20110419 Late CorrespondenceTO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
APRIL 19,2011
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO
AGENDA**
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented
for tonight's meeting:
Item No.
6
8
10
Respectfully submitted,
Description of Material
Email exchange between Senior Planner Schon born and
Martin Dodell
Revised agreement for Founders Park
Email exchange between Senior Planner Schon born and
Madeline Ryan
&~
Carla Morreale
**PLEASE NOTE:Materials attached after the color page were submitted through
Monday,April 18,2011**.
W:\AGENDA\2011 Additions Revisions to agendas\20110419 additions revisions to agenda.doc
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
EduardoS [EduardoS@rpv.com]
Tuesday,April 19,2011 9:41 AM
'Carla Morreale'
'Teri Takaoka'
FW:Attention:JOEL ROJAS
Eduardo Schonborn,aicp
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
ph:310-544-5228
fax:310-544-5293
-----Original Message-----
From:EduardoS [mailto:EduardoS@rpv.com]
Sent:Monday,April 18,2011 2:49 PM
To:'mdodell@verizon.net'
Cc:'Joel Rojas';'Greg PIost';'Tom Odom';'Katie Howe'
Subject:RE:Attention:JOEL ROJAS
Hello Mr.Dodell,
Thank you for your comments.The City is aware of this sensitive issue that surrounds the
proposed Grandview park project and the adjacent property owner in PVE.Staff will inform
the consultant about the situation so that all involved approach this issue with tact and
diplomacy.
Sincerely,
Eduardo Schonborn,aicp
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
ph:310-544-5228
fax:310-544-5293
-----Original Message-----
From:Martin Dodell [mailto:mdodell@verizon.net]
Sent:Monday,April 18,2011 1:57 PM
To:planning@rpv.com
Subject:Fwd:Attention:JOEL ROJAS
Apr 18,2011 11:39:01 AM,mdodell@verizon.net wrote:
Good morning Mr.Rojas,
I'm writing in regards to the contract for Willdan Engineering and
wish to point out one item that I believe should have extra attention.The
item is #2(d)PHOTO VIEW SIMULATIONS as regards Grandview Park.
Area homeowners are concerned that the privacy of the resident
living in Palos Verdes Estates along the northern border of the site be
absolutely assured so that there is no negative backlash from that
homeowner.Rrior staff photos used in the initial report showed view sites
1
I of a-.
directly overlooking and looking into the homeowner's rear property and
tennis court.The homeowner,Chopra,has clearly stated that he would do all
things necessary to protect his privacy including extensive tree plantings
in the adjacent city.My concern is that should that happen,then well over
a dozen homeowners in RPV will loose their views and be powerless to change
the situation.
I therefore urge you to impress on all contractors and designers
that a deep and extremely dense barrier be established along the northern
boundary which overlooks the Chopra property and assures his privacy.This
will demonstrate the City's commitment to being a good neighbor to residents
of the entire area.The Photo Simulation creators should keep in mind the
need for that privacy when establishing their views.
Thank you for your attention,
Martin Dodell
5751 Capeswood Dr.
RPV
310-375-5038 (home)
310-619-4526 (cell)
CrTYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL
TOM ODOM,DIRECTOR,RECREATION AND PARKsC1lf)
DEPUTY DIRECTOR,PUBLIC WORKS U -
APRIL 19,2011
LATE CORRESPONDENCE:FOUNDERS PARK AGREEMENT TERM
AMENDMENT
The attached 18-month agreement for management of rentals at Founders Park has a
revised term of September 17,2011 through March 16,2013.The 18-month agreement
originally submitted for consideration at tonight's City Council Meeting had a term of April
19,2011 -October 19,2012.This amendment prevents an overlap between the existing
term and the new term.
J Df 10
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
AGREEMENT FOR:
Management of Rentals at Founders Park
THIS AGREEMENT ("Agreement")is made and entered this 19th day of April,2011 by
and between the CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES (hereinafter referred to as "City"),
and VH PROPERTY CORP.(hereinafter referred to as "Contractor")with respect to the
following facts and circumstances:the purpose of this Agreement is to memorialize the
procedures and policies pertaining to the cooperative agreement between City and
Contractor to manage events that are held at Founders Park.
1.Scope of Services.Contractor shall assist City with the management of rentals at
Founders Park.The responsibilities of Contractor and City are set forth Exhibit "A"
hereto,which is incorporated herein by this reference.
2.Term.The Agreement shall commence on September 17,2011,provided the
Certificates of Insurance are current on that date,and end on March 16,2013,unless
sooner terminated pursuant to Section 8 of this Agreement.
3.Compensation.City shall remit payment to Contractor for services provided in
connection with the rental of Founders Park,pursuant to the terms of Exhibit "A."
4.Independent Contractor.Contractor is and shall at all times remain,as to the City,a
wholly independent contractor.Neither the City nor any of its agents shall have control
over the conduct of Contractor or any of the Contractor's employees,except as herein
set forth,and Contractor is free to dispose of all portions of its time and activities which
it is not obligated to devote to the City in such a manner and to such persons,firms,or
corporations at the Contractor wishes except as expressly provided in this Agreement.
Contractor shall have no power to incur any debt,obligation,or liability on behalf of the
City or otherwise act on behalf of the City as an agent.Contractor shall not,at any time
or in any manner,represent that it or any of its agents,servants or employees,are in
any manner agents,servants or employees of City.Contractor agrees to pay all
required taxes on amounts paid to Contractor under this Agreement,and to indemnify
and hold the City harmless from any and all taxes,assessments,penalties,and interest
asserted against the City by reason of the independent contractor relationship created
by this Agreement.Contractor shall fully comply with the workers'compensation law
regarding Contractor and its employees.Contractor further agrees to indemnify and
hold the City harmless from any failure of Contractor to comply with applicable workers'
compensation laws.The City shall have the right to offset against the amount of any
fees due to Contractor under this Agreement any amount due to the City from
Contractor as a result of its failure to promptly pay to the City any reimbursement or
indemnification arising under this Article.
5.Assignment.This agreement may not be assigned by Contractor,in whole or in part,
R6876-0001/1213665-6 1
without the prior written consent of City.Any such purported assignment without City's
written consent shall be null and void,and Contractor shall hold harmless,defend and
indemnify the City and its officers,officials,employees,agents and representatives with
respect to any claim,demand or action arising from any unauthorized assignment.
6.Responsible Principal.For purposes of this Agreement,Contractor's responsible
principal shall be Lili Amini,Interim General Manager,Trump National.The
Responsible Principal set forth herein shall be principally responsible for Contractor's
obligations under this Agreement and shall serve as the principal liaison between City
and Contractor.Designation of another Responsible Principal by Contractor shall not
be made without the prior written consent of City.
7.Personnel.Contractor represents that it has,or will secure at its own expense,all
personnel required to perform the services under this Agreement.All personnel
engaged in the work shall be qualified to perform such services.
8.Termination.This Agreement may be canceled by the City or Contractor at any time
with or without cause and without penalty upon ninety (90)days'prior written notice to
the other party.
9.Labor Law Compliance.Contractor agrees to comply with all California labor law
requirements applicable to this Agreement.
10.Insurance Requirements.The Contractor shall at all time during the term of this
Agreement carry,maintain,and keep in full force and effect,with an insurance company
with a minimum rating of A:VII in the latest edition of Best's Insurance Guide:(1)a
policy or policies of broad-form comprehensive general liability insurance with minimum
limits of $1 ,000,000.00 combined single limit coverage against any injury,death,loss or
damage as a result of wrongful or negligent acts by the Contractor,its officers,
employees,agents,and independent contractors in performance of services under this
Agreement;(2)automotive liability insurance with a minimum combined single limit
coverage of $1 ,000,000.00;and (3)worker's compensation insurance with a minimum
limit of $1 ,000,000.00 or the amount required by law,whichever is greater.The City,its
officers,employees,attorneys,and volunteers shall be named as additional insureds on
the policy (ies) as to comprehensive general liability policy.
a.All insurance policies shall provide that the insurance coverage shall not be non-
renewed,canceled,reduced,or otherwise modified (except through addition of
additional insured to the policy)by the insurance carrier without the insurance carrier
giving the City thirty (30)day's prior written notice thereof.Contractor agrees that it
will not cancel,reduce or otherwise modify said insurance coverage.
b.Contractor agrees that if it does not keep the aforesaid insurance in full force and
effect,the City may take out the necessary insurance and pay the premium thereon,
and the repayment thereof shall be deemed an obligation of the Contractor.
R6876-0001/1213665-6 2
c.Contractor shall submit to the City (1)insurance certificates indicating compliance
with the insurance requirements set forth above,and (2)insurance policy
endorsements,not less than one (1)day prior to beginning of performance under this
Agreement.Endorsements must be executed on the City's appropriate standard form
entitled "Additional Insured Endorsement,"which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B"
and incorporated herein by this reference.
d.Contractor shall require any sub-contractors that perform services pursuant to this
Agreement to maintain insurance coverage that meets all of the requirements of this
Agreement.
e.The insurance provided by Contractor shall be primary to any coverage available to
City.The policies of insurance required by this Agreement shall include provisions
for waiver of subrogation.
11.Indemnification.Each party (the "Indemnifying Party")shall defend,indemnify and hold
harmless the other party and its respective officials,officers,employees,agents and
volunteers (the "Indemnified Party")free and harmless from all tort liability,including
liability for actions,controversies,demands,suits,proceedings,claims,causes of
action,liabilities,losses,costs,interest,penalties,demands,expenses and damages of
any kind,whether actual,alleged or threatened (i'1cluding actual attorneys'fees,
experts'fees and court costs incurred)to the extent arising out of or in any way
connected with the negligent acts or omissions or willful misconduct of the Indemnifying
Party or its respective officials,officers,employees,agents and volunteers in the
performance of this Agreement.This includes but is not limited to claims,suits and
liabilities for bodily injury,death or property damage to any individual or entity,including
those brought forth by officials,officers,employees,agents or volunteers of the
Indemnifying Party.The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to claims to the
extent arising out of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnified Party.
All duties under this Section shall survive termination of this Agreement.
12.Suit;Attorneys'Fees.
a.Should either party to this Agreement bring legal action against the other,the validity,
interpretation,and performance of this Agreement shall be controlled by and
construed under the laws of the State of California,excluding California's choice of
law rules.Venue for any such action relating to this Agreement shall be in the Los
Angeles County Superior Court.
b.If any legal action or other proceeding,including action for declaratory relief,is
brought for the enforcement of this Agreement or because of an alleged dispute,
breach,default or misrepresentation in connection with this Agreement,the prevailing
party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys'fees,experts'fees,and other
costs,in addition to any other relief to which the party may be entitled.
13.Entire Agreement.This Agreement represents the entire integrated agreement
R6876-0001/1213665-6 3
between City and Contractor,and supersedes all prior negotiations,representations or
agreements,either written or oral.This Agreement may be amended only by a written
instrument signed by both City and Contractor.This Agreement shall be construed
without regard to the identity of the persons who drafted its various provisions.Each
and every provision of this Agreement shall be construed as though each of the parties
participated equally in the drafting of same,and any rule of construction that a
document is to be construed against the drafting party shall not be applicable to this
Agreement.
14.Severability.Invalidation of any provision contained herein or the application thereof to
any person or entity by judgment or court order shall in no way affect any of the other
covenants,conditions,restrictions,or provisions hereof,or the application thereof to
any other person or entity,and the same shall remain in full force and effect.
