeal,
the entire $2,275 appeal fee will be refunded to Appellants . If an appeal results in a modification
to the project, other than changes specifically requested in the appeal, then Yi of the appeal fee
shall be refunded to Appellants. If the Planning Commission denies the appeal, the Appellants
will not be refunded any of the appeal fee.
Planning Commission's Decision Appealable to the City Council
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.80.070, the Planning Commission's decision is
appealable to the City Council within 15 days. An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision
must be filed with the City and include a written explanation along with a new appeal fee.
CONCLUSION
Based on the above discussion and the findings attached to the Director-approved Staff Report,
Staff believes that the Appellants' reasons for the appeal are unwarranted, and thus recommends
that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the Director's approval of a FenceNVall
Permit to allow the 3.5' to 4' tall fence at the top of the slope along the east property line at 32 Via
Del Cielo, subject to the Conditions of Approval in Exhibit "A" (Case No. ZON2016-00377).
ALTERNATIVES
In addition to Staff's recommendation, the following alternatives are available for the Planning
Commission to consider:
1. Approve the Appeal, thereby overturning the Director's approval of the FenceNVall Permit
and direct Staff to return with a revised Resolution at the March 27, 2018 meeting .
2. Modify the fence proposal and direct Staff to return to the Planning Commission with a
revised Resolution at the March 27, 2018 meeting.
3. Identify any issues of concern with the proposed project, provide Staff and/or Applicant
with direction in modifying the project, and continue the public hearing to a date certain.
ATTACHMENTS
• Exhibit "A" -P.C. Resolution No . 2018-_
• Exhibit "8" -February 13, 2018 PC Staff Report
• Exhibit "C" -Appeal Letter
• Exhibit "D" -Director-Approved Staff Report
• Exhibit "E" -Correspondence
F-4
Exhibit “A”
P.C. Resolution No. 2018-__
F-5
P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2018-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING AN APPEAL AND
UPHOLDING THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION APPROVING A
FENCE/WALL PERMIT (CASE NO. ZON2016-00377) TO ALLOW
A 3.5' TO 4' TALL WROUGHT IRON FENCE AT THE TOP OF THE
SLOPE ALONG THE EAST PROPERTY LINE FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 32 VIA DEL CIELO.
WHEREAS, on August 18, 2016, Jim Hudnall ("Applicant"), the owner of 32 Via Del Cielo
("Property "), submitted a Fence/Wall Permit application for the construction of a 6' tall wrought
iron fence along the top of their north-easterly side slope on the Property;
WHEREAS, after assessing photos taken from upslope property's viewing area, Staff
advised Applicant there was potential for view impairment and the filing fee for a formal
Fence/Wall permit would be required;
WHEREAS, on January 30, 2017, Applicant submitted, on behalf of the property owner,
required application filing fee for the formal Fence/Wall Permit;
WHEREAS, on February 24, 2017, Staff deemed the application complete for processing;
WHEREAS, in April 2017, Applicant notified Staff they wished to revise the proposed fence
plan and, pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act, the processing of the application was
suspended ;
WHEREAS, on May 25, 2017, Applicant submitted a revised plan, and after several
rounds of correspondence with Applicant regarding the revised plan, the project was again
deemed complete for processing on September 13, 2017;
WHEREAS, on November 10, 2017, the Director of Community Development ("Director'')
approved a Fence/Wall Permit (ZON2016-00377) allowing a 3.5' to 4' tall wrought iron fence at
the top of the slope along the east property line of the Property;
WHEREAS, on November 10, 2017, a written notice of the Director's decision was
provided to all property owners within 500' radius of the subject site in accordance with Rancho
Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC) Section 17.80.090;
WHEREAS, on November 22, 2017, Tom and Kim Vice (the "Appellants"), the
property owners of 70 Calle Cortada (Appellants' Property"), filed a timely appeal requesting that
the Planning Commission overturn the Director's decision and modify Applicant's Fence/Wall
Permit (the "Appeal");
WHEREAS, the appeal listed the following issues with the Director's decision: 1) the
proposed fence will significantly impair the view at Appellants' Property from a seated position;
2) the design of the fence could vary from the approved plan so as to impair more of the view ; 3)
P.C. Resolution No . 2018-
Page 1 of 7
F-6
pepper trees located at the Property on the east slope significantly impair the views of the
ocean, Catalina Island, and Santa Monica mountains from Appellant 's Property; and
WHEREAS, on January 25, 2018, pursuant to Section 17.80.090 of the RPVMC, a 15-day
public notice was provided to all property owners within a 500' radius and published in the Palos
Verdes Peninsula News; and
WHEREAS, on February 13, 2018, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public
hearing regarding a request to overturn the Director's approval of a fence at the top of the slope
along the east property line at 32 Via Del Cielo. After considering evidence introduced in the
record, including public testimony by the Applicant and the Appellants, the Commission continued
the public hearing to the March 13, 2018 meeting to allow additional time for the Applicant and
the Appellants to work together to come to an agreement for the Commission's consideration .
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES HEREBY FIND,
DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS :
Section 1: The above recitals are hereby incorporated into this Resolution as if fully
set forth herein.
Section 2: The project involves installation of a wrought iron fence at the top of the
slope, along the east property line abutting the Appellant's property, measuring 3.5' in height for
a length of 44' from the street-side property line, and then 4' in height along the east property line
for a length of 163'.
Section 3: The Fence/Wall Permit is warranted because :
A. The wrought iron fence would not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of
another property or a view from public property which has been identified in the City's
General Plan or Coastal Specific Plans, as a city-designated viewing area . The proposed
wrought iron fence meets the definition of a "fence" per Municipal Code Section 17 .96 . 700,
as it would transmit 80% light and air per Staff's calculations . The property is located 40'-
50' lower in elevation than the public viewing area within the visual corridor located along
Palos Verdes Drive West as identified in the City's Coastal Specific Plan, the proposed
project would not be visible from public property.
B. There is no foliage on Applicant's lot which exceeds 16' or the ridgeline of the primary
structure, whichever is lower, that impairs a view, as defined in Municipal Code Section
17.02.040(A)(14), from the viewing area of another parcel, or a view from public property
which has been identified in the City's General Plan or Coastal Specific Plan, as a city-
designated viewing area .
C . The installation of the wrought iron fence complies with all applicable standards and
requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code and General Plan. Pursuant to
RPVMC Section 17.76.030(C)(1)(b)(i), Fences and walls up to seven feet in height shall
be permitted on any part of a lot not subject to subsection (C)(1)(a) except as restricted
by Section 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility) of this title ... In areas where there is a grade
differential of more than 2' between building pads of adjacent lots, the top of the fence
cannot be taller than the building pad of the upslope lot, unless a Fence/Wall Permit is
P.C. Resolution No. 2018-
Page 2 of 7
F-7
processed. As a Fence/Wall Permit was processed, the project meets the aforementioned
Municipal Code standards. Additionally, the City's General Plan , Policy No, 14 of the
Urban Environment Element states : Prohibit encroachment on existing scenic views
reasonably expected by neighboring residents. The 3.5' to 4' tall fence would project into
a minimal amount of ocean view at the lower periphery of Appellants' view frame, while
the remainder of the ocean and Catalina view would be preserved.
Section 4: The merits of the appeal are not warranted as described below.
A. Appeal Reason No. 1: The proposed fence will significantly impair the view from a seated
position and a portion of it should not be allowed .
Views of the ocean are more visible from a standing position, as compared with a seated position
(either inside the residence or outside on the patio) pursuant to Municipal Code Section
17.76.030(8)(3) (a) which states, in part: Views shall be taken from a standing position, unless
the primary viewing area is more suitable to viewing in a seated position ... When the view is
observed from a standing position, the proposed fence would impair a minimal amount of the
lower periphery of the ocean view between existing residences from Appellants' viewing area,
which would not be considered a significant view impairment. Also, the impairment would only be
of the ocean, and not of Catalina Island , which is a significant feature and thus is weighted more
heavily. Also, the outdoor patio area does not qualify to be the primary viewing area, as greater
weight is given to locations within the primary structure where a view is taken, than to locations
outside of the primary structure where a view is taken, unless no view can be taken from within
the primary structure.
B. Appeal Reason No. 2 : The design of the fence could vary from the approved plan so as
to impair more of the view.
The wrought iron fence meets the definition of a fence pursuant to Municipal Code Section
17.96.700, as it would transmit 80% light and air, and to ensure that Applicant installs the fence
design/material approved by the City, Conditions No. 5 and 9 are included :
5. Pursuant to Section 17. 78. 040, the Community Development Director is authorized to
make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions of approval if
such modifications will achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance
with the approved plans and conditions. Substantial changes to the project shall be
considered a revision and shall require approval by the final body that approved the
original project, which may require new and separate environmental review and public
notification .
9. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be completed in
substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the City with the effective
date of this decision.
C. Appeal Reason No . 3 : Trim pepper trees located on Applicant's property so that they do
not exceed the height of the primary structure and maintain all existing and future foliage
at the same height.
P.C . Resolution No. 2018-
Page 3 of 7
F-8
No trimming of foliage on Applicant's property is required, as Applicant's pepper trees have been
removed , and no other foliage exists on the property which impairs the view from any neighboring
properties. To ensure that the existing and future trees do not impair Appellants' view, Condition
No. 16 was included in the Director's approval, and is also included in the attached Resolution
that requires all landscaping on the easterly slope shall be maintained at a height that does not
exceed the top of the approved fence .
Section 5: Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act , Public
Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq . ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California
Code of Regulat ions, Title 14 , Section 15000 et. seq ., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and
Government Code Section 65962 .5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), the
approval of the Fence/Wall Permit application will not have a significant effect on the environment
and, therefore, the project has been found to be Categorically Exempt (Section 15303(e)).
Section 6: Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or any portion of this
decision may appeal to the City Council. The appeal shall set forth in writing , the grounds for
appeal and any specific action being requested by Appellant. Any appeal letter must be filed within
fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of this decision , or by 5:30 p .m. Wednesday, March 28,
2018 . A $2,275.00 appeal fee must accompany any appeal. If no appeal is timely filed , the
Planning Commission's decision shall be final at 5:30 p.m. Wednesday, March 28 , 2018.
Section 7: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings
included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the Planning Commission
of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby adopts P.C . Resolution No. 2018-_, denying the
appeal and upholding the Director's approval of a Fence/Wall Permit allowing a 3.5' to 4 ' tall
wrought iron fence at the top of the slope along the east property line on the property located at
32 Via Del Cielo, subject to the conditions as set forth in the attached Exhibit "A".
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 13th day of March 2018, by the following vote:
AYES :
NOES :
ABSTENTIONS :
RECUSALS :
ABSENT:
Ara Mihranian, AICP
Community Development Director; and,
Secretary of the Planning Commission
William J. James
Chairman
P.C . Resolution No. 2018-
Page 4of7
F-9
EXHIBIT 'A'
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
PLANNING CASE NO. ZON2016-00377
(32 VIA DEL CIELO)
1. Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, Applicant and the
property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have read,
understand, and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this Exhibit "A". Failure to
provide said written statement within ninety (90) days following the date of this approval
shall render this approval null and void.
2 . Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City, and/or any of its
officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities
thereof, from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other actions
and proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in
nature), and alternative dispute resolutions procedures (including, but not limited to
arbitrations, mediations, and other such procedures) (collectively "Actions"), brought
against the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments,
agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set
aside, void, or annul, the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and/or
any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City), for or
concerning the project.
3. Prior to conducting any work in the public right of way, such as for curb cuts, dumpsters,
temporary improvements and/or permanent improvements, Applicant shall obtain an
encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works .
4. Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and appropriate
zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws and regulations. Unless
otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Municipal Code shall apply.
5. Pursuant to Section 17.78.040, the Director of Community Development is authorized to
make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions of approval if
such modifications will achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance
with the approved plans and conditions. Substantial changes to the project shall be
considered a revision and require approval by the final body that approved the original
project, which may require new and separate environmental review and public notification.
6 . The project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards contained in
these conditions of approval or, if not addressed herein, shall conform to the residential
development standards of the City's Municipal Code, including but not limited to height,
setback and lot coverage standards. Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these
conditions of approval may be cause to revoke the approval of the project pursuant to the
P.C . Resolution No. 2018-
Page 5 of 7
F-10
revocation procedures contained in Section 17 .86.060 of the City's Municipal Code or
administrative citations as described in Section 1.16 of the City's Municipal Code.
7 . If Applicant has not submitted an application for a building permit for the approved project
or not commenced the approved project as described in Section 17.86 .070 of the City's
Municipal Code within one year of the final effective date of this decision, approval of the
project shall expire and be of no further effect unless, prior to expiration, a written request
for extension is filed with the Community Development Department and approved by the
Director.
8. In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations and/or
requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter standard shall
apply.
9. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be completed in
substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the City with the effective
date of this decision.
10 . This approval is only for the items described within these conditions and identified on the
stamped APPROVED plans and is not an approval of any existing illegal or legal non-
conforming structures on the property , unless the approval of such illegal or legal non-
conforming structure is specifically identified within these conditions or on the stamped
APPROVED plans .
11 . The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall be kept
free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that material used for
immediate construction purposes. Such excess material may include, but not be limited
to : the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap metal, concrete asphalt, piles of
earth, salvage materials, abandoned or discarded furniture, appliances or other household
fixtures .
12. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly manner, to
the satisfaction of the City's Building Official. All construction waste and debris resulting
from a construction, alteration or repair project shall be removed on a weekly basis by the
contractor or property owner. Existing or temporary portable bathrooms shall be provided
during construction. Portable bathrooms shall be placed in a location that will minimize
disturbance to the surrounding property owners, to the satisfaction of the City's Building
Official.
13 . Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday
through Friday, 9:00AM to 5:00PM on Saturday, with no construction activity permitted on
Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section 17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos
Verdes Development Code. During demolition, construction and/or grading operations,
trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining street rights-
of-way before 7 AM Monday through Friday and before 9AM on Saturday, in accordance
with the permitted hours of construction stated in this condition. When feasible to do so,
the construction contractor shall provide staging areas on-site to minimize off-site
transportation of heavy construction equipment. These areas shall be located to maximize
P.C. Resolution No . 2018-
Page 6 of 7
F-11
the distance between staging activities and neighboring properties , subject to approval by
the building official.
Project Specific Conditions :
14. This approval shall allow the construction of wrought iron fence up to 4' in height at the
top of the slope along the east side property line . The 3.5' tall portion of the fencing will
begin at the Calle Cortada property line and run 44 ' south-east towards the rear property
line, while the 4 ' tall portion of the fencing will start where the 3.5' fencing ends, and will
run 163 ' south-east towards the rear property line of the property, at which point the
proposed fence will connect with the existing perimeter fencing.
15. All landscaping on the easterly slope shall be maintained at a height that does not exceed
the top of the directly adjacent portion of the approved fence.
16. Pursuant to RPVMC Section 17.48 .070, no fence , wall, hedge, sign , structure , shrubbery,
mound of earth or other visual obstruction over 30" in height, as measured from the
adjacent street curb elevation, shall be erected, placed, planted or allowed to grow within
the triangular space referred to as the "intersection visibility triangle".
17. All fences walls and hedges shall be limited to 3.5' in height within the front yard setback
area, outside of the intersection visibility triangle .
18. No grading is authorized as a part of this approval.
19 . Construction of the approved project shall substantially comply with the plans originally
stamped APPROVED on March 13, 2018, with the RS-1 zoning district, the site
development standards of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, and all
Conditions of Approval for Tract 46628 and CUP No. 158.
P.C . Resolution No . 2018-
Page 7 of 7
F-12
Exhibit “B”
February 13, 2018 PC Staff Report
F-13
CrrYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
STAFF
REPORT
TO:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
PROJECT
ADDRESS:
APPLICANT/
LANDOWNER:
APPELLANT:
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
ARA MIHRANIAN, DIRECTOR Q ~
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ~
FEBRUARY 13, 2018
APPEAL OF A DIRECTOR-APPROVED
FENCE/WALL PERMIT
(CASE NO. ZON2016-00377)
32 VIA DEL CIELO
JAMES HUDNALL
TOM AND KIM VICE
70 CALLE CORT ADA
STAFF AMY SEERATY ~
COORDINATOR: SENIOR PLANNER I\/
REQUESTED ACTION: OVERTURN THE DIRECTOR'S APPROVAL OF A FENCE/WALL PERMIT THAT
ALLOWS A 3.5' TO 4' TALL FENCE AT THE TOP OF THE SLOPE ALONG THE EAST PROPERTY LINE AT 32
VIA DEL CIELO.
RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2018-_; DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING
THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION TO APPROVE A FENCE/WALL PERMIT ALLOWING A 3.5' TO 4' TALL FENCE AT
THE TOP OF THE SLOPE ALONG THE EAST PROPERTY LINE AT 32 VIA DEL CIELO (CASE NO. ZON2016-
00377).
REFERENCES:
ZONING:
LAND USE:
CODE SECTIONS:
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL -RS-1
RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (RPO)
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
17.02, 17.76.030, 17.80
F-14
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT-(CASE NO. ZON2016-00377)
FEBRUARY 13, 2018
PAGE 2 OF 7
GENERAL PLAN:
TRAILS PLAN:
SPECIFIC PLAN:
CEQA:
ACTION DEADLINE:
RESIDENTIAL S1 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
N/A
N/A
EXEMPT PER SECTION 15303(e) (NEW CONSTRUCTION)
FEBRUARY 20, 2018
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS RESIDING WITHIN 500' OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: NONE
BACKGROUND
On November 10, 2017, the Director of Community Development ("Director") conditionally
approved a Fence/Wall Permit (ZON2016-00377) allowing the installation of a wrought iron
fence at the top of the slope along the east property line at 32 Via Del Cielo {the "Property") . On
November 10, 2017, a written notice of the Director's decision was provided to Applicant and
interested parties, commencing the 15-day appeal period.
On November 22, 2017, a timely appeal was filed by the upslope property owners at 70 Calle
Cortada ("Appellant's Property"), Tom and Kim Vice (the "Appellants") (see attachment).
On January 25, 2018, a public notice was published in the Peninsula News and mailed to all
property owners within a 500-foot radius of the property, providing a 15-day time period for the
submittal of comments. Staff received no public comments in response to the public notice.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The property is located in the Ocean Front Estates tract and was approved by the City as a
Residential Planned Development (RPO) which establishes certain residential zoning and
development standards, such as a reduced lot size from the RS-1 (1 acre lots) zoning district.
The lot is a defined "pad lot" with a slope at the east side of the property that ascends to the
building pad of Appellants' property. The slope is approximately 15' in height.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project involves installation of a wrought iron fence at the top of the slope, along the east
property line abutting the Appellant's property, measuring 3.5' in height for a length of 44' from
the street-side property line, and then 4' in height along the east property line for a length of
163'
A 6' tall pool safety fence was also approved midway down the slope in question, as well as a
42" tall fence along Calle Cortada. Since the tops of these two fences would not exceed the pad
level of the upslope property, the Fence/Wall Permit requirement is not applicable.
DISCUSSION
The Director-approved Fence/Wall Permit allows the installation of a 3.5' to 4' tall wrought iron
fence at the top of the slope along the east property line of the Property . The Director-approved
Staff Report is attached and includes the analysis of the required Fence/Wall Permit findings,
F-15
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT-(CASE NO. ZON2016-00377)
FEBRUARY 13, 2018
PAGE 3 OF 7
letters of concerns, and Staff's responses to these concerns . The Director's approval was
appealed by the upslope abutting neighbor to the east. The reasons for the appeal and Staff's
summarized comments are provided below (Appeal points in bold/underline and Staff's
response in normal font):
Appeal Reason No. 1: The proposed fence will significantly impair the view from a
seated position and a portion of it should not be allowed.
Municipal Code Section 17.76.030(B)(3) describes the findings that must be made for a
Fence/Wall permit to be approved . Subsection (a) states , in part, Views shall be taken from a
standing position, unless the primary viewing area is more suitable to viewing in a seated
position... Based on site visits, Staff found views of the ocean are more suitable from the
standing position, as compared to the seated position, from the Appellants' primary viewing
area. As shown in the photos below, views of the ocean are more visible from the standing
position, as compared to the seated position. From a standing position, the proposed fence
would impair a minimal amount of Appellants ' lower periphery of the ocean view between
existing residences, which Staff do not consider a significant impairment. This is not considered
a significant view impairment because the amount of view that is impaired is very small,
compared to the total extent of the view. Also, the impairment would only be of the ocean, and
not of Catalina Island, which is a significant feature and thus is weighted more heavily.
Below is a photo of Appellants' view from their viewing area which is the living room:
Appellants disagree with Staff's assessment and believe views should be evaluated from a
seated position as they spend a significant amount of time in the living room and outdoor patio
area (west corner of their residence) in a seated position. The outdoor patio area does not
qualify to be the primary viewing area, as greater weight is given to locations within the primary
structure where a view is taken, than to locations outside of the primary structure where a view
is taken, unless no view is taken from within the primary structure . Appellants believe the
proposed fence will cause significant view impairment, and therefore requests that a portion of
the proposed fence be denied. The two photos below compare a section of the view in the same
viewing area in a standing and seated position:
F-16
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT-(CASE NO. ZON2016-00377)
FEBRUARY 13, 2018
PAGE 4 OF 7
Photo of a Portion of a View in a Standing Position Photo taken by Staff) ...
Per the above discussion, Staff believes Appellants' request to deny a portion of the proposed
fence is unwarranted .
Appeal Reason No . 2: The design of the fence could vary from the approved plan so as
to impair more of the view.
Appellants expressed a concern that Applicant may install a different type of wrought iron fence
other than the one approved , thereby impairing even more of their view and suggests specific
design restrictions . Municipal Code Section 17.96.700 states, "Fence" means any structural
device forming a physical barrier which is so constructed that not less than eighty percent of
the vertical surface is open to permit the transmission of light, air or vision through said
surface in a horizontal plane . This includes wire mesh , steel mesh, chain link, louvered glass,
transparent glass, stake and other similar materials. Per Staff's calculations, the proposed
wrought iron fence meets this definition as it would transmit 80% light and air. In addition, to
ensure that Applicant installs the fence design/material approved by the City, the following
F-17
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT-(CASE NO. ZON2016-00377)
FEBRUARY 13, 2018
PAGE 5 OF 7
Conditions Nos . 5 and 9 were included in the Director's approval, and are also included in the
attached Resolution :
5. Pursuant to Section 17. 78. 040, the Community Development Director is authorized to
make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions of approval if
such modifications will achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance
with the approved plans and conditions. Substantial changes to the project shall be
considered a revision and shall require approval by the final body that approved the
original project, which may require new and separate environmental review and public
notification .
9. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be completed
in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the City with the
effective date of this decision .
As a result , any significant change to the approved design is considered a revision , subject to
review by the last decision making body (in this case , the Planning Commission) at a noticed
public hearing (unless appealed to the City Council). Staff believes that the aforementioned
conditions ensure that the fence cannot change unless a revision is processed , and therefore,
this reason for appeal is unwarranted .
Appeal Reason No. 3 1 Trim pepper trees so that they do not exceed the height of the
primary structure and maintain all existing and future foliage at the same height.
Municipal Code Section 17 .76 .030(8)(3)(b) requires that a fence/wall permit may be approved
only if the Director finds: ... all foliage on the applicant's lot which exceeds 16 feet or the
ridgeline of the primary structure, whichever is lower, and impairs a view from the viewing area
of another parcel, as defined in Chapter 17.02 (Single-Family Residential (RS) Districts) or a
view from public property which has been identified in the city's general plan or coastal specific
plan , as a city-designated viewing area, shall be removed prior to permit approval .
On April 24, 2017, Staff measured several pepper trees on the property, and found, although
the top few feet of the tallest trees are over the ridgeline of the primary structure , these portions
of the trees only obscure views of the sky , which is not a protected view per Municipal Code
Section 17 . 02 . 040(A)( 14). Regardless , Appellants request the tops of said trees be trimmed to
comply with the City's Municipal Code. In response, Applicant removed said pepper trees. The
following photos compare a view from the same viewing area before and after the pepper trees
were removed :
Photo taken by Staff (post-removal)
F-18
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT-(CASE NO. ZON2016-00377)
FEBRUARY 13, 2018
PAGE 6 OF 7
Appellants also request planting of additional trees and foliage on Applicant's property that
would impair their views of the ocean, Catalina Island, or Santa Monica Mountains be
prohibited . In response, Condition No . 16 is included in the Director's approval, and has also
been added to the attached resolution:
All landscaping on the easterly slope shall be maintained at a height that does not
exceed the top of the approved fence .
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Applicant 's Response to Appeal
After filing of the appeal, Applicant submitted an email rebutting Appellants' reasons for appeal.
Applicant states all properties in the Oceanfront Estates community have a 5' tall wrought iron
fence along their property lines, except for his property. Condition U.1 of the original City
Council Resolution No. 92-27, which approved the original Oceanfront Estates tract
development, required the installation of a 6' maximum fence along the rear, street side, and
rear yard setbacks (rear and side property lines) of certain properties (not including property.)
While Staff agrees that most of the properties in the tract do have fences in the side yard, tract
conditions do not require fencing along the entire side property lines. Private property owners
installed side yard fences at the time of individual construction of homes for security purposes.
Applicant also states he is forced to install two separate fences, adding additional financial
burden. Applicant is constructing a pool and Building Code requires installation of a minimum 5'
tall fence for safety purposes. Applicant will be installing a fence further down the slope to
satisfy the pool safety requirement. However, Applicant is not required to install a second fence
at the top of this specific slope . Applicant is choosing to install a second fence at the property
line based on concerns regarding his potential liability, should someone fall down the slope and
injure themselves .
Appeal Fees
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17 .80.120, if the Planning Commission grants the appeal,
the entire $2,275 appeal fee will be refunded to Appellants. If an appeal results in a modification
to the project, other than changes specifically requested in the appeal, then % of the appeal fee
shall be refunded to Appellants . If the Planning Commission denies the appeal, the Appellants
will not be refunded any of the appeal fee .
Planning Commission's Dec ision Appealable to the City Council
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17 .80.070, the Planning Commission's decision is
appealable to the City Council. ..
CONCLUSION
Based on the above discussion and the findings attached to the Director-approved staff report,
Staff believes that Appellants' reasons for appeal are unwarranted and recommends that the
F-19
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT-(CASE NO. ZON2016-00377)
FEBRUARY 13, 2018
PAGE70F7
Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the Director's approval of a Fence/Wall
Permit to allow the 3.5' to 4' tall fence at the top of the slope along the east property line at 32
Via Del Cielo, subject to the Conditions of Approval in Exhibit "A" (Case No. ZON2016-00377).
ALTERNATIVES
In addition to Staff's recommendation, the following alternatives are available for the Planning
Commission to consider:
1. Approve the Appeal, thereby overturning the Director's approval of the Fence/Wall
Permit and direct Staff to return with a revised Resolution at the February 27, 2018
meeting .
2 . Modify the Appeal and direct Staff to return to the Planning Commission with a revised
Resolution at the February 27 , 2018 meeting .
3. Identify any issues of concern with the proposed project, provide Staff and/or Applicant
with direction in modifying the project, and continue the public hearing to a date certain .
ATTACHMENTS
• Draft Resolution No. 2018-_
• Appeal Letter and Exhibits received November 22, 2017
• Applicant's Response to Appeal
• Director-Approved Staff Report with Finding Analysis
• Section 17 .76.030(8)
• Fence Plans
• Public Correspondence
F-20
P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2018-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING AN APPEAL AND
UPHOLDING THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION APPROVING A
FENCE/WALL PERMIT (CASE NO. ZON2016-00377) TO ALLOW A
3.5' TO 4' TALL WROUGHT IRON FENCE AT THE TOP OF THE
SLOPE ALONG THE EAST PROPERTY LINE FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 32 VIA DEL CIELO.