15.Notice.Except as otherwise required by law,any notice,request,direction,demand,
consent,waiver,approval or other communication required or permitted to be given
hereunder shall not be effective unless it is given in writing and shall be delivered (a)in
person or (b)by certified mail,postage prepaid,and addressed to the parties at the
addresses stated below,or at such other address as either party may hereafter notify
the other in writing as aforementioned:
To CITY:
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Attn:Carolyn Lehr
City Manager
To CONSULTANT:
VH Property Corp.
Address:1 Ocean Trails Drive
Address:Rancho Palos Verdes,CA.90275
Attn:Lili Amini,
Interim General Manager,Trump National
A party may change its address by giving written notice to the other party.Thereafter,
any notice or other communication shall be addressed and transmitted to the new
address.If sent by mail,any notice,tender,demand,delivery or other communication
shall be deemed effective three (3)bus,iness days after it has been deposited in the
United States mail.For purposes of communicating these time frames,weekends and
federal,state,religious,County of Los Angeles or CITY holidays shall be excluded.No
communication via facsimile or electronic mail shall be effective to give any such notice
or other communication hereunder.
R6876-0001/1213665-6 4 5 of /0
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties hereto have executed the within Agreement the
day and year first above written.
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ("City")
By:_::--_---:-::--:'_---:-:-:-_
Thomas D.Long,Mayor
ATTEST:
Carla Morreale,City Clerk
By:-----
VH PROPERTY ("Contractor")
By:~_
Print:_
Title:_
By:_
Print:_
Title:_
R6876-0001/1213665-6 5
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
INSTRUCTIONS FOR EXECUTION OF INSTRUMENTS
THIS IS INSTRUCTION ONLY -IT IS NOT TO BE SIGNED OR USED IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OR ANY OTHER FORMS THAT MUST
BE TURNED INTO THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES -IT IS SIMPLY A
FORMAT TO USE WHEN FILLING OUT DOCUMENTS.
1.By an Individual.The individual must sign the instrument,and if he/she is doing
business under a fictitious name,the fictitious name must be set forth.The
signature must be acknowledged before a Notary Public.using the proper form of
acknowledgment.
2.By a Partnership.The name of the partnership must be set forth followed by the
signatures of less than all of the partners will be acceptable only if submitted with
evidence of authority to act on behalf of the partnership.The signatures must be
acknowledged before a Notary Public.using the proper form of acknowledgment.
3.Bya Corporation.The name of the corporation must be set forth,followed by the
signatures of the President or Vice President and Secretary or Assistant Secretary.
The signatures must be acknowledged before a Notary Public.using in substance
the following form of acknowledgment.
4.Bya Surety.The name of the surety must be set forth,followed by an authorized
signature.The signatures must be acknowledged before a Notary Public.using
the proper form of acknowledgment.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
)
)8S.
)
On ,20__,before me,the
undersigned,appeared known to me to be the
______________of the corporation that executed the
within instrument,and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the within
instrument pursuant to its by-laws or a resolution of its City Council.
WITNESS my signature and seal.
Notary Public
(Seal)
6
7 of-ID
EXHIBIT A
City of Rancho Palos Verdes and VH Property
Proposal to Manage Rentals at Founders Park
•Rental Procedure
•Contact Information
•Fees and Pricing
Rental Procedure
City Responsibillties:
1.City recreation staff shall be the initial point of contact for all inquiries about the rental of
Founders Park.Staffwill contact Trump National staffto check availability ofdates and
provide list to potential customer.
2.The customer may make an appointment with City staff for a site visit and discuss the
logistics ofthe event prior to completing and signing an Outdoor Facility Use
Application.A deposit and credit card will be required to reserve the date for rental of
the park facility.(It is highly recommended that a site visit be conducted for purposes of
reviewing City and Trump National policies regarding use of facilities and services.)
3.City staff shall be responsible for any tours ofpark grounds prior to event and on-site
during event to ensure that customer is adhering to all rules,regulations and policies as
specified in rental agreement and/or site visits.
4.PVIC staff shall review the various service fees and facility use fees ($800-photography;
$600-1ocker room;$1 OOIhr-golf cart usage;etc.)with the customer and acquire a
signature acknowledging understanding ofsuch fees along with credit card as described
above.
Trump National Responslbillties:
1.Trump National staff shall refer all rental inquiries for Founders Park to designated City
staff and work cooperatively in the coordination of scheduled events.
2.Trump National shall provide services for event coordination,chairs,golf cart for one
hour,security and clean-up as identified below.
3.Trump National shall manage facility use fees directly with customer ifoptional services
are requested in advance.Trump National staff shall also notify on-site staff when
unauthorized use offacilities is occurring.
Contact Information
Trump National Golf Club Contact:
Director of Sales &Catering
Trump National Golf Club
Direct:310-303-3222
Fax:310-265-5522
bmullen@TrumpNational.com
City of Rancho Palos Verdes Contact:
Holly Starr
Recreation Services Manager
City ofRancho Palos Verdes
Direct:310-544-5264
Fax:310-544-5294
HollyS@rpv.com
FEES FOR SERVICE
Mandatory Costs:
Residents
air ofRPVPricing:
Non-residents
Stafftime*
(event coordination)
Stafftime·*
(event staffing)
City facility permit
Total City Pricing:
Trump National Pricing:
Catering staff time
(coordination w/City)
$81
$252
$420
$753
$250
$81
$252
$750
$1,083
$250
Security guard,chairs (up to 100),
Golf Cart for one hour $558 $558
Cleanup $25 $25
Total Trump National Pricing:$833 $833
TOTAL EVENT PRICING:$1,586 $1,916
9 of Ii)
Optional Services provided by Trump National***:
Photography
Locker Room Facilities
GolfCart &Driver
Audio Technician
Refundable deposit:$300
$800
$600
$100/hr
$518
$800
$600
$100/hr
$518
*Includes customer assistance;scheduling with Trump National staff;additional follow up,and
scheduling with customer.Also includes customer site tour ofFounders Park,processing of
application,review of facility use requirements,processing offee including collecting/remitting
any associated fees to Trump National~and acquiring appropriate signatures.
**Includes coordination of deliveries,staffing event,event logisti~with Trump National and
monitoring compliance offacility use contract and facility rules and regulations.
***Founders Park is a public park that is in use by the public during rental events,and as such
the restrooms adjacent to the golf course are for public use.Trump National Golf Club is a
private facility and access to the property for purposes ofphotography,locker rooms or golf cart
usage (beyond the one hour provided for in the contract)will result in additional charges.
The City will pay $833 per event to Trump National to cover coordination with City stafi,golf
cart for one hour and up to 100 chairs,security guard services,and cleanup fees listed under fees
for services.The City will collect all fees associated with events at Founders Park and will send
Trump National the checks on a quarterly basis with a breakdown ofthe events during the
period.Should the renting party accrue additional charges for optional services provided by
Trump National that were not requested in advance,the difference will be deducted from the
deposit and/or charged to the renting party's credit card and provided to Trump National Golf
Club in the form of a check from the City.Trump National staffwill bring any and all additional
optional services not previously contracted for to the attention ofthe on-site City staff prior to
the renters "checking out"for the day.
Flowers,arches,decorations,and other services approved by the Recreation Services Manager or
his/her designee can be brought to the site by other vendors.
Signature:---:Date:_
For Trump National Golf Course
Signature:---'Date:_
For City of Rancho Palos Verdes
{D 01-10
From:EduardoS [EduardoS@rpv.com]
Sent:Tuesday,April 19,2011 9:40 AM
To:'Carla Morreale'
Cc:'Teri Takaoka'
Subject:FW:Martingale Trailhead Park &Case #SU8201 0-00003
EDUARDO SCHONBORN,AIC:P
SENIOR PLANNER
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne BONlelJard
Ramho Palos Verdes,CA 90215
ph:310-544-5228
fax:310-544-5293
From:Eduardos [mailto:Eduardos@rpv.com]
Sent:Tuesday,April 19,2011 9:37 AM
To:'Madeline Ryan';'daniel pitts'
Cc:'Joel Rojas';'Tom Odom'
Subject:RE:Martingale Trailhead Park &Case #sUB201O-00003
Hi Madeline,
We looked into your question about using the money for restoration of the martingale trail.The Public Works Department is
fine with the idea of directing the money to the martingale trail repair.We can make mention of that at the City Council
meeting,and add it to their department's draft budget.
Sincerely,
EDUARDO SCHONBORN,AICP
SENIOR PlANNER
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne BONlevard
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90215
ph:310-544-5228
{ax:310-544-5293
From:Madeline Ryan [mailto:pvpasofino@yahoo.com]
sent:Monday,April 18,2011 8:39 AM
To:daniel pitts
Cc:Joel Rojas;Eduardo Schon born;'Tom Odom'
Subject:Martingale Trailhead Park &Case #sUB2010-00003
Hello All
Daniel,you informed me in January of this year that the City would be involved in the restoration of Martingale
Trailhead Park.I have to tell you I used this trail yesterday and it was horrific!Today,I shall return on foot.
There hasn't been any clearing of weeds on the trail easement and with the winter/spring rains,they are prolific,
making it impossible to discern where the trail is.There is one section of trail that has failed,it sits just at the very
sharp corner offenceline.So,the sooner the City gets involved,the better.
411912011 ID.
We want very much to begin using this trail once again.It is a critical link to the trails network in the
area.Therefore,please know you have volunteer help to assist the City in getting this trail restored and returned to
the public -it's been over six years!
On a second note,if the CC agrees to accept a $28,000 payment from the homeowner at 6270 Ocean Terrace Drive
(CC Agenda Item #10 -SUB201O-00003)for a portion of that trail easement,can these funds be set aside to be
used towards the restoration of Martingale?
Hope to hear from you in the affirmative regarding this matter as soon as possible.
Madeline Ryan
(310)832-5849
"May the Trails be with you"...Madeline
411912011
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
APRIL 18,2011
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO
AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received
through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday,April 19,2011 City Council meeting:
Item No.
11
Respectfully submitted,
Description of Material
Documents submitted by Rosemarie Di Santo;Emails from:
Sunshine;Madeline Ryan;Letter from LaVon Malin
W:\AGENDA\2011 Additions Revisions to agendas\20110419 additions revisions to agenda through Mondayafternoon.doc
~(\-~"~. I Ilf~'1.R5 Q~c/V<Dt.e>[;~~,;kl+~I-~.I~~I \.&\U\.,Q l-\.ze:>N ~Zo oq -;Dc:>I Z>;;;\?I L~/4se~). .
This has tumed out 0 be mostly an infonnationalletter-mostly a history of legislative intent,applicable law,and -;/.
infonnation on the problems with this project.
Sorry it got so long,but all of this had to be mentioned.
Because Rancho Palos Verdes is on a hill,views are a very important characteristic of a very large number of lots
here.It is a major reason (applies to us here),if not the major reason,people live here.So it is very logical anlf.-\'N~0
necessary that there would be regulations to preserve views.R~Ct:.\t;.
VIEWS ARE PRECIOUS AND IRREPLACEABLE R \.1\1\\'\~\'~OPropositionMpassedbythevotersin1989says:U\\.O\\'tG ~
\Jo.l'l\'t\\'tG,~o~CtN\t"'\
"SECTION 1.PURPOSES ~coOt t\'tf
1.Protects,enhances and perpetuates views available to property owners and visitors because of the uniques
topographical features of the Palos Verdes Peninsula.These views provide unique and irreplaceable assets to the City
and its neighboring communities and provide for this and future generations examples of the unique physical
surroundings which are characteristic of the City.
4.Requires the pruning of dense foliage or tree growth which alone,or in conjunction with construction exceeds
defined limits"
If the protections that are in place are not followed,views will be lost forever one by one,case by case.
Legislative intent:
The overriding principle has been in existence since the 1970's in Ordinance 78,adopted in 1975 and Ordinance 114,
adopted in 1979.
It is this:You can go higher if it does not cause problems with views:
Ordinance 78 (1975)says:A.Procedure Any individual or person desiring to construct a residence exceeding sixteen
feet in height may apply for a Height Variation Penn it,which,if granted pursuant to the procedures contained herein,..
1....if the Director finds as follows:
c.The second story and/or house is situated in such a manner as to minimize view obstruction.
d.The cumulative effect of the proposed structure and existing structures,or future structures of a similar
character which could be constructed in the neighborhood,will not adversely impact the neighborhood view.
Ordinance 114 (1979)says:A.Purpose Any individual or persons desiring to construct a residence or an addition to
an existing residence exceeding sixteen feet in height may apply for a Height Variation Penn it,which,if granted
pursuant to the procedure contained herein,...
B.Procedure
1....if the the Director finds as follows:
b.The proposed structure is designed and situated in such a manner as to minimize view obstruction.
c.A view impainnent for that portion over sixteen feet in high may not significantly impair the primary view
from a property or properties identified as having a view per this section.
f.There is no significant cumulative impact caused by granting the application.
II Page 1 of 5
This was carried over to Proposition M.approved by the voters in 1989:1.Building Height.Any individual or persons
desiring to build a structure or an addition to an existing structure exceeding sixteen feet in height may apply for a
Height Variation Permit.which.if granted pursuant to the procedures contained herein •..•
C.PROCEDURES AND REQUIREMENTS
1.Preservation of views where structures are involved.
(d.)An application to build to a height permitted in section B.1.may be granted with or without,
conditions.if the Director finds as follows:
(4.)The structure is designed and situated in such a manner as to minimize impairment of a view.
(5.)There is no significant cumulative view impairment ...
(6.)The proposed structure.when considered exclusive of existing foliage,does not significantly impair
a·view ...
And now.it is still here in 17.02.040 View preservation and restoration.J:n .B L
About Building Pad:
The phrase "lots with a building pad at a different level than the street"that exists in 17.02.040 View preservation and
restoration B.1.c.was added by Ordinance Number 90,adopted in 1977,not long after the City was incorporated.It is
still here today unchanged after more than 30 years of existence.It is there for a good reason.And it is logical and
inherent that a lot with a building pad at a different level than the street has a slope to it,as is the case here for 21
Cayuse Lane.
Ordinance Number 319 and 320 were both being worked on in the same time period by the City Council and both
ordinances were part of the overhaul of the code that was being done at that time.
Ordinance Number 319.adopted in 1997,made changes to 17.02.040.The changes made to 17.02.040b1a and b
were the addition of "and for which no bUilding pad exists."And the changes to c were putting quotation marks in two
places around the long existing term "building pad"and adding other words to c.
Ordinance Number 319 says:
"Section 4:The City Council finds that the amendments to Section 17.02.040 are consistent with the purposes and
intent of Proposition M in that the amendments to the Proposition M language merely relocate.reorganize or clarify the
Proposition M text.
Section 5.The City CounCil finds that the amendments to Section 17.02.040 are substantially the same as previous
provisions of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code or any other ordinance repealed,amended or superseded upon
the enactment of this ordinance and that the amendments to Section 17.02.040 be construed as a restatement and
continuation of these previous provisions and not as new enactments."
In Ordinance Number 320.adopted in 1997 around the same time Ordinance 319 was adopted,there were changes
made to Chapter 17.96,Definitions,to the sections on Purpose and applicability,Lot,upslope,Lot.downslope,and
Building pad ,and Pad lot was created as follows:
17.96.010 -Purpose and applicability.This chapter provides preCise meaning or significance to a word,phrase or
expression.This chapter applies to Title 16 and Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code.(the second
sentence was added in 1997)
This was added to 17.96.1140 -Lot,upslope and 17.96.1090 -Lot,downslope:''with a slope in excess offive percent
and which does not have a building pad."
This is how they read now:
17.96.1140 -Lot.upslope."Upslope lot"means a lot that slopes upward from the main street of access with a slope in
excess of five percent and which does not have a bUilding pad.
17.96.1090 -Lot,downslope."Downslope lot"means a lot that slopes downward from the main street of access with a
slope in excess of five perc.ent and which does not have a building pad."
This was added to 17.96.320 -"Building pad:"with a slope of 5 percent or less that exists naturally or"and
"contiguous"and "main building."(replacing the word "structure")
This is how it reads now:J--_...;::t
17.96.320 -Building pad."Building pad"mean1.l'¥eqrt!2W0f a Jot with a slope of five percent or less that exists
Page 2 of5
2..
naturally or has been graded to fonn a contiguous level area to accommodate a main building.
17.96.1120 -Lot,pad."Pad lot"means a lot which contains a building pad.
21 Cayuse Lane has a large contiguous flat area (less than 5%slope)that covers about 45 to 50%of the lot.And for
21 Cayuse Lane there is a grading pennit with the years 1963 and 1964 on it that has the word "pad"written on it by
the building official at that time.S~f'x t-\I b;t ~C}pC'lCj ej)..A",d Ovls~..Q.1,t~d;~+3 ((-5~~
It is very dear with all of these layers of code that subsection b.is to be read with the phrase "and for which no ft>'{.
building pad exists"which is written into it.
The part of the code about view preservation and restoration that is now 17.02.040 B.1.c.has always been a "catch all
provision"because it was designed that way on purpose.It has always had "lot configurations not previously
discussed"from when it was created in 1975,not long after the City was incorporated,and is still here unchanged to
this day after more than 35 years.21 Cayuse Lane fits into this category of a different lot configuration.
The proposed structure,which would greatly increase an already great view at 21 Cayuse Lane,would be done at the
expense of the neighbors and their views-an injustice.RPVMC says:1.04.200 -Construction of proVisions ..The
provisiol'§of this Code and all proceedings under it are to b@ constru@d With a view tg daldt jts objegi and to promote
~
There are different ways to design a project so it does not affect the neighbors'views,especially for a property like 21
Cayuse Lane.
Different Lot Configuration with Garage Blocking View Already:
As it is now,the city and mountain views are already pennanently totally obstructed from top to bottom where the
garage is.If the entire roof were removed from the garage,the walls would still be sticking up into the view quite a bit,
about 35 to 40%up into the city view.The garage is the second story of a two story detached structure located at the
front of the property,with the house behind it a distance away at a lower level-an unusual arrangement,and a different
lot configuration,as mentioned in 17.02.040 B.1.c.
Height of Proposed Project:
The proposed structure outlined by the silhouette (flags and poles)takes out the city view from where it begins to
where it ends-the base of the mountains to the bottom of where it is in the city of Torrance."S-~...;;~t{:,.'taph~&i.
There are three different stories proposed,and three stories stacked one on top of the other as part of the proposed
project which would take out our views.In Proposition M,approved by the voters in 1989,and in 17.02.040 A.
Definitions,13.Style,number of stories is mentioned.There are no houses in our neighborhood that are three stories
tall,and so there are no houses that are three stories tall that are blocking anyones's view.
Size of Proposed Project:
The size of the proposed new construction,which would affect neighbors'views (17 and 13 Cayuse Lane),is large and
maybe even larger than said.The new construction by itself is about the size of or larger than the 1 Cayuse Lane (in
the neighborhood)dwelling area and garage combined.The true square footage is not clear and is very difficult to
detennine due to there being inaccuracies,inconsistencies,square footages possibly left out and no dimensions on the
plans so a concerned neighbor can check the calculations to see if they are correct.The Site Plan Review Application
(in Height Variation also)says ''these are the materials YOU must submit"then below that "the location and dimensjon of
all existing and proposed structures (delineated existing and proposedl.."These dimensions are required (California
Government Code Sections 65940 to 65945.7)because they are listed,and are listed as being required,and are
required to make the project complete.How far off these figures are can affect other aspects of the project which
in dude lot coverage (RS-3 was incorrectly used instead of RS-2),neighborhood compatibility,and if the total habitable
area is 5,000 square feet or more (and it appears this is the case)there needs to be a third endosed space for a car,
which would require a grading penn it,if allowed.&e..b k~hL.f-~OM.c.\At (I r01-.L JlQ..c10
Construction Problems:.l(.£-
Page 3 of 5
.5
.......;,
The application of wanting to build in the area between the detached second story garage and the house will affect our
views.In the grading pennit with the years 1963 and 1964 on it,it says ''fill''and "uncompacted soil"and "no
compaction"and "all footings to be in natural soil"and etc.In the building pennit with the years 1963 and 1964 on it,it
says "to be in natural."There is expansive soil in this area and what they are proposing for between the garage and
the house is two stories tall and close to a slope of 60%,which was taken from the Site Plan Review Application fonn
(all California Building Code).The area between the garage and the house is fill that has not been compacted (we
used to call it a fill lot).According to the California Building Code ..."shall be built on UndistUrbe~.~comp~ctetfil~
material or CLSM"(california Building Code Section 1805.1)-another reason for a grading pennit..&~l;i-~
\-(~p~
Conditions:
17.02.040 a.1.mentions:..."provided there is no grading,as defined in Section 17.76.040 of this title,to be
perfonned in connection with the proposed construction."(the proposed project needs a grading pennit,for more than
one reason,at least two and probably three)"and further provided that no height variation is required"(also for more
than one reason,and are mentioned already-one reason being c.requires a height variation because of the height,and
another one being it can't meet these conditions that are being quoted right here),"and all applicable residential
development standards are or will be met"(also more than one reason-requires written permission,etc.to build in an
easement,17.48.030 F.Easement.Site Plan Review Application and Height Variation Appncation say all easements
must be shown on the plan.Other reasons are in this letter and more to be detennined).These are part of the
conditions that are required to be met before being able to make use of these subsections a.-d.in B.1.here.So.it is
not 16'130'"by right"as is written in the Memorandum dated November 4,2010.
Neighborhood Compatibility:
Inaccurate due to errors and possible omissions.
•
Significant Cumulative View Impairment:
17.02.040 C.1.e.vi.says regarding significant cumulative view impairment:
...There is no significant cumulative view impairment caused by granting the application.Cumulative view
impainnent shall be determined by (a)considering the amount of view impainnent that would be caused by the
proposed new structure that is above sixteen feet in height or addition to a structure that is above sixteen feet in height;
and (b)considering the amount of view impainnent that would be caused by the construction on other parcels of similar
new structures or additions that exceed sixteen feet in height;
If a neighbor or neighbors on Cayuse Lane listed below were to build uP.there would be significant view impairment.
See photo attached.
These are,at the very least,the house numbers that could cause this to happen:
28411 Cayuse Lane,west side of Cayuse Lane
28484 east
29 east
33 east
Cumulative view impainnent first came into being in 1975 in Ordinance Number 78.
Page 4 afS
Foliage Obstruction:
In 17.02.040 B.:,
3."Foliage Obstruction.No person shall significantly impair a view from a viewing area of a lot by permitYIl9 foliage to
grow to a height exceeding:_
b.If now view restoration permit has been issued by the view restoration commission,a height which is the lesser Qf:
i.The ridge line of the primary structure on the property;or
ii.Sixteen feet.
In this instance,the ridge line of the primary structure on the property is lower.