WHEREAS, on August 18, 2016, the owner of 32 Via Del Cielo(the "Applicant") submitted a
Fence/Wall Permit application for the construction of a 6' tall wrought iron fence along the top of
their north-easterly side slope at 32 Via Del Cielo (the "Property") ;
WHEREAS , after assessing photos taken from upslope property's viewing area, Staff
advised Applicant there was potential for view impairment and the filing fee for a formal Fence/Wall
permit would be required; and
WHEREAS, on January 30, 2017, Applicant submitted, on behalf of the property owner,
required application filing fee for the formal Fence/Wall Permit; and
WHEREAS, on February 24, 2017, Staff deemed the application complete for processing;
WHEREAS, in April 2017, Applicant notified Staff they wished to revise the proposed fence
plan and, pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act, the processing of the application was suspended;
and
WHEREAS, on May 25, 2017, Applicant submitted a revised plan, and after several rounds
of correspondence with Applicant regarding the revised plan, the project was again deemed
complete for processing on September 13, 2017; and
WHEREAS, on November 10, 2017, the Director of Community Development ("Director")
approved a Fence/Wall Permit (ZON2016-00377) allowing a 3.5' to 4' tall wrought iron fence at the
top of the slope along the east property line of the Property; and
WHEREAS, on November 10, 2017, a written notice of the Director's decision was provided
to all property owners within 500' radius of the subject site in accordance with Rancho Palos Verdes
Municipal Code (RPVMC) Section 17.80.090; and
WHEREAS, on November 22, 2017, Tom and Kim Vice (the "Appellants"), the property
owners of 70 Calle Cortada (Appellants' Property"), filed a timely appeal requesting that the Planning
Commission overturn the Director's decision and modify Applicant's Fence/Wall Permit (the
"Appeal"); and
WHEREAS, the appeal listed the following issues with the Director's decision : 1) the
proposed fence will significantly impair the view at Appellant's Property from a seated position;
2) the design of the fence could vary from the approved plan so as to impair more of the view; 3)
P.C. Resolution No. 2018-
Page 1 of 7
F-21
pepper trees located at the Property on the east slope significantly impair the views of the ocean,
Catalina Island, and Santa Monica mountains from Appellant's Property; and
WHEREAS, on January 25, 2018, pursuant to Section 17.80 .090 of the RPVMC, a 15-day
public notice was provided to all property owners within 500' radius and published in the Palos
Verdes Peninsula News; and
WHEREAS, on February 13, 2018 , the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public
hearing, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present
evidence.
NOW, THEREFORE , THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1:
forth herein .
The above recitals are hereby incorporated into this Resolution as if fully set
Section 2: The proposed project involves installation of a wrought iron fence at the top of
the slope, along the east property line abutting the Appellant's property, measuring 3.5' in height for
a length of 44' from the street-side property line, and then 4' in height along the east property line for
a length of 163'.
Section 3: The Fence/Wall Permit is warranted because :
A. The wrought iron fence would not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another
property or a view from public property which has been identified in the City's General Plan
or Coastal Specific Plans, as a city-designated viewing area . The proposed wrought iron
fence meets the definition of a "fence" per Municipal Code Section 17.96 .700, as it would
transmit 80% light and air per Staff's calculations . The property is located 40'-50' lower in
elevation than the public viewing area within the visual corridor located along Palos Verdes
Drive West as identified in the City 's Coastal Specific Plan , the proposed project would not
be visible from public property .
B. There is no foliage on Applicant's lot which exceeds 16' or the ridgeline of the primary
structure, whichever is lower, that impairs a view, as defined in Municipal Code Section
17.02 .040(A)(14), from the viewing area of another parcel , or a view from public property
which has been identified in the City's General Plan or Coastal Specific Plan, as a city-
designated viewing area .
C. The installation of the wrought iron fence complies with all applicable standards and
requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code and General Plan . Pursuant to
RPVMC Section 17 . 76.030(C)(1 )(b)(i), ... Fences and walls up to seven feet in height shall
be permitted on any part of a lot not subject to subsection (C)(1 )(a) except as restricted by
Section 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility) of this title... In areas where there is a grade
differential of more than 2' between building pads of adjacent lots, the top of the fence
cannot be taller than the building pad of the upslope lot, unless a Fence/Wall Permit is
processed . As a Fence/Wall Permit was processed, the project meets the aforementioned
Municipal Code standards. Additionally, the City's General Plan, Policy No, 14 of the Urban
Environment Element states: Prohibit encroachment on existing scenic views reasonably
P.C . Resolution No . 2018-
Page 2 of 7
F-22
expected by neighboring residents. The 3.5' to 4' tall fence would project into a minimal
amount of ocean view at the lower periphery of Appellant's view frame, while the remainder
of the ocean and Catalina view would be preserved.
Section 4 : The merits of the appeal are not warranted as described below .
A . Appeal Reason No. 1: The proposed fence will significantly impair the view from a seated
position and a portion of it should not be allowed .
Views of the ocean are more visible from a standing position, as compared with a seated position
(either inside the residence or outside on the patio) pursuant to Municipal Code Section
17 .76 .030(8)(3) (a) which states, in part: Views shall be taken from a standing position, unless the
primary viewing area is more suitable to viewing in a seated position ... When the view is observed
from a standing position, the proposed fence would impair a minimal amount of the lower periphery
of the ocean view between existing residences from Appellants' viewing area, which would not be
considered a significant view impairment. Also, the impairment would only be of the ocean , and not
of Catalina Island, which is a significant feature and thus is weighted more heavily . Also, the
outdoor patio area does not qualify to be the primary viewing area, as greater weight is given to
locations within the primary structure where a view is taken, than to locations outside of the primary
structure where a view is taken, unless no view is taken from within the primary structure.
B. Appeal Reason No. 2 : The design of the fence could vary from approved plan so as to
impair more of the view.
The wrought iron fence meets the definition of a fence pursuant to Municipal Code Section
17 .96 .700 , as it would transmit 80% light and air, and to ensure that Applicant installs the fence
design/material approved by the City, Conditions No . 5 and 9 were included in the Director's
approval, and are also included in the attached Resolution:
5. Pursuant to Section 17. 78. 040, the Community Development Director is authorized to
make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions of approval if
such modifications will achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with
the approved plans and conditions . Substantial changes to the project shall be considered a
revision and shall require approval by the final body that approved the original project, which
may require new and separate environmental review and public notification.
9 . Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be completed in
substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the City with the effective date
of this decision.
C. Appeal Reason No . 3: Trim pepper trees located on Applicant's property so that they do not
exceed the height of the primary structure and maintain all existing and future foliage at the
same height.
No trimming of foliage on Applicant's property is required, as Applicant's pepper trees have been
removed, and no other foliage exists on the property which impairs the view from any neighboring
properties. To ensure that the existing and future trees do not impair Appellants' view, Condition No.
16 was included in the Director's approval, and is also included in the attached Resolution that
P.C. Resolution No . 2018-
Page 3 of 7
F-23
requires alt landscaping on the easterly slope shall be maintained at a height that does not exceed
the top of the approved fence.
Section 5: Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public
Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code
of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government
Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), the approval of the
Fence/Wall Permit application will not have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore,
the project has been found to be Categorically Exempt (Section 15303(e)).
Section 6: Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or any portion of this
decision may appeal to the City Council. The appeal shall set forth in writing , the grounds for appeal
and any specific action being requested by Appellant. Any appeal letter must be filed within fifteen
(15) calendar days of the date of this decision, or by 5:30 p.m. Wednesday, February 28, 2018 . A
$2,275.00 appeal fee must accompany any appeal. If no appeal is timely filed, the Planning
Commission's decision shall be final at 5:30 p .m. Wednesday, February 28 , 2018.
Section 7: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included
in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the Planning Commission of the City
of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby adopts P.C . Resolution No . 2018-_, denying the appeal and
upholding the Director's approval of a Fence/Walt Permit allowing a 3.5' to 4' tall wrought iron fence
at the top of the slope along the east property line on the property located at 32 Via Del Cielo,
subject to the conditions as set forth in the attached Exhibit "A".
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 13th day of February 2018, by the following vote:
AYES :
NOES :
ABSTENTIONS :
RECUSALS :
ABSENT:
Ara Mihranian, AICP
Community Development Director; and,
Secretary of the Planning Commission
William J . James
Vice Chair
P .C. Resolution No. 2018-
Page 4 of 7
F-24
EXHIBIT 'A'
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
PLANNING CASE NO. ZON2016-00377
(32 VIA DEL CIELO)
1. Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, Applicant and the property
owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have read, understand, and
agree to all conditions of approval contained in this Exhibit "A". Failure to provide said
written statement within ninety (90) days following the date of this approval shall render this
approval null and void .
2 . Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City, and/or any of its
officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof,
from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other actions and
proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature),
and alternative dispute resolutions procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations,
mediations, and other such procedures) (collectively "Actions"), brought against the City,
and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul,
the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and/or any of its officials, officers,
employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions
approved by the voters of the City), for or concerning the project.
3 . Prior to conducting any work in the public right of way, such as for curb cuts, dumpsters,
temporary improvements and/or permanent improvements, Applicant shall obtain an
encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works.
4 . Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and appropriate
zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws and regulations . Unless
otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Municipal Code shall apply.
5. Pursuant to Section 17.78.040, the Director of Community Development is authorized to
make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions of approval if
such modifications will achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with
the approved plans and conditions. Substantial changes to the project shall be considered a
revision and require approval by the final body that approved the original project, which may
require new and separate environmental review and public notification .
6 . The project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards contained in
these conditions of approval or, if not addressed herein, shall conform to the residential
development standards of the City's Municipal Code, including but not limited to height,
setback and lot coverage standards. Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these
conditions of approval may be cause to revoke the approval of the project pursuant to the
revocation procedures contained in Section 17.86.060 of the City's Municipal Code or
administrative citations as described in Section 1.16 of the City's Municipal Code.
7 . If Applicant has not submitted an application for a building permit for the approved project or
P.C. Resolution No. 2018-
Page 5 of 7
F-25
not commenced the approved project as described in Section 17.86.070 of the City's
Municipal Code within one year of the final effective date of this decision, approval of the
project shall expire and be of no further effect unless, prior to expiration, a written request for
extension is filed with the Community Development Department and approved by the
Director.
8. In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations and/or
requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter standard shall
apply .
9. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be completed in
substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the City with the effective
date of this decision.
10 . This approval is only for the items described within these conditions and identified on the
stamped APPROVED plans and is not an approval of any existing illegal or legal non-
conforming structures on the property, unless the approval of such illegal or legal non-
conforming structure is specifically identified within these conditions or on the stamped
APPROVED plans .
11 . The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall be kept
free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that material used for
immediate construction purposes. Such excess material may include, but not be limited to :
the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap metal, concrete asphalt, piles of earth,
salvage materials, abandoned or discarded furniture, appliances or other household fixtures .
12 . All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly manner, to the
satisfaction of the City 's Building Official. All construction waste and debris resulting from a
construction, alteration or repair project shall be removed on a weekly basis by the
contractor or property owner. Existing or temporary portable bathrooms shall be provided
during construction. Portable bathrooms shall be placed in a location that will minimize
disturbance to the surrounding property owners, to the satisfaction of the City's Building
Official.
13. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 6 :00 PM, Monday through
Friday, 9:00AM to 5:00PM on Saturday, with no construction activity permitted on Sundays
or on the legal holidays specified in Section 17 .96.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes
Development Code . During demolition, construction and/or grading operations, trucks shall
not park, queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining street rights-of-way before
7 AM Monday through Friday and before 9AM on Saturday, in accordance with the permitted
hours of construction stated in this condition. When feasible to do so, the construction
contractor shall provide staging areas on-site to minimize off-site transportation of heavy
construction equipment. These areas shall be located to maximize the distance between
staging activities and neighboring properties, subject to approval by the building official.
Project Specific Conditions:
14. This approval shall allow the construction of wrought iron fence up to 4' in height at the top
of the slope along the east side property line . The 3 .5' tall portion of the fencing will begin at
P.C. Resolution No. 2018-
Page 6 of 7
F-26
the Calle Cortada property line and run 44' south-east towards the rear property line, while
the 4 ' tall portion of the fencing will start where the 3.5' fencing ends, and will run 163' south-
east towards the rear property line of the property, at which point the proposed fence will
connect with the existing perimeter fencing.
15 . All landscaping on the easterly slope shall be maintained at a height that does not exceed
the top of the approved fence.
16 . Pursuant to RPVMC Section 17.48 .070, no fence, wall, hedge, sign, structure, shrubbery,
mound of earth or other visual obstruction over 30 " in height, as measured from the adjacent
street curb elevation, shall be erected, placed, planted or allowed to grow within the
triangular space referred to as the "intersection visibility triangle ".
17 . All fences walls and hedges shall be limited to 3.5' in height within the front yard setback
area, outside of the intersection visibility triangle .
18 . No grading is authorized as a part of this approval.
19 . Construction of the approved project shall substantially comply with the plans originally
stamped APPROVED on February 13, 2018 , with the RS-1 zoning district, the site
development standards of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code , and all Conditions
of Approval for Tract 46628 and CUP No. 158.
P.C. Resolution No . 2018-
Page 7of7
F-27
Tom and Kim Vice
70 Calle Co1iada• Rancho Palos Ve1des. California 90275 • Phone: (661) 609-3033
E-Mail: kimvice"i1cfLrr.com
Date: November 17, 2017
Ara Mihranian
Director of Community Development
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275
Copy: Amy Seeraty, Associate Planner
Dear Ara Mihranian:
We are in receipt of your letter, dated November 10, 2017, regarding the approval, with conditions, of the installation of a
wrought iron fence at the top of the slope along the east property line of the residence at 32 Via Del Cielo. Our property,
70 Calle Cortada, is the abutting upslope property.
This letter is to inform you that we are appealing this decision under the grounds that the views of the ocean, Catalina
Island, and Santa Monica Mountains from our property will be significantly impaired. This letter details the specific areas
that form the grounds of our appeal, as well as the specific actions requested.
It is our belief, that the specific actions that we are requesting will not impact the landowners at 32 Via Del Cielo.
However, the two issues detailed below will have significant ocean, Catalina Island, and Santa Monica mountain view
impairment consequences from our property; effecting the value of our property, and our quality of living that our
beautiful community currently offers.
Grounds for appeal -issue #1
We appreciate the city's approval of a 4' fence from the rear (south) of the property line to a length of 163'. We also
appreciate the drop down from 4' to 3.5' at the 163' point. However, by allowing the 3.5' fence to extend 44' all the way
to the front property line, our views of the ocean, Catalina Island, and Santa Monica mountains will be severely impaired.
The approval of the 3.5' fence all the way to the front (north) property line on top of the upslope was based upon the level
of view impairment from a standing viewing position, as stated in the approval recommendation from Amy Seeraty. The
approval recommendation letter stated, "As the views of the ocean from the viewing area would typically be enjoyed in a
standing position, the view assessment for this application was conducted in a standing position. A viewing area is
established by determining which area of the structure or lot that the best and most important views exists."
The first ground of our appeal, is that the best primary viewing area is more suitable to viewing in a seated position, not in
a standing position. Rancho Palos Verdes' municipal code states "Views shall be taken from a standing position, unless
the primary viewing area is more suitable to viewing in a seated position." It is definitely the case, that the primary
viewing area is more suitable to viewing in a seated position. We spend the vast majority of our time in our living room,
F-28
and on a section of the property lot just off the living area where we have patio chairs and table. The significant amount of
time we spend in these areas is from a seated position, as we enjoy the panoramic and majestic views of the ocean,
Catalina island, and the Santa Monica Mountains for extended periods throughout the day, including late afternoon and at
sunset.
To show the substantial level of viewing impairment and harm that this fence would cause, I constructed a section of a
3.5' wrought iron fence, and placed it at the front of the property line on the east upslope of 32 Via Del Cielo. As you can
see from the included photos, there will be significant impairment of our ocean view if the fence were constructed. You
can also see that the top of the proposed fence exceeds, and many cases blocks, the horizon (sky/ocean) line. Allowing
this fence to be installed would put the entire remaining ocean view below the top of the fence, or completely block the
horizon line.
As just one example as to the significance of the proposed fence, on many afternoons, extending into sunset, our family
sits in our living room, or the outside patio off our living room, and watches the gorgeous California sunsets, often
wondering if we will see the majestic and very brief green flash that sometimes occurs as the sun just touches the
sky/ocean horizon line. If the proposed fence is installed, we will never be able to sit in many of our favorite positions and
watch the sun as it dips down on the horizon -the top rail of the 3.5' fence from several seated viewing positions will now
obscure the sky/ocean line. Throughout the day, as well as at sunset, in the other seated positions the ocean views will be
significantly impaired below the fence height, with much of the viewing area blocked by the type of wrought iron fence
constructed, the fence top rail, down rails, as well as railheads, and ornament leaves.
The approval recommendation letter states, "Additionally, wrought iron fencing is generally designed to allow at least
80% transmission of light, air or vision." We disagree with this as a general statement. In fact, wrought iron fence designs
can, and do, have a significant level of design variability. Wrought iron fencing can vary greatly as to the height
(thickness) of the horizontal top header bar and the width of the vertical bars. Wrought iron fence design vary greatly on
how narrow the distance is between the vertical bars; having a significant influence on the percentage of light, and
viewing allowed through the fence. Wrought iron fence designs also vary significantly with the type and thickness of
railheads, and the size and shape of the ornament leaves on the vertical bars. All of these factors will add significantly to
the already substantially impaired ocean view from our property. It is also the case, that the homeowners at 32 Via Del
Cielo may very likely be highly motivated to allow as little viewing through this fence as possible, as they don't have any
impact to ocean views, like we would. Instead, the homeowners could install the most restricted-opening wrought iron
fence design possible in order to achieve their desire for a complete level of privacy -again, significantly impairing our
views of the ocean, Catalina Island, and Santa Monica mountains.
Specific action request #1 -in regards to issue #1
The specific action we are requesting is to have the proposed fence angled along the upslope from the property at 32 Via
Del Cielo. Our detailed proposed solution is as follows: The fence for the property at 32 Via Del Cielo would start at its
current northern position at the bottom of the upslope, angle up the east upslope in a south/east direction, and intersect
with the top of the upslope property line 20' back from the north upslope property line. See attached figure 1. There would
not be any fencing along the top of the upslope property from the front property line extending south for 20'. At 20' the
3. 5' high fence would run south for 24', then step up to the 4' high and extended south for a length of 163 '.
2 F-29
This solution would represent little if any impact to the homeowners, as little homeowner activity would, could or should
occur on the very steep slope. There is no planned building in this area, and no reasonable concerns over privacy. Making
this minor change would allow us to continue all of the beauty of the ocean views, the beautiful sunsets, Catalina Island,
and the Santa Monica mountains, while it does not result in the landowner at 32 Via Del Cielo to sacrifice any backyard
living area, or privacy. The only change this would represent is a small triangular section of the steep slope on the
north/east upslope of their property would not be in the fenced-in area. This would have little impact to their quality of life
or living/playing backyard area -you can't safely play on the steep slope nor would you want to. But the impact to
installing the fence in this area would have a substantial impact to our quality of life.
Specific action request #2 -in regards to issue #1
As is the condition as specified above in regards to the design of the wrought iron fence, a second specific action being
requested is that the remaining wrought iron fence (4' fence from the south of the property line for 163' and the 3.5' fence
for the next 24') be specified to comply with the following design parameters: Yi inch width for the fence top bar, Yi inch
width for the vertical bars, 5 inch separation between vertical bars, no ornamental leaves on the vertical bars, and any
railheads to comply with 4' and 3.5' height restrictions.
Grounds for appeal -issue #2
The second area is the height of the trees on the property at 32 Via Del Cielo. The municipal code states that all foliage
(that impairs a view from the viewing area of another parcel) on the applicant's lot can not exceed 16 feet or the
ridgeline of the primary structure, whichever is lower. The trees on the slope of the east property line of residence 32
Via Del Cielo significantly exceeds the ridgeline of the primary structure. As seen from the attached photos, the trees
significantly obscure our views of the ocean, Catalina Island, and Santa Monica mountains.
In Amy Seeraty's April 20, 2017 email, it stated "their [homeowners at 32 Via Del Cielo] landscape plan for the
backyard improvements indicates they [the pepper trees] will be removed, but I [Amy Serraty] will still measure them
to see if there are any portions over 16' in height that significantly impair your view. If there are, those portions of the
tree would be trimmed prior to approval of the fence/wall permit." Although the trees exceed 16 feet, the correct
measurement in this case, is the ridgeline of the primary structure as the code actually states that foliage can not exceed
16 feet or the ridgeline of the primary structure, whichever is lower. The trees significantly exceed the ridge of the
primary structure, and have continued to grow significantly since Amy's April site visit.
Since the trees both exceeded a height of 16 feet and the ridgeline of the primary structure, and based upon Amy's
April 20, 2017 email, we expected this issue to be resolved, however, in the conditions for permit approval, received
with your November 10, 2017 letter, it states that "no foliage removal is required." The conditions for permit approval
states that several pepper trees exceeded the ridgeline of the primary structure, but the trees only obscure views the sky .
Although, we and the city both agree that trees exceed both 16' and the ridgeline of the primary structure, we disagree
vigorously with this assertion the trees only obscure views of the sky. From the attached photographs, you can see that
this this is not the case. The pepper trees obscure views of the ocean, Catalina Island, and Santa Monica mountains
from several viewpoints.
3
F-30
Specific action request #1 -in regards to issue #2
We are not requesting as part of this appeal that the pepper trees, or any foliage, be removed. The specific action being
requested is that the heights of the existing pepper trees are brought back within compliance to the existing city
municipal code. Specifically, that the height of the trees do not exceed the ridgeline of the primary structure.
In addition, we are requesting that the trees are maintained so that they are not allowed to grow beyond the ridgeline of
the primary structure.
Specific action request #2 -in regards to issue #2
In addition to maintaining the current trees on the property within existing city code, we are requesting that the specific
action be taken by the city to ensure that no additional trees or foliage are planted on the property, including the slope
on the east property line, of 32 Via Del Cielo, that would block any view of the ocean, Catalina Island, or Santa Monica
mountains.
Thank you for your careful consideration of our appeal.
Sincerely, / / . 1 _-;?~;~~~
Tom and Kim Vice
4 F-31
hGutzE I
I lf 'J.111 h r:1a~ 3.:S' "1./19/r F ~ t~
(31161JJJ ~/$' ~ foe,,;,,, ht-'16
AAJ1> e1erel'llo.S ro ~
1"1u1 LeFr(So~.f"'J AN> E°Krl'Al,r
.fer A I •.11 t#i •.f. ./.r :J'I' fo ""'' I~ 3' rt9l-.1-(1Jor.JI.)
NO /:¥111(/E
INS-rJl1.l.E /)
I~ rN1'
20'see1'il.
f~ !' j.S' JI,,~
F111eE rfOM
t>ll-' L.ocA norJ
&;-
(')#) +i.e eA::s r
ups'-DP~ ~"qles
Vow,., +l1 :5lope
Nor~/~esr To
I IV fer~ t9 e '( \ti 1..fl.l
~e ~~ '~"-•"' '3hrfint
por~ fi o" po,,, T 'f\ -Hie
f>orror-t OF -Hi" s/,,A)pt:.
Ar~e f3of-lo~ Nd<~
po·•l'lT. F-32
F-33
F-34
F-35
F-36
F-37
F-38
F-39
F-40
F-41
F-42
F-43
F-44
F-45
F-46
F-47
F-48
F-49
1
Amy Seeraty
From:Jim Hudnall <jim_hudnall@capgroup.com>
Sent:Wednesday, December 20, 2017 11:18 AM
To:Amy Seeraty
Cc:Kyle Robertson (kyle@simich.com)
Subject:Appeal from 32 Via Del Cielo
Hi Amy,
I’ve thought more about the property line / view issue.
I believe the decision restricting me from fencing my property, to match every other property in the Ocean
Front Estates, was egregious. The only reason I agreed to moved forward abiding by the “two fence” decision
was I thought the decision was the final word on the matter. Since the City is going to hear an appeal from 70
Calle Cortada, I ask the City to hear my appeal at the same hearing.
Facts:
There are 79 lots in the Ocean Front Estates development.
The developers of the Ocean Front Estates placed uniform pillars at the rear
corner of every property (about 2 feet by 2 feet and about 6 feet tall).
Every single property line in the development has a 5 foot wrought iron fence
directly on top of the property line (except for one between 32 Via Del Cielo and
70 Calle Cortada — the fence line in question).
Each fence connects the rear corner pillars with either a pillar on the front corner
of the property, or in-line with a surveyor mark on the sidewalk at the corner of
the property.
There is a 5 foot wrought iron fence with a thick privacy hedge between 70 Calle
Cortada and 68 Calle Cortada (the house immediately to the east / opposite my
house).
In early 2013 the current residents of 70 Calle Cortada fenced in
their back yard with a 5 foot wrought iron fence. The portion of
the fence between 70 Calle Cortada and 32 Via Del Cielo starts at
the rear corner pillar and runs directly on top of the property line
for approximately 40 feet.
70 Calle Cortada was put on the market in Jan 2011.
It sat on the market for almost two years.
It finally sold in Nov 2012 for $2,710,000.
According to public records, 6 properties sold in the Ocean Front Estates in 2012
(High Price $4.8mm Low Price $2.71mm {70 Calle Cortada} Avg Price
$3.6mm)
70 Calle Cortada was listed less than 5 years later for $4.75mm
F-50
2
Argument:
The Ocean Front Estates development is relatively new. The
City’s approval to develop this land was a huge debate for the
community. I assume the City was extremely thorough when
approving the development. The developer clearly designed
the development to be uniform (uniform pillars in every
property corner). Every property in the Ocean Front
Estates is fenced at the property line except for the property
line in question.
The property line on the opposite side of 70 Calle Cortada has a 5 foot wrought
iron fence and thick-opaque hedge. According to 70 Calle Cortada’s argument,
their fence clearly “obstructs the view of 68 Calle Cortada.” How can someone
argue a wrought iron fence will obstruct their view when their wrought fence and
hedge completely obstruct someone else’s view?
In 70 Calle Cortada’s argument, they are very concerned with the style of wrought
iron and the types of plants that will be planted adjacent the fence. The obvious
reason for their concern is their own hedge completely blocks the view of the
ocean from 68 Calle Cortada.
If I don’t put a fence at the top of the hill on the property line and someone falls
down the slope injuring themselves on my property, would I be liable (imagine
someone backing up trying to take a “selfie” picture and losing their
balance)? Could the City be liable if they force me put a fence further down the
hill?
If I’m forced to put in two fences, it will add $25,000+ to
the cost of the fence. Why should I be forced absorb the
cost of two fences?
The 70 Calle Cortada house sat on the market for much longer than average and
sold at a discount to the average house in the neighborhood because any
reasonable person could recognize there would be a fence on the property line.
The house was put on the market less than 5 years later and marked up almost
100%, clearly pointing to the owner’s unrealistic determination of this property’s
value.
A “property-line fence” isn’t going to diminish the property’s value. “The
market” set the valuation in 2011 and 2012 when the house sat on the market for
nearly two years. Because “the market” assumed there would be a fence, the
house sold at a discount in 2012 and for that same reason, the house is going to
sell at a discount if/when it sells again.
Their appeal claims they love their view from their living room. If they love it so
much, why are they moving? And, if they are no longer going to be members of
our community, why should they receive special treatment?
I suggest they pay for a 5 foot glass fence that satisfies my pool fence requirement.
Can you please point me to the official appeal application? I’ll have my check ready.
F-51
3
Thanks,
Jim Hudnall
From: Amy Seeraty [mailto:AmyS@rpvca.gov]
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2017 11:17 AM
To: 'Kyle Robertson' <kyle@simich.com>
Cc: Jim Hudnall (JMAH) <jim_hudnall@capgroup.com>
Subject: RE: Notice of Decision and Staff Report for 32 Via Del Cielo
Importance: High
Hello Kyle-
I received the attached appeal letter and fee on Wednesday 11/22. I have scheduled the
appeal hearing at the Planning Commission for January 23rd, but I would like to meet with you
sometime in the next couple of weeks to talk to you about the attached appeal letter and the
neighbor’s suggestions. Please let me know when you are free, perhaps sometime later this
week or early next week. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Amy Seeraty
Associate Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
amys@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231
From: Amy Seeraty
Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 1:02 PM
To: 'Kyle Robertson' <kyle@simich.com>; 'jim_hudnall@capgroup.com' <jim_hudnall@capgroup.com>
Subject: FW: Notice of Decision and Staff Report for 32 Via Del Cielo
Hello‐
Please note the email below I received yesterday. I will follow up with you both early next week
regarding the next steps.
Sincerely,
Amy Seeraty
From: Kim Vice [mailto:kimvice@cfl.rr.com]
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 5:27 PM
To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: Notice of Decision and Staff Report for 32 Via Del Cielo
F-52
4
Amy,
We will be sending a letter of appeal as well as our appeal fee by the due date. We want to let you know
of our intent ASAP.
Thank you,
Tom and Kim Vice
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 10, 2017, at 3:58 PM, Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Hello Kim-
Please see the attached Notice of Decision and Staff Report for the 32 Via Del
Cielo proposed fence. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Amy Seeraty
Associate Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
amys@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231
<NOD and SR.pdf>
F-53
17.76.030 - Fences, walls and hedges.
A. Purpose. These standards provide for the construction of fences, walls and hedges as required for
privacy and for protection against hazardous conditions, dangerous visual obstruction at street
intersection and unnecessary impairment of views.
B. Fence/Wall Permit.
1. Permit Required. A fence/wall permit shall be required for any fence or wall placed within the rear
yard or side yard setback adjacent to any contiguous or abutting parcel (as determined by the
director), except as specified below:
a. Fences or walls located where the grade differential between the building pads of adjacent
lots, measured perpendicular to the boundary between the two properties contiguous to or
abutting the fence, wall or hedge, is two feet or less in elevation; or
b. Fences or walls where the subject lot is located upslope of any property contiguous to or
abutting the location of the fence, wall or hedge; or
c. Fences or walls when the top of the fence or wall is at a lower elevation than that of the pad
of the upslope lot.
2. Initial Site Visit. Upon submittal of an application and a site inspection fee, as established by
resolution of the city council, the director, or his/her representative, shall conduct an initial site
visit in order to determine the type of application process that is required, as follows:
a. If based on the initial site inspection, the director is able to determine that there will be no
view impairment to an adjacent property owner caused by the proposed new fence or wall
and the director can make the finding described in Section 17.76.030(B)(3)(b), the fence/wall
permit shall be approved. Notice of said approval shall be sent to the property owners
adjacent to the subject property, pursuant to Section 17.80.040 (Notice of Decision by
Director) of this title. An adjacent property owner may appeal the director's decision to the
planning commission pursuant to Section 17.80.050 (Appeal to Planning Commission) of
this title. The decision of the planning commission may be appealed to the city council
pursuant to Section 17.80.070 (Appeal to City Council) of this title.
b. If the director is unable to determine that no view impairment will be caused by the proposed
new fence or wall, the applicant shall pay the remainder of the application fee established
by the city council and the application shall be reviewed as described in subsection (B)(3) of
this section.
3. Findings. A fence/wall permit may be approved only if the director finds as follows:
a. That the fence or wall would not significantly impair a view from the viewing area, as defined
in Chapter 17.02 (Single-Family Residential (RS) Districts), of another property or a view
from public property which has been identified in the city's general plan or coastal specific
plan, as a city-designated viewing area. Views shall be taken from a standing position, unless
the primary viewing area is more suitable to viewing in a seated position;
b. That all foliage on the applicant's lot which exceeds 16 feet or the ridgeline of the primary
structure, whichever is lower, and impairs a view from the viewing area of another parcel, as
defined in Chapter 17.02 (Single-Family Residential (RS) Districts) or a view from public
property which has been identified in the city's general plan or coastal specific plan, as a
city-designated viewing area, shall be removed prior to permit approval. This requirement
shall not apply where removal of the foliage would constitute an unreasonable invasion of
the privacy of the occupants of the property on which the foliage exists and there is no
method by which the property owner can create such privacy through some other means
permitted by this title that does not impair a view from viewing area of another property;
c. That placement or construction of the fence or wall shall comply with all applicable standards
and requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code and general plan;
F-54
d. Notwithstanding finding (a) of this subsection (B)(3), the applicant's request shall be
approved if the director determines that findings of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section
listed above can be made and either:
i. Denial would constitute an unreasonable invasion of the privacy of the occupants of the
applicant's property and there is no method by which the property owner can create
such privacy through some other means permitted by this title that would not
significantly impair a view from a viewing area of another property; or
ii. Denial would prevent compliance with the swimming pool fencing requirements
contained in subsection (F)(3) of this section and there is no reasonable method to
comply with subsection (F)(3) of this section that would not significantly impair a view
from a viewing area of another property.
4. Notice of Decision. The notice of decision of a fence/wall permit made pursuant to Section
17.76.030(B)(3) shall be given to the applicant and to all owners of property adjacent to the
subject property. Notice of denial shall be given only to the applicant. Any interested person may
appeal the director's decision to the planning commission pursuant to Section 17.80.050 (Appeal
to Planning Commission) of this title.
5. This decision of the planning commission may be appealed to the city council pursuant to Section
17.80.070 (Appeal to City Council) of this title.
6. The director, the planning commission and city council may impose such conditions on the
approval of a permit as are necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare and to carry
out the purpose and intent of this section.
7. In the case of conflict between the provisions of this section and other provisions of the
development code or the building code, the most restrictive provisions apply.
C. Fence, Walls and Hedges Allowed Without a Permit. Unless restricted by conditions imposed through
a fence/wall permit issued pursuant to subsection B of this Section 17.76.030 (Fences, Walls and
Hedges) which meet the following requirements shall be allowed without a permit:
1. Residential Zoning Districts.
a. Fences, walls and hedges located within the front yard setback area shall meet the following
standards:
i. Up to 42 inches in height shall be permitted, except as restricted by the intersection
visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility) of this title;
ii. When combined with a retaining wall, the total height may not exceed 42 inches, except
as further restricted by the intersection visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070
(Intersection Visibility) of this title; and
iii. When located within the front yard of a flag lot and the front property line of the flag lot
abuts the rear or interior side property line of an adjacent lot, up to seven feet in height
shall be permitted, except for the first 20 feet of the access way ("pole"), as measured
from the location where the pole abuts the street of access, in which case fences and
walls shall be limited to 42 inches in height.
b. Fences, walls and hedges not subject to subsection (C)(1)(a) of this section shall meet the
following standards:
i. Fences and walls up to seven feet in height shall be permitted on any part of a lot not
subject to subsection (C)(1)(a) except as restricted by Section 17.48.070 (Intersection
Visibility) of this title;
ii. Hedges shall be permitted on any part of a lot not subject to subsection (C)(1)(a), to a
height that does not significantly impair a view from surrounding property, as described
in Chapter 17.02 (Single-Family Residential (RS) Districts), unless the director
determines that a specific hedge height is needed to prevent the unreasonable invasion
F-55
of privacy of the hedge owner and there is no other method by which the hedge owner
can protect their privacy;
iii. When combined, the total height of a fence, freestanding wall or retaining wall may not
exceed eight feet, as measured from grade on the lower side, and may not exceed
seven feet, as measured from grade on the higher side;
c. Temporary construction fences, as defined in Chapter 17.96 (Definitions), up to seven feet
in height may be located within front or street side setback areas, pursuant to the temporary
construction fencing provisions of Section 17.56.020(C) of this title.
2. Nonresidential Zoning Districts.
a. Fences, walls and hedges located within the front yard and street-side setback areas shall
meet the following standards:
i. Up to 42 inches in height shall be permitted, except as restricted by the intersection
visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility) of this title;
ii. When combined with a retaining wall, the total height may not exceed 42 inches in the
front or street-side setback areas, except as restricted by the intersection visibility
requirements of Section 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility) of this title; and
b. Fences/walls located behind front and street-side setbacks shall meet the following
standards:
i. Up to seven feet in height shall be permitted on any part of a lot behind the front or
street-side setback areas, except as restricted by the intersection visibility requirements
of Section 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility) of this title;
ii. When combined with a fence, the total height may not exceed eight feet, as measured
from grade on the lower side and may not exceed seven feet as measured from grade
on the higher side;
c. Temporary construction fences, as defined in Chapter 17.96 (Definitions), up to seven feet
in height may be located within front or street side setback areas, pursuant to the temporary
construction fencing provisions of Section 17.56.020(C) of this title.
D. Fences, Walls and Hedges—Permitted With a Minor Exception Permit.
1. The following fences, walls and hedges shall be permitted subject to the approval of a minor
exception permit pursuant to Chapter 17.66 (Minor Exception Permits):
a. Fences, as defined in Chapter 17.96 (Definitions), higher than 42 inches and up to seven
feet in height located in the front setback areas; provided, the area between the street and
any such fence is landscaped, per a plan approved by the director of community
development;
b. A fence or wall, or any combination thereof, located outside of a front yard setback area
which does not exceed 11½ feet in height as measured from grade on the lower side and
seven feet in height as measured from grade on the higher side;
c. Fences higher than seven feet and up to ten feet in height and not within the required setback
areas or a combination of a three and one-half foot retaining wall and recreational fencing of
ten feet in height for downslope and side yard fencing for tennis courts or similar recreational
facilities. The fence above the seven-foot height shall be constructed of wire mesh, or similar
material, capable of admitting at least 80 percent light as measured on a reputable light
meter.
2. In addition to the review criteria listed in Chapter 17.66 (Minor Exception Permits), the director of
planning shall use but not be limited to the following criteria in assessing such an application:
a. The height of the fence or wall will not be detrimental to the public safety and welfare;
F-56
b. The line of sight over or through the fence is adequate for safety and does not significantly
impair a view from the viewing area of an adjacent parcel as defined in Section 17.02.040
(View Preservation and Restoration) of this title;
c. On corner lots, intersection visibility as identified in Section 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility)
of this title is not obstructed; and
d. The height of the retaining portion does not exceed the grading limits set forth in Section
17.76.040 (Grading Permit) of this title.
E. Hedges Permitted Within the Front Yard Setback. Hedges (not fences, walls or combination thereof)
that exceed 42 inches in height are allowed within the front-yard setback, including the intersection
visibility triangle, provided that:
1. No portion of the hedge will exceed six feet in height;
2. The location and/or height of the existing or proposed hedge exceeding 42 inches allows for the
safe view of on-coming vehicular traffic and pedestrians by a driver exiting his or her driveway
and does not cause a visual impairment that would adversely affect the public health, as
determined by the director of public works; and
3. The height of the hedge exceeding 42 inches does not significantly impair a view from the viewing
area of residential parcel as defined in Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration) of
this title.
4. The property owner submits a complete application and fee for a site plan review permit and
obtains approval of said permit. The approval of said permit shall include a condition of approval
that specifies the hedge's permitted height above 42 inches and that the hedge shall be
maintained at said height.
5. Hedges that exceed 30 inches in height and are located within the intersection visibility triangle
shall be reviewed pursuant to the criteria set forth in Section 17.48.070(D).
F. General Regulations.
1. Fences, walls and hedges shall be measured as a single unit if built or planted within three feet
of each other, as measured from their closest points, unless at least one of the fences, walls or
hedges is located on an adjoining lot held under separate ownership. Perpendicular returns
connecting two or more parallel walls or fences shall not be considered portions of the wall or
fence for purposes of determining whether or not the fences or walls are a single unit.
2. Retaining walls may exceed the height limits of this section; provided, a grading permit is
approved pursuant to Section 17.76.040 (Grading Permit) of this title.
3. Fences or Walls—Required. All pools, spas and standing bodies of water 18 inches or more in
depth shall be enclosed by a structure and/or a fence or wall not less than five feet in height
measured from the outside ground level at a point 12 inches horizontal from the base of the fence
or wall. Any gate or door to the outside shall be equipped with a self-closing device and a self-
latching device located not less than four feet above the ground. Such fences, walls and gates
shall meet city specifications and shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the city's building
official.
4. The use of barbed wire is prohibited unless required by any law or regulation of the state or federal
government or any agency thereof. Electrified fencing may only be allowed for the keeping of
animals pursuant to Chapter 17.46 (Equestrian Overlay (Q) District) of this title. All electrified
fences shall contain a warning sign, posted in a visible location, warning that an electrified fence
is in use.
5. Chain link, chicken wire and fiberglass fences are prohibited in front yards between the front
property line and the exterior facade of the existing single-family residence closest to the front
property line, in side yards between the street-side property line and the exterior facade of the
existing single-family residence closest to the street side property line, and within a rear yard
setback which abuts the following arterial streets identified in the city's general plan:
F-57
a. Crenshaw Boulevard;
b. Crest Road;
c. Hawthorne Boulevard;
d. Highridge Road;
e. Miraleste Drive;
f. Palos Verdes Drive East;
g. Palos Verdes Drive North;
h. Palos Verdes Drive South;
i. Palos Verdes Drive West; and
j. Silver Spur Road.
6. Replacement of Privately Owned Fences and Walls along Arterial Streets. Any existing fence or
wall that is part of an existing uniform fence or wall design and is located within a rear yard setback
of a private property located along any of the arterial streets listed in Section 17.76.030(F)(5) shall
be replaced or repaired at the same height and location and with the same materials and color
as the original uniform fence or wall, to the satisfaction of the community development director.
(Amended during 11-97 supplement; Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997: Ord. 254 §§ 2—4, 1990; Ord.
194 § 10 (part), 1985; Ord. 175 §§ 14—18, 1983; Ord. 150 §§ 15, 16, 1982; Ord. 132 § 3 (part),
1980; Ord. 90 § 5 (part), 1977; Ord. 75 (part), 1975)
(Ord. No. 510, §§ 13, 14, 16, 6-29-10; Ord. No. 540, § 6, 11-20-12; Ord. No. 546, § 1, 4-1-14;
Ord. No. 559U, § 1, 6-17-14; Ord. No. 560, § 1, 7-15-14)
F-58
..
~-b
~--=.:..:....,,,. -..... ..-...... -.. -..--. 1'.a....--c-ill~~--.. ....., .... tl'_.
..,._vatf'&......,._cr..,~~ ....... .._
z..--.Trlll*Alim.tTlee:!W ._
~ .. ::::-*~4=-~m;;~ ~~~---
a.._....._. .... .,_M' .. --~---.. ,....-.~~ r.r .. ~~.,... .... -ai...f........, 1fJ'•I'
'-PmllDif........-tllll-PllDT•..,._ -.......... ~ ............ ·---___ .._._,..,_~, ....
&.a..l'f9c"u .. _...........,. . .,,
·~:=-.. w::1~~~~-;::::o...--LV.....~.._lllr'ldla; ts ...... mwa..cm-._ .... .-..... 0.-------...... ll'llN ••• 1:1. PR.r..w•ilac -Clilllllm.,...~f7ar
7.ACll;IMll~....._atlNlt;ll .. • c...-.....---,...,.,_...a..ri ..... C,,,....LI ra•
lf.-#'-~~~~~--''--~~~~""""Yof91o1 .... .......,,_ •t.--.·1 :.==-~~;.=~
'----'--=----· ... -......... 11D.~~·..-.
.. ~m~-Y....,..·WMlllllll~ T11,
lb.Mlrldi'a~ ............ .QA~~ ~.,,,..
c.~ ............ ~ r .. r
u.-..~•.-.••..-.i .. ~,...... ....... ~ -o...t..,....... ..... Nlill(llJ •a..4
k..~--........ .vn, ......... 1m.~ .. ,..
L~-U..k:idili'"'0 U. ..... ll'\lll~· .. r .. ._._,....~~"'I f'1tf' .... ~~~-~ ~ ... '~ ............ ...,.._ .. a.lnAll!~t.t~•"
................. 1
..~.,._,.I ·•"*'v'~U ~-·
u.~c..Mdul •~,_.anit:w;1.,._'D ,,..
:.c~o.:::-~~.::~~ ~=-=-~...-...~~) ::~.
11.~....-:1 __ _
............... lrclli9.,.,..._ .... ~ 2'•U'
14.Lotir~~l t*f;J
a.c..tlllil.,......,. ....... ....., ............. ~ l"lll'
.. ......,_~--""-o.en'"""-1 U"JW' .. u .... ~·m~r-r ... w .... -.~ .. --
tl.81».~'-·'-.. -----........... u..iw.....,~1 1r.1r
--~..: ... 'f==-·~._..,,.fd:lo., .... t.-Dro.c.
.v......,.........,.....,,.t"J'(lll 1r.1r
v. vi.-; .... ---vt.8llpgiilo---. ......... , ............. J ••1fl
.............................. tro.c..
__,.._,_ .. BllC n.llMr• ..... IDlle...._,
"<i:-9~._. .... ..___....._., ra12 --...
--_ ........ r..-:t .. ~-----_,..,... ......
~an...-_....._.
~"""..._ ......................... ,,,~~,.... ...
,o ,_~_. ,a,_....~~ (UllJ•....._..,.._,.._._...._ ..... lllr-C..-...Z...D
OJ •._ ...... ,,..._ ..,. __ ...... _1119118
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
--
,..:;.-D.eos
-~ -
-,7-t,1,,..,.c
v.,,rr::r' .. o" --_ _,
L-8
GP --
F-59
~.,72-. \\tCr ~ c..~
1<..~ ~ ero~:;-
Upper Property
Top of Fence
Propen:y Line
4'
Upper property
Pad elevation
F-60
?/ 2... ~ \I), \;>El.-c 'et.:t:>
1<-W ~ ~o~~-
.. a
-------~ --,~~-----...--------
' t ' ~ t I ~
• • I ~ 4 •
.
F-61
..1
~
-
~ -
--
~ --.....
-.....
...... ---"'
-,..
-
~ T I
J
-I --l
---.....
-,I\ ,...
----
i:: "" 1-3 'O 0 0 -'O 'O
~ Ill Ill .., '1 IC 0
0 ...
'O Ill ., Ill ... --0 fl, Ill . 'O ::i ... -Ill .... 0 ., -Ill
"" -'< ... ::i ., 0
--'O 0 "" DI B
fl,
..... -
~ ._.
, . ..
LI
/ I.
-f_ 1
F
-
6
2
1
Amy Seeraty
Subject:FW: visit property?
From: Kim Vice [mailto:kimvice@cfl.rr.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2018 11:09 AM
To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: visit property?
Amy,
Our neighbors have now planted trees along their entire hill and it is our concern they are going to slow them to grow
tall and again block the ocean view, and Catalina views. We outlined their trees as one of our issues in the appeal. They
do not maintain them as you saw by the old trees. They pulled those four out and planted a ton more. Very frustrating.
When you do come out, please look at them.
Thank you,
Kim
Sent from my iPhone
F-63
1
Amy Seeraty
Subject:FW: visit property?
Amy Seeraty
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
amys@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231
From: Kim Vice [mailto:kimvice@cfl.rr.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2018 11:12 AM
To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: visit property?
I sent you a note about those trees. It’s now a bigger concern as they let them go unruly and planted a ton smaller ones
but they will grow larger. This can’t happen.
Yes I’ll be there Monday. Any time Monday is good. Just let me know.
Thank you
Kim
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 1, 2018, at 11:53 AM, Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Hi Kim-
I would like to take some photos which match your photos below of the pepper trees, to see
what the difference is since the trees were removed. Will you still be there on Monday and if so,
would sometime on Monday 2/5 work for you to meet with me? Thank you.
<image001.jpg>
Amy Seeraty
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
amys@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231
From: Kim Vice [mailto:kimvice@cfl.rr.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2018 9:13 AM
F-64
2
To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: visit property?
Amy,
We will be there Saturday. We would like to be there so we understand what view your taking. Sitting
or standing and what views in light of the appeal. Any day next week will work.
Thank you,
Kim
Sent from my iPhone
F-65
Exhibit “C”
Appeal Letter
F-66
Tom and Kim Vice
70 Calle Co1iada• Rancho Palos Ve1des. California 90275 • Phone: (661) 609-3033
E-Mail: kimvice"i1cfLrr.com
Date: November 17, 2017
Ara Mihranian
Director of Community Development
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275
Copy: Amy Seeraty, Associate Planner
Dear Ara Mihranian:
We are in receipt of your letter, dated November 10, 2017, regarding the approval, with conditions, of the installation of a
wrought iron fence at the top of the slope along the east property line of the residence at 32 Via Del Cielo. Our property,
70 Calle Cortada, is the abutting upslope property.
This letter is to inform you that we are appealing this decision under the grounds that the views of the ocean, Catalina
Island, and Santa Monica Mountains from our property will be significantly impaired. This letter details the specific areas
that form the grounds of our appeal, as well as the specific actions requested.
It is our belief, that the specific actions that we are requesting will not impact the landowners at 32 Via Del Cielo.
However, the two issues detailed below will have significant ocean, Catalina Island, and Santa Monica mountain view
impairment consequences from our property; effecting the value of our property, and our quality of living that our
beautiful community currently offers.
Grounds for appeal -issue #1
We appreciate the city's approval of a 4' fence from the rear (south) of the property line to a length of 163'. We also
appreciate the drop down from 4' to 3.5' at the 163' point. However, by allowing the 3.5' fence to extend 44' all the way
to the front property line, our views of the ocean, Catalina Island, and Santa Monica mountains will be severely impaired.
The approval of the 3.5' fence all the way to the front (north) property line on top of the upslope was based upon the level
of view impairment from a standing viewing position, as stated in the approval recommendation from Amy Seeraty. The
approval recommendation letter stated, "As the views of the ocean from the viewing area would typically be enjoyed in a
standing position, the view assessment for this application was conducted in a standing position. A viewing area is
established by determining which area of the structure or lot that the best and most important views exists."
The first ground of our appeal, is that the best primary viewing area is more suitable to viewing in a seated position, not in
a standing position. Rancho Palos Verdes' municipal code states "Views shall be taken from a standing position, unless
the primary viewing area is more suitable to viewing in a seated position." It is definitely the case, that the primary
viewing area is more suitable to viewing in a seated position. We spend the vast majority of our time in our living room,
F-67
and on a section of the property lot just off the living area where we have patio chairs and table. The significant amount of
time we spend in these areas is from a seated position, as we enjoy the panoramic and majestic views of the ocean,
Catalina island, and the Santa Monica Mountains for extended periods throughout the day, including late afternoon and at
sunset.
To show the substantial level of viewing impairment and harm that this fence would cause, I constructed a section of a
3.5' wrought iron fence, and placed it at the front of the property line on the east upslope of 32 Via Del Cielo. As you can
see from the included photos, there will be significant impairment of our ocean view if the fence were constructed. You
can also see that the top of the proposed fence exceeds, and many cases blocks, the horizon (sky/ocean) line. Allowing
this fence to be installed would put the entire remaining ocean view below the top of the fence, or completely block the
horizon line.
As just one example as to the significance of the proposed fence, on many afternoons, extending into sunset, our family
sits in our living room, or the outside patio off our living room, and watches the gorgeous California sunsets, often
wondering if we will see the majestic and very brief green flash that sometimes occurs as the sun just touches the
sky/ocean horizon line. If the proposed fence is installed, we will never be able to sit in many of our favorite positions and
watch the sun as it dips down on the horizon -the top rail of the 3.5' fence from several seated viewing positions will now
obscure the sky/ocean line. Throughout the day, as well as at sunset, in the other seated positions the ocean views will be
significantly impaired below the fence height, with much of the viewing area blocked by the type of wrought iron fence
constructed, the fence top rail, down rails, as well as railheads, and ornament leaves.
The approval recommendation letter states, "Additionally, wrought iron fencing is generally designed to allow at least
80% transmission of light, air or vision." We disagree with this as a general statement. In fact, wrought iron fence designs
can, and do, have a significant level of design variability. Wrought iron fencing can vary greatly as to the height
(thickness) of the horizontal top header bar and the width of the vertical bars. Wrought iron fence design vary greatly on
how narrow the distance is between the vertical bars; having a significant influence on the percentage of light, and
viewing allowed through the fence. Wrought iron fence designs also vary significantly with the type and thickness of
railheads, and the size and shape of the ornament leaves on the vertical bars. All of these factors will add significantly to
the already substantially impaired ocean view from our property. It is also the case, that the homeowners at 32 Via Del
Cielo may very likely be highly motivated to allow as little viewing through this fence as possible, as they don't have any
impact to ocean views, like we would. Instead, the homeowners could install the most restricted-opening wrought iron
fence design possible in order to achieve their desire for a complete level of privacy -again, significantly impairing our
views of the ocean, Catalina Island, and Santa Monica mountains.
Specific action request #1 -in regards to issue #1
The specific action we are requesting is to have the proposed fence angled along the upslope from the property at 32 Via
Del Cielo. Our detailed proposed solution is as follows: The fence for the property at 32 Via Del Cielo would start at its
current northern position at the bottom of the upslope, angle up the east upslope in a south/east direction, and intersect
with the top of the upslope property line 20' back from the north upslope property line. See attached figure 1. There would
not be any fencing along the top of the upslope property from the front property line extending south for 20'. At 20' the
3. 5' high fence would run south for 24', then step up to the 4' high and extended south for a length of 163 '.
2 F-68
This solution would represent little if any impact to the homeowners, as little homeowner activity would, could or should
occur on the very steep slope. There is no planned building in this area, and no reasonable concerns over privacy. Making
this minor change would allow us to continue all of the beauty of the ocean views, the beautiful sunsets, Catalina Island,
and the Santa Monica mountains, while it does not result in the landowner at 32 Via Del Cielo to sacrifice any backyard
living area, or privacy. The only change this would represent is a small triangular section of the steep slope on the
north/east upslope of their property would not be in the fenced-in area. This would have little impact to their quality of life
or living/playing backyard area -you can't safely play on the steep slope nor would you want to. But the impact to
installing the fence in this area would have a substantial impact to our quality of life.
Specific action request #2 -in regards to issue #1
As is the condition as specified above in regards to the design of the wrought iron fence, a second specific action being
requested is that the remaining wrought iron fence (4' fence from the south of the property line for 163' and the 3.5' fence
for the next 24') be specified to comply with the following design parameters: Yi inch width for the fence top bar, Yi inch
width for the vertical bars, 5 inch separation between vertical bars, no ornamental leaves on the vertical bars, and any
railheads to comply with 4' and 3.5' height restrictions.
Grounds for appeal -issue #2
The second area is the height of the trees on the property at 32 Via Del Cielo. The municipal code states that all foliage
(that impairs a view from the viewing area of another parcel) on the applicant's lot can not exceed 16 feet or the
ridgeline of the primary structure, whichever is lower. The trees on the slope of the east property line of residence 32
Via Del Cielo significantly exceeds the ridgeline of the primary structure. As seen from the attached photos, the trees
significantly obscure our views of the ocean, Catalina Island, and Santa Monica mountains.
In Amy Seeraty's April 20, 2017 email, it stated "their [homeowners at 32 Via Del Cielo] landscape plan for the
backyard improvements indicates they [the pepper trees] will be removed, but I [Amy Serraty] will still measure them
to see if there are any portions over 16' in height that significantly impair your view. If there are, those portions of the
tree would be trimmed prior to approval of the fence/wall permit." Although the trees exceed 16 feet, the correct
measurement in this case, is the ridgeline of the primary structure as the code actually states that foliage can not exceed
16 feet or the ridgeline of the primary structure, whichever is lower. The trees significantly exceed the ridge of the
primary structure, and have continued to grow significantly since Amy's April site visit.
Since the trees both exceeded a height of 16 feet and the ridgeline of the primary structure, and based upon Amy's
April 20, 2017 email, we expected this issue to be resolved, however, in the conditions for permit approval, received
with your November 10, 2017 letter, it states that "no foliage removal is required." The conditions for permit approval
states that several pepper trees exceeded the ridgeline of the primary structure, but the trees only obscure views the sky .
Although, we and the city both agree that trees exceed both 16' and the ridgeline of the primary structure, we disagree
vigorously with this assertion the trees only obscure views of the sky. From the attached photographs, you can see that
this this is not the case. The pepper trees obscure views of the ocean, Catalina Island, and Santa Monica mountains
from several viewpoints.
3
F-69
Specific action request #1 -in regards to issue #2
We are not requesting as part of this appeal that the pepper trees, or any foliage, be removed. The specific action being
requested is that the heights of the existing pepper trees are brought back within compliance to the existing city
municipal code. Specifically, that the height of the trees do not exceed the ridgeline of the primary structure.
In addition, we are requesting that the trees are maintained so that they are not allowed to grow beyond the ridgeline of
the primary structure.
Specific action request #2 -in regards to issue #2
In addition to maintaining the current trees on the property within existing city code, we are requesting that the specific
action be taken by the city to ensure that no additional trees or foliage are planted on the property, including the slope
on the east property line, of 32 Via Del Cielo, that would block any view of the ocean, Catalina Island, or Santa Monica
mountains.
Thank you for your careful consideration of our appeal.
~~/~//~
Tom and Kim Vice
4 F-70
hGu!ZE I
I l( I J.411 h ~GrJC/£" 3.:S' ~ /./191, r,,. t~
BeG1,J.JJ f/81!t!' ~ loe?'n' Jr,.,-
AN1> e:tcre1410.$ ro ~
1"1u1 LeF-r(So~+"tJ AN> E°Krl'N,r
fer A I •~ ti'i • .f. ./. r :J 'I ' fo ""''
l(o 3' rt9l-.1-(1Jot'-ll.)
No FTAIClf
INS-rJl1.l.E /)
I~ rN ''
2o'~e1'il.
fl4 ~ j.S' JI,,~
F111 ti!' Fro,._.
#>II-' L.ocA norJ
&;-
(')#) +i.e eA:J r
ups'-t>P~ ~"qlts
Vow,., +l1 ~lope
Nof"~/~esr To
I IV fer~ 41 e '( \ti 1..fl.l
~e ~J(. ,~4'-ln' .3hrfint
por~ fi o" po,,, T o fl +-le
f>orror-t OF -Hi" ~l,,A)pe;.