4.Removal of Foliage as a Condition of Permit Issuance.The city shall issue no conditional use permit,variance,
height variation,building permit or other entitlement to construct a structure,or to add livable area to a structure on a
parcel utilized for residential purposes,unless the owner removes that part of the foliage on the lot exceeding sixteen
feet in height or the ridge line of the primary structure,whichever is lower,that significantly impairs a view ...
Says prior to in ...somewhere
See photos attached.
17.78.030.Consideration of multiple applications says:
D.an appeal of an application that is part of a package shall serve as an appeal of the entire application package.
With all of these layers of code it is clear that the project does not conform to and cannot be completed according the
the conditions,regulations,and requirements of the City code and also the California code.
It is hoped that the "catch all provision"of 17.02.040 B.1.c.prevents our views from falling through the cracks and
from being lost forever.
Thank you for your consideration.
1--.::~vL
With all these layers of code for view preservation and restoration it is clear ~
---".-.'-e..''':0 _""~Page 5 of 5
Qu~t1
cF~~
.y
~.
TJ0L55eJ 1 I .....--;
t\JO v."i/"",r-,.........:'-fX'A
1 i "-~;-f
,I
,l
I
I
1
I
:\
"ilIi
When not inconsistent with the context,the words used in the present tense
include the future;words in the singular number include the plural;and those
in the plural number include the singular.In carrying oul the intent of this
Section,words.phrases and terms shaU be deemed 10 have the following
meanings ascribed to them:
1.Building Setback Line."Building setback line"shall mean the minimum
distance as prescribed by City code between any property line,or private
easement houndary used for vebicular and/or pedestrian access,and the closest
point on nn)'huilding or structure above ground le,'el on the property.
PR,013001 LA 129-35
LA 1336 LA 129·37
-{
anJ"Stiff and-those designated by -the City Council tn act for and on ~haif of
the.Cit},.
3.!:!!!~E~m~·~."('ity Council"slmll mean the Cily ("(Iundl (If the City of
Rancho Italus Verdes.
4.Coverage of Lot."Coverage of lot"shall mean that portion of a lot or
building site which is occupied by any building or structure.
5.Qireclor."IJirector"shall mean the Director of Em irunm~ntal Services.
6.Foliage."Foliage"shall mean natural growth of trees,shrubs and other
plant life.
7.~ntenl and Purpose.The residents of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes by
the adoption of this Section,have made a finding that the peace,health,safety
and welfare of the community witl be served by the adoption of this Section
and by the regulations prescribed herein.
8.Neighborhood Chqm~tcr."Neighborhood chara{'tcr"shall mean the
existing characteristics in terms of the following:
(a)Scalc of surrounding residences.
·(h)Architectural styles and materials.
(l')Front yard setbacks.
9.Planning Commission."Planning Commission"shall mean the Planning
Cummission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
10.Priv!!£Y."Privacy"shall mean reasonable protection from intrusive visual
observation.
II.Scale."Scale"shall mean the square footage and lot co\"(~rage of a residence
and ancillary structures.
12.~!~!!and May."SlmU"is mandatory;and "I\b~'"is permissive.
13.Structure."Structure"shall mean anything constructed or built,any edifice
or building of any kind,or any piece of work artificially built up or composed
of parts joined together in some definite manner,which is located on or on
top of the ground on a parcd of land utilized for residential purposes,excluding
antennas,skylights,solar panels,and similar structures not involving the
construction of hahitable .-rea.
14.St)'~.··S.},tc"shall mcan dcsign clements which consisl of.but are not
limited to:
(a)Facade treatments.
(b)Height of structure.
(c)Open space hetween structures.
(d)Roof design.
(c)The apparent bulk or mass of the structure.
rn 013002
I
I
I
}
i
'II •"UIIIII\.1 '"".'UII\,.;).
15.View.On the Palos Verdes Peninsula,it is (Iuite common to have a near
view and a far "jew because of the nature of many of the hills on the peninsula.
A ncar vic"is defined as a scene located on lhe Peninsula,including,but not
limited to,a valley.ravine.equestrian trait.pastoml em'ironment,or·any
natural setting.
A far \-'iew is defined as a scene located off the Peninsula including.but not
limited to,tbe o(·ean.l..os Angeles basin,city lights at night,harhor.Vincent
Thomas Uridgc.shore line,or offshore islands.
View shall not include \-'acant land that is developable under the City Code,
distant mountain areas not normally visible.nor the sky,either ahove distant
mountain ~lf('as or ahme lhe height of off.'thclre ishmds.
View may extend in any horizontal direction (360 degrees of horizontal arc)
and shall be considered as a single view even if broken into segments by foliage,
structures or other interference.
16.Vie~:!!!g.~!C~l."Viewing area"shall be that area of the structure (ext'ludil1g
bathrooms,hallways,garages,or closets)or lot (excluding the setback areas)
where the owner and City determine the best and most important view e:xists.
The finished floor elevation of any viewing area must be al or above existing
g.;ade adjacent to the exterior wall of the part of the building nearest to said
viewing area.The determination shall be made by balancing the nature of the
view to be protected and the importance of the area of the structure or lot from
where the \-'iew is taken.Once finally determined for a particular applicationt
the viewing area may not be changed for a subsequent application.In the event
the City and the owner cannot agree on the viewing area,the decision of the
City shall control.A property owner may appeal the determination of viewing
area.In such e\-'ent the decision on viewing area will be made by the body
making the final decision on the application.A property owner may reserve
his or her right to dispute the decision on viewing area for a subsequent
application without disputing the decision on a pending application by filing
a statement to that effect indicating the viewing area the property owner
believes to be more appropriate.Said statement shall be filed with the City prior
to consideration of the pending application hy the City.
17.View Restoration Committee.The "View Restoration Committee"is a
committee appointed by the City Council to consider applications for view
restoration permits.The terms and qualifications of office shall be as
established by the City Council.The Committee shall consist of sC"en members
and three ullcrnalcs.representing as div('rsc n gcographil.'ul mix nf mctllhers
and allermHcs as is pmclical.The View Restoration Committee shnll draft
regulations lind policies 10 guide the actions of the Committee,wbich shall be
binding after approval by the City Council.In the event the workload of the
View Restoration Committee declines to an exlent deemed by the City Council
to make the continuation of the View Restoration Committee impractical,the
Cit)'Council shall disband tlte View Restoration Committee and transfer its
work III tht·Planning Commission.
B.REGJI~..ynn~~
PR 013003
-.._.--r------.-------.,_..---_ --r ·.1 _.-.-,.
of the foliage \\ould constitute an unreasonable invasion of the privacy of the
occupants of lhe propert)'on which tbe foliage exists and there is no method
by which the I,rnpcrty owner can cre-d'e such prh'3q through some uthcr .nc.-ans
allowed within the Development Code tbat does not impair a view from a
viewing arc"uf another property.The initial decision on the amount of foliage
removal required or the reasonable degree of prh'acy to be maintained shall be
made by the Director.the Planning Commission or tile City Council,as
appropri:ue rur tbe enliUeanelu in queslion.A decision by tile Director on either
of these matters may be appealed to the 1»lanning ('omndssiol1,and any
decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City CoundL
C.PROCE~PRES AND REQUIREMENTS
I.Pr('scf\'aIiCln of,iews where structures arc iru'oh·cd.
(a)Any person prnJ)osing to cunstroct a ~trudllre aho\'c 16 feet shall submit
a height \:lriulion permit UI)plicatioll 10 the Cit).The UPlJIiC"dnt slmll take
reasonable steps established by the City Coundl 10 consult with owners of
propert)'located within Soo fect.TIle applicant Nhall obtain and submit with
the npplkluiull the signatures of the pcrson~with whom the applicant
consulted.Where a homeowners'association ('xists in Ihe neighborhood
affected and has pro\'ided written notice to the Din.'Ctor of its desire to be
notified of height variation applications,the applicant shall mail a lettcr to the
association requesting their position on the application.A copy of this lctttr
and the response of thc association,if any.shall be submitted with the
application.A fee shall be charged for the application as established by
resolution of the City Council.
(b)The City shall,by written notice,notify property owners within a five
hundred (500)foot radius and the affected homeowners'associations,if any•
of the application and inform them tbat any objections to the proposed
construction mllst he suhmiucd to the City within thirty (30)da)'s of the date
of the Ilotk-e.
(e)The applkant shalf conslruct on the site at the applicnnt's eXllcnse as a
visual aid a temporary frame of the proposed structure.
(d)An application 10 build to a maximum height permitted ill section B.I.may
be granted.with or \\ithout conditions,if the Director finds as follows:
(I)The applicant has complied with the early neighbor consultation process
established by the City.
(2)The structure does not significantly impair a view from public .property
(parks,major thoroughfares,bike ways,walkways,equestrian trails)which has
been identified in the City's General Plan.Coastal Specific Plan or City
designated \ie\\ing areas.
(3)The propnscd structure is not located on a ridge or a promontory.
(4)The struelnrc is dcsigned and situated in such a manner as to minimize
impairment uf;l \iew.
(5)There is no significant cumulative view impairment caused by granting the
applicaliun.Cnmlllath'c view impairmenl shall be determined by:(a)
PR 013005 LA.129-39
I
I
I
'1
:,
-I
"\:;
/an ,.CJdition"iOiUi existing structure exceeding sixteen reet in height may appi y
I for a Height Variation Permit,which,if granted pur!>uant to the procedures
ront;tincd herein,will permit said individual to build a structure not exceeding
.twenty-si"feet in height.except as provided in section B.I.(d).or such lower
~cight as is approv~by the City,measured as follows:'.;'"",
::(~f .~Jr~I~I~\~bi~h ·sli)pe uphill from the street of acces.t;~;i;;"h~M ....be
IIItitsurcd from the existing grade at the highest point on tfie lut to Ii covered
by the structure._tr:•.'.,,1 ~,..,::,:,_,_.,'"fl,_:I,'
,vL".,,,-'..."~r-
(b)For lots sloping downhill from the slreel of access.the height shall be
measured from the average elevation of the properly line abutting the street
of access to the ridge line or the highest point of the structure.
fe)For lots sloping in lhe same direclion as Ihe strect ur access.lois with a
I~building pad at a diOcrclit levcl than the strect.or lUi configuratiod....not'l previously diseussed,~sball be measured from existing-grade.at the I
,highest clevalion covered b[ffiC'structure to the ridge linc or highest point of .i\~~e structure.u.~.•!~:f;'"'V,,-\J ,~',\'!~f ,J ,\:\~d~~~;1q.
~:-\~I":'·';(dj-.<q(!iloping iO·ls.~a'sl(fficture WhiCh_steps with the sl()~of the lot will be
.4~'.•"'\Uowed;however.no portion of t~e stn!ture shall exceed thirty (30)feet in
"~,.,.•"h~.!sht when.l!!.t:~~ed from_!lte int •.er .the lowest foundation or slab
,~:.\_~:::!I~lS the Br.()U~!!to the rurge Inc or high POlRt of the structure.The thirtyvi'(30)foot height shall not exceed a horizontally projected sixteen (16)foot
~-,'I ~.heigl.ltline (from the high point of the uphill step of the structure)__.,."
2.Setbacks for Sloping Lots.On lots sloping uphill from the street level where I
the height of a structure15 in excess of 16 feet abo\'e the point where the
.foundation or slab meets the ground.areas in excess of said height shall be set
back an additional foot from the property line adjacent to the lowest foundation
for every foot of height in excess of 16 feet ahm'c Ihe point where the
foundatiun or slab meets the ground.
J.foliage O~~!ructiO!!:No person shull impair a view frum a \'iewing area of
a lut by permitling foliage to grow 10 a height exceeding the height determined
by the View Restoration Committee through issuance of a view restoration
permit under section C.2.or.if no permit has been issued,lhe lesser of.(a)the
ridge line of the primary structure on the property.or (b)16 feet.If foliage on
the property already exceeds subsections (a)and (b)on the effective date of this
Section as approved by the voters on November 7.1989,and impairs a view
from a viewing area of a lot.tben notwithstanding whether any person has
sough.or obtained issunnce of a view restoration permit the owner shall not
let the fulia~e exceed the height cxisting on s:lid effcctiw date.
4.Removal o[Foliage as Condition of Permit Issuance.Tbe City shall issue
no conditional use permit,variance.height variation,building permit or other
entitlement to construct a structure,or to add livahle area to a structure on a
parcel utilized for residential purposes,unless the owner rClno\-es all foliage
on said lot exceeding 16 fcct in height,or the ridge Iinc of the primary structure,
whichever is lower.that impairs a view from the viewing arca of llnother parcel.
The owner of the property is responsible for maintainin~the foliage so that
PlI 013 (I(J.4 LA 129·38
~
!'i.
I~
11
!
.1
-0
"..···_·..• •·0 -- _,.__.._---'_........•"---_.__--,.
and (b)Considering the amount of view impairment that would be caused by
the construction on other parcels of structures similar 10 the proposed
sl rud lITe.-
(la)The I>wposed slruclurc.when considered exclush'l'(If exisling foliage.does
1I0t significantly impair a view from the viewing area of.another parcel located
in a portion of a structure which was constructed without a height variation
or variance,or which would not have required a height \'ariution or variance
when originally constructed had this Section as apprm'ed by the voters on
November 7.1989,been in effect at the time the structure was constructed.
(7)Thl'Ilrupused slnlcturc cmnplies wilh :111 other l'm!c requirements.·
(8)The proposed structnre is compatible with the immediate neighborhood
l'h:lracter.
(c)Written 1I0tke of the Director's decision shall be Sl'ut to all parties who
responded to the original notice.
(f)The decision nf the Clirector m:\y bc appealed Itl the Planning Commission
by the npplicant or any person who responded to the Director prior to
Director's decision.The appellant shall pay an apPc:l1 fcc as established by the
('ity Council.
(1-;)The "I:mllin~CUlIlIni£siun slmll grunt the UI>I>lkaliull lllld cuuse a permit
to he issued nltly if it finds th:tt all of the rCIJuircments of section C.1.(d)have
heen met.
(h)NOlice uf the publk hearing shall be Imailed thirl)tJU)da)'s prior to the
hearing to property owners within 500 feet of the structure in question as weD
as any additional property owners previously determined by the City to be
affected by the pruposal.
(i)The decision of the 1)lanning Commission mal'be appealed to the City
Cuuncil by the aplJlicant or any person who commcntl'd orally or in writing
to the 1)lanning Commission.In order to grant a permit.the City Council must
determine that all of the requirements listed in section C.L(d)have been met..
2.Restnnltion of Views Where Foliage is a Factor.
(a)Any resident owning a residential structure with II \'iew may file an
applil.'ation with the City for a view restoration permit.The applicant shall file
with the application proof that the applkant consulted,ur attempted to consult,
lhe property owner whose foliage is in question.The City shall charge a fee
for lbe view restoration permit as the City Council shall establish by resolution.
(b)The upplkalion shall be submiUed tn the View Hcslonltinn Committee.
Written notice of the time and place for the hCllring on the t1pplication shall
be sent at least thirty (30)days prior to the meeting of the Commtttee.
CommiUee members shall inspect the site prior to the I>ublic hearing.Only
View Restoration Committee members who make a sile inspection may
partidllatc in the public hearing.
(c)In order fur:l "iew n'slnrnlion llolice to he issued.Ihl'('ol1ll1liUee must find:
(I)The apillic:lllt has cmnplied with the early neighhor consultation process
and has shown pruof of cooperation on his/her part to !"l'slIhc conflicts.
PO on 006 LA 129·40
whichever is lem cr.impairs :1 "iew from tbe allplicant's viewing area.whether
such foliage is IUl:alcd totall)'on one property.or wbell comhined with foiiage
located nn lIIore IIJan one property.
(3)The ,jlliagc III 'll'removed is l()c~lIed Ull I)Wperly.an)'pllrl of which is less
than one thousand (1,000)feet from the applicant's property.
(4)The foliage impairing the "iew did not exisl when lhe lut from which Ihe
.view is laken \\as created.
(5)RcmO\'al or trimming of the foliage will not cause an unreasonable
infringement of the Privac)'of the nccupants nf the properly upon which the
foliage is Incall'll.
(6)for propert)'loc:lted within the boundaries uf the l\Iimleste Recreation &
Park District.the Committee shall also find that removal nr trimming of Ihe
foliage strikes a reasonable b:alance between meeling the purposes of section
17.0~,04()sci forth in Section I of the Ordinance aPllrO\'ed by the \'olers on
November 7,1989.and prescf\'il1g the historical (h~"cl()pment of the l\1iralcste
Recreation &Park District nrea with large numbers nf Irel",.
(d)Should the Cnmmiuee m~,kc findings re(llIirinl~issuance 01'11 \·iew
restoration I~rmit.the Director shnll send a notice tu the ,Iroprrly owner to
trim,cull.lace (If utherwisc cause the foliagl'10 he r('duel'tt to 16 t":ct or the
ridge line of thl'primary siructure,whichever is luwer.or such limit :1I>O\'C that
height which will reston'the view.The propert)'ownl'r will have nhwty (90)
days to hu\'e the ltaliage removed.The :tpplicallt slmll be rcspol1!>iblc for the
expensc of the folinge removal only to the extent of the lowest bid umuunt
provided b}'contractors licensed to do such work in the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes and selected b)'the applicant.If after nine I)'(90)days the foliage has
not been remm'ed,Ihe City of Rancho Palos \'erdes will authorize a bOilded
tree service to trim,cull,lace or remove the identified foliage at the owner's
expense.Arter tht"initial trimming,culling.lacing or remo\'ul of the foliage,
the owner,at the owner's expense,sball be responsible for maintaining the
foliage so tlull the view restoration required by the view restoralion permit is
maintained,
(e)To the extent legally permissible,trees or foliage on propert)'ownc,1 by the'I City or an)'other governmental entity.except tbe Miraleste Recreation &.)ark
'.'.:District.shall be subject to view restoration control.as per the pro\'isioQs of
this section,except the foliage shall be trimmed or remm'ed thirty (30)days
following issuance of the Notice.
SECTION 3.~rY~m~mHTY
If any pn)\'isillll of this Ordinance is held invalid by a cOllrt of competent
jurisdiction.the rel~ainder of the Ordinance shall not he held invalid and shall
not be affected thereby.
SECTION -t.rn:Ffl!Y.li !l1I~~
This Ordinance shall take effect len (10)days after the vote on this Ordinance
at the November 7.1989.election is declared by the Cit y ('ouneil mi prm ided
in Section -101J III'Ihe C:,lifornia Elections ('uM.
PR·OI3007 I.A t29·41
_~.'f
('T10N 5.~1\1~~I)rvl~~T~
Tn Ih~~:\Icnt Ih~City ('lIundl finds thai dmngcs In Ihis ()nlimmce are
necessary 10 cffcclmllc or enhance the purposes of Ihis Ordinullce as stated in
Section I.Ihc ('iay Council muy amend tilis Ordimlllcc;follnwing the
procedures,inchltling :lIl required public bcui-higs,for ullh:nding ~oning
ordinances.The City Cnundl is cmpuwercd 10 udnpt such procedures and rules
or regulations as arc nccess..ry to implemenl Ihis Ordin:lOcc.
Sl~(TION 6.n~~n ~~~nN~;~!m~~NM~n':;i
This Ordinance is inconsislent with and is intcnded as an uhcrnalive to any
initiative ordinance on the subject of view preservation.If this Ordinance and
any other such ordinance are both passed by a majority "oling thereon,then
the one with fhe most affirmative vOfes shall prevail.
~
/
."'')''-.'.~..
-~,~."
....h::a./?4;:.l
.,
.'.~,.
.,•......
'I;
/::2--
APPLICANT
PAD ELEVATION
*
*
The City's primary concern in processing a Fence,Wall,Hedge Application is to ensure that
rear yard and side yard views from upslope lots are protected from intentional or
inadvertent impairment of views.
Some of the major items staff will be checking are:
The height and location of proposed fences,walls,and hedges.
Whether the fence,wall,or hedge will significantly impair a view from the
viewing area as defined in Section 17.02.040 of the Rancho Palos Verdes
Development Code.
If you are unsure of any of the City's requirements in these areas,it is suggested that
you contact the Planning Department before going to the expense of having plans
prepared.Preliminary discussions with the Planning,Building,and Code Enforcement
Staff may reveal potential conflicts with the Development Code,or may indicate that a
different application is required.
When you are ready to file your application,make certain the entire form is completed
and that you have all the required materials.This will allow us to process your
application without necessary delay.
The following materials must be submitted to the Planning Department in order to
process your request:
*
*
*
Three (3)copies of a diagram of the side view of the fence,wall,or hedge
the elevations,including the proposed height,materials,and a section draWing
identifying the relationship between the subject property and abutting properties.
Three (3)copies of the site plan (the plan should include dimensions of the
lot,all property lines and streets,dimensions and location of proposed fences,
walls,and hedges,existing and proposed).
Indicate topography of the lot either by elevation call outs or topographic
lines.
Page 2
j:?J
~~y 04-:·~cip fA,l~"S"\VJt~~,d·e~3 J 1 -[~~\\:i ~L I.P~~J:L Z.St+-..e..Plan Rlbj\~lt>jI\PPh6:.cf~Jt'$h-i=or'f'lr,A ~\
In ord'er to process your application without delay,these are the materials YOUeUbmit:
• A completed and signed (by applicant &property owner)application.. ,
'P ·b
•Three (3)blue line copies of a scaled site plan indicating the following Information:
~lot dimensions.all property m-.and aU __on the lot.
2.The adjacent street right-of-way and the access driveway of the lot (length and width
specified).
G)opography of the lot indicated by either elevation call-outs or topographic contours.
~y extreme slopes (slopes equal to or greater than 35%).
I'(5.e location an~.J!!!!!!E.!l.2.'1~existing..!lnd m;oRQ§§Sl structy£!§(Qdo.u~,
"-!!.!C!R!2P.g"ed.
~e distance from all existing and proposed structures to the property lines.
r~~distance from aU existing and proposed structures to slopes equal to or·greater than~O%(2:1).
8.If appDcable,the location of the Coastal Setback Line.
9.The parking and driveway areas.
•Three (3)copies of the "evatlons,Including section drawings,indicating:
1.The maximum height of the proposed structure.measured from the highest point of
existing grade covered by the structure to the ridge.p
2.The maximum height of the proposed structure.measured from the finished grade
adjacent to the lowest foundation to the ridge.
•Three (3)copies of floor plans.
• A reduced set of architectural plans listed above at 8%"X11".
•Neighborhood Compatibility Submittal and NotIcing Infonnatlon (ONLY IF APPLICABbE)
1.If the voluntary Neighborhood Compatibility pre--application step was completed.submit the
Neighborhood Compatibility Consultation Form (Ne-F).A copy can be obtained from the
Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook.