Ar~e f3of-lo~ Nt>'~
po··""T. F-71
F-72
F-73
F-74
F-75
F-76
F-77
F-78
F-79
F-80
F-81
F-82
F-83
F-84
F-85
F-86
F-87
F-88
Exhibit “D”
Director-Approved Staff Report
F-89
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
RECOMMENDATION:
ARA MIHRANIAN, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
AMY SEERATY, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
NOVEMBER 10, 2017
FENCE/WALL PERMIT (CASE NO. ZON2016-00377) FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 32 VIA DEL CIELO (APPLICANT-KYLE
ROBERTSON/PROPERTY OWNER -JIM HUDNALL)
Conditionally approve a Fence/Wall Permit to allow the installation of a wrought iron fence at the
top of the slope, along the east property line abutting the upslope property, measuring 3.5' in
height for a length of 44' from the front property line and then 4' in height along the east property
line for a length of 163'.
BACKGROUND
On August 18, 2016, the Applicant submitted a Fence/Wall permit application, and the fee for a
preliminary site visit. Staff sent a letter to the upslope property owner, but as there was no
response, conducted a site visit at the subject property. After assessing the photos taken from
the top of the slope at 32 Via del Cielo, Staff advised the Applicant that there was a potential for
view impairment and the required filing fee for a formal Fence/Wall permit would be required.
On January 30, 2017, the Applicant submitted, on behalf of the property owner, the required
application filing fee for the formal Fence/Wall Permit. On February 24, 2017, Staff deemed the
application complete for processing. On March 8, 2017, Staff conducted an additional site visit to
the upslope property to assess view impacts. Additionally, the upslope neighbor submitted the
attached emails expressing view impairment concerns, which are discussed in more detail under
Fence/Wall Permit Findings below.
In April 2017, the Applicant notified Staff that they wished to revise the proposed fence plan, so
pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act, the processing of the application was suspended. On
May 25, 2017 a revised plan was submitted, and after several rounds of correspondence with the
Applicant regarding the revised plan, the project was again deemed complete for processing on
September 13, 2017 . The decision deadline for the revised application is November 12, 2017.
F-90
ZON2016-00377
November 10, 2017
Page 2of9
SITE & PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The subject property is a pad lot with a slope at the east side of the property that ascends to the
building pad of an abutting neighbor's property located at 70 Calle Cortada ("upslope property").
As a result of the elevation difference (approximately 15') between the building pads of both
properties and the height of the Property Owner's residence, the upslope neighbor has a view of
the ocean over the subject property.
The proposed project is a request to install a wrought iron fencing at the top of the slope, along
the east property line abutting the upslope property, measuring 3.5' in height for a length of 44'
from the front property line and then 4' in height along the remainder of the east property line. The
height of the wrought iron fence is measured from adjacent grade to the top of the fence.
DISCUSSION
Fence/Wall Permit
Pursuant to RPVMC Section 17.76.030, a Fence/Wall Permit shall be required for any fence or
wall placed within the rear yard or side yard setback adjacent to any contiguous or abutting parcel
if the fence or wall is located where the grade differential between the building pads of adjacent
lots is more than 2' in elevation and if the top of the fence or wall is at a higher elevation than that
of the pad of the upslope lot. In this case, the building pad difference between the two properties
is more than 2' and the fence is proposed along the east side property line, within the side yard
setback, that is higher in elevation than the building pad of the upslope property. As such, a
Fence/Wall Permit is required, which may be approved only if the Director finds as follows:
a. That the fence or wall would not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of
another property or a view from public property which has been identified in the city's
general plan or coastal specific plans, as a city-designated viewing area.
Staff conducted a total of two site visits to the upslope property located at 70 Calle Cortada
(Mr. & Mrs. Vice) to assess the potential view impairment as a result of the proposed fence.
In visiting the property, Staff found that ocean views would not be significantly impaired by the
proposed fence, as shown in the photographs below.
F-91
ZON2016-00377
November 10, 2017
Page 3 of 9
These panoramic photographs were assembled using several photos that were taken in a
standing position from just outside the window of the viewing areas (living room) of the upslope
residence. Although the upslope neighbor raised view impairment concerns in a seated
position, RPVMC Section 17.76.030(8)(3)(a) states, "Views shall be taken from a standing
F-92
ZON2016-00377
November 10, 2017
Page 4of9
position, unless the primary viewing area is more suitable to viewing in a seated position ... "
As the views of the ocean from the viewing area would typically be enjoyed in a standing
position, the view assessment for this application was conducted in a standing position . A
viewing area is established by determining which area of the structure or lot that the best and
most important view exists. After examining the panoramic views from each of the rooms in
the structure and the south-west side yard, Staff observed that the best view was taken from
the living room, as it contained the most components, and the deepest ocean view. The view
captured in the photographs above consists of the ocean, Catalina Island, and the Santa
Monica Mountains . Although the view is wide horizontally, it is relatively shallow vertically, as
other homes located on Via Del Cielo already block the lower portion of the view. As shown
in the photographs above, the fences would impair a minimal amount of the lower periphery
of the ocean view between existing residences from Vice's viewing area, which would not be
considered a significant view impairment. Additionally, wrought iron fencing is generally
designed to allow at least 80% transmission of light, air or vision . Additionally, as the subject
property is located 40'-50' lower in elevation than the public viewing area within the visual
corridor located along Palos Verdes Drive West as identified in the City's Coastal Specific
Plan, the proposed project would not be visible from public property. Therefore, this finding
can be met.
b. That all foliage on the Applicant's lot which exceeds 16' or the ridgeline of the primary
structure, whichever is lower, and impairs a view from the viewing area of another
parcel, or a view from public property which has been identified in the city's general
plan or coastal specific plan, as a city-designated viewing area, shall be removed prior
to permit approval.
On April 24, 2017, Staff measured several pepper trees located towards the top of the
northeast slope of the subject property, and found that although a few feet of the tops of the
tallest trees are over the ridgeline of the primary structure, these portions of the trees only
obscure views of the sky, which is not a protected view per Municipal Code Section
17.02.040(A)(14). As for other foliage below the ridgeline, even assuming some growth has
occurred since the April site visit, these areas of growth would remain below the ridgeline of
the primary structure. Therefore, no foliage removal is required and this finding can be met.
c. That placement or construction of a fence or wall shall comply with all applicable
standards and requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code and general
plan.
Pursuant to RPVMC Section 17.76.030(C)(b)(i), " ... Fences and walls up to seven feet in
height shall be permitted on any part of a lot not subject to subsection (C)(1)(a) except as
restricted by Section 17. 48. 070 (Intersection Visibility) of this title ... " However, in areas where
there is a grade differential of more than 2' between building pads of adjacent lots, the top of
the fence cannot be taller than the building pad of the upslope lot, unless a Fence/Wall Permit
is processed, as currently requested by the property owner. Based on the above analysis,
the proposed fencing up to 4 ' in height does not significantly impair the view, and thus meets
the aforementioned Municipal Code standards .
F-93
ZON2016-00377
November 10, 2017
Page 5 of 9
In regards to the consistency with the City's General Plan, Policy No. 14 of the Urban
Environment Element states the following : "Prohibit encroachment on existing scenic views
reasonably expected by neighboring residents". As discussed in finding (a) above, Staff
believes that the proposed wrought iron fences up to 4' in height would not result in significant
view impairment as a minimal amount of ocean view between two existing structures at the
lower periphery of the view frame of the upslope neighbor's viewing area would be impaired,
while the remainder of the view would be preserved. Additionally , no other neighboring
properties have views over the proposed project area . As such , Staff feels that the proposed
project complies with all applicable standards and the requirements of the Municipal Code
and General Plan and is therefore consistent with the City's General Plan . Therefore, this
finding can be met.
d. Notwithstanding finding (a) of this subsection, the Applicant's request shall be
approved if the director determines that findings of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this
section listed above can be made and either:
i. Denial would constitute an unreasonable invasion of the privacy of the occupants
of the Applicant's property and there is no method by which the property owner can
create such privacy through some other means permitted by this title that would
not significantly impair a view from a viewing area of another property; or.
ii. Denial would prevent compliance with the swimming pool fencing requirements and
there is no reasonable method to comply that would not significantly impair a view
from a viewing area of another property.
Findings (b) and (c) can be made as discussed above and Staff is recommending approval
of the proposed project. Nevertheless, Staff does not believe that denial of the proposed
project would constitute an unreasonable invasion of the Applicant's privacy as the rear
yard of the Applicant's property is already visible from the abutting neighbor's viewing
areas. Therefore, this finding does not apply.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Environmental Assessment
Staff has reviewed the proposed application for compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). Upon completion of this review, it has been determined that this request is
categorically exempt from CEQA, pursuant to Guideline Section No. 15303 (New Construction or
Conversion of Small Structures). Categorical Exemptions are projects, which have been
determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and have been exempted from the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Intersection Visibility Triangle
F-94
ZON2016-00377
November 10, 2017
Page 6 of 9
Pursuant to RPVMC Section 17.48.070, no fence, wall, hedge, sign, structure, shrubbery, mound
of earth or other visual obstruction over thirty inches in height, as measured from the adjacent
street curb elevation, shall be erected, placed, planted or allowed to grow within the triangular
space referred to as the "intersection visibility triangle". The proposed fencing is not within the
intersection visibility triangle on the property .
CONCLUSION
Based on the discussion above, Staff concludes that the required findings can be made and
recommends that the Director of Community Development approve a Fence/Wall Permit to allow
the installation of a wrought iron fence at the top of the slope, along the east property line abutting
the upslope property, measuring 3.5' in height for a length of 44' from the front property line and
then 4' in height along the remainder of the east property line, subject to the Conditions of
Approval in the attached Exhibit 'A' (Case No . ZON2016-00377):
ALTERNATIVES
In addition to the Staff's recommendation, the following alternatives are available for the Director's
consideration:
1. Identify any issues of concern and direct the Applicant to re-design and resubmit the
application (Case No . ZON2016-00377); or,
2. Deny, without prejudice, the Fence/Wall Permit (Case No. ZON2016-00377).
Approved pursuant to Staffs recommendation.
Accepted : ~
Director of Community Development
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 'A'
Plans
Public Correspondence
Dated:
F-95
ZON2016-00377
November 10, 2017
Page 7 of 9
EXHIBIT'A'
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
32 Via Del Cielo
CASE NO. ZON2016-00377
1. PRIOR TO THE SUBMITTAL OF PLANS INTO BUILDING AND SAFETY PLAN
CHECK, the Applicant and the property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in
writing, that they have read, understand, and agree to all conditions of approval contained
in this decision. Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days following
the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void.
2. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City, and/or any of
its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities
thereof, from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other actions
and proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in
nature), and alternative dispute resolutions procedures (including , but not limited to
arbitrations, mediations, and other such procedures) (collectively "Actions"), brought
against the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments,
agencies , and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set
aside, void , or annul , the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and/or
any of its officials, officers, employees, agents , departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City), for or
concerning the project.
3 . Prior to conducting any work in the public right of way, such as for curb cuts, dumpsters,
temporary improvements and/or permanent improvements, the Applicant shall obtain an
encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works.
4 . Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and appropriate
zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws and regulations . Unless
otherwise expressly specified , all other requirements of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Municipal Code shall apply.
5. Pursuant to Section 17.78.040, the Community Development Director is authorized to
make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions of approval if
such modifications will achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance
with the approved plans and conditions. Substantial changes to the project shall be
considered a revision and shall require approval by the final body that approved the
original project, which may require new and separate environmental review and public
notification .
6. The project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards contained in
these conditions of approval or, if not addressed herein, shall conform to the residential
development standards of the City's Municipal Code, including but not limited to height,
setback and lot coverage standards .
F-96
ZON2016-00377
November 10, 2017
Page 8 of 9
7 . Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be cause to
revoke the approval of the project pursuant to the revocation procedures contained in
Section 17.86.060 of the City's Municipal Code or administrative citations as described in
Section 1.16 of the City 's Municipal Code.
8. In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations and/or
requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter standard shall
apply.
9. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be completed in
substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the City with the effective
date of this decision.
10 . This approval is only for the items described within these conditions and identified on the
stamped APPROVED plans and is not an approval of any existing illegal or legal non-
conforming structures on the property, unless the approval of such illegal or legal non-
conforming structure is specifically identified within these conditions or on the stamped
APPROVED plans.
11 . The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall be kept
free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that material used for
immediate construction purposes. Such excess material may include, but not be limited
to : the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap metal, concrete asphalt , piles of
earth , salvage materials, abandoned or discarded furniture, appliances or other household
fixtures.
12. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly manner, to
the satisfaction of the City's Building Official. All construction waste and debris resulting
from a construction, alteration or repair project shall be removed on a weekly basis by the
contractor or property owner. Existing or temporary portable bathrooms shall be provided
during construction. Portable bathrooms shall be placed in a location that will minimize
disturbance to the surrounding property owners, to the satisfaction of the City's Building
Official.
13. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday
through Friday , 9:00AM to S:OOPM on Saturday, with no construction activity permitted on
Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section 17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos
Verdes Development Code. During demolition, construction and/or grading operations,
trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining street rights-
of-way before ?AM Monday through Friday and before 9AM on Saturday, in accordance
with the permitted hours of construction stated in this condition. When feasible to do so,
the construction contractor shall provide staging areas on-site to minimize off-site
transportation of heavy construction equipment. These areas shall be located to maximize
the distance between staging activities and neighboring properties, subject to approval by
the building official.
F-97
ZON2016-00377
November 10, 2017
Page 9of9
14 . All landscaping and construction activities shall exercise effective dust control
techniques, either through screening and/or watering.
PROJECT SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
15. This approval shall allow the construction of wrought iron fence up to 4' in height at the
top of the slope along the east side property line . The 3.5' tall portion of the fencing will
begin at the Calle Cortada property line and run 44' south-east towards the rear property
line, while the 4' tall portion of the fencing will start where the 3.5' fencing ends, and will
run 163' south-east towards the rear property line of the subject property, at which point
the proposed fence will connect with the existing perimeter fencing .
16. All landscaping on the easterly slope shall be maintained at a height that does not exceed
the top of the approved fence.
17 . Pursuant to RPVMC Section 17.48.070, no fence, wall, hedge, sign, structure, shrubbery,
mound of earth or other visual obstruction over 30" in height, as measured from the
adjacent street curb elevation, shall be erected, placed, planted or allowed to grow within
the triangular space referred to as the "intersection visibility triangle".
18 . All fences walls and hedges shall be limited to 3.5' in height within the front yard setback
area, outside of the intersection visibility triangle.
19. No grading is authorized as a part of this approval.
F-98
Amy Seeraty
From:
Sent:
To:
Kim Vice <kimvice@cfl.rr.com>
Monday, April 24, 2017 5:28 PM
Amy Seeraty
Subject: Re: fence permit
Thank you for trying. I believe we will have to get legal advice on the front then. We aren't asking much and a fence in
our front year is just not ok. We are not asking much for him to run it straight up his hill. I believe we can fix it with legal
advice. It will hurt out home value and our view.
Thank you Amy.
Kim
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 24, 2017, at 7:52 PM, Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Hi Kim-
I have spoken with the applicant and he stated that the property owners do not wish to move the
fence so that it starts at the grey line versus the black line. However, as I have requested, they
have modified the plan so that although the fence is 5' tall (per pool safety requirements), it will
only extend 4' up from the top of slope. I will be finishing up the report today and will send a
copy to you by tomorrow via email and first class mail. Thank you.
<image003.jpg>
Amy Seeraty
Associate Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd .
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www .rpvca.gov
amys@rpvca.gov -(310) 544-5231
From: Kim Vice [mailto :ki mvice@cfl.rr.com ]
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2017 10:49 AM
To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca .gov >
Subject: Re: Site Visit?
Thank you Amy!
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 21, 2017, at 11:34 AM, Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca .gov> wrote:
Hi Kim-
1 F-99
I understand what you mean. I will ask and get back to you . Thanks .
Sincerely ,
Amy Seeraty
Associate Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd .
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
amys@rpvca.gov -(310) 544-5231
From: Kim Vice [ma i lto :kimvice@cfl.rr.com ]
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 7:09 PM
To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: Site Visit?
Amy,
Thank you for the careful consideration and approval. Can you please stop the fence at
the edge of his house as to not run into our front yard but stop at the corner of our
house as to not impair our views from the viewing circle? I hope that is clear if not I'll be
happy to explain but basically run it up from the corner of his house straight up so not to
block our front yard. No one has a fence in their front yard. His side/ back is our front
and will not hinder his plans.
Thank you,
Kim Vice.
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 20, 2017, at 8:30 PM, Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca .gov> wrote:
Hi Kim-
I have finished the review, thank you for your patience . I will be
advising the applicants that the City will not be able to approve a
6' tall fence, but only one that is 4' tall. This is because a 6' tall
fence or even a 5' tall fence (as measured from the top of slope)
would still significantly impair the view . The 4' tall fence height is
indicated below in yellow, while the 5' level is indicated in white
and the 6' is indicated in red.
Regarding the pepper trees , their landscape plan for the backyard
improvements indicates that they will be removed, but I will still
measure them to see if there are any portions over 16' in height
that significantly impair your view. If there are, those portions of
the tree would be trimmed prior to approval of the fence/wall
permit. I should be obtaining a revised plan from the applicant
shortly so I can finish up the report early next week . Please let me
know if you have any questions, thank you.
2 F-100
Amy Seeraty
From:
Sent:
To:
Kim Vice <kimvice@cfl.rr.com>
Monday, March 20, 2017 2:11 PM
Amy Seeraty
Subject: Re: Site Visit?
Ok. Thank you Amy. I appreciate all your doing.
Kim
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 20, 2017, at 11:27 AM, Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Hi Kim-
There is no action thus far on my part; I have not approved anything yet as I still need to finish reviewing
the photos. They may end up needing to remove the fence . I'll keep you posted as soon as I make any
preliminary determinations. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Amy Seeraty
Associate Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www .rpvca .gov
amys@rpvca.gov -(310) 544-5231
From: Kim Vice [mai lto :kirnv ice@cfl.r r .co m]
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 10:07 AM
To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca .gov>
Subject: Re: Site Visit?
Hi Amy,
Any update? It seems my neighbor is moving forward as he has a temporary fence up. I just want to
make sure it will not affect our view and home value as this is why we bought here .
I hope all is well. Have a great day.
Kim Vice.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 14, 2017, at 4:55 PM, Arny Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca .gov> wrote :
Hi Kim-
Thanks for your email but I haven't had a chance to review all the photos yet. I'll let you
know when I do, thank you.
Sincerely,
Amy Seeraty
Associate Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd .
1 F-101
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
amys@rpvca.gov -(310) 544-5231
From: Kim Vice [mailto :kimvice@cfl.rr .com ]
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 7:01 PM
To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca .gov >
Subject: Re: Site Visit?
Hi Amy. Any update on fence? We really don't want to have any issue with the view as
that is why we bought the property and it will hurt our value . He has an option to drop it
a bit. I hope it all works out. Let me know if any decisions been made.
Thank you
Tom and Kim Vice
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 6, 2017, at 5:44 PM, Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> wrote :
Hi Kim-
Ok, let's try for lOam on Wednesday then. Thank you.
Amy Seeraty
Associate Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
amys@rpvca.gov -(310) 544-5231
From: Kim Vice [ma i l to :kimvice@cfl .rr.com ]
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2017 2:25 PM
To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: Site Visit?
That works might want to come 10 or 10:30 then. It's been foggy almost
every morning then blows off. But I'm flexible just let me know.
Kim
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 6, 2017, at 1:22 PM, Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov > wrote:
Hi Kim-
i would like to come by at 9am on Wednesday, if that
works for you. If it's very foggy though, I will contact
you to reschedule. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Amy Seeraty
Associate Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
2
F-102
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
amys@rpvca.gov -(310) 544-5231
From: Kim Vice [mai lto:kimvice @c fl .rr .com ]
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2017 9:33 AM
To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov >
Subject: Re: Site Visit?
Amy,
Wednesday or Thursday are great. Let me know what
time you'd like to come by .
Thank you
Kim
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 6, 2017, at 8:32 AM, Amy Seeraty
<AmyS@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Hello Kim-
Please let me know if you are available
today(3/6), Wednesday(3/8)or
Thursday (3/9) for me to visit your
property to take some additional
measurements of the views for your
neighbor's fence permit. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Amy Seeraty
Associate Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
amys@rpvca.gov -(310) 544-5231
3 F-103
Exhibit “E”
Correspondence
F-104
1
Amy Seeraty
From:Tom Vice <thomasvice@icloud.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 21, 2018 2:46 PM
To:Amy Seeraty
Subject:Fence & Trees/Foliage Proposal
Attachments:To Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department.docx; Diagram.tif
Amy
Jim Hudnall during the last appeal hearing stated three concerns: 1) the cost of having to install two fences, the
liability of not having any fence on the top of the eastern slope, and the privacy of their pool area so they could,
in his words, sunbath.
Our proposal, satisfies all three of his concerns, while also preserving as much of our view as possible.
We have agreed to pay for a 2-foot fence all along the top of the eastern slope. We have already received an
estimate for the fence from J&J Fence and Construction company. The cost of the fence is $7,700.
We also state that the trees/foliage on the eastern slope remain at the 4 foot height above our lot level. This is
the same height as stated in the decision letter.
To preserve the view from our primary viewing area, we propose that the foliage from the south living room
wall to the north property line be maintained to a height no higher than the top of the 2 foot fence.
Kim and I believe this proposal is extremely fair. It absolutely solves all of the owner’s stated concerns.
Below, is the attached proposed agreement, and accompanying diagram.
Thank you
Tom
F-105
To Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department, Rancho Palos
Verdes Planning Commission
To Ocean Front Estates Home Owners Association This is an agreement between Tom and Kim Vice, homeowners at 70 Calle Cortada, and Jim Hudnall, homeowner at 32 Via Del Cielo. Tom and Kim Vice will install a 24” high wrought iron fence along the top of the eastern slope between the existing wrought iron fence at the rear of residence 70 Calle Cortada and the northern point on the eastern slope. See attached drawing items A and B. Jim Hudnall will not install any fencing along the top of the eastern slope, including along the downslope running west to east of the north property line of 32 Via Del Cielo, higher than 24” above the lot level of 70 calle cortada. Jim Hudnall will maintain all trees/foliage on the eastern slope to a height no taller than 4’ from lot level of the 70 Calle Cortada property, from the southern point of the 32 Via Del Cielo lot to the line indicated on the attached drawing (aligned with south exterior wall of 70 Calle Cortada living room.) See drawing item C. Jim Hudnall will maintain all trees/foliage on the eastern slope from the point highlighted in the attached drawing item C to the northern edge of the 32 Via Del Cielo property line to a height no taller than 2’ from lot level of the 70 Calle Cortada property. See drawing items C and D. Date Date Tom and Kim Vice Jim Hudnall
F-106
32
I ,__ __ -·---
7~ OUY~ CorV~·~.4
t+ou>€
No t::'o L1 A? G" ',-0 ~-Xe/FF j)
2FecT r12i:J;# L-or
_ __@
. fOP
or:: SloP~
{NorlHEAll
po ''"1)
I .
F-107
From: Jim Hudnall <jim_hudnall@capgroup.com>
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2018 12:49 PM
To: Amy Seeraty
Cc: Ara Mihranian
Subject: FW: Meet with neighbor onsite?
Hi Amy,
I know you are just delivering what 70 Calle Cortada proposed, so please know my response is not
directed at you in any way.
This proposal is a total waste of time. It’s actually worse than what they asked for in their original
appeal.
I spoke to my builder, John Simich, about my proposal. He thought I made a mistake by offering it. He
believes a 2 foot fence is a horrible idea because it’s an obvious “tripping hazard.” He also said that to
adhere to what I proposed, the fence coming down my hill would have to make a zigzag to connect to
gate at the bottom of the hill. He said it will look “bad.” It’s crazy to me that I’m spending so much
money on my project and because of this fence, it’s going to look “bad.”
I feel like I’m being punished for being a good neighbor to the previous owner of 70 Calle Cortada. Had
I put a fence in when I moved in, I would not be having this problem now. It was never a question of
“if” a fence would go in , but “when” a fence would go in.
In 2013, Mrs. Vice told me that her real estate agent told her that the property line was half way down the
hill. That is why when they fenced their backyard, they started to build the fence down the slope. She
told me that I “shouldn’t care where the fence goes because I wasn’t using the land on the hill away.” I
had to have the City come and force them to put the fence on the property line --- your office should have
a record of that. They had no idea where the property line was and didn’t care.
As you can see from their “diagram” , the wrought iron fence that they put in sits directly in the path of
their “view” and we know from the pictures that it has an opaque hedge. Are we to believe that one step
north is the view they want “protected”?
I’m still flabbergasted by the Planning Commission member who at our meeting suggested that a “seated
view” from a living room is somehow protected. Is there a legal precedent for that? That member also
said he spent 45 minutes at their house, but he never came to my house. How does that work? Mr. and
Mrs Vice bought the least expensive house in the development. If they wanted unobstructed views from
their couch, they could have bought in the “front row” of houses in the development. Those houses cost
3-4 million more than their house.
I wish I had known at the time of the staff decision that I could appeal the 4.5 / 3.5 foot fence. I fact that
I am asked to do something different than every other property in a new development, when I’m the first
owner of my house, seems completely unreasonable.
I should have the right to protect my family from liability.
I should have the right to secure my property and my family.
F-108
I should have the right to privacy. At this point, you can stand at the property line and stare directly into
my pool area. What recourse do I have if some pervert is standing up there sharing into my backyard at
my wife and kids?
I can be at City Hall today by 3:30 to hear your proposal, but at this point I’ve soured on further
negotiations with 70 Calle Cortada.
Jim Hudnall
203-550-8557
From: Amy Seeraty [mailto:AmyS@rpvca.gov]
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2018 12:14 PM
To: Jim Hudnall (JMAH) <jim_hudnall@capgroup.com>
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Meet with neighbor onsite?
Hi Jim-
I was able to speak with your neighbor on Wednesday and he stated that he had a different idea
of what height of fence he would agree to. I have attached his proposed agreement and
diagram.
However, if this proposal is not acceptable to you, the Director and I have another idea for a
possible solution that we would like to review with you. Please let me know if you are available
to stop by City Hall sometime later this afternoon or on Monday to review it with us. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Amy Seeraty
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
amys@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231
From: Jim Hudnall [mailto:jim_hudnall@capgroup.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 9:59 AM
To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Meet with neighbor onsite?
F-109
Thanks again
From: Amy Seeraty [mailto:AmyS@rpvca.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 9:55 AM
To: Jim Hudnall (JMAH) <jim_hudnall@capgroup.com>
Cc: 'Kyle Robertson (kyle@simich.com)' <kyle@simich.com>
Subject: RE: Meet with neighbor onsite?
Hi Jim-
Thanks so much for your email. I’ll discuss with the Director and get back to you ASAP.
Amy Seeraty
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
amys@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231
From: Jim Hudnall [mailto:jim_hudnall@capgroup.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 8:10 AM
To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>
Cc: 'Kyle Robertson (kyle@simich.com)' <kyle@simich.com>
Subject: RE: Meet with neighbor onsite?
Hi Amy,
Thank you and thank the Director for trying to set up a meeting. Sorry, but I can’t make it today
as I’m coaching a youth football camp at the high school this afternoon.
After the meeting last week, Mr. Vice and I discussed a possible proposal that is acceptable to
me. Here are the details:
1) I will agree to adhere to the city's plan approval and keep our trees trimmed to the top of the
fence line
2) We will place a 5 foot fence on the property line between our homes except for the area at the
north most side of the property line between the perpendicular corner of their house and the
property line (they said 27 feet) and the corner survey post at the north-side top of their front
yard slope.
3) On that north most adjacent property line, we will accept their offer to pay for a 2 foot fence
that will extend from the perpendicular edge of their house and the property line up to the north
most survey point at the top of their front yard slope. That 2 foot fence will continue down the
front slope growing to 42 inches as it goes down the hill (no higher than 2 feet from the top of
the slope) and connect with my front yard fence.
If Mr. & Mrs. Vice agree with the terms, can we move forward to finalize them?
F-110
Thank you,
Jim Hudnall
203-550-8557
From: Amy Seeraty [mailto:AmyS@rpvca.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 7:37 AM
To: Jim Hudnall (JMAH) <jim_hudnall@capgroup.com>
Cc: 'Kyle Robertson (kyle@simich.com)' <kyle@simich.com>
Subject: RE: Meet with neighbor onsite?
Importance: High
Hello Jim-
I heard from your neighbors that they won’t be in town on Friday, and the Director is booked
solid on Thursday, but today should work for them. Please let me know if you are available at
3:30 today, Wednesday 2/21 to meet. I realize it is very last minute, so please let me
know. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Amy Seeraty
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
amys@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231
From: Amy Seeraty
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 4:18 PM
To: 'Jim Hudnall' <jim_hudnall@capgroup.com>
Cc: Kyle Robertson (kyle@simich.com) <kyle@simich.com>
Subject: Meet with neighbor onsite?
Hi Jim-
I wanted to see if you were still in town this week and if you would be willing to meet with the
Director, myself, and Mr. & Mrs. Vice at the Vice’s property on Friday 2/23 at 1:30pm, to try to
work out a solution for the proposed fence. Please let me know if you are available, thank you.