2.Two (2)copies of a "vicinity map"prepared to scale which shows all properties within 500
feet of the project site.The map must be prepared exactly as described in the attached
instruction sheets.
3.Two (2)sets of self-adhesive mailing labels and one (1)photocopy of the labels which list
\'?O\q~:2..ti+y c+&~::~'V ~\)~.~£'VI..r··Q:Ii;.S:~A'''i\~I'd-'';;'Pl('lhlt1'i~~\).nd Cx.ie.ti~\f~vtl
In ord"er to process your application without delay,these are the materials you must submit:
• A completed and signed (by applicant &property owner)application.;"~-~~~'I\1{)W'fi:·:~~,\L.if
\;::::;"J..,Y\\P )y ~~rfr,~IT
•Three (3)blue line copies of a scaled site plan Indicating the following infonnation:
~ratelot dimensions,all property Ones.and all easements on the lot.
2.The adjacent street right-of-way and the access driveway of the lot (length and width
specified).
&OgraPhY of the lot indicated by either elevation call-outs or topographic contours.
8).Any extreme slopes (slopes equal to or greater than 35%).
5.de l~tiO§n~d~,!,~!~!:!s of ~~~~_~~~~resJ~~~.~xistl'!l.n popos..---
¥The distance from all existing and proposed structures to the property lines.
7\1I1e distance from all existing and proposed structures to slopes equal to or greater than
"-~-&l%(2:1).
8.If applicable,the location of the Coastal Setback Line.
9.The parking and driveway areas.
•Three (3)copies of the elevations,Including section drawings,Indicating:
1.The maximum height of the proposed structure,measured from the highest point of
eXisting grade covered by the structure to the ridge.
2.The maximum height of the proposed structure,measured from the finished grade
adjacent to the lowest foundation to the ridge.
•Three (3)copies of floor plans.
• A reduced set of architectural plans listed above at 8'%"X11".
•Neighborhood Compatibility Submittal and NotIcing Infonnatlon (ONLY IF APPLICABLE)
1.If the voluntary Neighborhood Compatibility pre-application step was completed,submit the
Neighborhood Compatibility Consultation Form (Ne-F).A copy can be obtained from the
Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook.
2.Two (2)copies of a "vicinity map"prepared to scale which shows all properties within 500
feet of the project site..The map must be prepared exactly as described in the attached
instruction sheets.
3.Two (2)sets of self-adhesive mailing labels and one (1)photocopy of the labels which list
IS;-.~".
Infonnation about Neighborhood Compabbillty
ACXXlrding to 17.02.030 and 17.02.040 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code and the
Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook,Neighborhood Compatibility is more than just how a property
looks from the front.Square f001age,setbacks and the number of stories are a part of Neighborhood
Compatibility as well,hence the exislBnce of the Neighborhood Compabbillty and Analysis Matrix which
lists square footage ("Structure Size")and "Number of Stories",except in this case here.the column
for the number of stories has been eliminated from the Matrix.
If the last column that is "Number of Stories"had not been eliminated,a reader would have been able
to see that most of the 20 houses that are in the analysis are one story tall and that there are none
that have 3 stories.To allow 3 stories to be built would change the existing neighborhood,would affect
neighbors'views and would be the beginning of more of the same to come.
The square footage of the proposed new construction as appears in the application (2,240)with
missing square footages added in totals 2,775,whiCh Is larger than 1 Cayuse Lane with the total of
the house and garage combined together (in the Matrix 2,360 sq.It).
21 Cayuse Lane is larger than 28411 Cayuse Lane without its garage being included (by the Matrix
2,351 sq.ft).
Using the proposed 5,440 squara feat for 21 Cayuse Lane that is In "Structure Size"of the Matrix,plus
the missing 150 sq.ft (est)proposed ground level story at the southeast part of the house and 120
sq.ft(est)large playhouse at the back of the pad.the total comes to 5,710 (2 decks tolaHng 280 sq.
ft in Ex1reme Slope Pennit not being included).This makss 21 Cayuse Lane the largest of all the
properties HslBd In the Ma1rix.
(In comparing the square foolages of structures in the 21 Cayuse lane Neighborhood Compatibility
and Analysis Matrix with those that were done for 5 Cayuse Lane eariier.there are different square
footages for the same street numbera)
The square foolage of just the proposed new construction alone as appears in the application (2,240)
and with the missing square foolages added in tolala 2,775,which is larger than 1 Cayuse Lane with
the tolal of both the house and garage added together (in the Matrix 2,360 sq.ft).
The proposed new construction alone for 21 Cayuse Lane Is larger than 28411 Cayuse Lane at 2,351
sq.ft without its garage being included aCXXlrdlng to the Ma1rix.
The 1st sentence in tha Neighborhood Compatibility section in the Memorandum dated November 4,
2010,page 4,is Incorrect.
This is what it says:"Municipal Code Section 17.02.030(B)(1 )(b)requires a Neighborhood
Compatibility analysis whenever a new residence Is proposed to replace an existing residence.As the
appHcant is proposing to demolish the existing flat roofed,single-story residence and construct a new
single-story rasidence,a Neighborhood Compatibility analysis completed.This proposed project has 3
stories,not 1 story.
If the last column that Is a part of the Neighborhood Compatibility and Analysis Matrix had not been
left off,a reader would have been able to see that most of tha 20 houses that are in the analysis are
one story tall and that there are none that have 3 stories.To allow 3 stories would change the existing
neighborhood and would affect neighbors'views.
In 17.02.040 there is A.Definitions,13.Style,f.The Number of stories.This is from Proposition M,
approved by the votere In 1989,and remains the same to this day.It applies to this case for 21
Cayuse Lane.
Some of what is on page 4 of the Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook:
"Modemization of the aging housing stock must be done in a manner that ~nize~and respects the
unique features and characteriellcs of neighborhoods,thereby ensuring continued enjoyment of the
City's quality of life.This is the concept of Neighborhood Compatibility."
"The City also encourages public input on proposed development plans as a means to preserve and
enhance the charscter of esIBbiished neighborhoods."
·On November 7 1989 the voters of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes approved the "Cooperative
View Preservatldn and 'Restoration Ordinance"(Proposition M).The adopted Ordinance,among other
things,"insures that the development of each p~rce.l of la,:,d or additions to "!~ences or structures
occur in a manner which is hannonlous and maintainS neighborhood compatibility and the character of
contiguous sub-community development."
,-
city Council
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthome Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Re:AppeallD City Council Case No.ZON2009-D0108 (21 Cayuse Lane)
Dear Mayor and City Council:
VIEWS ARE PRECIOUS AND IRREPLACEABLE for all of us,and are not for just some.See the
wording of Proposition M.
Here is more information on legislative intent,applicable law and problems with the project
Ib!..f'l~.!m!!1m.~!OgDenni!§·
The Planliii1915"iijiiii1iii8nt doing grading permits is mentioned in Grading Permit 17.76.040:
A.Purpose. The City finds and declares that it is necessary lD adopt this seotIDn lD promote the
public health,safety and general welfara.Wlere this section Is in conflict with other city ordinences,
the stricter!b!l!.apply.
D.Application.
7.Final Approval.Upon approval of the application by the director or planning commission,the
applicant must still conform lD all conditions imposed by Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code,
including all required fees,and approval by the direclDr is not final until approval has been granted by
the city engineer.
If the word FORMS on the City website is clicked on it brings down choices,one of which is Planning
Applications,and if this Is clicked on It brings up The City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning
Applications,which says:The following are planning applications that are typically needed for most
development projects in the city.In thie IIstls 15.)Grading Application.
16'"bl rilLht"instead of 16'/30'"by right,"(16'/30'"by right"mentioned in Memo.dated 11129/10 and
Nob dateCl 11129/10)
It has always been 16'sterling with Ordinance 78,adopted in 1975.In 2004 it was reaffirmed by
Ordinance 405.
To be able lD go up to 30'there are a number of "regulations"and "procedures and requiremenbf and
other sections of the Rancho Palos Verdes Munlclpal CDde lD be compiled with before a project can
be approved.RegUlations are in 17.02.0406 RegUlations,and procedures and requirements are in If
17.02.04OC Procedures and Requirements,all of which are In PropDsltion M passed by the votel'$in
1989.In the first paragraph of 17.02.040B1 there Is still the same won:llng unchanged that Is In
Proposition M:..."which,if~ted pursuant lD the procedures contsined herein,..."That exact
ssme won:ling goes baCklDnance18 aaoplBd in 1975 and On:llnance 114 adoplBd in 1979.To be
able lD go up lD 30'it is mandalDry that the procedures,requirements and regulations be mel
"p~d overall height is not 10'-11:...L1.2:::.1.1"mentioned In Memo.dated 11/410 and NOD datect
11 10)
According to 17.98.290·Building height "BUilding height"mesns the maximum verlical dimension of
a structure determined under the standards of section 17.02.040 of this ti1Ie,•.•"
The overall height is 30',not 10'-11"as mentioned in the Memorandum date November 4,2010 on
page 3.
The eorlior.,of'$ani.e$0n ~.~and areaM'!.~Y.!~
For view preserva on .rli1fie POrliO~'ifrDfthe area above 16'mentioned In 17.02.04OC.in
several places.
In 17.02.040 C.Procedures and Requirements,1.Preservation ofVlewslM1ere Structures are
Involved.it is written:a.Any perean proposing to construct a structure above sixteen feet SHALL
submit a height variation permit application to the clty..--
The word "shall"and the entire sentence of "a."above is the exact same wording that is in Proposition
M.
Protected view.
~~w Preservation and Restoration.,A.Definitions.,14.View.it says:...Therefore,a
"view"WHICH IS PROTECTED by this section is as follows:
a.A ''far view·which is defined as a scene located Dff the peninsula including,but nDt limited lD,the
/I.
I of./z.
ocean,Los Angeles basin,city lights at night,harbor,Vincent Thomas Bridge,shoreline or offshore
islands.
The dining room and kitchen are considered viewing areas,and for 17 Cayuae Lane,the dining room
is the most important part of the houae where the view is enjoyed.
It is unfair and unjust that a neighbor may be allowed to build up 10 take out the views of others using
the view preservation code 10 increase their own views.The RPVMC says:1.04.200 -Construction of
provi80ne..•.The rovIsions of this Code and all edl suder It are 6'8
its objects and to promole IU ceo Pro 'on passed by the valere in 1989 seys:The purpose of
this Ordinance ie to promol8 the health,safety and general welfare of the public by accomplishing ths
purposes set forth below,and this Ordinance SHALL be admlnisl8red in aocordance ch
purposes.ere is 0 in .....All
of these ara connecl8d.
The RPVMC is required to be applisd in a way that is conslsl8nt with the purposes and inl8nt of
Proposition M.
In the real esta18 listing for 21 Cayuse Lane from 2006 it says:Awesome view property with large
usable flat backyaRl,front yard is also flat ...Gorgeous city view from liVing room,dining room,
family room,masl8r bedroom &backyard.(This real esta18 listing is also another pisce of evidence
that there is a pad on the property.)
The property owners of 21 Cayuse Lane will be expanding their views with this proposed project,
while 17 Cayuse Lane will be losing an extensive portion of the dining room (includes LAX)and kitchen
views.There is already dining room view being permanently obstructed by the garage,which takes
out the city view going from its bottom to its top at the base of the mounl8ins and also the mountains.
If the roof of the garage were to be removed the walls'of the garage would still be sticking up 1n1D the
city view around 40'%.
The property owners heve a number of ways 10 delign so neighbors don't lose views.We cannot
move our houses or our views.
~ut s1ructu!!s.sqya!!footages.elevations and setbaok§.
here is a proposed addition on the "'ower Ieval"(which Is on the..lZlSl.where it is 10 be ext8nded out
from the slab of the existing house)at the southeast back part of the house.This level and its square
footage does not appear on the application form,in the Memorandum datBd November 4,2010 and
the Notice of Decision da18d November 29,2010.The silhouetl8 shows its location (this is therefore
not a basement).However,501 square feet for a "basement"is Indica18d on the application form
(propoaed)and the word "basement'appears on the plans.The 501 square feet that Is mentioned in
the Memorandum and in the Notice of Decision is actually the square foo18ge for the basement that
appeara on the application form and on the plans.The fact that the square footage for the "lower
level"is missing changes the square foelllge to18l for habitabie square footage and causes the
propoaed project to have over 4,999 square feet of habitable space.This cauaes there to be a 3rd
enclosed space for a car to be required.The figure of 501 square feet that is uaed as the square
footage of the "lower ievel"Is actually basement square footage.This also is another fac1Dr that
makes the Neighborhood Compatibility analysis Insecurale.
The 400 square foot covered deck aOC8SSOry structure with 135 square feet s1Drage underneath It that
is iocaled at the back of the..ll&llat the back of the lot is not mentioned numerous times In the city
documenla that were sent 10 the neighbors.This omission also changes square footage totals.There
is also an existing large playhoUse of about 120 square feet on the JlI.I1.at the back that should be
added in as well.
As a number of the figures are incorrect or missing this cauaes the calculations and lPtals to be
incorrect.
The elevation at the northwest comer of the garage (84.22')is the same figure that appears in the
Memorandum dal8d November 4,2010 and the Notice of DecIsion daled November 29.2010,but as
21 Cayuse Lane is a property that has a bUilding pad at a different level than the street (in Ordinance
No.90,1977 and Proposition M),this makes it not applicable.
This Is just a sampling.
These and the other inconslsl8ncles and missing Information affect the findings and give wrong
impressions which cauae there 10 be made decl8lons based on incorrect and or misleading information,
which substantially changes the proposed project and affeota the neighbors.
Extreme slope permit.
The Extreme slope permit part of the Memorandum dal8d November 4,2010 never mentions the 2nd
extreme slope deok (trash can deok),and never mentions the square footage of the trash can deck
when it is mentioned in the Memorandum dated November 4,2010.This is incamplala informstion for
the neighbors.In the application form for Extreme Slope permit it says 280 square feet for 2 decks.
Vllhat are the square footages for eaoh of these two decks where they hang over the extreme slope?
It is also no18d on the application form thet there is a 80%slope-this is a very sl8ep drop off,and
"over 30'below"-a safety issue and also an issue for the neighbor below?
A grading permit is required for the not compacted ffll area of proposed project.888 17.02.04OB1 1st
paragraph.
~bx.hLbJ-L
(lFY)
-pC\cl:sa-e..
~~lh~+.?-
~Jvl)
"pC\ck II
pC\.ci ~'I
And then there I.17.78.030 Fences,walls and hedges.thet haa a limit on howlll11 these can be.
Another problem with the devaluing of view propertiea by views being lIIken away from the property
owners Ie that It Iowws the amount of property 1IIx money the City gets,which has an effect on the
finances of the City and Its people.
To _rt ..ylng that lots that haw 2 pads ant no longer pad 1ot8,will cause Io88es of views 10 view
properties (tha needls..dastrucllon ofview lots that is mentioned In Proposition M)and will have a
~de efI'8ct.This Is contrary 10 purpose and lntsnt of Propollltion M and the RPVMC.
Eliminating wordalUch a."and for which no building pad exists"17.02.04081 and "any portion"and
"accommoda1Ie a main building"from 17.96.320 from the wording of the view preeervation and
I'881Dration 88C1Ion of the code and then applying it,Is ignoring the purpose and Intent of the Rancho
Palos Verdea Municipal Coda.RPMC..1.04.200 -Conatrvctlon of one.'"The
of this and all r are 10 e a 10 e ct itso.bJ!cl:!and 10 pro_luttict·
Note that in Figure 41n 17.02.04081d 8110_a thick eloping line ehowIng a eloping lot where the lend
eIopea abow and below the atrueture and on that diagonal line dote there ia ·PL"for
property line.21 Cayuse Lane has a large tat (Ieea than 5"slope)a goes from the
baok of the house 10 the back of the property.'Therefore,21 Cayuse Lani rent than d.
View prot8ction Is pervasive In Title 17 and in the permit applications of the PIaMlng Depal1ment of
Rencho Palo$Verdes,which Ie an ImpIlcat\on of Ita extreme Imporlance 10 the peopIs of this city.It is
In the beat Intsreeta of the public 10 uphold and not derogate view protection.
Our city attorneys haw made 8IItsmenlB nl.m8l'OU8 times In writing In past yeare about the Importance
of the RPVMC having 10 be consilient with Propoeltlon M.In 2003 or 2004 in oonnection with
Ordinance 405 adopted in 2004 a atat8rnent wee made about how Propoelllon M ovemchea the code,
and Iatsly In Juiy of 2010 a city memorandum dIsouaeed"etrectua18 and enhance"the purpo188 of
Propoelllon M which Ie 10 be found In Section 5.Amendments of Propoelllon M.
The RPVMC la required 10 be applied in a way that Ie conaielBnt 10 PropoIIItion M for both View
Preservation and Neighborhood Compatibility...both are In PropoeIlIon M.
",.It is,the proposed project Ie not compatible with the Imrnedlats neighborhood,wouklaffect
nelghbore'views and would be the beginning of more of the ..me 10 corne.
Our prevloueletterwaa stamped AprIl 14,2010 by the eity,but haw been lokl that It Ie Iat8
correspondence.We sincerely hope that you get it end It Is sad that it Ie probably not part of what the
public can rssd.
Thank you again for your consideration.
'Po.d ~~.Q,.J2.
C;;K~'\L 'b ,,-I-;2
Cp~o t-o .v-
G~'\b,~-t 1
~tv\~\~~"--
This is from the most used pathway of going into the house from outside and going into the kitchen inside the house.
The blackened area is the area of the proposed project that will block the view.The dots to the right of the blackened
area are three houses (and there could possibly be more)that could cause significant cumulative view impairment.
The top of the city lights end at the bottom of the cabinet.
5\~o~s s \\)(\O~~~-e.-.CA-.--t
SJu.~.QGtst 'VvhJ bG.c.K o\=-~t5sL 0\,~c\.
·.~.,(::>
I'"-
NCHO PALOS VERDES
5"~>/"I),..
If'''~5''~/
._~I (
Department of Plannl~g,BuildIng &Code Enforcement
SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION NO.=ZO.;:;.'N _
LANDOWNER:
(Na'e)
!2J Calfll~~----,(Address
,~~Verd~Q\~77
Telephone:ala·'2-'fJ_'~OO~I.....?>~_
Email ~lMrlThe~,Ul!!J
Lot and Tract No:~'L/-~~tuL_~---------------
Project Location:,,:,·.!Z.W~UfL~~tda:DG~---;:---"':'-_-----r------
Project ·Qescription:,t.o~Ut.l[(lf;J~llll~:hD:IW~~v.t:db.,J:rtllJ~~q~
Existing Dev,e.loprne.~t:'
..1.Year'lotwas created.-----
..,"
,.
'2,774-~.Sqoar:e footage of the enclosed existing p'rimarY str.t,Jc1ure.
(including attached enclosed patios)
__--=JL:::..-_3.Number of enclosed.parking spaces.
~4:Square.footage of enclosed 'Qarage.'
q(P7~Sq,ua~e footagp.qf all.detached accessory structures.e ~-*::1'0 ~,dtlMlI~).-
'1.tj.7f;6."'$Cfliar~footage of bui!ding footprint ,
)(includmg garage,pnmary and accessory structures,covered patios and
porches,decks over 30"in height.and courtyards enclosed by 3 or more
walls.)
'lJ 71'7.Square footage of driveways,outdoor parking areas.and impervious
Page 4 I-pI (
')
surfaces (impervious surfaces less than 5 feet.in width and/~r'one patio
area less than 500 square feet in area shall be excluded from the lot
"lot.coverage .calculation).'...
'24 ?10 8.Sq~are footage of lot.
~35"9.Square footage of existing lo~coverage [line 6 +line 7J.
~10.Percentage ofexi~ting lot coveragfir[line 9 divided by line 8].
Proposed Development:
--JLi:lL 11.Maximum height of project,measured from the highest point of existing grade
covered by the structure'to ridge..:
__3"",:.°_1 __12 .Maximum height of project,measured from the finished grade adjacent
to the lowest foundation to ridge..
-#--"""l----,.-,.-.13:Square footage of all propos~d neW structures.
A..Firs~'Story =I ~'."C.·Other =':..''.."
$..S.$.~bt!d."StorY'=·:~:.:.:;'.'::':':".,.:".r ... .\..~~...',.>.....'.·.~.:I .. '')"::..'.....-'.",.....•'J:o.r.....~'.,..."
jj 01'2..14.Square footage ot-proposed "ne~buiidlilg footprint[lin~6 +Ifn·e13j.
~15.Square footage of driveways,outdoor P~rki~g..~reas,and impervious
surfaces (hTlperviotls surfaces less than 5'in,width and/or one patio area
,less than ·500 square feet in area shall be.excluded !tom the iot coverage
'..""::.\~.:~;:;.~<.)}.~~~lf.Jl~~~J!)~~·~,.:..:":"<)':::~":·}~~:':)~~~,·~tij",::~·..."\"~.:!,:'';":<'..~.\i.~..~.:lr:i:l:':~~;·~J:~;;i{~X;:~:r:r '::':.::;:;;;:.:/....;..:..:"!
..~~.~~'6::...,.....'~~~'".,....;".,:?.:"';'.."..••et..:..'.-;:':2:::::..'.....:':.~~·>-.·::~'~(~.:.~r.:·~·~\::~~~.:;...:z~.:....,,:~~..;.>:;;.:.:..~..:'.:-i
"~~':~+1"P~th~~t~~·~·df new'lot ~o~eiag~Aiine:1"~~dfuii~a;::bY:"nW~r~].:·.'~'.".'.:'.'.'.
Gradlng Information:
.~Total volu~e ofeartb.to be moved (sum of clit and fill,in cubic yards).
n.tI,Maximum height of fill.
~.•1 ~.!=II •d f_--""~........,~,,,-_,Maximum epth 0 cut.
If the proposed project involves earth movement (sum of cut and fJ71)of 20 cubic yards or greater.or a 3
foot cut or fill or greater,a separate Grading Application is required.I
Page 5 :J.,J'";/
I .'t'l
Information to Determine if a Foliage Analysis is Necessary
Does the proposed project involve an addition or structure which is 120 square feet or more in size and
which can be used as a gathering space and viewing area (Le.,decks,covered patios)?
lit YES CJ NO
Does the proposed project involve an addition or structure which consists of 120 square feet or more of
habitable space (i.e.,room expansions,additions,conversions)?
Ii'YES 0 NO
If the answer is "yes"to either question,a foliage analysis must be conducted by Staff prior to
approval of the Site Plan Review Application to determine if any existing foliage on the applicant's
property,which exceeds 16 feet or the ridgeline of the primary residence,whichever is lower,impairs a
view from any surrounding properties.All additional processing fee of $157 is required to perform the
foliage analysis will generally be completed within 1 week from application submittal.