Sincerely,
Amy Seeraty
F-111
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
amys@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231
F-112
1
Amy Seeraty
From:Jim Hudnall <jim_hudnall@capgroup.com>
Sent:Thursday, March 01, 2018 2:35 PM
To:Amy Seeraty
Cc:Ara Mihranian
Subject:RE: Additional Fence Option
Sorry, I’ve not investigated how much that would cost. I would pay up the amount I would pay for the wrought iron. I
will talk to John Simich to get an estimate.
From: Amy Seeraty [mailto:AmyS@rpvca.gov]
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2018 2:31 PM
To: Jim Hudnall (JMAH) <jim_hudnall@capgroup.com>
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Additional Fence Option
Hi Jim-
Just to clarify, when you mention below that they should consider the glass fence, do you mean that they
would agree to it and you would pay for and install it? I just want to make sure I understand your point. Thank
you.
Amy Seeraty
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
amys@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231
From: Jim Hudnall [mailto:jim_hudnall@capgroup.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2018 8:54 AM
To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Additional Fence Option
Hi Amy,
I’m once again sorry that you have to deal with this.
Mr. Vice is not being honest or genuine in this negotiation. He made an offer the night of the meeting and then came
back with a ridiculous proposal that had nothing to do with what we talked about and this proposal is another waste of
time.
I still have to put in a 2nd fence
My builder thinks the 2 foot fence is a tripping hazard and a dumb idea
Their “point C” isn’t the front of their house as they repeatedly argued for at the Planning meeting
F-113
2
“Point C” lines up even worse with the pool gate site at the bottom of the hill. I will be forced to have a more
severe zigzag down the hill to try to match that point with the gate. And as my builder said, it will make my
property look “bad”
It further limits my privacy.
I still think the best option for them is a “clear glass” 5 foot fence on the property line. I think they should seriously
consider it.
Thank you,
Jim Hudnall
From: Amy Seeraty [mailto:AmyS@rpvca.gov]
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2018 8:05 AM
To: Jim Hudnall (JMAH) <jim_hudnall@capgroup.com>
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Additional Fence Option
Importance: High
Hi Jim-
I corresponded yesterday with the Vices, and they proposed another option that they asked you consider:
If you reference the drawing I sent you, I will pay for a 3.5 foot fence from point A to point C. I will pay for a 2
foot fence from point C to point B. All costs associated with any downslope fencing will be paid for by Mr.
Hudnall. All downslope fencing must be no higher than the 3.5 foot and 2 foot fence as viewed from our lot. I
estimate that the cost burden on us will now be in excess of $12,000.
All foliage/trees remain as in my last compromise. That is, no taller than 4 feet high on the eastern slope from
the south property line to point C. And 2 feet from point C to the north property line.
F-114
3
Please let me know if this is acceptable to you as soon as possible, ideally by today, Thursday 3/1, so that I
know if I need to revise the report and resolution for the 3/13 PC meeting. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Amy Seeraty
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
amys@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231
F-115
1
Amy Seeraty
From:Tom Vice <thomasvice@icloud.com>
Sent:Friday, March 02, 2018 3:44 PM
To:Amy Seeraty
Subject:Re: Fence & Trees/Foliage Proposal
Thank you
On Mar 2, 2018, at 7:26 PM, Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> wrote:
I will ask and get back to you.
Amy Seeraty
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
amys@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231
From: Tom Vice [mailto:thomasvice@icloud.com]
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2018 3:24 PM
To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Kim <kimvice@cfl.rr.com>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: Fence & Trees/Foliage Proposal
Amy
One more try.
Is it possible to simply lower the 3.5 foot fence section to 3.0 foot? Everything else remains the same as
stated in the decision letter.
For Mr. Hudnall a 4’ and 3’ fence is a lower cost then the 4’ and 3.5’ foot fence.
There would not be a tripping hazard with 3’.
Tom
On Mar 2, 2018, at 7:08 PM, Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Thank you Tom.
Amy Seeraty
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
F-116
2
www.rpvca.gov
amys@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231
From: Tom Vice [mailto:thomasvice@icloud.com]
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2018 2:47 PM
To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Kim <kimvice@cfl.rr.com>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: Fence & Trees/Foliage Proposal
Amy,
Point C is approximately the point where the 4 foot fence dropped to the 3.5 foot fence
on the city’s decision. I am not sure what he is referencing as the “front of the house.”
Also, if we pay for the upper fence, he only pays for one fence.
I am also confused why he now believes the 2’ fence is a tripping hazard. He agreed to
the 2’ fence already.
The privacy argument also makes no sense as the entire pool area stills has the 4’ high
foliage.
We will see you at the next hearing.
Tom
On Mar 2, 2018, at 6:36 PM, Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Hello Tom-
I have conveyed your most recent proposal to Mr. Hudnall and he
is not amenable to this most recent proposal either for the
following reasons:
I still have to put in a 2nd fence
My builder thinks the 2 foot fence is a tripping hazard
Their “point C” isn’t the front of their house as they repeatedly
argued for at the Planning meeting
“Point C” lines up even worse with the pool gate site at the
bottom of the hill. I will be forced to have a more severe zigzag
down the hill to try to match that point with the gate. And as my
builder said, it will make my property look “bad”
It further limits my privacy.
He also stated "I still think the best option for them is a “clear
glass” 5 foot fence on the property line." However, I don't know if
the Oceanfront Estates HOA would approve this type of fence,
and also I don't know exactly what Mr. Hudnall's expectations are
in terms of who would pay for the fence. (Also, I don’t know if the
cost of one 5’ tall glass fence is even comparable to the cost of
the two wrought iron fences he would install per Staff’s
recommendation.) There is also the issue of future maintenance
of a glass fence, i.e., who would agree to keep it clean.
F-117
3
Sincerely,
Amy Seeraty
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
amys@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Vice [mailto:thomasvice@icloud.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2018 8:27 AM
To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: Fence & Trees/Foliage Proposal
Thank you.
> On Mar 1, 2018, at 11:55 AM, Amy Seeraty
<AmyS@rpvca.gov> wrote:
>
> Thank you Tom. I will forward your proposal to Mr. Hudnall
immediately and let you know his response. Thank you.
>
> Amy Seeraty
> Senior Planner
> City of Rancho Palos Verdes
> Community Development Department
> 30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
> Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
> www.rpvca.gov
> amys@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Vice [mailto:thomasvice@icloud.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2018 4:53 AM
> To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>
> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Kim
<kimvice@cfl.rr.com>
> Subject: Re: Fence & Trees/Foliage Proposal
>
> Amy,
>
> We appreciate you trying to find a compromise between Mr.
Hudnall and ourselves.
>
> Our understanding is Mr. Hudnall didn’t feel that a 2’ fence
across the entire top of the eastern slope of his property line
would be adequate in preventing someone from falling over onto
his property, although he was fine with a 2’ fence at the top of the
eastern slope for at least 27 feet.
>
F-118
4
> Although the logic of his argument does not make sense, I have
what I hope to be more than reasonable solution to his remaining
concern.
>
> If you reference the drawing I sent you, I will pay for a 3.5 foot
fence from point A to point C. I will pay for a 2 foot fence from
point C to point B. All costs associated with any downslope
fencing will be paid for by Mr. Hudnall. All downslope fencing must
be no higher that the 3.5 foot and 2 foot fence as viewed from our
lot. I estimate that the cost burden on us will now be in excess of
$12,000.
>
> All foliage/trees remain as in my last compromise. That is, no
taller than 4 feet high on the eastern slope from the south property
line to point C. And 2 feet from point C to the north property line.
>
> At this point we have made numerous concessions to Mr
Hudnall, including offering considerable out of pocket expenses.
We have continued to addressed every possible concern he has
raised. This offering addresses his final remaining concern.
>
> Again, thank you so much for helping to find a reasonable
compromise.
>
> Tom and Kim
>
>
>
>
>
>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 6:50 PM, Amy Seeraty
<AmyS@rpvca.gov> wrote:
>>
>> Hello Tom-
>>
>> Thank you for this information. I will keep you apprised.
>>
>> Amy Seeraty
>> Senior Planner
>> City of Rancho Palos Verdes
>> Community Development Department
>> 30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
>> Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
>> www.rpvca.gov
>> amys@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Tom Vice [mailto:thomasvice@icloud.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 2:46 PM
>> To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>
>> Subject: Fence & Trees/Foliage Proposal
>>
>> Amy
>>
F-119
5
>> Jim Hudnall during the last appeal hearing stated three
concerns: 1) the cost of having to install two fences, the liability of
not having any fence on the top of the eastern slope, and the
privacy of their pool area so they could, in his words, sunbath.
>>
>> Our proposal, satisfies all three of his concerns, while also
preserving as much of our view as possible.
>>
>> We have agreed to pay for a 2-foot fence all along the top of
the eastern slope. We have already received an estimate for the
fence from J&J Fence and Construction company. The cost of the
fence is $7,700.
>>
>> We also state that the trees/foliage on the eastern slope
remain at the 4 foot height above our lot level. This is the same
height as stated in the decision letter.
>>
>> To preserve the view from our primary viewing area, we
propose that the foliage from the south living room wall to the
north property line be maintained to a height no higher than the
top of the 2 foot fence.
>>
>> Kim and I believe this proposal is extremely fair. It absolutely
solves all of the owner’s stated concerns.
>>
>> Below, is the attached proposed agreement, and
accompanying diagram.
>>
>> Thank you
>>
>> Tom
>>
>> <To Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development
Department.docx>
>> <Diagram.tif>
F-120
1
Amy Seeraty
From:Amy Seeraty
Sent:Monday, March 05, 2018 5:32 PM
To:'Kim Vice'
Cc:Tom Vice; Ara Mihranian
Subject:RE: Fence & Trees/Foliage Proposal
Hi Kim-
I realize it was never approved at 5’, I think this was just a possible option to allow you see the view, but I
realize the future maintenance issue.
Amy Seeraty
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
amys@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231
From: Kim Vice [mailto:kimvice@cfl.rr.com]
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 4:40 PM
To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Tom Vice <thomasvice@icloud.com>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: Fence & Trees/Foliage Proposal
Amy where is the 5 feet coming in? It was never approved for 5 feet. Tom and I will discuss but it is not in the HOA as an
approved option and 5 feet is too high. Also there are issues with how to keep it clean or we would never see though
it. Seems to me he would save the cost of not putting in lower fence and is just trying to get us to pay half the cost.
Tom and I will discuss but 5 feet is too high all the way down the whole property. We will let you know tomorrow our
thoughts.
Kim
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 5, 2018, at 7:19 PM, Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Actually, it would probably be a little less money, as the last 25’ could most likely be shorter, as
that is the portion that starts going down the hill.
Amy Seeraty
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
amys@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231
F-121
2
From: Amy Seeraty
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 4:17 PM
To: 'Tom Vice' <thomasvice@icloud.com>
Cc: Kim <kimvice@cfl.rr.com>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: FW: Fence & Trees/Foliage Proposal
Importance: High
Hi Tom-
I heard back from Jim and he stated that he is not amenable to the 3’ tall wrought iron
option. He did let me know the following regarding a potential glass fence. However, as you
may know, this type of fence might not be able to be approved by the HOA.
It’s about $200 / foot which is about 3x the cost of wrought iron. If a glass fence satisfies my pool
requirement, I would pay for 1/2 of a 5 foot glass fence on the property line.
The fence length would be about 207’, so the total cost would be about $41,400, or half would
be $20,700.
Your thoughts? Thank you.
Sincerely,
Amy Seeraty
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
amys@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231
F-122
1
Amy Seeraty
From:Jim Hudnall <jim_hudnall@capgroup.com>
Sent:Monday, March 05, 2018 9:30 AM
To:Amy Seeraty
Cc:'Kyle Robertson (kyle@simich.com)'
Subject:RE: Fence & Trees/Foliage Proposal
Hi Amy,
Sorry I wasn’t able to return your email on Friday. My builder just got back to me about the cost of a glass fence. It’s
about $200 / foot which is about 3x the cost of wrought iron. If a glass fence satisfies my pool requirement, I would pay
for 1/2 of a 5 foot glass fence on the property line.
In terms of Mr. Vice’s “new proposal”, I find his negotiation tactics totally disingenuous. I’m not interested in his
proposal.
From: Amy Seeraty [mailto:AmyS@rpvca.gov]
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 7:54 AM
To: Jim Hudnall (JMAH) <jim_hudnall@capgroup.com>
Cc: 'Kyle Robertson (kyle@simich.com)' <kyle@simich.com>
Subject: RE: Fence & Trees/Foliage Proposal
Importance: High
Hi Jim-
I’m just following up on my email from Friday. Please let me know if you agree or disagree with Mr. Vice’s
latest proposal. It would be helpful if you could let me know as soon as possible, so I can revise the staff
report if needed. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Amy Seeraty
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
amys@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231
From: Amy Seeraty
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2018 3:26 PM
To: 'Jim Hudnall' <jim_hudnall@capgroup.com>
Cc: 'Kyle Robertson (kyle@simich.com)' <kyle@simich.com>
Subject: FW: Fence & Trees/Foliage Proposal
Importance: High
Hi Jim-
F-123
2
Per Tom’s email below, would you be willing to lower the 3.5’ tall section of the fence to 3’ in height? Please
let me know as soon as you can, thank you.
Sincerely,
Amy Seeraty
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
amys@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231
From: Tom Vice [mailto:thomasvice@icloud.com]
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2018 3:24 PM
To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Kim <kimvice@cfl.rr.com>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: Fence & Trees/Foliage Proposal
Amy
One more try.
Is it possible to simply lower the 3.5 foot fence section to 3.0 foot? Everything else remains the same as stated in the
decision letter.
For Mr. Hudnall a 4’ and 3’ fence is a lower cost then the 4’ and 3.5’ foot fence.
There would not be a tripping hazard with 3’.
Tom
F-124
1
Amy Seeraty
From:Tom Vice <thomasvice@icloud.com>
Sent:Tuesday, March 06, 2018 9:25 AM
To:Amy Seeraty
Cc:Kim; Ara Mihranian
Subject:Re: Fence & Trees/Foliage Proposal
Thank you Amy.
On Mar 6, 2018, at 9:52 AM, Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Hello Tom-
Thanks for your email. You can email or dropbox your presentation to me and as long as I have
it by the morning of the meeting, I can make it available to you. You should have a mouse to
use at the podium so you can click through the slides as well.
Thank you,
Amy Seeraty
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
amys@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231
From: Tom Vice [mailto:thomasvice@icloud.com]
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 7:28 PM
To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Kim <kimvice@cfl.rr.com>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: Fence & Trees/Foliage Proposal
Amy
We will see you at the hearing. He is just impossible to work with.
I will be sending you a presentation for this hearing. When do I need to get my presentation to you so it
can be displayed during the meeting?
Thanks
Tom
On Mar 5, 2018, at 6:17 PM, Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Hi Tom-
F-125
2
I heard back from Jim and he stated that he is not amenable to the 3’ tall wrought
iron option. He did let me know the following regarding a potential glass
fence. However, as you may know, this type of fence might not be able to be
approved by the HOA.
It’s about $200 / foot which is about 3x the cost of wrought iron. If a glass fence satisfies
my pool requirement, I would pay for 1/2 of a 5 foot glass fence on the property line.
The fence length would be about 207’, so the total cost would be about $41,400,
or half would be $20,700.
Your thoughts? Thank you.
Sincerely,
Amy Seeraty
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
amys@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231
F-126
1
Amy Seeraty
From:Jim Hudnall <jim_hudnall@capgroup.com>
Sent:Wednesday, March 07, 2018 11:24 AM
To:Amy Seeraty
Cc:'Kyle Robertson (kyle@simich.com)'
Subject:RE: Fence & Trees/Foliage Proposal
Thank you
From: Amy Seeraty [mailto:AmyS@rpvca.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2018 11:12 AM
To: Jim Hudnall (JMAH) <jim_hudnall@capgroup.com>
Cc: 'Kyle Robertson (kyle@simich.com)' <kyle@simich.com>
Subject: RE: Fence & Trees/Foliage Proposal
Hi Jim-
Please note that the Vices are not amenable to the 5’ tall glass fence idea, therefore, we will be proceeding
with the original Director’s recommendation. The Staff Report should be available later today or
tomorrow. Thank you and I’ll see you next Tuesday.
Sincerely,
Amy Seeraty
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
amys@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231
From: Amy Seeraty
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 4:20 PM
To: 'Jim Hudnall' <jim_hudnall@capgroup.com>
Cc: 'Kyle Robertson (kyle@simich.com)' <kyle@simich.com>
Subject: RE: Fence & Trees/Foliage Proposal
Thank you Jim.
Amy Seeraty
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
amys@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231
F-127
2
From: Jim Hudnall [mailto:jim_hudnall@capgroup.com]
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 9:30 AM
To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>
Cc: 'Kyle Robertson (kyle@simich.com)' <kyle@simich.com>
Subject: RE: Fence & Trees/Foliage Proposal
Hi Amy,
Sorry I wasn’t able to return your email on Friday. My builder just got back to me about the cost of a glass fence. It’s
about $200 / foot which is about 3x the cost of wrought iron. If a glass fence satisfies my pool requirement, I would pay
for 1/2 of a 5 foot glass fence on the property line.
In terms of Mr. Vice’s “new proposal”, I find his negotiation tactics totally disingenuous. I’m not interested in his
proposal.
From: Amy Seeraty [mailto:AmyS@rpvca.gov]
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 7:54 AM
To: Jim Hudnall (JMAH) <jim_hudnall@capgroup.com>
Cc: 'Kyle Robertson (kyle@simich.com)' <kyle@simich.com>
Subject: RE: Fence & Trees/Foliage Proposal
Importance: High
Hi Jim-
I’m just following up on my email from Friday. Please let me know if you agree or disagree with Mr. Vice’s
latest proposal. It would be helpful if you could let me know as soon as possible, so I can revise the staff
report if needed. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Amy Seeraty
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
amys@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231
From: Amy Seeraty
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2018 3:26 PM
To: 'Jim Hudnall' <jim_hudnall@capgroup.com>
Cc: 'Kyle Robertson (kyle@simich.com)' <kyle@simich.com>
Subject: FW: Fence & Trees/Foliage Proposal
Importance: High
Hi Jim-
Per Tom’s email below, would you be willing to lower the 3.5’ tall section of the fence to 3’ in height? Please
let me know as soon as you can, thank you.
Sincerely,
F-128
3
Amy Seeraty
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
amys@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231
From: Tom Vice [mailto:thomasvice@icloud.com]
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2018 3:24 PM
To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Kim <kimvice@cfl.rr.com>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: Fence & Trees/Foliage Proposal
Amy
One more try.
Is it possible to simply lower the 3.5 foot fence section to 3.0 foot? Everything else remains the same as stated in the
decision letter.
For Mr. Hudnall a 4’ and 3’ fence is a lower cost then the 4’ and 3.5’ foot fence.
There would not be a tripping hazard with 3’.
Tom
F-129
Approved 2/27/18 /,
r
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 13, 2018
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman James at 7:06 p.m.at the Fred Hesse
Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Emenhiser led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.
ATTENDANCE
Present:Commissioners Bradley, Emenhiser, Leon, Nelson, Tomblin, and Vice
Chairman James.
Absent: None
Also present were Community Development Director Mihranian, Deputy Community
Development Director Kim, Senior Planner Alvarez, Senior Planner Silva, Associate
Planner Nemeth and Assistant City Attorney Gerli.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Approved as presented
COMMUNICATIONS
City Council:
Director Mihranian reported that at the February 6th meeting, the City Council conducted
the annual review for Green Hills Memorial Park and adopted certain amendments to the
Conditions of Approval, and introduced Ordinance No. 605 that expands the definition of
Short Term Rentals to include commercial operations. He added that the City Council will
conduct a special meeting on Thursday, February 15th at 5:00 p.m. to consider certain
appeals filed by Crown Castle; and that at its February 20, 2018 meeting, the City Council
will consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the project at 27581
Palos Verdes Drive East, and will appoint new Planning Commissioners and select the
Planning Commission Chairman.
G-1
Staff:
Director Mihranian reported that 1) An appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of
the Chase Bank on Western Avenue was filed last week by the neighboring property
owner; 2) The League of California Cities will hold its annual Planning Commissioner's
Academy on April 4th in Monterey; 3) Code Enforcement Officer Julie Peterson retired last
week after nearly 30 years of service; and 3) Late correspondence has been provided for
agenda item nos. 3 and 6.
Planning Commission:
Commissioner Bradley inquired about the appeals being considered by the Council at its
February 15th meeting; Commissioner Nelson requested to receive a report on the state's
housing legislation at a future meeting; Vice Chairman James congratulated former Code
Enforcement Officer Julie Peterson on her retirement, congratulated Assistant City
Attorney Elena Gerli on making partner with Aleshire and Wynder, and thanked
Commissioner Emenhiser on his 8 years of service on the Planning Commission and
handed him a gift on behalf of the entire Planning Commission; and Commissioner
Emenhiser expressed his appreciation serving the community while on the Commission,
and thanked his Colleagues and Staff.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Approval of the January 23, 2018 P.C. Minutes
Approved as amended on a vote of 6-0.
2. Approval of the January 30, 2018 P.C. Minutes
Approved as amended on a vote of 6-0.
3. General Plan Update
Deputy Director Kim presented a status report on the progress of the General Plan
update noting that Staff intends to bring the updated General Plan document to the
Commission for its review on March 27th
A discussion ensued between Staff and the Commission regarding additional elements
that will be included in the updated General Plan based on new requirements mandated
by the State.
Director Mihranian noted there will be a special City Council meeting on April 26, 2018 to
consider the updated General Plan recommended by the Planning Commission. He
added that the City Council will be asked to adopt the required environmental document
associated with the update.
Commissioner Emenhiser asked for an explanation of the new Environmental Justice
element that will be added to the updated General Plan.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 13,2018
Page 2
G-2
Assistant City Attorney Gerli gave a brief overview of the meaning and areas affected
particularly how it relates to the City.
Commissioner Nelson moved, seconded by Commissioner Bradley, to receive and
file a status report on the General Plan update, on a vote of 6- 0.
NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS:
4. Amendment to Conditions Of Approval For P.C. Resolution No. 2007-56: (Case
No. VRP2007-00007): 2143 Daladier Drive
Associate Planner Nemeth presented the staff report requesting to amend Condition Nos.
3 and 4 of P.C. Resolution No. 2007-56 to change the view restoration trimming
requirements for Tree Nos. 12 through 15 located at 2143 Daladier Drive. He stated that
the request involves crown raising Pine Tree Nos. 12 and 13 and discontinuing the
method of lacing for Pine Tree Nos. 12 through 15 located at 2143 Daladier Drive.
Discussion ensued between Staff and the Planning Commission on the background of
the conditions of approval, where the viewing area is taken from, and agreement made
between the various parties.
Commissioner Nelson moved, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser, to adopt
P.C. Resolution No. 2018-07; thereby approving a request to amend Conditions
Nos. 3 and 4 of P.C. Resolution No. 2007-56 to change the view restoration trimming
requirements for Tree Nos. 12-15 located at 2143 Daladier Drive upon finding that
all applicable findings of Section 17.02.040(c)(2)(c) of the Municipal Code have
been met on a vote of 6- 0.
Director Mihranian stated there is a 15 day appeal period.
5. Appeal Of Director-Approved Fence/ Vall Permit: (Case No. ZON2016-00377): 32 Via
Del Cielo
Senior Planner Seeraty presented the staff report to overturn the Director's approval of a
Fence/Wall Permit that allows a 3.5' to 4' tall fence at the top of the slope along the east
property line at 32 Via Del Cielo. Staffs presentation compared the seated and standing
views from the view location of the upslope property at 70 Calle Cortada.
Discussion ensued between Staff and the Planning Commission regarding the viewing
area, how the view frame is established, the fence material, and the requirements of the
City's View Ordinance as it relates to whether a view is documented in the seated or
standing position.
Vice Chairman James opened the public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 13,2018
Page 3
G-3
Jim Hudnall, Applicant, addressed the Commission giving historical information of his
property. He presented a PowerPoint presentation on his proposal referring to the tract
conditions pertaining to fencing.
The Commission asked the Applicant questions regarding insurance liability, the
proposed fence height, and the fence material found within the neighborhood.
Tom Vice, Appellant, addressed the Commission with a background of his property and
reasons for moving to the City. He expressed his areas of agreement and areas he is
opposed to with regards to the proposed location and height of the fence stating that he
could support a 2' tall fence within the front yard portions.
A conversation ensued among Commissioners and Staff regarding the two properties,
fence location, viewing positions, and foliage planted on the slope.
Vice Chairman James closed the public hearing to allow the Applicant and Appellant to
discuss a possible compromise with Staff, and then come back to reopen the public
hearing after the next agenda item was completed.
Meeting moved to Agenda Item No. 6
6. Conditional Use Permit Code Amendment: (Case No. ZON2017-00595): City-
Wide
Senior Planner Silva presented the staff report and overview of the current Conditional
Use Permit conditions and to consider amending Section 17.60 (Conditional Use
Permits) of the Development Code clarifying the governing bodies that are able to
conduct annual and update reviews and to require an application fee for such reviews
and updates of Conditional Use Permits.
A discussion ensued among Commissioners and Staff regarding the proposed ordinance
language, the fees the City collects for processing Conditional Use Permit, the number
of Conditional Use Permit applications that have been processed by the City over the
years, the amount of Staff time it takes to process Conditional Use Permit, why the code
amendment was initiated by the City Council, and concerns that such reviews and
updates should be conducted by the Planning Commission rather than burdening the
City Council.
Commissioner Nelson moved, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin, to adopt P.C.
Resolution No. 2018-08, recommending that the City Council adopt proposed
amendments to Chapter 17.60 (Conditional Use Permit) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the
Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code to clarify that the final deciding body, unless
expressly stated in the adopted conditions of approval, shall conduct future
reviews and updates of Conditional Use Permits and that the City Council should
consider establishing a fee to recover City costs for processing such reviews, on
a vote of 5-1 with Commissioner Emenhiser dissenting.
The Planning Commission returned to Agenda Item No. 5
Planning Commission Minutes
February 13, 2018
Page 4
G-4
Vice Chairman James re-opened the public hearing.
Both the Applicant and Appellant updated the Commission on the discussion that
occurred during the break regarding liability, and fence height and location clarifications.
Both parties reported that they were unable to come to an agreement at this time.
Vice Chairman James closed the public hearing.
A discussion ensued among Commissioners and Staff regarding the Director's decision
and whether the points of the appeal were warranted to overturn the decision. The
Commission expressed an interest in seeing the parties work on coming to an agreement
for the Commission's consideration at its next meeting.
Commissioner Emenhiser moved to approve Staff's recommendation, seconded
by Commissioner Tomblin. After discussion ensued between the Commissioners
on the Motion, Commissioner Emenhiser withdrew his motion,which was accepted
by Commissioner Tomblin.
Commissioner Bradley moved, seconded by Commissioner Leon, to continue the
Public Hearing to March 13, 2018 with the Applicant agreeing to extend the Permit
Streamlining Action deadline to March 20, 2018, on a vote of 5-1 with Commissioner
Nelson dissenting.
7. Pre-Agenda for the Meeting On February 27, 2018
Accepted as presented
8. Pre-Agenda for the Meeting On March 13, 2018
Accepted as presented
The meeting was adjourned at 9:21 P.M.
For the complete video archiving of this Planning Commission meeting go to:
http://rpv.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view id=5&clip id=3082 and click on the
agenda item number on the video.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 13,2018
Page 5
G-5
CrrYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
STAFF
REPORT
TO:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
PROJECT
ADDRESS:
APPLICANT/
LANDOWNER:
APPELLANT:
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
ARA MIHRANIAN, DIRECTOR Q ~
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ~
FEBRUARY 13, 2018
APPEAL OF A DIRECTOR-APPROVED
FENCE/WALL PERMIT
(CASE NO. ZON2016-00377)
32 VIA DEL CIELO
JAMES HUDNALL
TOM AND KIM VICE
70 CALLE CORT ADA
STAFF AMY SEERATY ~
COORDINATOR: SENIOR PLANNER I\/
REQUESTED ACTION: OVERTURN THE DIRECTOR'S APPROVAL OF A FENCE/WALL PERMIT THAT
ALLOWS A 3.5' TO 4' TALL FENCE AT THE TOP OF THE SLOPE ALONG THE EAST PROPERTY LINE AT 32
VIA DEL CIELO.
RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2018-_; DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING
THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION TO APPROVE A FENCE/WALL PERMIT ALLOWING A 3.5' TO 4' TALL FENCE AT
THE TOP OF THE SLOPE ALONG THE EAST PROPERTY LINE AT 32 VIA DEL CIELO (CASE NO. ZON2016-
00377).
REFERENCES:
ZONING:
LAND USE:
CODE SECTIONS:
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL -RS-1
RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (RPO)
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
17.02, 17.76.030, 17.80
H-1
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT-(CASE NO. ZON2016-00377)
FEBRUARY 13, 2018
PAGE 2 OF 7
GENERAL PLAN:
TRAILS PLAN:
SPECIFIC PLAN:
CEQA:
ACTION DEADLINE:
RESIDENTIAL S1 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
N/A
N/A
EXEMPT PER SECTION 15303(e) (NEW CONSTRUCTION)
FEBRUARY 20, 2018
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS RESIDING WITHIN 500' OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: NONE
BACKGROUND
On November 10, 2017, the Director of Community Development ("Director") conditionally
approved a Fence/Wall Permit (ZON2016-00377) allowing the installation of a wrought iron
fence at the top of the slope along the east property line at 32 Via Del Cielo {the "Property") . On
November 10, 2017, a written notice of the Director's decision was provided to Applicant and
interested parties, commencing the 15-day appeal period.
On November 22, 2017, a timely appeal was filed by the upslope property owners at 70 Calle
Cortada ("Appellant's Property"), Tom and Kim Vice (the "Appellants") (see attachment).
On January 25, 2018, a public notice was published in the Peninsula News and mailed to all
property owners within a 500-foot radius of the property, providing a 15-day time period for the
submittal of comments. Staff received no public comments in response to the public notice.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The property is located in the Ocean Front Estates tract and was approved by the City as a
Residential Planned Development (RPO) which establishes certain residential zoning and
development standards, such as a reduced lot size from the RS-1 (1 acre lots) zoning district.
The lot is a defined "pad lot" with a slope at the east side of the property that ascends to the
building pad of Appellants' property. The slope is approximately 15' in height.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project involves installation of a wrought iron fence at the top of the slope, along the east
property line abutting the Appellant's property, measuring 3.5' in height for a length of 44' from
the street-side property line, and then 4' in height along the east property line for a length of
163'
A 6' tall pool safety fence was also approved midway down the slope in question, as well as a
42" tall fence along Calle Cortada. Since the tops of these two fences would not exceed the pad
level of the upslope property, the Fence/Wall Permit requirement is not applicable.
DISCUSSION
The Director-approved Fence/Wall Permit allows the installation of a 3.5' to 4' tall wrought iron
fence at the top of the slope along the east property line of the Property . The Director-approved
Staff Report is attached and includes the analysis of the required Fence/Wall Permit findings,
H-2
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT-(CASE NO. ZON2016-00377)
FEBRUARY 13, 2018
PAGE 3 OF 7
letters of concerns, and Staff's responses to these concerns . The Director's approval was
appealed by the upslope abutting neighbor to the east. The reasons for the appeal and Staff's
summarized comments are provided below (Appeal points in bold/underline and Staff's
response in normal font):
Appeal Reason No. 1: The proposed fence will significantly impair the view from a
seated position and a portion of it should not be allowed.
Municipal Code Section 17.76.030(B)(3) describes the findings that must be made for a
Fence/Wall permit to be approved . Subsection (a) states , in part, Views shall be taken from a
standing position, unless the primary viewing area is more suitable to viewing in a seated
position... Based on site visits, Staff found views of the ocean are more suitable from the
standing position, as compared to the seated position, from the Appellants' primary viewing
area. As shown in the photos below, views of the ocean are more visible from the standing
position, as compared to the seated position. From a standing position, the proposed fence
would impair a minimal amount of Appellants ' lower periphery of the ocean view between
existing residences, which Staff do not consider a significant impairment. This is not considered
a significant view impairment because the amount of view that is impaired is very small,
compared to the total extent of the view. Also, the impairment would only be of the ocean, and
not of Catalina Island, which is a significant feature and thus is weighted more heavily.
Below is a photo of Appellants' view from their viewing area which is the living room:
Appellants disagree with Staff's assessment and believe views should be evaluated from a
seated position as they spend a significant amount of time in the living room and outdoor patio
area (west corner of their residence) in a seated position. The outdoor patio area does not
qualify to be the primary viewing area, as greater weight is given to locations within the primary
structure where a view is taken, than to locations outside of the primary structure where a view
is taken, unless no view is taken from within the primary structure . Appellants believe the
proposed fence will cause significant view impairment, and therefore requests that a portion of
the proposed fence be denied. The two photos below compare a section of the view in the same
viewing area in a standing and seated position:
H-3
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT-(CASE NO. ZON2016-00377)
FEBRUARY 13, 2018
PAGE 4 OF 7
Photo of a Portion of a View in a Standing Position Photo taken by Staff) ...
Per the above discussion, Staff believes Appellants' request to deny a portion of the proposed
fence is unwarranted .
Appeal Reason No . 2: The design of the fence could vary from the approved plan so as
to impair more of the view.
Appellants expressed a concern that Applicant may install a different type of wrought iron fence
other than the one approved , thereby impairing even more of their view and suggests specific
design restrictions . Municipal Code Section 17.96.700 states, "Fence" means any structural
device forming a physical barrier which is so constructed that not less than eighty percent of
the vertical surface is open to permit the transmission of light, air or vision through said
surface in a horizontal plane . This includes wire mesh , steel mesh, chain link, louvered glass,
transparent glass, stake and other similar materials. Per Staff's calculations, the proposed
wrought iron fence meets this definition as it would transmit 80% light and air. In addition, to
ensure that Applicant installs the fence design/material approved by the City, the following
H-4
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT-(CASE NO. ZON2016-00377)
FEBRUARY 13, 2018
PAGE 5 OF 7
Conditions Nos . 5 and 9 were included in the Director's approval, and are also included in the
attached Resolution :
5. Pursuant to Section 17. 78. 040, the Community Development Director is authorized to
make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions of approval if
such modifications will achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance
with the approved plans and conditions. Substantial changes to the project shall be
considered a revision and shall require approval by the final body that approved the
original project, which may require new and separate environmental review and public
notification .
9. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be completed
in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the City with the
effective date of this decision .
As a result , any significant change to the approved design is considered a revision , subject to
review by the last decision making body (in this case , the Planning Commission) at a noticed
public hearing (unless appealed to the City Council). Staff believes that the aforementioned
conditions ensure that the fence cannot change unless a revision is processed , and therefore,
this reason for appeal is unwarranted .
Appeal Reason No. 3 1 Trim pepper trees so that they do not exceed the height of the
primary structure and maintain all existing and future foliage at the same height.
Municipal Code Section 17 .76 .030(8)(3)(b) requires that a fence/wall permit may be approved
only if the Director finds: ... all foliage on the applicant's lot which exceeds 16 feet or the
ridgeline of the primary structure, whichever is lower, and impairs a view from the viewing area
of another parcel, as defined in Chapter 17.02 (Single-Family Residential (RS) Districts) or a
view from public property which has been identified in the city's general plan or coastal specific
plan , as a city-designated viewing area, shall be removed prior to permit approval .
On April 24, 2017, Staff measured several pepper trees on the property, and found, although
the top few feet of the tallest trees are over the ridgeline of the primary structure , these portions
of the trees only obscure views of the sky , which is not a protected view per Municipal Code
Section 17 . 02 . 040(A)( 14). Regardless , Appellants request the tops of said trees be trimmed to
comply with the City's Municipal Code. In response, Applicant removed said pepper trees. The
following photos compare a view from the same viewing area before and after the pepper trees
were removed :
Photo taken by Staff (post-removal)
H-5
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT-(CASE NO. ZON2016-00377)
FEBRUARY 13, 2018
PAGE 6 OF 7
Appellants also request planting of additional trees and foliage on Applicant's property that
would impair their views of the ocean, Catalina Island, or Santa Monica Mountains be
prohibited . In response, Condition No . 16 is included in the Director's approval, and has also
been added to the attached resolution:
All landscaping on the easterly slope shall be maintained at a height that does not
exceed the top of the approved fence .
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Applicant 's Response to Appeal
After filing of the appeal, Applicant submitted an email rebutting Appellants' reasons for appeal.
Applicant states all properties in the Oceanfront Estates community have a 5' tall wrought iron
fence along their property lines, except for his property. Condition U.1 of the original City
Council Resolution No. 92-27, which approved the original Oceanfront Estates tract
development, required the installation of a 6' maximum fence along the rear, street side, and
rear yard setbacks (rear and side property lines) of certain properties (not including property.)
While Staff agrees that most of the properties in the tract do have fences in the side yard, tract
conditions do not require fencing along the entire side property lines. Private property owners
installed side yard fences at the time of individual construction of homes for security purposes.
Applicant also states he is forced to install two separate fences, adding additional financial
burden. Applicant is constructing a pool and Building Code requires installation of a minimum 5'
tall fence for safety purposes. Applicant will be installing a fence further down the slope to
satisfy the pool safety requirement. However, Applicant is not required to install a second fence
at the top of this specific slope . Applicant is choosing to install a second fence at the property
line based on concerns regarding his potential liability, should someone fall down the slope and
injure themselves .
Appeal Fees
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17 .80.120, if the Planning Commission grants the appeal,
the entire $2,275 appeal fee will be refunded to Appellants. If an appeal results in a modification
to the project, other than changes specifically requested in the appeal, then % of the appeal fee
shall be refunded to Appellants . If the Planning Commission denies the appeal, the Appellants
will not be refunded any of the appeal fee .
Planning Commission's Dec ision Appealable to the City Council
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17 .80.070, the Planning Commission's decision is
appealable to the City Council. ..
CONCLUSION
Based on the above discussion and the findings attached to the Director-approved staff report,
Staff believes that Appellants' reasons for appeal are unwarranted and recommends that the
H-6
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT-(CASE NO. ZON2016-00377)
FEBRUARY 13, 2018
PAGE70F7
Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the Director's approval of a Fence/Wall
Permit to allow the 3.5' to 4' tall fence at the top of the slope along the east property line at 32
Via Del Cielo, subject to the Conditions of Approval in Exhibit "A" (Case No. ZON2016-00377).
ALTERNATIVES
In addition to Staff's recommendation, the following alternatives are available for the Planning
Commission to consider:
1. Approve the Appeal, thereby overturning the Director's approval of the Fence/Wall
Permit and direct Staff to return with a revised Resolution at the February 27, 2018
meeting .
2 . Modify the Appeal and direct Staff to return to the Planning Commission with a revised
Resolution at the February 27 , 2018 meeting .
3. Identify any issues of concern with the proposed project, provide Staff and/or Applicant
with direction in modifying the project, and continue the public hearing to a date certain .
ATTACHMENTS
• Draft Resolution No. 2018-_
• Appeal Letter and Exhibits received November 22, 2017
• Applicant's Response to Appeal
• Director-Approved Staff Report with Finding Analysis
• Section 17 .76.030(8)
• Fence Plans
• Public Correspondence
H-7
P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2018-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING AN APPEAL AND
UPHOLDING THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION APPROVING A
FENCE/WALL PERMIT (CASE NO. ZON2016-00377) TO ALLOW A
3.5' TO 4' TALL WROUGHT IRON FENCE AT THE TOP OF THE
SLOPE ALONG THE EAST PROPERTY LINE FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 32 VIA DEL CIELO.
WHEREAS, on August 18, 2016, the owner of 32 Via Del Cielo(the "Applicant") submitted a
Fence/Wall Permit application for the construction of a 6' tall wrought iron fence along the top of
their north-easterly side slope at 32 Via Del Cielo (the "Property") ;
WHEREAS , after assessing photos taken from upslope property's viewing area, Staff
advised Applicant there was potential for view impairment and the filing fee for a formal Fence/Wall
permit would be required; and
WHEREAS, on January 30, 2017, Applicant submitted, on behalf of the property owner,
required application filing fee for the formal Fence/Wall Permit; and
WHEREAS, on February 24, 2017, Staff deemed the application complete for processing;
WHEREAS, in April 2017, Applicant notified Staff they wished to revise the proposed fence
plan and, pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act, the processing of the application was suspended;
and
WHEREAS, on May 25, 2017, Applicant submitted a revised plan, and after several rounds
of correspondence with Applicant regarding the revised plan, the project was again deemed
complete for processing on September 13, 2017; and
WHEREAS, on November 10, 2017, the Director of Community Development ("Director")
approved a Fence/Wall Permit (ZON2016-00377) allowing a 3.5' to 4' tall wrought iron fence at the
top of the slope along the east property line of the Property; and
WHEREAS, on November 10, 2017, a written notice of the Director's decision was provided
to all property owners within 500' radius of the subject site in accordance with Rancho Palos Verdes
Municipal Code (RPVMC) Section 17.80.090; and
WHEREAS, on November 22, 2017, Tom and Kim Vice (the "Appellants"), the property
owners of 70 Calle Cortada (Appellants' Property"), filed a timely appeal requesting that the Planning
Commission overturn the Director's decision and modify Applicant's Fence/Wall Permit (the
"Appeal"); and
WHEREAS, the appeal listed the following issues with the Director's decision : 1) the
proposed fence will significantly impair the view at Appellant's Property from a seated position;
2) the design of the fence could vary from the approved plan so as to impair more of the view; 3)
P.C. Resolution No. 2018-
Page 1 of 7
H-8
pepper trees located at the Property on the east slope significantly impair the views of the ocean,
Catalina Island, and Santa Monica mountains from Appellant's Property; and
WHEREAS, on January 25, 2018, pursuant to Section 17.80 .090 of the RPVMC, a 15-day
public notice was provided to all property owners within 500' radius and published in the Palos
Verdes Peninsula News; and
WHEREAS, on February 13, 2018 , the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public
hearing, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present
evidence.
NOW, THEREFORE , THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1:
forth herein .
The above recitals are hereby incorporated into this Resolution as if fully set
Section 2: The proposed project involves installation of a wrought iron fence at the top of
the slope, along the east property line abutting the Appellant's property, measuring 3.5' in height for
a length of 44' from the street-side property line, and then 4' in height along the east property line for
a length of 163'.
Section 3: The Fence/Wall Permit is warranted because :
A. The wrought iron fence would not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another
property or a view from public property which has been identified in the City's General Plan
or Coastal Specific Plans, as a city-designated viewing area . The proposed wrought iron
fence meets the definition of a "fence" per Municipal Code Section 17.96 .700, as it would
transmit 80% light and air per Staff's calculations . The property is located 40'-50' lower in
elevation than the public viewing area within the visual corridor located along Palos Verdes
Drive West as identified in the City 's Coastal Specific Plan , the proposed project would not
be visible from public property .
B. There is no foliage on Applicant's lot which exceeds 16' or the ridgeline of the primary
structure, whichever is lower, that impairs a view, as defined in Municipal Code Section
17.02 .040(A)(14), from the viewing area of another parcel , or a view from public property
which has been identified in the City's General Plan or Coastal Specific Plan, as a city-
designated viewing area .
C. The installation of the wrought iron fence complies with all applicable standards and
requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code and General Plan . Pursuant to
RPVMC Section 17 . 76.030(C)(1 )(b)(i), ... Fences and walls up to seven feet in height shall
be permitted on any part of a lot not subject to subsection (C)(1 )(a) except as restricted by
Section 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility) of this title... In areas where there is a grade
differential of more than 2' between building pads of adjacent lots, the top of the fence
cannot be taller than the building pad of the upslope lot, unless a Fence/Wall Permit is
processed . As a Fence/Wall Permit was processed, the project meets the aforementioned
Municipal Code standards. Additionally, the City's General Plan, Policy No, 14 of the Urban
Environment Element states: Prohibit encroachment on existing scenic views reasonably
P.C . Resolution No . 2018-
Page 2 of 7
H-9
expected by neighboring residents. The 3.5' to 4' tall fence would project into a minimal
amount of ocean view at the lower periphery of Appellant's view frame, while the remainder
of the ocean and Catalina view would be preserved.
Section 4 : The merits of the appeal are not warranted as described below .
A . Appeal Reason No. 1: The proposed fence will significantly impair the view from a seated
position and a portion of it should not be allowed .
Views of the ocean are more visible from a standing position, as compared with a seated position
(either inside the residence or outside on the patio) pursuant to Municipal Code Section
17 .76 .030(8)(3) (a) which states, in part: Views shall be taken from a standing position, unless the
primary viewing area is more suitable to viewing in a seated position ... When the view is observed
from a standing position, the proposed fence would impair a minimal amount of the lower periphery
of the ocean view between existing residences from Appellants' viewing area, which would not be
considered a significant view impairment. Also, the impairment would only be of the ocean , and not
of Catalina Island, which is a significant feature and thus is weighted more heavily . Also, the
outdoor patio area does not qualify to be the primary viewing area, as greater weight is given to
locations within the primary structure where a view is taken, than to locations outside of the primary
structure where a view is taken, unless no view is taken from within the primary structure.
B. Appeal Reason No. 2 : The design of the fence could vary from approved plan so as to
impair more of the view.
The wrought iron fence meets the definition of a fence pursuant to Municipal Code Section
17 .96 .700 , as it would transmit 80% light and air, and to ensure that Applicant installs the fence
design/material approved by the City, Conditions No . 5 and 9 were included in the Director's
approval, and are also included in the attached Resolution:
5. Pursuant to Section 17. 78. 040, the Community Development Director is authorized to
make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions of approval if
such modifications will achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with
the approved plans and conditions . Substantial changes to the project shall be considered a
revision and shall require approval by the final body that approved the original project, which
may require new and separate environmental review and public notification.
9 . Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be completed in
substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the City with the effective date
of this decision.
C. Appeal Reason No . 3: Trim pepper trees located on Applicant's property so that they do not
exceed the height of the primary structure and maintain all existing and future foliage at the
same height.
No trimming of foliage on Applicant's property is required, as Applicant's pepper trees have been
removed, and no other foliage exists on the property which impairs the view from any neighboring
properties. To ensure that the existing and future trees do not impair Appellants' view, Condition No.
16 was included in the Director's approval, and is also included in the attached Resolution that
P.C. Resolution No . 2018-
Page 3 of 7
H-10
requires alt landscaping on the easterly slope shall be maintained at a height that does not exceed
the top of the approved fence.
Section 5: Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public
Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code
of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government
Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), the approval of the
Fence/Wall Permit application will not have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore,
the project has been found to be Categorically Exempt (Section 15303(e)).
Section 6: Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or any portion of this
decision may appeal to the City Council. The appeal shall set forth in writing , the grounds for appeal
and any specific action being requested by Appellant. Any appeal letter must be filed within fifteen
(15) calendar days of the date of this decision, or by 5:30 p.m. Wednesday, February 28, 2018 . A
$2,275.00 appeal fee must accompany any appeal. If no appeal is timely filed, the Planning
Commission's decision shall be final at 5:30 p .m. Wednesday, February 28 , 2018.
Section 7: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included
in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the Planning Commission of the City
of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby adopts P.C . Resolution No . 2018-_, denying the appeal and
upholding the Director's approval of a Fence/Walt Permit allowing a 3.5' to 4' tall wrought iron fence
at the top of the slope along the east property line on the property located at 32 Via Del Cielo,
subject to the conditions as set forth in the attached Exhibit "A".
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 13th day of February 2018, by the following vote:
AYES :
NOES :
ABSTENTIONS :
RECUSALS :
ABSENT:
Ara Mihranian, AICP
Community Development Director; and,
Secretary of the Planning Commission
William J . James
Vice Chair
P .C. Resolution No. 2018-
Page 4 of 7
H-11
EXHIBIT 'A'
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
PLANNING CASE NO. ZON2016-00377
(32 VIA DEL CIELO)
1. Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, Applicant and the property
owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have read, understand, and
agree to all conditions of approval contained in this Exhibit "A". Failure to provide said
written statement within ninety (90) days following the date of this approval shall render this
approval null and void .
2 . Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City, and/or any of its
officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof,
from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other actions and
proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature),
and alternative dispute resolutions procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations,
mediations, and other such procedures) (collectively "Actions"), brought against the City,
and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul,
the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and/or any of its officials, officers,
employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions
approved by the voters of the City), for or concerning the project.
3 . Prior to conducting any work in the public right of way, such as for curb cuts, dumpsters,
temporary improvements and/or permanent improvements, Applicant shall obtain an
encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works.
4 . Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and appropriate
zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws and regulations . Unless
otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Municipal Code shall apply.
5. Pursuant to Section 17.78.040, the Director of Community Development is authorized to
make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions of approval if
such modifications will achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with
the approved plans and conditions. Substantial changes to the project shall be considered a
revision and require approval by the final body that approved the original project, which may
require new and separate environmental review and public notification .
6 . The project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards contained in
these conditions of approval or, if not addressed herein, shall conform to the residential
development standards of the City's Municipal Code, including but not limited to height,
setback and lot coverage standards. Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these
conditions of approval may be cause to revoke the approval of the project pursuant to the
revocation procedures contained in Section 17.86.060 of the City's Municipal Code or
administrative citations as described in Section 1.16 of the City's Municipal Code.
7 . If Applicant has not submitted an application for a building permit for the approved project or
P.C. Resolution No. 2018-
Page 5 of 7
H-12
not commenced the approved project as described in Section 17.86.070 of the City's
Municipal Code within one year of the final effective date of this decision, approval of the
project shall expire and be of no further effect unless, prior to expiration, a written request for
extension is filed with the Community Development Department and approved by the
Director.
8. In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations and/or
requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter standard shall
apply .
9. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be completed in
substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the City with the effective
date of this decision.
10 . This approval is only for the items described within these conditions and identified on the
stamped APPROVED plans and is not an approval of any existing illegal or legal non-
conforming structures on the property, unless the approval of such illegal or legal non-
conforming structure is specifically identified within these conditions or on the stamped
APPROVED plans .
11 . The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall be kept
free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that material used for
immediate construction purposes. Such excess material may include, but not be limited to :
the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap metal, concrete asphalt, piles of earth,
salvage materials, abandoned or discarded furniture, appliances or other household fixtures .
12 . All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly manner, to the
satisfaction of the City 's Building Official. All construction waste and debris resulting from a
construction, alteration or repair project shall be removed on a weekly basis by the
contractor or property owner. Existing or temporary portable bathrooms shall be provided
during construction. Portable bathrooms shall be placed in a location that will minimize
disturbance to the surrounding property owners, to the satisfaction of the City's Building
Official.
13. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 6 :00 PM, Monday through
Friday, 9:00AM to 5:00PM on Saturday, with no construction activity permitted on Sundays
or on the legal holidays specified in Section 17 .96.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes
Development Code . During demolition, construction and/or grading operations, trucks shall
not park, queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining street rights-of-way before
7 AM Monday through Friday and before 9AM on Saturday, in accordance with the permitted
hours of construction stated in this condition. When feasible to do so, the construction
contractor shall provide staging areas on-site to minimize off-site transportation of heavy
construction equipment. These areas shall be located to maximize the distance between
staging activities and neighboring properties, subject to approval by the building official.
Project Specific Conditions:
14. This approval shall allow the construction of wrought iron fence up to 4' in height at the top
of the slope along the east side property line . The 3 .5' tall portion of the fencing will begin at
P.C. Resolution No. 2018-
Page 6 of 7
H-13
the Calle Cortada property line and run 44' south-east towards the rear property line, while
the 4 ' tall portion of the fencing will start where the 3.5' fencing ends, and will run 163' south-
east towards the rear property line of the property, at which point the proposed fence will
connect with the existing perimeter fencing.
15 . All landscaping on the easterly slope shall be maintained at a height that does not exceed
the top of the approved fence.
16 . Pursuant to RPVMC Section 17.48 .070, no fence, wall, hedge, sign, structure, shrubbery,
mound of earth or other visual obstruction over 30 " in height, as measured from the adjacent
street curb elevation, shall be erected, placed, planted or allowed to grow within the
triangular space referred to as the "intersection visibility triangle ".
17 . All fences walls and hedges shall be limited to 3.5' in height within the front yard setback
area, outside of the intersection visibility triangle .
18 . No grading is authorized as a part of this approval.
19 . Construction of the approved project shall substantially comply with the plans originally
stamped APPROVED on February 13, 2018 , with the RS-1 zoning district, the site
development standards of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code , and all Conditions
of Approval for Tract 46628 and CUP No. 158.
P.C. Resolution No . 2018-
Page 7of7
H-14
Tom and Kim Vice
70 Calle Co1iada• Rancho Palos Ve1des. California 90275 • Phone: (661) 609-3033
E-Mail: kimvice"i1cfLrr.com
Date: November 17, 2017
Ara Mihranian
Director of Community Development
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275
Copy: Amy Seeraty, Associate Planner
Dear Ara Mihranian:
We are in receipt of your letter, dated November 10, 2017, regarding the approval, with conditions, of the installation of a
wrought iron fence at the top of the slope along the east property line of the residence at 32 Via Del Cielo. Our property,
70 Calle Cortada, is the abutting upslope property.
This letter is to inform you that we are appealing this decision under the grounds that the views of the ocean, Catalina
Island, and Santa Monica Mountains from our property will be significantly impaired. This letter details the specific areas
that form the grounds of our appeal, as well as the specific actions requested.
It is our belief, that the specific actions that we are requesting will not impact the landowners at 32 Via Del Cielo.
However, the two issues detailed below will have significant ocean, Catalina Island, and Santa Monica mountain view
impairment consequences from our property; effecting the value of our property, and our quality of living that our
beautiful community currently offers.
Grounds for appeal -issue #1
We appreciate the city's approval of a 4' fence from the rear (south) of the property line to a length of 163'. We also
appreciate the drop down from 4' to 3.5' at the 163' point. However, by allowing the 3.5' fence to extend 44' all the way
to the front property line, our views of the ocean, Catalina Island, and Santa Monica mountains will be severely impaired.
The approval of the 3.5' fence all the way to the front (north) property line on top of the upslope was based upon the level
of view impairment from a standing viewing position, as stated in the approval recommendation from Amy Seeraty. The
approval recommendation letter stated, "As the views of the ocean from the viewing area would typically be enjoyed in a
standing position, the view assessment for this application was conducted in a standing position. A viewing area is
established by determining which area of the structure or lot that the best and most important views exists."
The first ground of our appeal, is that the best primary viewing area is more suitable to viewing in a seated position, not in
a standing position. Rancho Palos Verdes' municipal code states "Views shall be taken from a standing position, unless
the primary viewing area is more suitable to viewing in a seated position." It is definitely the case, that the primary
viewing area is more suitable to viewing in a seated position. We spend the vast majority of our time in our living room,
H-15
and on a section of the property lot just off the living area where we have patio chairs and table. The significant amount of
time we spend in these areas is from a seated position, as we enjoy the panoramic and majestic views of the ocean,
Catalina island, and the Santa Monica Mountains for extended periods throughout the day, including late afternoon and at
sunset.
To show the substantial level of viewing impairment and harm that this fence would cause, I constructed a section of a
3.5' wrought iron fence, and placed it at the front of the property line on the east upslope of 32 Via Del Cielo. As you can
see from the included photos, there will be significant impairment of our ocean view if the fence were constructed. You
can also see that the top of the proposed fence exceeds, and many cases blocks, the horizon (sky/ocean) line. Allowing
this fence to be installed would put the entire remaining ocean view below the top of the fence, or completely block the
horizon line.
As just one example as to the significance of the proposed fence, on many afternoons, extending into sunset, our family
sits in our living room, or the outside patio off our living room, and watches the gorgeous California sunsets, often
wondering if we will see the majestic and very brief green flash that sometimes occurs as the sun just touches the
sky/ocean horizon line. If the proposed fence is installed, we will never be able to sit in many of our favorite positions and
watch the sun as it dips down on the horizon -the top rail of the 3.5' fence from several seated viewing positions will now
obscure the sky/ocean line. Throughout the day, as well as at sunset, in the other seated positions the ocean views will be
significantly impaired below the fence height, with much of the viewing area blocked by the type of wrought iron fence
constructed, the fence top rail, down rails, as well as railheads, and ornament leaves.
The approval recommendation letter states, "Additionally, wrought iron fencing is generally designed to allow at least
80% transmission of light, air or vision." We disagree with this as a general statement. In fact, wrought iron fence designs
can, and do, have a significant level of design variability. Wrought iron fencing can vary greatly as to the height
(thickness) of the horizontal top header bar and the width of the vertical bars. Wrought iron fence design vary greatly on
how narrow the distance is between the vertical bars; having a significant influence on the percentage of light, and
viewing allowed through the fence. Wrought iron fence designs also vary significantly with the type and thickness of
railheads, and the size and shape of the ornament leaves on the vertical bars. All of these factors will add significantly to
the already substantially impaired ocean view from our property. It is also the case, that the homeowners at 32 Via Del
Cielo may very likely be highly motivated to allow as little viewing through this fence as possible, as they don't have any
impact to ocean views, like we would. Instead, the homeowners could install the most restricted-opening wrought iron
fence design possible in order to achieve their desire for a complete level of privacy -again, significantly impairing our
views of the ocean, Catalina Island, and Santa Monica mountains.
Specific action request #1 -in regards to issue #1
The specific action we are requesting is to have the proposed fence angled along the upslope from the property at 32 Via
Del Cielo. Our detailed proposed solution is as follows: The fence for the property at 32 Via Del Cielo would start at its
current northern position at the bottom of the upslope, angle up the east upslope in a south/east direction, and intersect
with the top of the upslope property line 20' back from the north upslope property line. See attached figure 1. There would
not be any fencing along the top of the upslope property from the front property line extending south for 20'. At 20' the
3. 5' high fence would run south for 24', then step up to the 4' high and extended south for a length of 163 '.
2 H-16
This solution would represent little if any impact to the homeowners, as little homeowner activity would, could or should
occur on the very steep slope. There is no planned building in this area, and no reasonable concerns over privacy. Making
this minor change would allow us to continue all of the beauty of the ocean views, the beautiful sunsets, Catalina Island,
and the Santa Monica mountains, while it does not result in the landowner at 32 Via Del Cielo to sacrifice any backyard
living area, or privacy. The only change this would represent is a small triangular section of the steep slope on the
north/east upslope of their property would not be in the fenced-in area. This would have little impact to their quality of life
or living/playing backyard area -you can't safely play on the steep slope nor would you want to. But the impact to
installing the fence in this area would have a substantial impact to our quality of life.
Specific action request #2 -in regards to issue #1
As is the condition as specified above in regards to the design of the wrought iron fence, a second specific action being
requested is that the remaining wrought iron fence (4' fence from the south of the property line for 163' and the 3.5' fence
for the next 24') be specified to comply with the following design parameters: Yi inch width for the fence top bar, Yi inch
width for the vertical bars, 5 inch separation between vertical bars, no ornamental leaves on the vertical bars, and any
railheads to comply with 4' and 3.5' height restrictions.
Grounds for appeal -issue #2
The second area is the height of the trees on the property at 32 Via Del Cielo. The municipal code states that all foliage
(that impairs a view from the viewing area of another parcel) on the applicant's lot can not exceed 16 feet or the
ridgeline of the primary structure, whichever is lower. The trees on the slope of the east property line of residence 32
Via Del Cielo significantly exceeds the ridgeline of the primary structure. As seen from the attached photos, the trees
significantly obscure our views of the ocean, Catalina Island, and Santa Monica mountains.
In Amy Seeraty's April 20, 2017 email, it stated "their [homeowners at 32 Via Del Cielo] landscape plan for the
backyard improvements indicates they [the pepper trees] will be removed, but I [Amy Serraty] will still measure them
to see if there are any portions over 16' in height that significantly impair your view. If there are, those portions of the
tree would be trimmed prior to approval of the fence/wall permit." Although the trees exceed 16 feet, the correct
measurement in this case, is the ridgeline of the primary structure as the code actually states that foliage can not exceed
16 feet or the ridgeline of the primary structure, whichever is lower. The trees significantly exceed the ridge of the
primary structure, and have continued to grow significantly since Amy's April site visit.
Since the trees both exceeded a height of 16 feet and the ridgeline of the primary structure, and based upon Amy's
April 20, 2017 email, we expected this issue to be resolved, however, in the conditions for permit approval, received
with your November 10, 2017 letter, it states that "no foliage removal is required." The conditions for permit approval
states that several pepper trees exceeded the ridgeline of the primary structure, but the trees only obscure views the sky .
Although, we and the city both agree that trees exceed both 16' and the ridgeline of the primary structure, we disagree
vigorously with this assertion the trees only obscure views of the sky. From the attached photographs, you can see that
this this is not the case. The pepper trees obscure views of the ocean, Catalina Island, and Santa Monica mountains
from several viewpoints.
3
H-17
Specific action request #1 -in regards to issue #2
We are not requesting as part of this appeal that the pepper trees, or any foliage, be removed. The specific action being
requested is that the heights of the existing pepper trees are brought back within compliance to the existing city
municipal code. Specifically, that the height of the trees do not exceed the ridgeline of the primary structure.
In addition, we are requesting that the trees are maintained so that they are not allowed to grow beyond the ridgeline of
the primary structure.
Specific action request #2 -in regards to issue #2
In addition to maintaining the current trees on the property within existing city code, we are requesting that the specific
action be taken by the city to ensure that no additional trees or foliage are planted on the property, including the slope
on the east property line, of 32 Via Del Cielo, that would block any view of the ocean, Catalina Island, or Santa Monica
mountains.
Thank you for your careful consideration of our appeal.
Sincerely, / / . 1 _-;?~;~~~
Tom and Kim Vice
4 H-18
hGutzE I
I lf 'J.111 h r:1a~ 3.:S' "1./19/r F ~ t~
(31161JJJ ~/$' ~ foe,,;,,, ht-'16
AAJ1> e1erel'llo.S ro ~
1"1u1 LeFr(So~.f"'J AN> E°Krl'Al,r
.fer A I •.11 t#i •.f. ./.r :J'I' fo ""'' I~ 3' rt9l-.1-(1Jor.JI.)
NO /:¥111(/E
INS-rJl1.l.E /)
I~ rN1'
20'see1'il.
f~ !' j.S' JI,,~
F111eE rfOM
t>ll-' L.ocA norJ
&;-
(')#) +i.e eA::s r
ups'-DP~ ~"qles
Vow,., +l1 :5lope
Nor~/~esr To
I IV fer~ t9 e '( \ti 1..fl.l
~e ~~ '~"-•"' '3hrfint
por~ fi o" po,,, T 'f\ -Hie
f>orror-t OF -Hi" s/,,A)pt:.
Ar~e f3of-lo~ Nd<~
po·•l'lT. H-19
H-20
H-21
H-22
H-23
H-24
H-25
H-26
H-27
H-28
H-29
H-30
H-31
H-32
H-33
H-34
H-35
H-36
1
Amy Seeraty
From:Jim Hudnall <jim_hudnall@capgroup.com>
Sent:Wednesday, December 20, 2017 11:18 AM
To:Amy Seeraty
Cc:Kyle Robertson (kyle@simich.com)
Subject:Appeal from 32 Via Del Cielo
Hi Amy,
I’ve thought more about the property line / view issue.
I believe the decision restricting me from fencing my property, to match every other property in the Ocean
Front Estates, was egregious. The only reason I agreed to moved forward abiding by the “two fence” decision
was I thought the decision was the final word on the matter. Since the City is going to hear an appeal from 70
Calle Cortada, I ask the City to hear my appeal at the same hearing.
Facts:
There are 79 lots in the Ocean Front Estates development.
The developers of the Ocean Front Estates placed uniform pillars at the rear
corner of every property (about 2 feet by 2 feet and about 6 feet tall).
Every single property line in the development has a 5 foot wrought iron fence
directly on top of the property line (except for one between 32 Via Del Cielo and
70 Calle Cortada — the fence line in question).
Each fence connects the rear corner pillars with either a pillar on the front corner
of the property, or in-line with a surveyor mark on the sidewalk at the corner of
the property.
There is a 5 foot wrought iron fence with a thick privacy hedge between 70 Calle
Cortada and 68 Calle Cortada (the house immediately to the east / opposite my
house).
In early 2013 the current residents of 70 Calle Cortada fenced in
their back yard with a 5 foot wrought iron fence. The portion of
the fence between 70 Calle Cortada and 32 Via Del Cielo starts at
the rear corner pillar and runs directly on top of the property line
for approximately 40 feet.
70 Calle Cortada was put on the market in Jan 2011.
It sat on the market for almost two years.
It finally sold in Nov 2012 for $2,710,000.
According to public records, 6 properties sold in the Ocean Front Estates in 2012
(High Price $4.8mm Low Price $2.71mm {70 Calle Cortada} Avg Price
$3.6mm)
70 Calle Cortada was listed less than 5 years later for $4.75mm
H-37
2
Argument:
The Ocean Front Estates development is relatively new. The
City’s approval to develop this land was a huge debate for the
community. I assume the City was extremely thorough when
approving the development. The developer clearly designed
the development to be uniform (uniform pillars in every
property corner). Every property in the Ocean Front
Estates is fenced at the property line except for the property
line in question.
The property line on the opposite side of 70 Calle Cortada has a 5 foot wrought
iron fence and thick-opaque hedge. According to 70 Calle Cortada’s argument,
their fence clearly “obstructs the view of 68 Calle Cortada.” How can someone
argue a wrought iron fence will obstruct their view when their wrought fence and
hedge completely obstruct someone else’s view?
In 70 Calle Cortada’s argument, they are very concerned with the style of wrought
iron and the types of plants that will be planted adjacent the fence. The obvious
reason for their concern is their own hedge completely blocks the view of the
ocean from 68 Calle Cortada.
If I don’t put a fence at the top of the hill on the property line and someone falls
down the slope injuring themselves on my property, would I be liable (imagine
someone backing up trying to take a “selfie” picture and losing their
balance)? Could the City be liable if they force me put a fence further down the
hill?
If I’m forced to put in two fences, it will add $25,000+ to
the cost of the fence. Why should I be forced absorb the
cost of two fences?
The 70 Calle Cortada house sat on the market for much longer than average and
sold at a discount to the average house in the neighborhood because any
reasonable person could recognize there would be a fence on the property line.
The house was put on the market less than 5 years later and marked up almost
100%, clearly pointing to the owner’s unrealistic determination of this property’s
value.
A “property-line fence” isn’t going to diminish the property’s value. “The
market” set the valuation in 2011 and 2012 when the house sat on the market for
nearly two years. Because “the market” assumed there would be a fence, the
house sold at a discount in 2012 and for that same reason, the house is going to
sell at a discount if/when it sells again.
Their appeal claims they love their view from their living room. If they love it so
much, why are they moving? And, if they are no longer going to be members of
our community, why should they receive special treatment?
I suggest they pay for a 5 foot glass fence that satisfies my pool fence requirement.
Can you please point me to the official appeal application? I’ll have my check ready.
H-38
3
Thanks,
Jim Hudnall
From: Amy Seeraty [mailto:AmyS@rpvca.gov]
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2017 11:17 AM
To: 'Kyle Robertson' <kyle@simich.com>
Cc: Jim Hudnall (JMAH) <jim_hudnall@capgroup.com>
Subject: RE: Notice of Decision and Staff Report for 32 Via Del Cielo
Importance: High
Hello Kyle-
I received the attached appeal letter and fee on Wednesday 11/22. I have scheduled the
appeal hearing at the Planning Commission for January 23rd, but I would like to meet with you
sometime in the next couple of weeks to talk to you about the attached appeal letter and the
neighbor’s suggestions. Please let me know when you are free, perhaps sometime later this
week or early next week. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Amy Seeraty
Associate Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
amys@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231
From: Amy Seeraty
Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 1:02 PM
To: 'Kyle Robertson' <kyle@simich.com>; 'jim_hudnall@capgroup.com' <jim_hudnall@capgroup.com>
Subject: FW: Notice of Decision and Staff Report for 32 Via Del Cielo
Hello‐
Please note the email below I received yesterday. I will follow up with you both early next week
regarding the next steps.
Sincerely,
Amy Seeraty
From: Kim Vice [mailto:kimvice@cfl.rr.com]
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 5:27 PM
To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: Notice of Decision and Staff Report for 32 Via Del Cielo
H-39
4
Amy,
We will be sending a letter of appeal as well as our appeal fee by the due date. We want to let you know
of our intent ASAP.
Thank you,
Tom and Kim Vice
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 10, 2017, at 3:58 PM, Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Hello Kim-
Please see the attached Notice of Decision and Staff Report for the 32 Via Del
Cielo proposed fence. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Amy Seeraty
Associate Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
amys@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231
<NOD and SR.pdf>
H-40
17.76.030 - Fences, walls and hedges.
A. Purpose. These standards provide for the construction of fences, walls and hedges as required for
privacy and for protection against hazardous conditions, dangerous visual obstruction at street
intersection and unnecessary impairment of views.
B. Fence/Wall Permit.
1. Permit Required. A fence/wall permit shall be required for any fence or wall placed within the rear
yard or side yard setback adjacent to any contiguous or abutting parcel (as determined by the
director), except as specified below:
a. Fences or walls located where the grade differential between the building pads of adjacent
lots, measured perpendicular to the boundary between the two properties contiguous to or
abutting the fence, wall or hedge, is two feet or less in elevation; or
b. Fences or walls where the subject lot is located upslope of any property contiguous to or
abutting the location of the fence, wall or hedge; or
c. Fences or walls when the top of the fence or wall is at a lower elevation than that of the pad
of the upslope lot.
2. Initial Site Visit. Upon submittal of an application and a site inspection fee, as established by
resolution of the city council, the director, or his/her representative, shall conduct an initial site
visit in order to determine the type of application process that is required, as follows:
a. If based on the initial site inspection, the director is able to determine that there will be no
view impairment to an adjacent property owner caused by the proposed new fence or wall
and the director can make the finding described in Section 17.76.030(B)(3)(b), the fence/wall
permit shall be approved. Notice of said approval shall be sent to the property owners
adjacent to the subject property, pursuant to Section 17.80.040 (Notice of Decision by
Director) of this title. An adjacent property owner may appeal the director's decision to the
planning commission pursuant to Section 17.80.050 (Appeal to Planning Commission) of
this title. The decision of the planning commission may be appealed to the city council
pursuant to Section 17.80.070 (Appeal to City Council) of this title.
b. If the director is unable to determine that no view impairment will be caused by the proposed
new fence or wall, the applicant shall pay the remainder of the application fee established
by the city council and the application shall be reviewed as described in subsection (B)(3) of
this section.
3. Findings. A fence/wall permit may be approved only if the director finds as follows:
a. That the fence or wall would not significantly impair a view from the viewing area, as defined
in Chapter 17.02 (Single-Family Residential (RS) Districts), of another property or a view
from public property which has been identified in the city's general plan or coastal specific
plan, as a city-designated viewing area. Views shall be taken from a standing position, unless
the primary viewing area is more suitable to viewing in a seated position;
b. That all foliage on the applicant's lot which exceeds 16 feet or the ridgeline of the primary
structure, whichever is lower, and impairs a view from the viewing area of another parcel, as
defined in Chapter 17.02 (Single-Family Residential (RS) Districts) or a view from public
property which has been identified in the city's general plan or coastal specific plan, as a
city-designated viewing area, shall be removed prior to permit approval. This requirement
shall not apply where removal of the foliage would constitute an unreasonable invasion of
the privacy of the occupants of the property on which the foliage exists and there is no
method by which the property owner can create such privacy through some other means
permitted by this title that does not impair a view from viewing area of another property;
c. That placement or construction of the fence or wall shall comply with all applicable standards
and requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code and general plan;
H-41
d. Notwithstanding finding (a) of this subsection (B)(3), the applicant's request shall be
approved if the director determines that findings of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section
listed above can be made and either:
i. Denial would constitute an unreasonable invasion of the privacy of the occupants of the
applicant's property and there is no method by which the property owner can create
such privacy through some other means permitted by this title that would not
significantly impair a view from a viewing area of another property; or
ii. Denial would prevent compliance with the swimming pool fencing requirements
contained in subsection (F)(3) of this section and there is no reasonable method to
comply with subsection (F)(3) of this section that would not significantly impair a view
from a viewing area of another property.
4. Notice of Decision. The notice of decision of a fence/wall permit made pursuant to Section
17.76.030(B)(3) shall be given to the applicant and to all owners of property adjacent to the
subject property. Notice of denial shall be given only to the applicant. Any interested person may
appeal the director's decision to the planning commission pursuant to Section 17.80.050 (Appeal
to Planning Commission) of this title.
5. This decision of the planning commission may be appealed to the city council pursuant to Section
17.80.070 (Appeal to City Council) of this title.
6. The director, the planning commission and city council may impose such conditions on the
approval of a permit as are necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare and to carry
out the purpose and intent of this section.
7. In the case of conflict between the provisions of this section and other provisions of the
development code or the building code, the most restrictive provisions apply.
C. Fence, Walls and Hedges Allowed Without a Permit. Unless restricted by conditions imposed through
a fence/wall permit issued pursuant to subsection B of this Section 17.76.030 (Fences, Walls and
Hedges) which meet the following requirements shall be allowed without a permit:
1. Residential Zoning Districts.
a. Fences, walls and hedges located within the front yard setback area shall meet the following
standards:
i. Up to 42 inches in height shall be permitted, except as restricted by the intersection
visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility) of this title;
ii. When combined with a retaining wall, the total height may not exceed 42 inches, except
as further restricted by the intersection visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070
(Intersection Visibility) of this title; and
iii. When located within the front yard of a flag lot and the front property line of the flag lot
abuts the rear or interior side property line of an adjacent lot, up to seven feet in height
shall be permitted, except for the first 20 feet of the access way ("pole"), as measured
from the location where the pole abuts the street of access, in which case fences and
walls shall be limited to 42 inches in height.
b. Fences, walls and hedges not subject to subsection (C)(1)(a) of this section shall meet the
following standards:
i. Fences and walls up to seven feet in height shall be permitted on any part of a lot not
subject to subsection (C)(1)(a) except as restricted by Section 17.48.070 (Intersection
Visibility) of this title;
ii. Hedges shall be permitted on any part of a lot not subject to subsection (C)(1)(a), to a
height that does not significantly impair a view from surrounding property, as described
in Chapter 17.02 (Single-Family Residential (RS) Districts), unless the director
determines that a specific hedge height is needed to prevent the unreasonable invasion
H-42
of privacy of the hedge owner and there is no other method by which the hedge owner
can protect their privacy;
iii. When combined, the total height of a fence, freestanding wall or retaining wall may not
exceed eight feet, as measured from grade on the lower side, and may not exceed
seven feet, as measured from grade on the higher side;
c. Temporary construction fences, as defined in Chapter 17.96 (Definitions), up to seven feet
in height may be located within front or street side setback areas, pursuant to the temporary
construction fencing provisions of Section 17.56.020(C) of this title.
2. Nonresidential Zoning Districts.
a. Fences, walls and hedges located within the front yard and street-side setback areas shall
meet the following standards:
i. Up to 42 inches in height shall be permitted, except as restricted by the intersection
visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility) of this title;
ii. When combined with a retaining wall, the total height may not exceed 42 inches in the
front or street-side setback areas, except as restricted by the intersection visibility
requirements of Section 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility) of this title; and
b. Fences/walls located behind front and street-side setbacks shall meet the following
standards:
i. Up to seven feet in height shall be permitted on any part of a lot behind the front or
street-side setback areas, except as restricted by the intersection visibility requirements
of Section 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility) of this title;
ii. When combined with a fence, the total height may not exceed eight feet, as measured
from grade on the lower side and may not exceed seven feet as measured from grade
on the higher side;
c. Temporary construction fences, as defined in Chapter 17.96 (Definitions), up to seven feet
in height may be located within front or street side setback areas, pursuant to the temporary
construction fencing provisions of Section 17.56.020(C) of this title.
D. Fences, Walls and Hedges—Permitted With a Minor Exception Permit.
1. The following fences, walls and hedges shall be permitted subject to the approval of a minor
exception permit pursuant to Chapter 17.66 (Minor Exception Permits):
a. Fences, as defined in Chapter 17.96 (Definitions), higher than 42 inches and up to seven
feet in height located in the front setback areas; provided, the area between the street and
any such fence is landscaped, per a plan approved by the director of community
development;
b. A fence or wall, or any combination thereof, located outside of a front yard setback area
which does not exceed 11½ feet in height as measured from grade on the lower side and
seven feet in height as measured from grade on the higher side;
c. Fences higher than seven feet and up to ten feet in height and not within the required setback
areas or a combination of a three and one-half foot retaining wall and recreational fencing of
ten feet in height for downslope and side yard fencing for tennis courts or similar recreational
facilities. The fence above the seven-foot height shall be constructed of wire mesh, or similar
material, capable of admitting at least 80 percent light as measured on a reputable light
meter.
2. In addition to the review criteria listed in Chapter 17.66 (Minor Exception Permits), the director of
planning shall use but not be limited to the following criteria in assessing such an application:
a. The height of the fence or wall will not be detrimental to the public safety and welfare;
H-43
b. The line of sight over or through the fence is adequate for safety and does not significantly
impair a view from the viewing area of an adjacent parcel as defined in Section 17.02.040
(View Preservation and Restoration) of this title;
c. On corner lots, intersection visibility as identified in Section 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility)
of this title is not obstructed; and
d. The height of the retaining portion does not exceed the grading limits set forth in Section
17.76.040 (Grading Permit) of this title.
E. Hedges Permitted Within the Front Yard Setback. Hedges (not fences, walls or combination thereof)
that exceed 42 inches in height are allowed within the front-yard setback, including the intersection
visibility triangle, provided that:
1. No portion of the hedge will exceed six feet in height;
2. The location and/or height of the existing or proposed hedge exceeding 42 inches allows for the
safe view of on-coming vehicular traffic and pedestrians by a driver exiting his or her driveway
and does not cause a visual impairment that would adversely affect the public health, as
determined by the director of public works; and
3. The height of the hedge exceeding 42 inches does not significantly impair a view from the viewing
area of residential parcel as defined in Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration) of
this title.
4. The property owner submits a complete application and fee for a site plan review permit and
obtains approval of said permit. The approval of said permit shall include a condition of approval
that specifies the hedge's permitted height above 42 inches and that the hedge shall be
maintained at said height.
5. Hedges that exceed 30 inches in height and are located within the intersection visibility triangle
shall be reviewed pursuant to the criteria set forth in Section 17.48.070(D).
F. General Regulations.
1. Fences, walls and hedges shall be measured as a single unit if built or planted within three feet
of each other, as measured from their closest points, unless at least one of the fences, walls or
hedges is located on an adjoining lot held under separate ownership. Perpendicular returns
connecting two or more parallel walls or fences shall not be considered portions of the wall or
fence for purposes of determining whether or not the fences or walls are a single unit.
2. Retaining walls may exceed the height limits of this section; provided, a grading permit is
approved pursuant to Section 17.76.040 (Grading Permit) of this title.
3. Fences or Walls—Required. All pools, spas and standing bodies of water 18 inches or more in
depth shall be enclosed by a structure and/or a fence or wall not less than five feet in height
measured from the outside ground level at a point 12 inches horizontal from the base of the fence
or wall. Any gate or door to the outside shall be equipped with a self-closing device and a self-
latching device located not less than four feet above the ground. Such fences, walls and gates
shall meet city specifications and shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the city's building
official.
4. The use of barbed wire is prohibited unless required by any law or regulation of the state or federal
government or any agency thereof. Electrified fencing may only be allowed for the keeping of
animals pursuant to Chapter 17.46 (Equestrian Overlay (Q) District) of this title. All electrified
fences shall contain a warning sign, posted in a visible location, warning that an electrified fence
is in use.
5. Chain link, chicken wire and fiberglass fences are prohibited in front yards between the front
property line and the exterior facade of the existing single-family residence closest to the front
property line, in side yards between the street-side property line and the exterior facade of the
existing single-family residence closest to the street side property line, and within a rear yard
setback which abuts the following arterial streets identified in the city's general plan:
H-44
a. Crenshaw Boulevard;
b. Crest Road;
c. Hawthorne Boulevard;
d. Highridge Road;
e. Miraleste Drive;
f. Palos Verdes Drive East;
g. Palos Verdes Drive North;
h. Palos Verdes Drive South;
i. Palos Verdes Drive West; and
j. Silver Spur Road.
6. Replacement of Privately Owned Fences and Walls along Arterial Streets. Any existing fence or
wall that is part of an existing uniform fence or wall design and is located within a rear yard setback
of a private property located along any of the arterial streets listed in Section 17.76.030(F)(5) shall
be replaced or repaired at the same height and location and with the same materials and color
as the original uniform fence or wall, to the satisfaction of the community development director.
(Amended during 11-97 supplement; Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997: Ord. 254 §§ 2—4, 1990; Ord.
194 § 10 (part), 1985; Ord. 175 §§ 14—18, 1983; Ord. 150 §§ 15, 16, 1982; Ord. 132 § 3 (part),
1980; Ord. 90 § 5 (part), 1977; Ord. 75 (part), 1975)
(Ord. No. 510, §§ 13, 14, 16, 6-29-10; Ord. No. 540, § 6, 11-20-12; Ord. No. 546, § 1, 4-1-14;
Ord. No. 559U, § 1, 6-17-14; Ord. No. 560, § 1, 7-15-14)
H-45
..
~-b
~--=.:..:....,,,. -..... ..-...... -.. -..--. 1'.a....--c-ill~~--.. ....., .... tl'_.
..,._vatf'&......,._cr..,~~ ....... .._
z..--.Trlll*Alim.tTlee:!W ._
~ .. ::::-*~4=-~m;;~ ~~~---
a.._....._. .... .,_M' .. --~---.. ,....-.~~ r.r .. ~~.,... .... -ai...f........, 1fJ'•I'
'-PmllDif........-tllll-PllDT•..,._ -.......... ~ ............ ·---___ .._._,..,_~, ....
&.a..l'f9c"u .. _...........,. . .,,
·~:=-.. w::1~~~~-;::::o...--LV.....~.._lllr'ldla; ts ...... mwa..cm-._ .... .-..... 0.-------...... ll'llN ••• 1:1. PR.r..w•ilac -Clilllllm.,...~f7ar
7.ACll;IMll~....._atlNlt;ll .. • c...-.....---,...,.,_...a..ri ..... C,,,....LI ra•
lf.-#'-~~~~~--''--~~~~""""Yof91o1 .... .......,,_ •t.--.·1 :.==-~~;.=~
'----'--=----· ... -......... 11D.~~·..-.
.. ~m~-Y....,..·WMlllllll~ T11,
lb.Mlrldi'a~ ............ .QA~~ ~.,,,..
c.~ ............ ~ r .. r
u.-..~•.-.••..-.i .. ~,...... ....... ~ -o...t..,....... ..... Nlill(llJ •a..4
k..~--........ .vn, ......... 1m.~ .. ,..
L~-U..k:idili'"'0 U. ..... ll'\lll~· .. r .. ._._,....~~"'I f'1tf' .... ~~~-~ ~ ... '~ ............ ...,.._ .. a.lnAll!~t.t~•"
................. 1
..~.,._,.I ·•"*'v'~U ~-·
u.~c..Mdul •~,_.anit:w;1.,._'D ,,..
:.c~o.:::-~~.::~~ ~=-=-~...-...~~) ::~.
11.~....-:1 __ _
............... lrclli9.,.,..._ .... ~ 2'•U'
14.Lotir~~l t*f;J
a.c..tlllil.,......,. ....... ....., ............. ~ l"lll'
.. ......,_~--""-o.en'"""-1 U"JW' .. u .... ~·m~r-r ... w .... -.~ .. --
tl.81».~'-·'-.. -----........... u..iw.....,~1 1r.1r
--~..: ... 'f==-·~._..,,.fd:lo., .... t.-Dro.c.
.v......,.........,.....,,.t"J'(lll 1r.1r
v. vi.-; .... ---vt.8llpgiilo---. ......... , ............. J ••1fl
.............................. tro.c..
__,.._,_ .. BllC n.llMr• ..... IDlle...._,
"<i:-9~._. .... ..___....._., ra12 --...
--_ ........ r..-:t .. ~-----_,..,... ......
~an...-_....._.
~"""..._ ......................... ,,,~~,.... ...
,o ,_~_. ,a,_....~~ (UllJ•....._..,.._,.._._...._ ..... lllr-C..-...Z...D
OJ •._ ...... ,,..._ ..,. __ ...... _1119118
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
--
,..:;.-D.eos
-~ -
-,7-t,1,,..,.c
v.,,rr::r' .. o" --_ _,
L-8
GP --
H-46
~.,72-. \\tCr ~ c..~
1<..~ ~ ero~:;-
Upper Property
Top of Fence
Propen:y Line
4'
Upper property
Pad elevation
H-47
?/ 2... ~ \I), \;>El.-c 'et.:t:>
1<-W ~ ~o~~-
.. a
-------~ --,~~-----...--------
' t ' ~ t I ~
• • I ~ 4 •
.
H-48
..1
~
-
~ -
--
~ --.....
-.....
...... ---"'
-,..
-
~ T I
J
-I --l
---.....
-,I\ ,...
----
i:: "" 1-3 'O 0 0 -'O 'O
~ Ill Ill .., '1 IC 0
0 ...
'O Ill ., Ill ... --0 fl, Ill . 'O ::i ... -Ill .... 0 ., -Ill
"" -'< ... ::i ., 0
--'O 0 "" DI B
fl,
..... -
~ ._.
, . ..
LI
/ I.
-f_ 1
H
-
4
9
1
Amy Seeraty
Subject:FW: visit property?
From: Kim Vice [mailto:kimvice@cfl.rr.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2018 11:09 AM
To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: visit property?
Amy,
Our neighbors have now planted trees along their entire hill and it is our concern they are going to slow them to grow
tall and again block the ocean view, and Catalina views. We outlined their trees as one of our issues in the appeal. They
do not maintain them as you saw by the old trees. They pulled those four out and planted a ton more. Very frustrating.
When you do come out, please look at them.
Thank you,
Kim
Sent from my iPhone
H-50
1
Amy Seeraty
Subject:FW: visit property?
Amy Seeraty
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
amys@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231
From: Kim Vice [mailto:kimvice@cfl.rr.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2018 11:12 AM
To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: visit property?
I sent you a note about those trees. It’s now a bigger concern as they let them go unruly and planted a ton smaller ones
but they will grow larger. This can’t happen.
Yes I’ll be there Monday. Any time Monday is good. Just let me know.
Thank you
Kim
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 1, 2018, at 11:53 AM, Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Hi Kim-
I would like to take some photos which match your photos below of the pepper trees, to see
what the difference is since the trees were removed. Will you still be there on Monday and if so,
would sometime on Monday 2/5 work for you to meet with me? Thank you.
<image001.jpg>
Amy Seeraty
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
amys@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231
From: Kim Vice [mailto:kimvice@cfl.rr.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2018 9:13 AM
H-51
2
To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: visit property?
Amy,
We will be there Saturday. We would like to be there so we understand what view your taking. Sitting
or standing and what views in light of the appeal. Any day next week will work.
Thank you,
Kim
Sent from my iPhone
H-52
I
-
1
I
-
2
I
-
3
I
-
4
I
-
5
I
-
6
I
-
7
I
-
8
I
-
9
I
-
1
0
I
-
1
1
I
-
1
2
I
-
1
3
I
-
1
4
I
-
1
5
J
-
1
..
~-b
~--=.:..:....,,,. -..... ..-...... -.. -..--. 1'.a....--c-ill~~--.. ....., .... tl'_.
..,._vatf'&......,._cr..,~~ ....... .._
z..--.Trlll*Alim.tTlee:!W ._
~ .. ::::-*~4=-~m;;~ ~~~---
a.._....._. .... .,_M' .. --~---.. ,....-.~~ r.r .. ~~.,... .... -ai...f........, 1fJ'•I'
'-PmllDif........-tllll-PllDT•..,._ -.......... ~ ............ ·---___ .._._,..,_~, ....
&.a..l'f9c"u .. _...........,. . .,,
·~:=-.. w::1~~~~-;::::o...--LV.....~.._lllr'ldla; ts ...... mwa..cm-._ .... .-..... 0.-------...... ll'llN ••• 1:1. PR.r..w•ilac -Clilllllm.,...~f7ar
7.ACll;IMll~....._atlNlt;ll .. • c...-.....---,...,.,_...a..ri ..... C,,,....LI ra•
lf.-#'-~~~~~--''--~~~~""""Yof91o1 .... .......,,_ •t.--.·1 :.==-~~;.=~
'----'--=----· ... -......... 11D.~~·..-.
.. ~m~-Y....,..·WMlllllll~ T11,
lb.Mlrldi'a~ ............ .QA~~ ~.,,,..
c.~ ............ ~ r .. r
u.-..~•.-.••..-.i .. ~,...... ....... ~ -o...t..,....... ..... Nlill(llJ •a..4
k..~--........ .vn, ......... 1m.~ .. ,..
L~-U..k:idili'"'0 U. ..... ll'\lll~· .. r .. ._._,....~~"'I f'1tf' .... ~~~-~ ~ ... '~ ............ ...,.._ .. a.lnAll!~t.t~•"
................. 1
..~.,._,.I ·•"*'v'~U ~-·
u.~c..Mdul •~,_.anit:w;1.,._'D ,,..
:.c~o.:::-~~.::~~ ~=-=-~...-...~~) ::~.
11.~....-:1 __ _
............... lrclli9.,.,..._ .... ~ 2'•U'
14.Lotir~~l t*f;J
a.c..tlllil.,......,. ....... ....., ............. ~ l"lll'
.. ......,_~--""-o.en'"""-1 U"JW' .. u .... ~·m~r-r ... w .... -.~ .. --
tl.81».~'-·'-.. -----........... u..iw.....,~1 1r.1r
--~..: ... 'f==-·~._..,,.fd:lo., .... t.-Dro.c.
.v......,.........,.....,,.t"J'(lll 1r.1r
v. vi.-; .... ---vt.8llpgiilo---. ......... , ............. J ••1fl
.............................. tro.c..
__,.._,_ .. BllC n.llMr• ..... IDlle...._,
"<i:-9~._. .... ..___....._., ra12 --...
--_ ........ r..-:t .. ~-----_,..,... ......
~an...-_....._.
~"""..._ ......................... ,,,~~,.... ...
,o ,_~_. ,a,_....~~ (UllJ•....._..,.._,.._._...._ ..... lllr-C..-...Z...D
OJ •._ ...... ,,..._ ..,. __ ...... _1119118
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
--
,..:;.-D.eos
-~ -
-,7-t,1,,..,.c
v.,,rr::r' .. o" --_ _,
L-8
GP --
K-1
~.,72-. \\tCr ~ c..~
1<..~ ~ ero~:;-
Upper Property
Top of Fence
Propen:y Line
4'
Upper property
Pad elevation
K-2
?/ 2... ~ \I), \;>El.-c 'et.:t:>
1<-W ~ ~o~~-
.. a
-------~ --,~~-----...--------
' t ' ~ t I ~
• • I ~ 4 •
.
K-3
..1
~
-
~ -
--
~ --.....
-.....
...... ---"'
-,..
-
~ T I
J
-I --l
---.....
-,I\ ,...
----
i:: "" 1-3 'O 0 0 -'O 'O
~ Ill Ill .., '1 IC 0
0 ...
'O Ill ., Ill ... --0 fl, Ill . 'O ::i ... -Ill .... 0 ., -Ill
"" -'< ... ::i ., 0
--'O 0 "" DI B
fl,
..... -
~ ._.
, . ..
LI
/ I.
-f_ 1
K
-
4
1
Amy Seeraty
From:Jim Hudnall <jim_hudnall@capgroup.com>
Sent:Friday, March 23, 2018 12:47 PM
To:Ara Mihranian; Amy Seeraty
Cc:Kyle Robertson (kyle@simich.com)
Subject:RE: Start the Fence
Thank you. That’s good to know.
From: Ara Mihranian [mailto:AraM@rpvca.gov]
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 12:41 PM
To: Jim Hudnall (JMAH) <jim_hudnall@capgroup.com>; Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Kyle Robertson (kyle@simich.com) <kyle@simich.com>
Subject: RE: Start the Fence
Jim,
You can always file your appeal with the City and if the matter is resolved before the City Council
meeting, we would provide you with a full refund.
I am hopeful that you and your neighbor can come to an agreeable resolution, and we are here to
assist.
Ara Michael Mihranian
Community Development Director
___________________________________
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpvca.gov
www.rpvca.gov
Do you really need to print this e-mail?
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from
disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If
you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
L-1
2
From: Jim Hudnall [mailto:jim_hudnall@capgroup.com]
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 11:47 AM
To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Kyle Robertson (kyle@simich.com) <kyle@simich.com>
Subject: RE: Start the Fence
Thanks for getting back to me.
Please let them know that my offer to work with them ends on Monday March 26th at noon PST. At that point, I’m going
to retain my lawyer and file my appeal for a 5 foot fence across the top of the property line.
Hope you have a great weekend!
All the best,
Jim Hudnall
From: Amy Seeraty [mailto:AmyS@rpvca.gov]
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 10:44 AM
To: Jim Hudnall (JMAH) <jim_hudnall@capgroup.com>
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Kyle Robertson (kyle@simich.com) <kyle@simich.com>
Subject: Re: Start the Fence
Hi Jim‐
So sorry for the delay. They did email me back and said that they would consider it. I realize that it was originally their
idea, but they are now deciding how to proceed. I will let you know any updates as soon as I receive them.
Sincerely,
Amy Seeraty
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 23, 2018, at 9:50 AM, Jim Hudnall <jim_hudnall@capgroup.com> wrote:
Hi Amy,
Do you know what the delay is?
From: Amy Seeraty [mailto:AmyS@rpvca.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 8:59 AM
To: Jim Hudnall (JMAH) <jim_hudnall@capgroup.com>
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; 'Kyle Robertson (kyle@simich.com)' <kyle@simich.com>
Subject: RE: Start the Fence
Hi Jim-
No worries, thanks for the explanation. I’ll forward your proposal to Kim and Tom and see if
they will accept it. I haven’t received their appeal yet.
Sincerely,
L-2
3
Amy Seeraty
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
amys@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231
From: Jim Hudnall [mailto:jim_hudnall@capgroup.com]
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 2:23 PM
To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; 'Kyle Robertson (kyle@simich.com)' <kyle@simich.com>
Subject: RE: Start the Fence
Hi Amy,
Sorry. I didn’t mean in any way that you took their side or my side. What I meant to say is that the
result of the Staff’s decision was either side got what they wanted, which is typically how a negotiation
ends.
I started interviewing lawyers to represent me at the City Council meeting. I believe that I can pay a
specialist on the hill to research and find the document that states all of the property lines in the Ocean
Front Estates are equal and should have a uniform 5 foot wrought iron fence on them. That process is
going to cost a bunch of money. Before I open the check book again, I looked back at their last
proposal. It is for a 4 foot fence where Staff had a 4 foot fence and a 3 foot fence where staff had a 3.5
foot fence. To avoid further costs, I would accept that proposal.
Thank you,
Jim Hudnall
203-550-8557
From: Amy Seeraty [mailto:AmyS@rpvca.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 3:43 PM
To: Jim Hudnall (JMAH) <jim_hudnall@capgroup.com>
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; 'Kyle Robertson (kyle@simich.com)' <kyle@simich.com>
Subject: RE: Start the Fence
Hi Jim‐
I'm sorry that you were not happy with the PC's decision. Please note that the City did not negotiate for
Calle Cortada, as I initially assessed your request for a 6’ tall fence solely per the Municipal Code
requirements, and found, through my view analysis, that only a 3.5‐4’ tall fence would not significantly
impair the view from the upslope property. And per their appeal, the Appellants were not happy with
the Director’s recommendation either.
Please see the attached Notice of Decision, which summarizes the appeal process. The appeal to the
City Council is the same process as the appeal to the PC, in that you would need to submit an appeal
letter detailing your reasons for the appeal and why you believe the decision should be overturned
L-3
4
and/or changed, along with the $2,275 appeal fee. You may wish to review the code for the findings
required for the approval of a Fence/Wall permit, (link below) as that is only what the PC and the
Council can use in making their decisions. For example, if you believe a taller fence won’t significantly
impair the Vice’s view, you need to convince the Council of that.
Please also note that the earliest City Council meeting date currently available is May 15th. Please let
me know if that date would work for you. Thank you.
https://library.municode.com/ca/rancho_palos_verdes/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT17ZO_A
RTVIIDEAPRE_CH17.76MIPEST_17.76.030FEWAHE
Sincerely,
Amy Seeraty
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
amys@rpvca.gov ‐ (310) 544‐5231
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Jim Hudnall [mailto:jim_hudnall@capgroup.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 11:15 AM
To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; 'Kyle Robertson (kyle@simich.com)' <kyle@simich.com>
Subject: RE: Start the Fence
Thanks for the prompt response.
I'm sure Mrs. Vice called very early. She lives in Florida where it's 3 hours ahead of Pacific Standard
Time.
I was disappointed last night. The Planning Commission seemed to miss an obvious fact. They kept
talking about the two side negotiating an outcome. My fence permit asked for a 5foot wrought iron
fence that ran the length of my property (like every other home in the development). The Staff reject
my ask. The Staff's approval did the negotiating for 70 Calle Cortada. The approval forces me to put in
two fences. It forces me to have a 4foot and 3.5foot fence. I certainly was not happy with the
decision. It adds $20‐25k in costs to my project. It forces me to do something different to my property
than any other property in our uniform development. It opens me up to liability. It restricts my
privacy. It makes my family and my property less safe. I guess I didn't do a good job of stating my
case.
I assume that since they are taking their appeal to the City Council, that I also should have to right to
appeal the Staff's decision. My home should have a 5 foot wrought iron fence around it and if the City
Council is going to hear their appeal, they should hear mine.
Please let me know how I start the appeal process.
Thanks again,
L-4
5
Jim
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Amy Seeraty [mailto:AmyS@rpvca.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 10:16 AM
To: Jim Hudnall (JMAH) <jim_hudnall@capgroup.com>
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; 'Kyle Robertson (kyle@simich.com)' <kyle@simich.com>
Subject: RE: Start the Fence
Hi Jim‐
Thanks for your email and for attending the meeting last night. Although the PC technically denied the
appeal due to the tie vote, that decision is still appealable to the City Council, and there is a 15‐day
appeal period during which the Vices can appeal; the permit is not finalized until all appeals/appeal
periods are exhausted.
Please also note that I received a voicemail from Kim Vice today informing me that they will be
submitting an appeal to the City Council, so once that comes in, I will be scheduling that meeting date
with you and the Vices.
All that is to say that you should not install your fence yet, as the Fence/Wall Permit decision is not yet
final. I'll keep you apprised of the status of your permit and when and if the next appeal is submitted.
Sincerely,
Amy Seeraty
Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Jim Hudnall [mailto:jim_hudnall@capgroup.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 9:55 AM
To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Start the Fence
Good Morning!
I'm ready to start my fence. Can you confirm I'm good to start?
Thanks,
Jim Hudnall
203‐550‐8557
L-5
1
Amy Seeraty
From:Jim Hudnall <jim_hudnall@capgroup.com>
Sent:Tuesday, March 27, 2018 1:42 PM
To:Amy Seeraty
Cc:'Kyle Robertson (kyle@simich.com)'; Ara Mihranian
Subject:RE: fence permit
Hi Amy,
I got pulled into a work meeting that I couldn’t get out today and my son’s baseball team plays tonight, so I will not have
time to stop by the City with the appeal fee. I will be there tomorrow.
Thanks again for your help,
Jim
From: Amy Seeraty [mailto:AmyS@rpvca.gov]
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 3:16 PM
To: Jim Hudnall (JMAH) <jim_hudnall@capgroup.com>
Cc: 'Kyle Robertson (kyle@simich.com)' <kyle@simich.com>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: fence permit
Hi Jim-
I am still trying to coordinate a phone call with the Director and the Vices to see if anything can be worked out.
They were available this weekend but the Director was not. I’m hoping to set something up for this
week. Please stay tuned, but also feel free to submit your appeal letter and $2,275 fee in the meantime, since
the appeal period will be over at 5:30pm this Wednesday, 3/25. I believe the Vices will be submitting their
appeal shortly as well, but I believe they are still open to discussions. I’ll keep you posted, thank you.
Sincerely,
Amy Seeraty
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
amys@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231
L-6
1
Amy Seeraty
From:Jim Hudnall <jim_hudnall@capgroup.com>
Sent:Thursday, March 29, 2018 2:57 PM
To:Amy Seeraty
Cc:Kyle Robertson (kyle@simich.com); Ara Mihranian
Subject:RE: 32 Via Del Cielo Appeal
Works for me
From: Amy Seeraty [mailto:AmyS@rpvca.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 5:34 PM
To: Jim Hudnall (JMAH) <jim_hudnall@capgroup.com>
Cc: Kyle Robertson (kyle@simich.com) <kyle@simich.com>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: 32 Via Del Cielo Appeal
Thank you Jim. The next available City Council meeting is May 15th so please let me know ASAP if you have
any conflicts with that date. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Amy Seeraty
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
amys@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231
From: Jim Hudnall [mailto:jim_hudnall@capgroup.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 2:27 PM
To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Kyle Robertson (kyle@simich.com) <kyle@simich.com>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: 32 Via Del Cielo Appeal
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1mw7ZZzb7t6uIVqAxeQaPPLvoAdnBO8fP
If the PowerPoint didn’t work, please use this link to see my appeal.
I will be there shortly to pay my fee.
Thank you,
Jim Hudnall
203‐550‐8557
L-7
From: Tom Vice [mailto:thomasvice@icloud.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 5:47 PM
To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Kim Vice <kimvice@cfl.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Fence Height email
Amy
I am in Reno Nevada on Monday. I can call at 2:30 pst. Please provide me a phone number.
Thank you
Tom
On Apr 3, 2018, at 7:05 PM, Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Hi Tom-
How about 2:30pm on Monday 4/9? If that doesn’t work, I’ll send Ara another meeting request. Also, if
that’s not good for you, is there a particular time of day that would work best? I only suggested 5:30
your time because that was the time you had previously suggested. However, I realize that you schedule
may have changed. Please let me know at your earliest convenience, thank you.
Sincerely,
Amy Seeraty
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
amys@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231
From: Tom Vice [mailto:thomasvice@icloud.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 12:16 PM
To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>; Kim Vice <kimvice@cfl.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Fence Height email
Ara
If you can provide a few times and dates I will make one of them work.
On Apr 3, 2018, at 11:31 AM, Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Next week works for me.
Ara Michael Mihranian
Community Development Director
___________________________________
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
L-8
aram@rpvca.gov
www.rpvca.gov
Do you really need to print this e-mail?
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be
privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the
individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If
you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately.
Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
From: Tom Vice [mailto:thomasvice@icloud.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 3, 2018 11:22 AM
To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Kim Vice <kimvice@cfl.rr.com>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: Fence Height email
Amy
I am unfortunately on an airplane headed across the country.
How about early next week?
Tom
On Apr 3, 2018, at 10:21 AM, Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Hi Tom-
Thanks very much for your response. I have checked with the Director and he is only available today, as
he will be out of the office tomorrow through Friday. Are you available to talk today at 2:30 west coast
time, 5:30 east coast time?
If so, please call (310) 544-5227 at that time. Thank you.
Amy Seeraty
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
amys@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231
From: Tom Vice [mailto:thomasvice@icloud.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 9:57 AM
To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Kim Vice <kimvice@cfl.rr.com>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: Fence Height email
Amy
Let me know what days/times this week you and the Director are available for a call. Also let me know a
good number to call.
Thank you
Tom
On Mar 29, 2018, at 4:28 PM, Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Hi Tom-
L-9
I’m sorry that 3:30 didn’t work out for you on Wednesday. I’ll check with the Director regarding his
schedule next week and hopefully we can still touch base early in the week. Thanks!
Sincerely,
Amy Seeraty
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
amys@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231
From: Ara Mihranian
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 8:56 AM
To: 'Tom Vice' <thomasvice@icloud.com>; Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Kim Vice <kimvice@cfl.rr.com>
Subject: RE: Fence Height email
Tom.
I cannot do that time.
How about 3:30 west coast time?
Ara Michael Mihranian
Community Development Director
___________________________________
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpvca.gov
www.rpvca.gov
Do you really need to print this e-mail?
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be
privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the
individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If
you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately.
Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
From: Tom Vice [mailto:thomasvice@icloud.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 8:56 AM
To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Kim Vice <kimvice@cfl.rr.com>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: Fence Height email
Amy
Will 2:30 west coast time work?
Tom
On Mar 27, 2018, at 10:41 AM, Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Hi Tom-
L-10
Thanks for you reply. Please let me know what time would work for you on Wednesday (please specify
east coast or west coast time zone) and I’ll check the Director’s schedule.
-Amy Seeraty
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 26, 2018, at 5:36 PM, Tom Vice <thomasvice@icloud.com> wrote:
Amy
A call would be better. I am Washington DC with our company’s lobbyists.
Do you have any availability later in the day tomorrow.
I did Fedex our appeal letter. It will arrive tomorrow.
Tom
On Mar 26, 2018, at 6:21 PM, Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Hi Tom-
The Director (Ara) let me know he is available around 10am tomorrow (Tuesday) if you are free to come
in to the City to meet with us. We could also talk on the phone, if that is more convenient for you.
Please let me know if you are available either way. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Amy Seeraty
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
amys@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231
From: Amy Seeraty
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 3:13 PM
To: 'Tom Vice' <thomasvice@icloud.com>
Cc: Kim Vice <kimvice@cfl.rr.com>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Fence Height email
Hi Tom-
Ara let me know that he was not available this weekend to talk unfortunately. Are you available any
time this week to talk? Thank you.
Amy Seeraty
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
amys@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231
From: Tom Vice [mailto:thomasvice@icloud.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2018 12:20 PM
To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>
L-11
Cc: Kim Vice <kimvice@cfl.rr.com>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: Fence Height email
Amy,
I wanted to let you know that I have not received any call.
Tom
On Mar 23, 2018, at 2:49 PM, Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Hello Tom-
I was speaking with the Director this week about the fence issue and he said he would like to speak with
you about the project. If you are amenable to this, please give me a phone number where he could
reach you and I will forward it to him. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Amy Seeraty
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
amys@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231
From: Amy Seeraty
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 9:18 AM
To: 'Tom Vice' <thomasvice@icloud.com>
Cc: Kim Vice <kimvice@cfl.rr.com>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Fence Height email
Thank you Tom. I look forward to hearing from you.
Amy Seeraty
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
amys@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231
From: Tom Vice [mailto:thomasvice@icloud.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 9:17 AM
To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Kim Vice <kimvice@cfl.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Fence Height email
Amy
We are in the process of writing our appeal letter to the city, as well as consulting legal subject matter
experts.
I will let you know which way we go before the appeal deadline.
Tom
On Mar 20, 2018, at 9:11 AM, Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> wrote:
L-12
Hello Kim and Tom-
I just received the following email from Jim:
I looked back at their last proposal. It is for a 4 foot fence where Staff had a 4 foot fence and a 3 foot
fence where staff had a 3.5 foot fence. To avoid further costs, I would accept that proposal.
Thank you,
Jim Hudnall
I also attached your email where you proposed this option. If you are still amenable to this option, I
think it would be helpful for everyone to move forward from this issue. Please let me know at your
earliest convenience if you would still accept this option. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Amy Seeraty
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
amys@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231
L-13
From: Amy Seeraty
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2018 7:12 AM
To: 'Tom Vice' <thomasvice@icloud.com>
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Appeal Receipt
Good Morning Tom-
Thank you for letting me know.
Sincerely,
Amy Seeraty
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
amys@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231
From: Tom Vice [mailto:thomasvice@icloud.com]
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2018 8:27 PM
To: Amy Seeraty
Cc: Ara Mihranian
Subject: Re: Appeal Receipt
Amy
Kim and I will proceed with our appeal to the city council.
Thank you
Tom
On Apr 26, 2018, at 1:40 PM, Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Tomorrow is fine. Thanks Tom.
Amy Seeraty
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
amys@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231
L-14
From: Tom Vice [mailto:thomasvice@icloud.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2018 1:40 PM
To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: Appeal Receipt
Amy
Sorry for the delay.
Is it possible to give you our final answer tomorrow? Kim and I haven’t had the chance to discuss given
my intense business travel.
Tom
On Apr 26, 2018, at 1:32 PM, Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Hi Tom-
I just wanted to follow up on your emails below to see if you could provide me with any updates
regarding whether or not you are considering to withdraw your appeal. Please let me know at
your earliest convenience. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Amy Seeraty
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
amys@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231
From: Amy Seeraty
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 1:59 PM
To: 'Tom Vice' <thomasvice@icloud.com>
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Kim Vice <kimvice@cfl.rr.com>
Subject: RE: Appeal Receipt
Correct.
Amy Seeraty
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
amys@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231
L-15
From: Tom Vice [mailto:thomasvice@icloud.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 1:14 PM
To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Kim Vice <kimvice@cfl.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Appeal Receipt
Amy
The 3’ fence would replace the entire 3.5’ fence section that was part of the original city’s decision,
correct?
Tom
On Apr 25, 2018, at 11:08 AM, Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Hi Tom-
I just wanted to follow up on your emails and my responses below. Per the answers I provided,
i.e., that Mr. Hudnall is ok with a 3’ fence in that last portion closer to the street, and that he will
maintain the foliage at the height of the fence, are you considering accepting this change and
withdrawing your appeal? I do need to know as soon as possible, as I will be finishing up the
staff report in the next couple of days. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Amy Seeraty
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
amys@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231
From: Amy Seeraty
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 1:57 PM
To: 'Tom Vice' <thomasvice@icloud.com>
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Kim Vice <kimvice@cfl.rr.com>
Subject: RE: Appeal Receipt
Hi Tom-
I believe this would be the case, as that is the condition per the original Director’s decision.
Amy Seeraty
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
L-16
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
amys@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231
From: Tom Vice [mailto:thomasvice@icloud.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 1:53 PM
To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Kim Vice <kimvice@cfl.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Appeal Receipt
Amy
Thank you.
Under this arrangement, the foliage would be required to be no taller than the 4’ fence and the 3’ fence,
correct?
Tom
On Apr 19, 2018, at 3:49 PM, Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Hi Tom-
Thank you for your email. As of March 19th, Mr. Hudnall was ok with 3’ for that last portion of
fence, rather than the 3.5’ that the City approved.
Sincerely,
Amy Seeraty
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
amys@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231
From: Tom Vice [mailto:thomasvice@icloud.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 1:05 PM
To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Kim Vice <kimvice@cfl.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Appeal Receipt
Amy
Thank you. Mr. Hudnall was amenable to 3’, correct?
L-17
Tom
On Apr 18, 2018, at 12:15 PM, Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Thanks Ara.
Also, Kim and Tom, Ara and I spoke with Mr. Hudnall, and he is not amenable to a portion of the
fence being 2’ tall. So we will be proceeding to the May 15th City Council meeting. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Amy Seeraty
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
amys@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231
From: Ara Mihranian
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 8:04 PM
To: 'Kim Vice' <kimvice@cfl.rr.com>; Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Tom Vice Personal <thomasvice@icloud.com>
Subject: RE: Appeal Receipt
May 15th.
Ara
From: Kim Vice [mailto:kimvice@cfl.rr.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 7:33 PM
To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Tom Vice Personal <thomasvice@icloud.com>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: Appeal Receipt
Amy,
Do you have the City Council meeting date for our planning?
Thank you,
Kim and Tom Vice
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 27, 2018, at 6:18 PM, Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Hi Tom & Kim-
L-18
Thank you for your letter and check. Please see the attached receipt. I’ll be able to confirm the
City Council hearing date by this Thursday, but it will likely be sometime in May, either the 1st or
the 15th.
Sincerely,
Amy Seeraty
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
amys@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231
L-19
From: Jim Hudnall [mailto:jim_hudnall@capgroup.com]
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2018 2:28 PM
To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Fence Appeal Update/Question
Great … thanks
From: Amy Seeraty [mailto:AmyS@rpvca.gov]
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2018 2:21 PM
To: Jim Hudnall (JMAH)
Cc: Ara Mihranian
Subject: RE: Fence Appeal Update/Question
Hi Jim-
He did finally get back to me today and decided to not re-entertain the 4’ and 3’ idea. So I will be going
to the City Council meeting on 5/15 and presenting the Vice’s appeal reasons, as well as your appeal
reasons. The location (Hesse Park) and the time (7pm) are the same as the PC. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Amy Seeraty
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
amys@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231
From: Jim Hudnall [mailto:jim_hudnall@capgroup.com]
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2018 2:19 PM
To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Fence Appeal Update/Question
Hi Amy,
Sorry, I was out of the office on Friday just getting thru old emails. This is such an odd email. I take it he
didn’t come back to you?
From: Amy Seeraty [mailto:AmyS@rpvca.gov]
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2018 9:00 AM
To: Jim Hudnall (JMAH) <jim_hudnall@capgroup.com>
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Fence Appeal Update/Question
L-20
Hi Jim-
I have been getting questions from Mr. Vice this week regarding whether you would still be ok
with a fence measuring 3’ in height for a length of 44’ from the street-side property line, and then
4’ in height along the east property line for a length of 163’, and maintaining the foliage to the
same height. Since I believe you were amenable to that previous option, I am asking if you would
still be ok with those heights. It sounds like Mr. Vice may be again considering that option, and
withdrawing the appeal, but I don’t know for sure yet, as he said he would follow up with me today.
If he agrees to the 4’ and 3’, and allowing the foliage to grow up to the same height as the adjacent
portion of fence, would you also be willing to withdraw your appeal? Please let me know at your
earliest convenience. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Amy Seeraty
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
amys@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231
L-21
From: Jim Hudnall [mailto:jim_hudnall@capgroup.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2018 7:50 AM
To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: City Question
Thank you!
From: Amy Seeraty [mailto:AmyS@rpvca.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2018 4:50 PM
To: Jim Hudnall (JMAH)
Subject: RE: City Question
Hi Jim-
It was Carol Lynch, with Richards, Watson and Gershon.
Amy Seeraty
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
amys@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231
From: Jim Hudnall [mailto:jim_hudnall@capgroup.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2018 10:52 AM
To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>
Subject: City Question
Do you know who the City Attorney was that negotiated the Ocean Front Estates development? Or do
you know how I could find out?
L-22