If the answer is "no"to both questions,the proposed project is exempt from the "foliage removal"
requirements,and a foliage analysis of the applicant's property is not necessary.
Voluntary Neighborhood Compatibility Pre-application Step
Was the voluntary Neighborhood Compatibility Pre-application step completed?0 YES*CJ NO
If yes,please include the Neighborhood Compatibility Consultation Form (NC-F)at the time of
application submittal.
Project Silhouette Waiver
The waiver below must be completed if you are required to construct a project silhouette for the
Neighborhood Compatibility analysis.See attached construction criteria and certification form.
WAIVER
I,I am the owner of property located at f.!Call1llV'-!..t;rne...
in!e CitY.of Rancho Palos Verdes and wish to apply to the City for permissio~t.l.lru"'cll::.t-:----
I understand that,pursuant to Section 17.02.040(C)(1)(d),I must construct and maintain a
temporary frame as a visual aid for evaluating the impacts of the proposed structure.I hereby waive
any claim against the City of Rancho Palos Verdes for any damage or injury caused by the construction
of the frame or by a y s sequent failure of the frame ..
Date
Page 6
Public Right-Of-Way Encroachment
Does the project involve any work,activity,or encroachment in the pUblic right-of-way or public
drainage structure?D YES*IJ(NO
If yes,you must obtain approval from the Public Works Department prior to issuance of construction
permits.
Signatures
I HEREBY CERTIFY,under penalty of perjury,that the information and materials submitted with this
application are true and correct.
Dated:-_
~f!~
Signature of Landowner (REQUIRED)
Dated:t>=-t--lllJ,....;O-+/...::./O~_
CONTRACTORS PLEASE READ AND INITIAL:
I UNDERSTAND that in order to perform work in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,a business license
must be obtained from the City's Finance Department prior to obtaining a building permit from the
Building and Safety Division.(initials)
Page 7 q
..RECEIVED
APR 08 L:.~
surfaces (impervious surfaces less than 5 feet.in width and/or on~ING,BUILDING
area less than 500 square feet in area shall be excluded from the Ic1tODE ENFORCEME~D
lot coverage calcul~4:"',,),
1.(1/;1)0 8.Square footage of lot.
~~5';9.Square footage of existing lot coverage [line 6 +line 7J.
~10.Percentage of existing lot coverage [line 9 divided by line 8J.
Proposed Development:
---ld:..L 11.Maximum height of project,measured from the highest·point of existing grade
covered by the structure to ridge.
__·3oJ!t_J1 __12.Maximum height of project,measured from the finished grade adjacent
to the lowest foundation to ridge.
~13:Square footage of aU proposed new structures.
A.First Story =I)lau C.Other =~~~I-:--"+;I~~
B.Sectmd StCllY=aJ-Z ..".~.
-i::J3'fJjtl.'IJ....'2......._14.Square footage of proposed new building footprint [line 6 +line 13J.
~15.Square footage of driveways,outdoor parking areas,and impervious
surfaces (ilT!pe.rvious surlaces less than 5'in width and/or one patio area
less than 500 square feet in area shall be excluded from the lotcoverage
4~~1l:.~~&~~';i';;;I~M~fr.;;...".•...•.....
_....~......2....,f$17.Percentage of new·'ot coverage [line'1~d~"idedbY li~~·8].
Grading Information:
~Total volume of earth to be moved (sum of cut and fill,in cubic yards).
(1,a t .Maximum height of fill.
,.,1 ..,nil~Maximumdepth of cut.
If the proposed project involves earth movement (sum of cut and fiJI)of 20 cubic yards or greater,or a 3
foot cut or fill or greater,a separate Grading Application is required.
Page 5
10
•
•
•
••
II
Vl
C!
3
-t§
-~
:1
~
Cl'S::'
....,...0\10....·"n_~
.f
d
\]\
c:S.'
.'
I
l.
4o
c.)
.~'I":\
1SI\n 'QQO?:t ~
,-l '-'C~
f O'I("{~)t'
~':-.1 ",-.()~
..-f.
~~~i ..t•••0"1 .......~
-6 1l.~.Q..1P
'-....~
9 8 Jc;s-'0
:f "~~~c::r-::J-
:::~0'4 ~~.:::r-
~~-0'~'~u'.(\
;)~s~
()~\1 <)-3~~~l \\l ?v
-d 5 ~~..J .-:::r-:::t-•"'-....:-......~.(j'-'<:)~()/~b$J:~0:~~.s \.-,::I-~~-\s)~
00 ~~~l~\"'\'<~e'-tr -...9 ~C
£\..ri'~I~~~....
.()..iJ --i ~...5)
q'of".<:'1,:-;;:::
~...:S.TI -t.
'~1"1 t 1J-'\S"""\~~~~1 ~en it <:i-\::,JJl-t:-4 ..(l ~~~
~~-]-90'VV'"~III 1~~<y'.~n..~~Pti :t~\5~d4)-..~..>~-±cii c¥~~1~t-+~J ~~--G,<5 ~~
~..$~~"i).~1-{~J\}~()
0\v,~a lJ\..s;:(/)\lie>~144 <-t:
.~t\~'f'~.Cil I?-J'rr-3
Attachment 3 of Appeal Letter dated March 22,2011.
RE:Appeal of ZO N2009-00108 (21 Cayuse Lane)
California Code,General Plan,Ordinances,Proposition M,and the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code
This is a part of the Appeal Letter dated March 22,2011 and includes the issues of Neighborhood Compatibility and it
is 16'"by right"instead of 16'130'"by right."Other problems are the Extreme Slope Permit,the covered (patio)deck
structure,a third story that is not mentioned,the front setback line and ~et~ack,no dimensions on the plans,and "new"
and "existing"is not thoroughly noted on the plans,t:l1t'd '3 ~+V\~\.-es '5+c~ckt!d t"J';!..cW .,.[2 ft'-R~of-ij"fJJ'.
There is also missing information and inaccurate information in the Memorandum dated November 4,2010,in the
Notice of Decision dated November 29,2010,in the application forms,and in the plans which have created
inconsistencies,and would substantially change the proposed project.There are numerous errors and omissions.
These need to be corrected.
Procedures were not followed and regUlations and requirements·of the City have not been met which would
substantially change the proposed project.These need to be corrected.
And,as it is,it is not according to the intent of the codes,General Plan,Ordinances,Proposition M,and the Rancho
Palos Verdes Municipal Code.
From:SunshineRPV@aol.com
Sent:Thursday,April 14,2011 8:56 PM
To:clehr@rpv.com
Cc:cc@rpv.com
Subject:Fwd:BIG PROBLEM -Leza called around 8:50 am and said !I!I!
Attachments:50 am and said !!I!!(2.32 KB)
Why do you suppose that people with whom I have not communicated in decades reach out to me
when things go awry?...8
4/15/2011 II
From:Rose Marie Di Santo [rdrayodeluna@gmail.com]
Sent:Thursday,April 14,2011 9:25 AM
To:sunshinerpv
SUbject:BIG PROBLEM -Leza called around 8:50 am and said !!!!!
Leza called around 8:50 am and said everything has to be in with them by 9:00am or it will be handed to them
when they walk in.And she said that since I am the appellant the rules are different for me.I said you (Leza)keep
changing things).So,I am wondering if you,Sunshine,can help me by sending my letter with your name on it.
4/15/2011
From:SunshineRPV@aol.com
Sent:Sunday,April 17,201112:07 PM
To:cc@rpv.com
Subject:Who is minding the store/city?
MEMO from Sunshine
TO,:RPV City Council
RE:Two important questions as inspired by the appeal of Zone2009-00108.
21 Cayuse Lane
1.Since when has proposed decks over an extreme slope in the "proposed"side yard setback not
been acknowledged?
2.Since when has a proposed deck which looks straight down into a neighbor's yard and bedroom not
produced a bit of early planning advice like..."Please consider your neighbors and your future
neighbors when you propose the lecation of new construction."
I went to City Hall and checked.Both of the proposed decks over the north side extreme slope come
right out to the required five foot side yard setback.The Staff Memorandum of November 4,2010
states that the proposed north side yard setback is 15 feet.
This project,as approved by the Community Development Director,is just plain inconsiderate of both
the upslope and the downslope property owners.The Director's approval that this applicant can take a
few inches off of the existing garage roof so that a behemoth can be built out of sight from the roadway
is absurd.
4/18/2011
,(;)f I 1/
From:Leza Mikhail [LezaM@rpv.com]
Sent:Monday,April 18,2011 8:15 AM
To:'Teri Takaoka'
Cc:'Carla Morreale'
Subject:FW:ZON2009-00108 -#21 Cayuse,RPV
Teri,.
Here is more late correspondence.
Leza Mikhail
Associate Planner
City of'1(ancfio CFa{os 'Verdes
Planning Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
www.palosverdes.com/rpv/planning/planning-zoninglindex.cfin
(310)544-5228 -(310)544-5293 f
lezam@rpv.com
From:Madeline Ryan [mailto:pvpasofino@yahoo.com]
Sent:Friday,April 15,201110:43 AM
To:Tom Long
Cc:Anthony Mizetich;Douglas Stern;Steve Wolowicz;brianc@rpv.com;Leza Mikhail;Joel Rojas
Subject:ZON2009-00108 -#21 Cayuse,RPV
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers:
Although I do not live within 500 feet of the proposed project I know this neighborhood and am familiar with the
#22 Cayuse residence the architect for the Applicants states is described in the county registrar records as a single
family home and uses this to establish a consistency of like-size homes in the immediate area.
The residence that the architect refers to houses multiple residents in a residential-type home-care facility;and,
thus,the large,detached structure(s)gives the appearance of a much larger home.Therefore,until it is established
that the detached structure(s)are legally,permitted structures I don't believe #22 Cayuse is a credible finding to
substantiate comparable large size homes of over 5,200 square feet in this neighborhood.
In addition,City Staff states that,"...granting the Extreme Slope Permit will result in no significant adverse effect
on neighboring properties,including view impairment......",
When is a building pad not a building pad?A 'building pad'on an extreme slope grants 30'height maximums 'by
right'vs a 'building pad'on other-than-an-extreme slope limits the height to 20',so there is disagreement among the
parties as to whether or not there is a 'building pad'which determines the height of the project (doesn't the existing
home sit on a 'building pad'?).Why not have City Staff make findings for view impairments,et cetra,in either
case?Until there is more clarity on this issue,perhaps the project should be remanded to the Planning Department
for further review.
Overall,it appears that city and ocean views from the DiSanto's property (#17 Cayuse),mainly their living
areas,will be significantly diminished ifthis project is allowed to be completed.Our City's General Plan is "...to
enhance the development ofhousing ofall present and future residents ",yet,it doesn't protect existing
4118/2011 II.
residents from loss of amenities enjoyed for decades.While the Colemans will enjoy an uninterrupted view from
Malibu to Queen's Necklace to downtown Los Angeles,the DiSantos will have lost the views they have enjoyed for
over 40 years.There needs to be a balance.
Thank you for your careful consideration of fairness towards all property owners.
Madeline Ryan,28328 Palos Verdes Drive East
P.S.Please note that #21 Cayuse is in the Equestrian Overlay District and I did not find mention of this in any of
the Staff Report.Maybe Staff should have included whether or not there would be adequate areas for the keeping
of hQrses after the proposed additions.This would be valuable information for future use in tracking such.
"May the Trails be with you"...Madeline
4/18/2011
RECEIVED ..
APR 18 2011
PlANNING,BUILDING AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT