The URL can be used to link to this page

20111018 Late CorrespondenceRECEIVED FROM AND MADE APART OF THE R ,C A 'SHE COUNCIL MEETING OF -- ��! i/Il f OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CARLA MORREALE, CITY CLERIC PHOTO TAKEN BY MOR1MOTO FAMILY - OCTOBER 2011 Taken too far away from the viewing area as defined by the ordinance as the adjacent wall. The angle was created by leaning or stepping away significantly from the wall (compare to Staff's photo)- * Zoomed/telephoto focal length exaggerates the distances * Telephoto setting makes the Magalnic house much closer than reality. o The far view is not potentially significant. There is no potentially significant view impairs -hent caused by the Magalic house PHOTO TAKEN BY CITY STAFF — OCTOBER 12, 2011 This photograph is properly taken from the viewing area. The photograph accurately shows the distances to the Magalnic house. The far view is not potentialiV significant. There is no potentially si Ma_galic house. �nificant view impairment caused bV the RECEIVED FROM L4aC V rC K J -I- ND I-ND MADE A PART OF THE REG RD AT THE (I.OUNVIL MEE71NG O 1ELIp' 1— OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CARLA MORREALE, CITY CLERK j -g --* 2— Tm SF (N) COLCli!ED C0NCfkXTI! ( ) 2;—CAR GARAGE To MAIN 403 s' F! q SITE PLAN LEGE} ab ............... %% ............. . ................... .......... ....... c ............... ............ . . . . . . . . . . . 1139 SF SECOND.'. C .�T0 RY. AUDITION ..... .... ......... .............. .......... ........................... ............................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... . . . . . . ..... . . I IL (P)WDW TREWS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................ ........... ....... iopll . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... ........ .......... .......... .......... ...... . . ....... ................... .............. .......... ........................... ............... .................... .. ........................... ........................ .............. .. ............... ................ ..................... ----------- (E)FRONT LAWN: 1x11'1.11 Il 1.1111, VJLr 1V1 If I.1 4 638 5F 2310 W. MAGNOLIA BLVD. r c 9 BURBANK, CA 91505 TFL; (010) 260-0000 FAX: (816) 260-686I (E)'R10.7EAREF LANDSCA PE- SF (N) COLCli!ED C0NCfkXTI! ( ) 2;—CAR GARAGE To MAIN 403 s' F! q SITE PLAN LEGE} ab ............... %% ............. . ................... .......... ....... c ............... ............ . . . . . . . . . . . 1139 SF SECOND.'. C .�T0 RY. AUDITION ..... .... ......... .............. .......... ........................... ............................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... . . . . . . ..... . . I IL (P)WDW TREWS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................ ........... ....... iopll . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... ........ .......... .......... .......... ...... . . ....... ................... .............. .......... ........................... ............... .................... .. ........................... ........................ .............. .. ............... ................ ..................... ----------- CEWED FROM 2!fM= D MADE A PART OFT AT UNCIL MEETING OF:�Ib77§f D A OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CARLA MORREALE, CITY CLERK ,(E) REAR LAWOS CAPE; 685 SF -8" 0 71 4! 1x11'1.11 Il 1.1111, VJLr 1V1 If I.1 4 2310 W. MAGNOLIA BLVD. SUITE A BURBANK, CA 91505 TFL; (010) 260-0000 FAX: (816) 260-686I (E)'R10.7EAREF LANDSCA PE- • IIA. 1.-1111 .-I, %I firl 11141.5 DINT zI 613 WILSHIRE BLVD. SUITE 105 I—P ly 1141 Il I 1 141. SANTA MONICA, CA 90401 Iyr' 1. 316-3953461 NI s1Nl •111 �II\M 411151]1}11}1. 111.1 L.1 CEWED FROM 2!fM= D MADE A PART OFT AT UNCIL MEETING OF:�Ib77§f D A OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CARLA MORREALE, CITY CLERK ,(E) REAR LAWOS CAPE; 685 SF -8" 0 40'-3- DESIGNER: SM SCALE: 114" . 1'0" A-1 2310 W. MAGNOLIA BLVD. SUITE A BURBANK, CA 91505 TFL; (010) 260-0000 FAX: (816) 260-686I (E)'R10.7EAREF LANDSCA PE- 1 zI 613 WILSHIRE BLVD. SUITE 105 SANTA MONICA, CA 90401 Iyr' 1. 316-3953461 SECONO STDnY AMMON MAC.AUNIC RESIDENCE 6530 LA GARITA DIA RANC[ilf) PALOS VERDILS, SI CALIFORNIA 90275 TEL.31D-5614300 SITE PLAN lxl yarn 1,915 al. 40'-3- DESIGNER: SM SCALE: 114" . 1'0" A-1 4w E%G TRIO VIALLS2105> 13CO UM1514EDWAUS 1a® +u .m. w,e tame PROPOSED FIR5T FLOOR PLAN 77+54= 1 3 1 SF ADDITION q (�} PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN V� 1 139 Sf— ADDITION 7 Ma GOMuLlraRM 9690 2310 W. MAGNOLIA BLVD. SUITE A BURBANK CA 91506 TEL: (8181260-0500 FAX: (818) 26a-0881 LnLN5 Nls~LIi4Ik7FJlltlisC4 �Ct7�7��VL{4h7if to, S -55D XiO an.GTI` ac SSL n OX; 613 WILSHIRE BLVD. SUITE 105 SANTA MONICA, CA 90401 310.395.3461 PROJECT: EECONO STORY ADDITION AIAGALNIC RESIDENCE 6530 LA GARITA DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA 90275 TEL:310.561. 1300 FLOOR PLAN REMON9: DATE: 818111 DESIGNER: SM SCALE: 114" n T-0" A-2 REAR (SOUTH) ELEVATION FRONT (NORTH) ELEVATION DCC§?MM'4%1�i1 3 M 2310 W. MACINCLIA BLVD, SUITE A BURBANK, CA 01500 TEL: (810) 260-0000 FAX: (810) 260.0001 L-v.;:TLfi104M : xJ GstlMlocl 14T LS F, 613 WILSHIRE BLVD. SUITE 105 SANTA MONICA, CA 90901 310-395.3981 PROJECT; DECOND STORY ADDMON MAGALNIC RESIDENCE 6530 LA GARITA DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA 90273 &E • ,A:Nt1 iLOGl [lL4AfWY/i?ANY �y,� • nIW�Npf % ® *MW MW n�p.f,M A 91 ,� Aalmw NMU/VMM SIDE (WEST) ELEVATION SCALE: 114" v T-0" A-3 LIST OF VIEWS ALL 2 ND FLOOR WINDOWS VIEW I: VIEW BLOCKED BY OPAQUE WINDOWS VIEW 2: VIEW BLOCKED BY OPAQUE WINDOWS VIEW 3: BLOCKED BY HAYDEN ROOF VIEW 4: VIEW OF SLOPED LANDSCAPE VIEW 5: VIEW OF SLOPED LANDSCAPE L;ANDSCA�P�E-D' SL+��'.ED , :� LAND'5CAPED SLOp.ED LANDS.CAPED SL�PFD, I REAR YARD(FLAT) REAR YARD(FLAT) REAR YARD(FLAT) I I V4/OP E FIXED A UE H PER WNiyl %1 O � R I OPAQUE ��aG OPAQUE � k WINDOYVS " VANBOWS s " HAYDENCL I 1viAGALNlC T 6524 LA GARITA DR 6538 LA GARITA DR � 5 6530 LA GARITA DR 1 00 PROPOSED 2 NO FLOOR z 1 I ; fFIRST FLOOR (E) GARAGE (E) I I I I f I i I v L �L LA GARITA DRIVE —. 0 SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE TO ALL PROPOSED UPSTAIRS WINDOWS SINCE 8/16/11 a VIEW ANGLES HAVE BEEN ANALYZED FOR ALL VANTAGES TOWARDS THE ADJACENT HOUSES, a THERE IS NO LONGER A POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT PRIVACY IMPACT TO ANY ADJACENT HOUSE • THE CHANGES IN TYPE, LOCATION, SIZE, OPENING AND GLAZING PROVIDE REASONABLE PROTECTION FROM INTRUSIVE VISUAL OBSERVATION WITHOUT THE NEED TO FURTHER RAISE ANY WINDOWS ABOVE THE PROPOSED FLOOR HEIGHT. • THE COUNCIL CAN MAKE FINDING NO 4: THE PROPOSED NEW STRUCTURE THAT IS ABOVE SIXTEEN FEET 4 IN HEIGHT OR ADDITION TO AN EXISTING STRUCTURE THAT IS ABOVE SIXTEEN FEET DOES NOT RESULT IN AN UNREASONABLE INFRINGEMENT OF THE PRIVACY OF THE OCCUPANTS OF ABUTTING RESIDENCES, GRAPHIC SCALE CEIVED FROM_ ryA I"lu--'-� — D MADE A PART OF THE R l RD AT UNCIL MEETING OF % OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CARLA MORREALE, CITY CLERK z ►� a � 7 � d � � G7 ul w v Mtn C]0r'] d Jw¢tn a�z d z 5� � Q d Zofnc� 0 J � o cs Q a rr3�? .rix Iof1 http://www. mrmismatrix. com/Matrix/Public/Portal. aspx?I C Previous • Next • [1] ^ ).oItS.LTi(a.C1S_t=�-i?l;.l)lr;_:_>_I^iL1-e _displ�tY ' 6517 Certa Did , Rancho Palos Verdes 90275 Status: S MLS #: V08153109 List Dt: 10/27/2008 PType: SFR/D image i or 4 S;.id+~5#t^p , ` op"e -A.l.l Sold Price; $840,000 Orig. Price: $850,000 t?nivi.i ISr ME= 0 Bed: 4 Bath(F,T,H,Q): 2,0,0,0 APN#: 7584012012 YrBuilL: 1962 Area: Sqft (Src): 1,816 (Assessor's Data) Zone: Style: MB: $/Sgft: $463 Ac/LotSgrt (Src): 0.20/8,6BO (A) Complm DOM: Stories: One Level Land: Fee #Units: CDOM: Entry Location: Horse: HOA: $0 View: SchDist: Palos Verdes Peninsula Patio: 554-: No Pool: Unified Midsch: liighsch: FP: Elem: SaleType: Directions: Hawthorne to San Nicolas, right on Lomo to Certa LP Includs: Description: on a quiet street, this Los Verdes home has a lovely yard, large, open living areas offering many options for your use. Spacious living room with fireplace and access to the patio and secluded backyard. Two possible dining areas or living/dining with separate family room off kitchen. Home is priced for fast sale. Great, flexible floor plan offers great options. Wonderful neighborhood, convenient top of the hill location with easy access to schools and business district. Ready for your personal touchesi 173 792H7 22 22 No No Yes f C'cll:LIre5 ...... ......... _........ _.....,. _,...... Roof: View: None Pool: None Parking: Cooling: None Structure: Main 'Floor Bedroom, Main Floor Master Bedroom, Freestanding, Heating: Forced Air No Common Walls Utilities: Exterior: Eat Area: Area, Living Room, See Remarks Laundry: Individual Room F1rePlace: Living Room interlor: HOA: Rooms: Family Room, Great Room, Master Bedroom Style: Appliances: Dishwasher, Garbage Disposal Lot/Com Curbs, Sidewalks, Lot-Level/Flat, Ocean Side of Highway Floor: Wall -To -Wali Carpet 1, Park Nearby, Paved Street, Sewer ........ OrgLstPrc: .......... w ... $850,000 CurLstPrc: $840,000 SoldPrice: $840,000 SOIdDt: 12/12/2008 ConstractDt: 11/18/2008 Customer Full - Residential ML#: V08153189 Previous • Next • [1] , Top • B.acKAo..r1ublic._.t Llne.diisplay PrinL 46Y Map 6517 Certa Drive — Morimoto - 2008 Multiple Listing Service Records • This is the 2008 Real Estate Listing. • The price of the house was not based on being a view property. • The house was not considered by the listing broker to include a view. • The section marked "View" says "NONE" • No investment was made in this house on the basis of view. 10/17/2011 3: Development Standards and Plan Changes — 2010 - 2011 6530 La Garita PC 1 Plans PC 2 Plans CC 1 Plans • PC 1 & 2 plans bear little relationship to CC 1 • Out of scale • Reduced scale. • All elevations redesigned • Incompatible height • Attractive articulation. . Size/Mass reduction with neighbor input Design • Four 2"d floor bdrms • Staff support • No View Impairment • No staff support. • Incompatible tile roof a Reduction to three 2"d floor bedrooms • Incompatible tile roof • Compatible composition roof • Redesign/reduction of 2"d floor Size (sq, ft.) • 3,405 • 3,188 • 3,077 — 10% reduction from PC 1 2nd Floor . ft.) • 1,467 • 1,250 • 1,139 - (28% reduction from PC 1). FAR . 0.49 • 0.45 • 0.44 • Ridgeline13112 roof changes soften appearance Roof Ridge Height • 25 • 21 ;� 3 1lvt-- Five ft taller than by -right height of 16 ft. (ft) • Maximum 8 ft interior height — 2"d floor. • 3 transparent, sliding • Increase privacy with • To further assure no privacy impact — two types of window windows 2 windows set 1.5 ft. in replacements: Rear Windows Flush to exterior from rear elevation o Limited transparency and inward opening happen "d wall. • No privacy or view components that tilt inward 45 deg and eliminate views 2 floor • Possible privacy impact per City Staff towards adjacent Domes. impact o Narrow sliding windows set 5.75 ft in from rear fagade with wood trellis screening. • 3 windows facing • No east facing • No east facing windows. east. windows. • One west facing limited transparency and inward opening Side Windows . 1 window facing . 1 opaque west facing hopper components that tilt inward 45 deg and eliminate 2nd floor west,. window views towards adjacent homes. • No privacy or view impact per City Staff Facade Is Boxy, flat, a Boxy, flat, • Aesthetic improvement through use of color, material, roof unarticulated unarticulated slope and roof material David Moss & Associates, Inc. HOA Table 10-18-11 From: Murray Blitz & Associates [murrayblitzassoc@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 4:55 PM To: CC@rpv.com; pc@rpv.com Cc: Lowell R. Wedemeyer; sharon yarber; Lenee Bilski Subject, Objection to proposed Code amendment for Interpretive Procedure, Agenda Item 5, 10118/11 C.C. Meeting Hello City Council: I would like to voice our strong objections to the proposed amendment for Interpretive Procedure, Agenda Item 5. We wholeheartedly concur with the points made in the thoughtful and well -reasoned commentary submitted to you yesterday by Lowell R. Wederneyer below. It provides legal references, various scenarios as example, and the insight for all residents who value democratic principles to realize that this proposed power grab is not acceptable and beyond that, is downright dangerous. Hopefully, this over -reaching proposal is one that all of you can, without hesitation, vote "NQ" on. Thank you. Sincerely, Murray Blitz Valerie Blitz ---------- f=orwarded message ---------- From: Lowell R Wedemeyer <Iowell@transtalk.com> Date: Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 10:56 AM Subject: Code Amendment, Interpretive Procedure. To: cc(c_L)rpy.com, gc(d@rpv,com Honorable Mayor and City Council: I am appending a comment concerning Agenda Item 5, for the October 18, 2011 City Council Meeting, which concerns a proposed code amendment to increase the discretionary zoning -line adjustment authority of the Community Development Director. Lowell R. Wedemeyer COMMENT ON CODE INTERPRETATION PROCEDURE, RPVMC CHAPTER 17.90 The Community Development Director proposes that the authority of his office be expanded "to make adjustments of a zoning or special district boundary line from thirty feet to one hundred feet without the processing of a zoning Map Amendment." Memorandum of Joel Rojas to City Council, for October 18, 2011 City Council Meeting. Please always keep in mind that the following comment addresses public policy issues, not personalities. It is not directed at and does not criticize Director Rojas nor any other public employee or official. The grant of discretionary authority to the office of Director should stand on its own merits. This is not an argument against delegation of any discretion to Staff, Rather, the policy question is: How much discretion, of what character, should be delegated to the position of Development Director? This comment supports in principle the delegation of discretion to City Staff, if: (1) the discretion is carefully defined and limited, (2) the affected land owners are given clear notice and sufficient opportunity to protect their _ 10/18/2011 1, interests without excessive fees and costs, (3) the discretion does not shift to land owners burdens of proof or other burdens that more properly are governmental burdens of the City; and (4) the discretionary power viewed as a whole does not create unacceptable risks of cronyism, arbitrariness, bribery or other corruption. The proposed expansion of the discretionary authority of the office of Community Development Director from 30 to 100 feet is not consistent with these four standards. The following comments suggests (1) that the entire interpretive procedure in RPVMC Chapter 17.90 should be reconsidered and revised, and (2) that the proposed increase in the Director?s authority from thirty feet to one hundred feet should be better defined and much more constrained. THE ECONOMIC IMPACT ON LOT OWNERS IS UNLIMITED AND POTENTIALLY HUGE. Consider the following hypothetical: Suppose there is a residence on a lot of 100 feet by 100 feet constructed along a ridge with a slope falling away from the building pad. The Director decides that the zoning line drawn on the city zoning map is "uncertain" (which in some degree always will be the case for thousands of lots in the City because of inherent uncertainties in the zoning maps). Assume that the existing drawing line on the city zoning map covers the equivalent of 40 feet wide when zoomed to single parcel size. That is, on the sloping ground the ?uncertainty? in the location of the zoning line is 40 feet wide. The difference in market value between land on which building is permitted and land that Is defined by zoning line as non -buildable is $100 per square foot -- say $150 per square foot for building pad versus $50 per square foot for non -buildable land. The zoning -line uncertainty, 40 feet wide by 100 feet long, is an area of 4,000 sq. feet. With a valuation difference of $100 per square foot riding on the precise location of the zoning line, a $400,000 strip on a single lot is placed at economic risk -- all at the sole discretion of the Development Director on only 15 days notice to the lot owner. If there are ten lots similarly situated on the same ridge and slope, this "nterpretation" could affect $4,000,000 worth of land. If, as likely is the fact, there are hundreds or thousands of lots city-wide that are affected by "uncertain" zoning lines, then this uncertainty in zoning lines has an economic price tag for lot owners in tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, of dollars. If, as the Director now proposes, the Director's authority to re -define zoning lines is expanded from thirty feet to one hundred feet, the land area and value at stake are more than tripled. In principle, a zoning adjustment of one hundred feet could cut right through existing houses, or define an existing residence to be entirely non -conforming and thus destroy the market value of that residence. At some point, the financial magnitude of uncertainty in zoning lines merits systematic, legislative or quasi-judicial attention, not just discretionary staff action on an ad hoc basis. The proposed increase in adjustment authority from 30 to 100 feet crosses that line. THIS PROPOSAL IMPLICATES FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF GOOD GOVERNMENT. This proposal does not reduce government regulation. Rather, RPVMC section 17.90 shifts the existing regulatory power into the hands of a single individual and away from the Planning Commission and the City Council: "the preparation of an interpretation may be initiated by the city council, planning commission, view restoration commission OR DIRECTOR, OR upon the written request and payment of fee, as established by city council resolution, ANY PERSON." RPVMC§ 17.90.020. Thus, under the existing code, the Director may simply publish a zoning change on his own motion. Similarly, a hostile neighbor ("any person") can initiate a zoning change on a disfavored neighbor's lot. This implicates the fundamental principle that we have a government of laws, not individual authority. Long experience shows that transfer of great discretionary power to any individual human enables cronyism, arbitrariness, personal whim, vendetta, and political retaliation. It increases the temptations to bribery and corruption. Ask yourself the questions, 'Would I want [an adversary] to exercise this individual power?', and 'Would I fear this power in the hands of [name someone]T The "interpretation power" in Chapter 17.90 actually is both a City-wide power and a power to adjust single lots: "Except in the case of a zoning or special district boundary adjustment, interpretations shall be generally applicable to all future situations of the same type and shall not be limited or directed to specific parcels or circumstances thereon." §17.90.010.This implicates the fundamental principle that laws should be adopted by an elected legislature, not by fiat of a non- elected individual. The innocuous -sounding label ?interpretation? is dangerously beguiling. Recall the aphorism "the devil is in the details." A devil can be introduced by interpretation whether by design or by unintended effect. The quoted sentence from §17.90.010 can literally be read to authorize an astonishing application to a single lot. This can more readily be seen simply by altering the order of the clauses within the existing code sentence to read as follows: "Interpretations shall be generally applicable to all future situations of the same type and shall not be limited or 10/18/2011 directed to specific parcels or circumstances thereonexcept in the case of a zoning or special district boundary adjustment." The existing code can literally be read to authorize by exception adjustments to zoning and special district boundaries by the Director on a specific parcel --on the Director?s own initiative or on the initiative of a single hostile neighbor. This further implicates the fundamental principle that we are governed by law, not by a single individual, or by arbitrary discretion of a government official. Under the existing code a lot owner can return from a 15 -day vacation to find that in his absence his lot has already been finally, legally rezoned by "interpretation" of the director made on the director's own motion or at the behest of a private adversary.A lot owner need only be given fifteen days notice of the Director's "interpretation" that rezones a person's lot: "Within fifteen calendar days after the date of the notice, the planning commission, city council or any interested person may make a written request to the director for a hearing. If no such request for a hearing is received, the interpretation shall become effective and final fifteen days after the date of the notice." Please carefully note that the lot owner receives only fifteen days, not fifteen days plus thirty days: "Within thirty days after the initiation of an interpretation, the director shall prepare a written interpretation and transmit it to the planning commission and the city council and shall give public notice that such interpretation has been prepared." § 17.90.040.A. This thirty -day provision does NOT give thirty days notice to the lot owner or the public. Rather, it merely establishes an outside time limit on how long the Director may take to prepare an interpretation after someone else requests the interpretation. The Director can simply decide with his morning coffee to make an interpretation (or can receive a private person's request for interpretation) and the Director can publish the interpretation that same day, without any prior notice to anyone that he is considering an interpretation. THE EXISTING CODE SECTION IS MATHEMATICALLY ILL-DEFINED. The existing authorization in RPVMC §17.90.010 is mathematically ill-defined as follows: "Adjustment of a zoning or special district boundary, except for a coastal specific plan setback zone boundary, of up to thirty feet from the scaled location on the zoning map may be accomplished under this procedure if a code amendment is not initiated and if such adjustment is necessary to resolve uncertainty as to the precise location of such zoning or special district boundary." This is the code sentence within which the Director proposes an increase to one hundred feet from thirty feet. The existing code language literally is internally inconsistent and thus it authorizes mathematically arbitrary drawing of zoning linesby the Director. If the "precise location of such zoning or special district boundary" already is "uncertain" as the existing code section requires, then at what starting point does the Director begin the measurement of the thirty feet of adjustment? Do you start at the left edge, right edge or middle of the broad line drawn on the map? The code section does not say. UNCERTAINTIES IN EXISTING CITY ZONING MAPS. What is the meaning of the phrase "the scaled location on the map" in RPVMC §17.90.010? Careful analysis demonstrates that this code phrase does not define a mathematically precise starting point for measuring the thirty feet (or the proposed one hundred feet) of adjustment. In RPV zoning historically has been adopted by physically drawing lines on two-dimensional maps of the City. The maps have a relatively high compression in the scale of the map. Zoning is not defined in the Code by professionally surveyed metes and bounds. There are at least five kinds of uncertainties inherent in the City?s existing zoning maps: 1. Because of the high compression in the scale of the City?s zoning map, the physical width of the drawing line placed on the highiy-compressed map can correspond to a width of twenty, thirty or more feet on the ground when the drawing line on the city -sized zoning map is scaled up to individual parcel size for use in a land survey. 2. The maps have been photo reproduced which created spherical aberrations and other optical distortions in the copies. 3. There was wobble in the pen when the line was drawn, which becomes perceptible when the City zoning map is zoomed to individual lot size. Curving lines are especially rough and uncertain on existing maps. 4. The City zoning maps are two-dimensional in a plan view (bird?s eye view). Yviathematically, the uncertainty in the width of the zone -line drawn on the zoning map is geometrically amplified when a surveyor tries to locate that line on sloping ground. The steeper the slope, the greater the mathematical uncertainty in the location on the ground of the line drawn on the two-dimensional, plan -view, zoning map. [ The amount of this uncertainty can be mathematically quantified using the Pythagorean Theorem: The square of the hypotenuse equals the sum of the squares of the other two sides of a right triangle.] 5. The original two-dimensional zoning reap upon which zoning lines were drawn may itself correspond poorly to professionally- surveyed, official, land markers. There may be other uncertainties in the City zoning maps as well. Sometimes these inherent errors in the maps can cumulate. Sometimes they can offset each other to some extent. All of these errors, individually and collectively can be quantified to some degree for engineering and survey purposes, but that requires special skills and can be a tedious and expensive process. In the absence of a mathematically precise starting point, the end point of the "thirty feet" necessarily must have the same 10/18/2011 uncertainty as the starting point ? it is an exercise in arbitrary line shifting UNCERTAINTIES IN THE CODE DEFINITION OF "THIRTY FEET". The existing code language is mathematically ill-defined as follows: "up to thirty fee from the scaled location on the zoning map if such adjustment is necessary to resolve uncertainty as to the precise location of such zoning or special district boundary." This sentence is mathematically illogical. The logic error is circularity: the conclusion is built into an assumption that is adopted at the start of the logical analysis. Using the code?s language, if the "precise location of such zoning or special district boundary" is "uncertain", then what is the "scaled location on the zoning map" that is to be used by a professional surveyor as a starting point on the ground? "Scaled location on the zoning map" is obscure jargon. For an example, consider this: On a slope, does one measure the thirty feet horizontally, or does one measure thirty feet along the plane of the slope? The code does not say. THE TOTAL LAND AREA AFFECTED BY AN ?INTERPRETATION? IS UNLIMITED UNDER THE EXISTING CODE. Area = length x width. The ?thirty feet? defines only width, There is no definition of the length affected by an interpretation. Hence, the land area that can be affected by an interpretation is undefined and unlimited. One is tempted to read the "thirty feet" as a distance perpendicular to a paint on the zoning boundary line (but the code does not so state). The code section does not limit the distance along the zoning boundary line ("congruent to the zoning line") to which an interpretation can be applied. At some point, a mass zoning or re -zoning can be effected by the Director through "interpretation" on fifteen days notice. Please keep in mind that there still are very large parcels with zoning boundary lines that approach or exceed 1000 feet in length. 1000 feet x 100 feet = 10,000 sq, feet that could be affected by a single ?interpretative adjustment?. At a valuation difference of $100 per sq. ft., a single discretionary decision of the Director could be worth $1,000,000. That is a lot of discretion - too much discretion For a single individual. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING WHY AN INCREASE FROM THIRTY FEET TO ONE HUNDRED FEET IS APPROPRIATE, AND, IF SO, WHERE. In principle, there ought to be some standard tocorrelate the nature and degree of "uncertainty" in the zoning line with the scope of the "adjustment" that is authorized. None is disclosed here. Thus, a mathematically minor "uncertainty" could still be used to trigger a one hundred foot adjustment. For example, the code might be amended to read, "An adjustment made to cure an existing uncertainty shall fall within, and shall be no greater than the amount of, the uncertainty that is scientifically demonstrated by the proponent of the adjustment." There currently is no evidence showing, for example, what area of land within the City is affected by a one -hundred foot uncertainty in the zoning maps. DUE PROCESS AND COST ISSUES. The Staff and City consultants who are converting the zoning maps to digital systems have to be able to complete the principal work in a reasonable time at reasonable cost. There necessarily will be substantial winners and losers in this city-wide process. There inevitably will be inequitable and damaging consequences, many of which will only become apparent months or years later when a practical application of the adjusted zone line is evaluated. Lot owners may not understand the consequences for months or years because zoning maps are not readily available at a viewing scale where the results can readily be perceived by lay persons. Simply fairness indicates that lot owners should not have their rights cut off with some cryptic notice of only 15 days. Appeal rights of individual lot owners against mass zone -line adjustments should be extended and should be at a very low, or no, filing fee. This zone -line mapping system is a fundamental governmental function and should not be financed with a special fee. 10/18/2011 RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: OCTOBER 18, 2011 SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA** Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented for tonight's meeting: Item No. Description of Material 1 Revised Ordinance No. 527 2 Emails from: Ned Morimoto; Lindley Ruddick, Mr. Watson; Previous Late Correspondence Emails as provided to City Council on August 16, 2011 5 Emails from Ms. Huffman; Jessica Leeds; Ralph J. Ortolano Jr.; Steve and Deb Hansen; and Lenee Bilski Respectfully submitted, Carla Morreale ** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page were submitted through Monday, October 17, 2011**. W:AGENDA�2011 Additions Revisions to agend2s120111018 additions revisions to agenda.doc ORDINANCE NO. 527 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 17.76.050D OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE TO REVISE AND CLARIFY THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PLACEMENT OF TEMPORARY NONCOMMERCIAL BANNERS WITHIN DESIGNATED AREAS WITHIN THE PUBLIC STREET RIGHTS- OF-WAY. WHEREAS, Section 17.76.050 of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (the "Municipal Code") sets forth various procedures and regulations regarding the provision of signage on private and public property within the City; and, WHEREAS, since 1998, the City's Development Code allowed temporary special event banners or other signs for noncommercial organizations to be placed in the public right-of-way with City approval; and, WHEREAS, on June 8, 2008, the City Council approved of the following three locations for the posting of 2 banners per location: Silver Spur Road and Deep Valley Drive; Hawthorne Boulevard and Locklenna Lane; and Palos Verdes Drive South and Palos Verdes Drive East; and, WHEREAS, on June 9, 2010, Staff began issuing permits for the three locations; and, WHEREAS, due to concerns raised by residents and applicants, on December 7, 2010, the City Council initiated a code amendment to eliminate the existing program that allows noncommercial organizations to place temporary banners or other signs in the City's right-of-way; and, WHEREAS, on February 8, 2011, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing, and recommended to the City Council that the program be retained but that additional or alternative sign sites be identified, and that a more uniform sign program be created that would require specific size and sign colors for temporary banners; and, WHEREAS, on July 19, 2011, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the City Council held a duly notice public hearing, at which time they denied Staff's request to eliminate RPVMC Section 17.76.050.D.4, and adopted the Planning Commission's recommendation to preserve the existing ordinance regarding the temporary banner program with the inclusion of a limit of two banners at each designated location where temporary banners are allowed, and the Council Ordinance No. 2011-527 r f7' Page 1 of 5 directed Staff to identify other suitable locations for the placement of temporary banners; and, WHEREAS, on September 2, 2011, a public notice was sent to property owners within 500 feet of the proposed three new locations, the interested parties list, and previous applicants for temporary banners; and, WHEREAS, on September 2, 2011, notice of a public hearing on the proposed amendments to Section 17.76.050.D.4 of the Municipal Code was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Class 3 — New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, the code amendment is exempt from further CEQA analysis as this Class of exemptions allows construction of new, small structures in the public street rights-of-way where development for roads and sidewalks have already altered the land, and the proposed structures will not be causing further disruption outside of these areas; and, WHEREAS, on September 20, 2011, the public hearing item was continued to October 4, 2011 in order to accommodate other agenda items; and, WHEREAS, on October 4, 2011, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: That the amendments to Title 17 of the Municipal Code are consistent with California Government Code Section 65853, zoning amendment procedures. Section 2: That the amendments to Title 17 are consistent with the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan in that they uphold, and do not hinder, the goals and policies of those plans. Specifically, the modifications to Section 17.76.050.D4 will result in an aesthetically pleasing manner in which banners are displayed within the City's street rights-of-way. Section 3: The City Council finds that the amendments to Title 17 are necessary to preserve the public health, safety, and general welfare in the area. Section 4: Section 17.76.050.D.4 of Chapter 17.76 (Miscellaneous Permits and Standards) of Title 17 of the Municipal Code is hereby modified, to read as follows (language shown in strikethrough text for text removed and with underline text for new text): Ordinance No. 2011-527 r Page 2 of 5 4. Temporary special event ^r nt�"�fgn,fer banners advertising special noncommercial nrn@niZatinno events may be placed in the public rights-of- way, pursuant to the following guidelines requirements: a. For purposes of this section, spesalevent signs shall be limited to oinno hirh a temporary banner shall be permitted only to advertise a specific non-commercial aGtiV!t event occurring on a pa#isula-F specific date; b. €or The advertiser of a special noncommercial event signs, request -shall submit an application to the director on the form provided by the City for this purpose. The application shall be made filed to with the director no sooner than ninety days prior to the mania�rnrlt-the first date when the banner will be posted. Applications shall be processed and approved on a first come, first served basis. The director shall approve the application fora particular location if it complies with the criteria set forth in this Section and shall not denV an application based on the content of the noncommercial event that is being advertised or the content of the banner advertising the noncommercial event; G. Signs The temporary banner shall be installed by the applicant only be pleeed at one of the locations in the City's street rights-of-way identified and designated by the dirarteF that have been approved previously by the City Council; d. Signs Banners shall be securely attached to the structures that have been erected by the City for this purpose in a the manner prescribed by the director so as not to pose a traffic hazard and/or impede pedestrian or vehicular access or visibility within the publ-is City's street rights-of-way; e. PGF speGial eveR signs, Each noncommercial erganizatiea advertiser shall be limited to the placement of twe one temporary s banner within the City's pub4G street rights-of-way per for each noncommercial special event; For signs eGial event SjEach 0FgaRiz2tinn advertiser of a noncommercial event shall be limited to the placement of two sus# signs special event banners within the City's pu-btie street rights-of-way per during each calendar year, commencing on J nuary 1St of each year; Ordinance No. 2011-527 Page 3 of 5 lag. Each sign banner shall be displayed for a maximumeriod of thirty 30 days; i h. The special event sites banner shall be removed by the applicant within feFty eigh twenty-four (24) hours oof- the —evafter the conclusion of the event that the banner is advertising or of the end of the banner dis la period, whichever occurs first; aR4 r. ■ WON" ■ . w ww w w M. MirprWaff .4 ITA WON ._A1%ATF fall i. Each banner shall be four (4) .feet in height by eight (8} feet in width and shall be made only of vinyl with a #2 grommet in each corner, which will allow for the banner to be securely affixed to the structure at the Council -approved banner site location; j. Each banner must have a solid white background with blue or green letters; k. Only one (1) logo or graphic design shall be allowed on each banner, with no color restriction; and Banners must be clean and in 000d repair at all times. Section 6: Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or place, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance, and each and every section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 7: The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in three (3) public places in the City within fifteen (1 5) days after its passage, in accordance with the provisions of Section 36933 of the Government Code. The City Clerk shall further certify to the adoption and posting of this Ordinance, and shall cause this Ordinance and its certification, together with proof of posting, to be entered in the Book of Ordinances of the Council of this City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Ordinance No. 2011-527 f/ L Page 4of5 Section 8: This Ordinance shall go Into effect and be in full force and effect at 12:01 AM on the 31St day after its passage. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this -- day of November 2011. Thomas D. Long, Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk State of California ) County of Los Angeles ) ss City of Rancho Palos Verdes } 1, CARLA MORREALE, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Ordinance No. 527 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on November—, 2011. City Clerk Ordinance No. 2011-527 Page 5 of 5 0 -C— From: Leza Mikhail [LezaM@rpv.com] Sent: Tuesday,, October 18, 2011 10:03 AM To: 'Carla Morreale' Cc: 'Teri Takaoka' Subject: FW: Power Point Brief for tonights city council rntg Attachments: Certa_presentation.pptx Please include this email in late correspondence. Leza Mikhail Associate Planner city of Rancho (Palos Verdes Planning Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.Daiosverdes.com/MV/Dlanninelnlannine-zonineJindex.cfiii (310) 544-5228 — (310) 544-5293 f Iezarn(W12y.com From: alicia—ned MORIMOTO [ma1fto:anmorimoto@msn.com2 Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 20117:32 AM To: lezam@rpv.com Subject: RE: Power Point Brief for tonights city council mtg Leza, I've attached a poNver- paint presentation I would life to brief at tonirlri's city council meeting. Councilman Wolowicz visitied yesterday afternoon. I have not heard from others or hack from Mass & Associates since I called them last Wednesday. Thank You, Ned Nlorimoto 10/1812011 / 8 � ` CR 0 }� ■ MINOR L m ■ ENEM 4=0 m L N o > r01 u 2 of 9 • We moved into our home in February 2009 We purchased our home knowing there is a view of the ocean from living room and outdoor patio • Previous owner had let us know they had agreement with neighbor to maintain landscape to preserve view i • We have a "far view" of the ocean and off -shore -� islands (Channel Islands) that is protected by Sect 17.02.040(A) of Municipal code April 26 Planning Commission Hearing • At the Planning Commission hearing, I asserted that we had a partial ocean view and there would be a view impairment by the second story addition. We advised of our plan to lower the west facing fence to be consistent height with the north fence. This would enhance the view from living room and we already had agreement with neighbor to lower the .� fence line • Explained that we had removed the outdoor patio deck which had been in need of repair with plans to replace — This would restore the view across the backyard patio • Planning Commission found there would be a significant impairment to our view View Impairment Evaluation • Since the Planning Commission meeting, the west fence was lowered from 6' to 5' • Planning Staff evaluated view on Wednesday, October 12 U� Planning staff confirmed our view of the ocean 0 'r and of the off shore islands and that our view will be significantly impaired by the proposed second story • Planning Staff now agrees with Planning Commission finding that proposed addition would significantly impair our view � of 9 7.f ` V L � 02 w o 7.f ` A, L. S r • Planning Commission found a significant view impairment • Planning Staff now confirms significant view impairment • Request City Council move forward and deny the appeal • Appellant has had 5 months to address view impairment From: Leza Mikhail [LezaM@rpv.coml Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 10:04 AM To: 'Carla Morreale' Cc: 'Teri Takaoka' Subject: FW: Slides for 6530 LaGarita Public Hearing 10-18-2011 for Lindley Ruddick Attachments: Ruddick.p,pt; ATT00158.txt 1:3 Ruddick.ppt (2 MB) ATr00158.bd (1 KB) Please include this email in late correspondence. Leza Mikhail Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.palosverdes.com/rpv/planning/planning-zoning/index.cfm (310) 544-5228 - (310) 544-5293 f lezam@rpv.com -----Original Message ----- From: Lindley Ruddick [mailto:elruddickocox.net] Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 9:16 AM To: Leza Mikhail Subject: Re: Slides for 6530 LaGarita Public Hearing 10-18-2011 for Lindley Ruddick Leza, Attached should be a three slide ppt file. Please let me know if this works for you. Thank you for the help. Lindley 1 �4 a Ot ;Ah� 11 r A, P OPO -4 ul 7,7., Or Ilk r4 a Ot ;Ah� 11 X G 4'1 1{ J' 4 t ,�a. it L r��llirr r1.�CC RD, �; P M ELLA U 25107 i ti 62 B3� P M ELLA U 25107 r r.�, k � _�' ! 1 ON 'err ? rV ` "97 S G1 oj- .f jn rd J p (owe � !! , D. Ki r Ali 44� c r' 7'Y t Ir Ir ;: 1 t, � t�'s?3 .'=?r tr'd,' :C�"G'?` ei'r'.t;'•? +S'sir3 � -.a"� �r -_� ,�� ,�'� �' �'�� q y;, &?�is1r 7:s O r:h.�r•' :� "' 7;:e • 129 78 W ti 77 J 76 7� i 74 73 T .J H � �; r7 p U C: afy SI nuil 19. ELLA 3 ® 69 S94 TRACT Na 25107 J 6 i•r;' �" `4 " rti 58 i 59 le Cc) 62s From: Leza Mikhail [LezaM@rpv.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 10:17 AM To: 'Carla Morreale' Cc: 'Teri Takaoka' Attachments: 18 OCT WATSON PRESENTATION.pptx Please include Mr. Watson's powerpoint in the late correspondence. Leza Mikhail Associate Planner City of 1Rancf o (PaCos Verdes Planning Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.r)alosverdes.com/rav/nlanninp-/t)lanninP--zoninP-/index.cfm (310) 544-5228 — (310) 544-5293 f iezamfa.rov.com 10/18/2011 PRIVACY INFRINGEMENT SECOND -FLOOR FOOTPRK SIGHT LINES FROM PROPO` SECOND -FLOOR WINDOWS SIGHT LINES FROM PROPOS FIRST -FLOOR WINDOW i !71 0 w IN IA 1M: Mkr1 �, t• r� jw`Yaiyri�Pzy� , 75.4 �� 4�, -.a• • •-rja L - P� � 'j•;��j�'� � yea t �p �,� e- ;S'}� , da yPkn #'• "Y �..'� ¢. - fie.. f r - �e ,Til •T �° .: 1' _ VIEW OF BACKYARD 'R LOOKING SOUTH-WEST Irk' w PRIVACY LOSS FROM SIDE WINDOW IN, PROPOSED FIRST -STORY LIVING ROOM OCCUPANTS WILL BE ABLE TO LOOK DIRECTLY INTO OUR BATHROOM (PHOTO TAKEN FROM INSIDE OUR BATHROOM) OCCUPANTS WILL BE ABLE TO LOOK UP INTO OUR FRONT BEDROOMS (PHOTO TAKEN FROM OUTSIDE OUR BEDROOMS) IN a 'tom m SIGHT -LINES FROM FIRST -FLOOR WINDOW OUR HOME DRAWN TO SCALE APPLICANT'S HOME 5 FT6 [N EYE LEVEL 0 CIRCUMVENTS OUR FRONT YARD PRIVACY BARRIER FENCE AND SHRUBERY PRIVACY BARRIER BETWEEN HOMES r PROPOSED SECOND STORY WILL OVERLOOK THE FENCED PRIVACY BARRIER RUNNING BETWEEN OUR HOMES ►i FA I� r�1 L: I' M NOT COMPATIBLE - TOO MASSIVE • ENTIRE 152 HOME TRACT DEVELOPED AS SINGLE -STORY WITH CORRESPONDING NARROW LOTS • ALL HOMES ON LA GARITA (EXCEPT DUAL -FRONTAGE CORNER HOME): • LOT WIDTHS: 60 - 63 FEET • HOME WIDTHS (INCL GARAGE/ROOF): 52 — 561/2 FEET • AVE DISTANCE BETWEEN ROOFS OF EACH HOME: 71/2 FEET AVE DISTANCE BETWEEN SIDEWALLS OF EACH HOME: 12% FEET • HOME HEIGHTS: 13 —141/2 FEET • MOST EXPANSION IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS BEEN GROUND LEVEL, I�N 462_1�'[��1_2IR]z[CI m1:7.1%11=4 wTT IIi01on1�►i14[01:1 iliC�I�� • THE STRUCTURE WOULD PERMANENTLY SHADE OUR SIDE YARD WE WOULD LOSE THE SHRUBBERY THAT FORMS OUR PRIVACY BARRIERS INCOMPATIBILITY WOULD REDUCE THE DESIRABILITY OF OUR HOME From: Leza Mikhail [LezaM@rpv.coml Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 1:31 PM To: 'Carla Morreale' Cc: "Teri Takaoka' Subject: FW: Message from 35C-4 Attachments: S35C-411101813280.pdf Hello Carla, Please provide the attachments in today's late correspondence. They are Ietters given to the City Council at the August 16, 2011 meeting. Leza Mikhail Associate Planner City of9?sinc(o (Palos Verdes Planning Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.t)alosverdes.corn/MV/Dlannina/Diann ine-zon ineJindexxfin (310) 544-5228 — (310) 544-5293 f Iezam@!pv.com From: oce@rpv.com [maiit:o:oce@rpv.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 20116:29 AM To: LezaM@rpv.com Subject: Message from 35C-4 WhI 10/18/2011 From: Diane L. Hayden (dianet-hayden@cox.net) Gent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 8,52 PM X cc@rpv.com Cc: paulthayden@cox.net Subject: Case number ZON2010-00331 (6530 La Garita Dr.) Dear Council Members. Please accept our invitation to come visit our property before making a decision about our next-door neighbor's appeal before you, scheduled to be heard Tuesday, August 16. You can reach us at this email address or by telephone at (310) 544-1051. We hope to hear from you. Respectfully, Diane and Paul Hayden 6538 La Garita Dr. 8/14/2011 From: Leza Mikhail [L.ezaM@rpv.com] Sent: Friday, August 12, 20112:18 PM To: 'Teri Taksoka' Cc: 'Carla Morreale' Subject: FW: Magainic/6530: Letter to Haydens Attachments: Microsoft Word - HOA Hayden 8-9-11.pdf Microsoft Word - HQA Hayden 8-... Please include the attached letter for late correspondence for La Garita. Thank you, Leza Mikhail Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90175 %gww.palosverdes.com/rpv/planning/planning-zoning/index.cfm (310) 544-5228 - (310) 544-5293 f lezam@rpv.com -----original Message ----- From: Gerry [mailto:gerryh-moss-assocoearthlink.net7 Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 9:46 AM To: Leza Mikhail Subject: Magalnic/6530: Letter to Haydens Leza, Please include the attached letter to the Hayden Family in the Council package. Thank you. Gerry Hernandez, Planner DMA DAVID MOSS & ASSOCIATES, Inc. Permitting I Environmental Compliance I Development Consultation 613 Wilshire BIVd„ Suite 106, Santa Monica, CA 90401, Tel 310.395.3481, Fax 310,396,8191 Via Us MaO / Ernai! August 9, 2011 Paul and Diane Hayden 6538 La Garita Dr. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Re: 6530 La Garita Dr - August 4, 2011 Visit to Your Home Dear Diane and Paul, Thank you for Inviting us into your home to discuss the proposed addition and the changes we are working on. Visiting your home through your eyes enables us to better understand the concerns you have previously voiced in writing to the City. We are proceeding with the following design work with the Magalnic Family and the project architect. • Reduce the square footage of the second floor. • Insure that privacy impacts towards your backyard are mitigated to the level intended in the City ordinance. This will include suggesting and sharing the following with you: o Changes to rear second story windows and second story design. o Use of reduced clarity or even fully opaque glass, and change the window openings. o Re -analyze the proposed garage roof height in regards to your non -protected privacy/view concerns from your front office. o Review the relationship and extent of the second story addition compared to the extent of your existing eave along the back of your home, and • Prepare a photo -realistic rendering of the proposed house design by accelerating the design development phase — including windows, paint color, wall texture, roof material and color. We still intend to ask the Council to honor the prior written request for a continuance in order to be able to continue to meet with you and other neighbors to review proposed changes. We hope that you wili support the continuance request without hesitation. Sincerely, David E. Moss President cc: Project Applicant RPV Planning Staff G r Hernan z Planner David Moss & Associates. Inc. HOA Hayden 9-5.11 -----Original Message ----- From: bjh301@cox.net [mailto:bjh30l@cox.netj Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 8:58 PM To: Abigail Harwell Subject: Re: City Council Meeting on Oct. 18 RE: Interpretation Procedure Code Amendment Initiation Dear Ms. Harwell, Thank you for the update. I am very interested in what happens in the city. I attended the planning comission meeting back in September about the map changes. Again I wanted to voice concerns to the city about changing the status of private property from "Parkland" to "Open space hazard" which refers to the Miraleste park district land. This does several things all to the detriment of my property. This will lower my property value, raise insurance rates, and hurt resale value, if I am no longer living adjancent to parkland, but an open space hazard. I would be interested in being able to move this imagenary line from 30 feet from my house to 100 feet from my house towards the parks and recreation property. The issue I am unsure about is if the parkland was renzoned or not? Did the city council vote on the change? Do we as citizens have a vote/referendum on this issue? Thanks for your efforts Ms. Huffman -- Abigail. Harwell <AbigailH@rpv.com> wrote: > You are receiving this courtesy notice due to your previous interest • in the General Plan Land Use Map update that was before the Planning > Commission earlier this year. Please review the attached notice and > contact me with any questions. > Thank you > > - Abigail Harwell > Assistant Planner > City of Rancho Palos Verdes > <http://www.palosverdes.corn/rpv> www,palosverdes.com/rpv 7 S, Teri Takaoka From: Jessica Bessboop@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 12:08 PM To: CC@rpv,com; abigailh@rpv.com; joelr@rpv.com Subject: City Council Meeting Oct. 18, 2031 Item #5 Dear City Council Members, Mayor Long, Mayor Pro -Tem Misetich, Item 45 On the agenda this evening, in my opinion, gives too much power to one person. Joel Rojas is a very talented and capable person, and of course, this is not about Mr. Rojas. This proposed amendment allows anyone who steps into the position of Development Director to have too much authority over other people's lives. The amount of monetary loss tied to an adjustment of a zoning or special district boundary line change of from thirty feet to one hundred feet without proper due process might be devastating to one's land and/or property values. Please deny this request. Thank you, Sincerely, Jessica Leeds From: Ortolano [ortolanor@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 1:22 PM To: cc@rpv.com; RPV Planning Commission; Ralph Ortolano Cc: Anthony Misetich; Anthony M. Misetich; Brian Campbell Subject: INITIATE A CODE AMENDMENT TO REVISE RPVMC CHAPTER 17.90 (INTERPRETATION PROCEDURE). Dear City Council: I am writing in opposition to this proposal on tonight's City Council Agenda (INITIATE A CODE AMENDMENT TO REVISE RPVMC CHAPTER 17.90 (INTERPRETATION PROCEDURE)). Joel Rojas has not shown himself to be a fair and honest arbiter when he's had "discretion" to make zoning decisions in the past. In one case with which I'm familiar, he claimed that, in his discretion, any measured elevations within FIVE FEET of the 1/100th of a foot call -outs on a Planning Commission - approved building plan met City standards. The Council ought to disapprove this bid to expand the unelected city bureaucracy's authority. Sincerely, Ralph J. Ortolano, Jr. ortolanorOyahoo.com 310-982-5499 Ps: If you ask him about this and he denies it on public cable, he'd better be prepared to PROVE it by showing you the correspondence to the contrary. From: Steven & Debbie Hansen [sjray@mac.coml Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2011 3:30 PM To: CC@rpv.com; abigailh@rpv.com Subject: Agenda Item #5. Initiate a Code Amendment to Revise RPVMC 17.90 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council, We are writing to oppose a recommendation for a Code Amendment revision(1790). Not only are there too many negative consequences to this proposal, but there are also problems with the existing ordinance. First off, the economic impact on lot owners could be devastating if this revision was to be passed. These decisions come down to defining what is buildable and unbuildable land, which in turn, affects the market value of this land. Zoning issues only merit Planning Commission and City Council attention. That is, we need an objective forum based on a systematic, legislative process, not just discretionary staff action on an ad -hoe basis. We have experienced first hand what issues can arise re: zoning and the Director's authority. Joel Rojas approved a "lot line adjustment" re: our neighbor's coastal property in front of us (and in front of a track of homes). It was clear to all(except Joel Rojas) that this was not a simple lot line adjustment. That is in the end, City Council determined that it was a subdivision of property and should be treated as such. If this action was not appealed by the residents, Joel Rojas was going to allow a subdivision of property.. TWO UNbuildable lots going in, and FOUR Buildable lots going out), all through the guise of a LLA! In addition, the Conditions of Approval did not have to run with the land nor apply to future building per Joel Rojas. Ask yourself this: Was this ethical, fair, and the right thing to do?" It is very disconcerting that this situation even had to occur, and all the time and effort and expense (expense to the city/resident's/lawyers,etc)due to one individual's authority. Is it sound, or ethical government to have existing regulatory power into the hands of a single individual??? Look at what has happened to our global economy due to deregulation(i.e. housing and banking collapse), This does not need to trickle down to our local government. We elect a body of government to make collective sound decisions(you). We did not elect staff to snake individual decisions, as well as decisions on ordinances that may not be clearly written. This current existing code has vague ambiguous stated boundaries. How does one individual(let alone an intelligent group), interpret the city zoning maps, the way the code is currently written? For example, this ordinance does not clearly state how zones are to be measured! Consequently, the land area that can be affected by an interpretation is limitless and undefined. Our city does not need more lawsuits and red -tape. Our money needs to be spent wisely. We elected you in power, not staff. There is no legitimate basis to revise title 17.90, and only negative implication in doing so. Thank you for your consideration on this matter. Sincerely, Steve and Deb Hansen 10/18/2011 From: Lenee Bilski [leneebilski@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 20114:15 PM To: cc@rpv.com Cc: carlam@rpv.com; joe[r@rpv.com; abigailh@rpv.com Subject; CC Agenda - Code Amendment - Agenda item #5 Oct. 18, 2011 Oct. 18, 2011 Agenda item #5 Dear Mayor and Council members, Please do not approve this amendment of the Code for all the reasons cited in the analysis and comments by Lowell Wedemeyer in his letter of 10/17/2011. This is not appropriate power for a Community Director and I strongly object to this amendment. In addition, may I suggest that if there is an issue about FEES charged to residents for zoning map issues, then add a section for the Waiver of Fees section #17.78.010 so residents will not be charged, instead of passing this proposed amendment. Thank you for all you do for RPV. Lenee Bilski 10/18/2011 f5. L Ab�h, . RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: OCTOBER 17, 2011 SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, October 18, 2011 City Council meeting: Item No. Description of Material E Request from Staff to remove item from agenda 2 Emails from: Diane and Paul Hayden; Garry and Jeanette Yefsky; Email from Associate Planner Mikhail to City Council; Letter from David Moss 5 Email exchange between Director Rojas and Sharon Yarber; Emails from Lowell Wedemeyer and Virginia Cicoria 6 Email from Cassie L. Jones Respectfully submitted, Carla Morreale WAIAGENDA12011 Additions Revisions to agendas120111017 additions revisions to agenda through Monday afternoon.doc ITiF; Vk I [07 ZA.Al IIIIU A LI MRk", RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City ouncil FROM: Tom Odom, director of Public Work �fO-' DATE: October 17, 2011 SUBJECT: 10/18/11 CC Meeting, Remove Consent Calendar Item #E, Rubberized Pavement Grant CC: Carolyn Lehr, City Manager Staff requests the removal of Item #E from the October 18, 2011 City Council Meeting Consent Calendar. Staff has been informed by CalRecycle representatives that the City is not eligible for the FY 11-12112-13 Rubberized Pavement Grant (RPG). This ineligibility is for a period of one fiscal year and was brought to staff's attention this week. This "ineligibility/wait period" is due to the fact that the City was recently awarded a similar grant, the Targeted Rubberized Asphalt Concrete Incentive Grant, from CalRecycle. CalRecycle's intention is to encourage new applicants to apply for their Rubberized Pavement Grant program, while the City of RPV has received several rubberized asphalt related grants in the past. Staff plans to apply for the RPG grant during the next CalRecycle grant application process. Thank You. W:ILAUREN1WPMlSCIMEM0S1201lVemove chip seal grant.doc ZF 6538 La Garita Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 October 16, 2011 Re: Case No. ZON2010-00331 (6530 La Garita Drive) To the Mayor and City Council: We urge the Council to follow the recommendation of the Staff Report to deny this appeal with prejudice, thus upholding the Planning Commission's decision to deny the requested height variation. If the Council agrees with the Staff recommendation that the required findings cannot be made with respect to view impairments, then the decision to deny can properly rest on that alone. Should your analysis move beyond that, However, we would like to address a new point raised in the Staff Report relating to finding 9 (privacy impact to abutting neighbors). As correctly summarized in the Staff Report, the Planning Commission ruled that this finding could not be made because the plan as proposed would result in an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of abutting residences, including ours directly to the west, and that this privacy impact "could not be mitigated." (Staff Report at 2-6.) The Staff Report rightly concludes that the privacy finding still cannot be made even with the revised plan. The Report suggests, however, that there still may be ways to reasonably mitigate the infringement to our backyard privacy. On this issue, Paul's reference to the Fourth Amendment in his October 10 letter was misconstrued in the Staff Report. lie was not arguing that approval of this project would constitute an unreasonable search or seizure of our property; the City Attorney is correct that the Fourth Amendment cannot possibly apply in that way on these facts. (See Staff Report at 2-11.) Instead, his point is that we now have complete backyard privacy, which gives us a "reasonable expectation of privacy," which in turn gives us Fourth Amendment rights. If this project were approved, that privacy would be taken away (because our back yard could be viewed from windows), and we would no longer have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in our backyard. On that basis, we would lose the Fourth Amendment's protection from warrantless entry by government officers. This fact provides a further reason why any infringement of our backyard privacy would be unreasonable. Merely changing the height of the windows could not sufficiently mitigate this infringement: the Planning Commission seemed to recognize this in concluding not only that finding number 9 could not be made, but also that the privacy impact could not be mitigated. Sincerely yours, Diane and Paul Hayden a From: Garry Yefsky [gyef@msn.com] Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 7:55 PM To: lezam@rpv.com Cc: cc@rpv.com Subject: Case No.: ZON2010-00331 Attachments: October 3.docx The following letter [which is also attached] should have been included in the "Additional Public Comment Letters (Received since August 16, 2011 City Council Meeting)" section posted on the internet. We mailed this letter via USPS on October 3, 2011. Please check your files and include our letter in the scheduled public hearing for October 18th on Case No.:ZON2010-00331. I would appreciate an explanation as to why it was not included. Thank you, Garry & Jeanette Yefsky October 3, 2011 Garry & Jeanette Yefsky 28056 Ella Road Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5391 Attention: Leza Mikhail, Associate Planner Re: Case No.: ZON2010-00331 Location: 6530 La Garita Property Owner: Isaac Magalnic Dear Representatives of the City Council: When we viewed the re -flagging of the Magalnic's property, we could not visually see any difference from the previous flagging of the same property. Our neighborhood is primarily a one-story neighborhood. The size, height, and footprint of this addition on a relatively small lot still will detract significantly from the privacyof others. The size, bulk, and scale of this addition are still not consistent with the homes within our neighborhood. We wish that the Magalnics would consider building out on their property instead of building up. By building out, there would be no upset neighbors, and they could substantially increase the square footage of their home. Please consider our above objections before you take any further action toward approving a variance for this addition. We walk and drive down La Garita multiple times on a daily basis. We would like to see La Garita maintain its single story appearance and for our fellow neighbors to be able to maintain the privacy that attracted them to their homes in the first place. We empathize with the neighbors who reside immediately adjacent to this addition and hope that we would not have to be in their position someday. Thank you for all your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Garry & Jeanette Yefsky 10/1T2011 October 3, 2011 Garry & Jeanette Yefsky 28055 Ella Road Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5391 Attention: Leza Mikhail, Associate Planner Re: Case No.: ZON2010-00331 Location: 5530 La Garita Property Owner: Isaac Magalnic Dear Representatives of the City Council: When we viewed the re -flagging of the Magalnic's property, we could not visually see any difference from the previous flagging of the same property. Our neighborhood is primarily a one-story neighborhood. The size, height, and footprint of this addition on a relatively small lot still will detract significantly from the privacy of others. The size, bulk, and scale of this addition are still not consistent with the homes within our neighborhood. We wish that the Magalnics would consider building out on their property instead of building up. By building out, there would be no upset neighbors, and they could substantially increase the square footage of their home. Please consider our above objections before you take any further action toward approving a variance for this addition. We walk and drive down La Garita multiple times on a daily basis. We would like to see La Garita maintain its single story appearance and for our fellow neighbors to be able to maintain the privacy that attracted them to their homes in the first place. We empathize with the neighbors who reside immediately adjacent to this addition and hope that we would not have to be in their position someday. Thank you for all your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Garry & Jeanette Yefsky 0f C;P, From: Leza Mikhail [LezaM@rpv.com] Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 1:56 PM To: cc@rpv.com Cc: 'Joel Rojas'; 'Carol W. Lynch' Subject: Staffs Photographs for La Garita Appeal Attachments: staffs photographs.pdf Mayor Long and Members of the City Council, A request was made by a Council Member to provide the Council with some of the photographs recently taken by Staff regarding the appeal for a second -story addition located at 6530 La Garita. Attached, the Council will find photographs of the viewing area at 6517 Certa Drive and photographs of the recent view impairment as seen from the viewing area. These photographs will also be presented to the City Council in a powerpoint presentation tomorrow evening. Staff has also provided a copy of the attached document to the Appellant (also the Applicant) via email and fax. The attached photographs were taken during AM hours and again during PM hours on October 12, 2011. In order to avoid a potential Brown Act violation, please do not "reply to all" if you should have any questions or comments of Staff. Leza Mikhail Associate Planner City of Rancho Tafos Verdes Planning Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.oalosverdes.com/ruv/Diannina/Dlanniiia-zoninp/index.cfin (310) 544-5228 — (310) 544-5293 f lezam(Wrov.com 10/17/2011 / p f �e C;z N L L U ti LO m 0 0 v, VJ C- r) W L W rd 0 O Ar O 4-1 cn (D 0 cz 0 0 +—J (n LL m (n (z c4-1 U) r 4- 4 ., DAVID MOSS & ASSOCIATES, Inc. Permitting 1 Environmental Compliance 1 Development Consultation 513 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 105, Santa Monica, CA 90401, Tel 310.395.3481, Fax 310.395.8191 Via Email/US Mail October 14, 2011 Joel Rojas, Director City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Re: Concerns Regarding Entitlement Processing Procedures Alleged View Impairment - Appeal of Case No. HV/SPR 2010 — 00331 (Magainic) Dear Joel: Inappropriate Expectation Regarding Timing of a Morimoto Site Visit Over the past three days considerable processing irregularities have occurred in regards to the above referenced appeal to the Council that potentially prejudice the outcome of the upcoming Council hearing. Multiple redesigns of the subject project previously resulted in Staff's recommendation for approval as of 8116111. However in less than a week before the 10/18/11 Council hearing the applicant has been prevented from considering or responding to allegations in the Staff Report that a newly created "best and most important view" from the Morimoto home at 6517 Certa Dr is significant and will be significantly impaired by the current project design. Inappropriate Expectation Regarding Timing of a Morimoto Site Visit I am in receipt of Staffs emails over the past 24 hours stating that the applicant has been given reasonable and timely opportunities to attend a site visit. As you know, the applicant is an orthodox rabbi. He is required to cease all business activities as of sundown on Wednesday 10112/11 until Sunday 10/16/11. The offer to me by Mr. Morimoto at sundown on 10/12/11 made it impossible for me to obtain approval from the applicant to come to the Morimoto home after 10/12/11 or before Monday, 10117111.. Furthermore, staff went to the Morimoto home twice on 10/12/11 - when staff was aware I oonry had permission from the applicant to attend the site visit with staff`, and yet the applicant's representatives were excluded from both those site visits. Staff s Recommendation is not Based on Evidence Available to the Public The inability of staff to make the findings in the Staff Report for no potentially significant view impairment is wholly reliant on photographs taken by Mr. Morimoto - the opposing neighbor. To date, staff has not enabled the applicant or public to view the newly created - alleged view impairment - due to lack of any photos taken by staff, and the inability to view photos taken by the opposing neighbor. Those photos could not be accessed on the City's website as of today due to a downloading glitch that staff notified me about. Reliance by Staff on photographs submitted by an opposing neighbor is contrary to legislative intent and does not serve the implementation of public policy for identification and protection of potentially significant views by the applicant. The applicant and its design team have been prevented from identifying any potential mitigation for the alleged view impairment. David Moss & Associates, Inc. City VI 10-14-11.doc Joel Rojas, Director October 14, 2011 Page 2 The opposing neighbor — Mr. Morimoto - has been actively involved for more than a year in reviewing the many redesigns by the applicant to mitigate potentially significant view impairment — including views from the Morimoto home which staff previously determined were not significant. Mr. Morimoto waited until a week before the hearing to disclose to staff — never to the applicant — that he alleges a potentially significant view impairment based on changed conditions on his property that he caused - according to him in the last month - by his removal of one ft of fence height, Staff's recommendation is not based on a preponderance of reasonable evidence from a reliable source in the public record. In a similar view impairment entitlement case the Council rejected the notion that their decision or that of the Planning Commission should be based on photographs taken exclusively by an opposing neighbor. Based on the foregoing, we believe that staff has unfairly prejudiced the outcome of the Council hearing. The applicant is not arguing against the right of staff to recommend denial based on the findings regarding view impairment, but is aggrieved by the inability to see the evidence upon which staff is making its recommendation regarding unmitigated view impairment. The photographs were prepared by an opposing neighbor whose actions led to newly created views of the proposed 2nd floor — views that the applicant has had not been given any opportunity to confirm, or to mitigate impacts by redesign if warranted. The applicant has in good faith complied with the process and intent of the applicable ordinance by redesigning the house to respond to and successfully mitigate known allegations and concerns of privacy and view impairment over a period of many months. On behalf of the applicant, we are considering options for presentation at the hearing. Sincerely, David E. Moss, Principal cc; Members of the City Council Project Applicant a lot David Moss & Asscciates, Inc. City VI 10-14-1 1.doc From: sharon yarber (momofyago@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 3:01 PM To: Joel Rojas Cc: cc@rpv.com; pc@rpv.com; Carol W. Lynch; Carolyn Lehr; abigailh@rpv.com Subject: Re: Agenda item re: zoning map boundary adjustment power Joel, The ordinance speaks for itself Staff is not limited to making adjustments solely at the request of a property owner. If the intent is to allow adjustments solely at the request of an owner, which would obviously only be to benefit the owner's property, then the existing ordinance and any revision thereto should make that manifestly clear. Clearly, it does not. Sharon On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 2;20 PM, Joel Rojas <iaelrt'?a4 mv.com> wrote: Sharon Currently, the code allows the Director to adjust any zoning or special district line up to 30 feet and any coastal setback zone line up to 5 feet. The current code also specifically requires the adjustment of open space hazard (OH) zoning lines and coastal setback zone lines to be based on geotechnical or soils reports. The intent of the proposed code amendment before the City Council is to allow the Director to adjust the location of OH zoning lines from 30 feet to 100 feet, retaining the current requirement that such adjustments be based on geotechnical or soils data. Furthermore, such adjustments would only be processed by Staff if requested by the property owner on whose property the Open Space Hazard line crosses. While it is plausible that a property owner could submit a request backed by geotechnical data to adjust the OH line on their property so that more of their property is added into the OH zone, I doubt that this would readily occur. If the Council initiates the proposed code amendment, an ordinance will be drafted that deals with the specifics of the adjustment process. The draft ordinance will then be reviewed by the PC as part of a noticed public hearing. This will give you and any other members of the public plenty of opportunity to comment on the actual ordinance language. Joel From: sharon yarber [mailto:momofyaao(@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2011 11:25 PM To: Joel Rojas Cc: cc@rpv.com; pc@rgv.com; Carol W, Lynch; Carolyn Lehr 10/17/2011 Subject: Agenda item ret zoning map boundary adjustment power Hi Joel, I have read the staff report, the existing ordinances, and the general outline of the proposed amendment. While the staff report focuses on the OH zone, and how allowing the Director to move the boundary lines by up to 100' instead of 30' would be beneficial to residents and save them money, that presupposes that in all instances where this power is exercised, less of a property owner's land would be included in the OH zone, thus making more of the property capable of being developed. However, as I read the ordinance and the proposal, it seems that the Director now has (and if amended would have even more) power to adjust the line IN ANY DIRECTION, thus allowing you to ADD property to the OH zone, thus leaving a property owner with LESS land capable of being developed. The staff report says that the Interpretation Procedures afford a property owner the opportunity to propose adjustments to the boundary line between the zones. The staff report fails to mention, however, that the City Council, Planning Commission, View Restoration Commission and the director likewise have an opportunity to propose adjustments through the Interpretation Procedures. Clearly the Interpretation Procedures cut both ways and are NOT designed solely for the purposes of attempting to make a beneficial change at the request of the property owner. Furthermore, the ordinance is written broadly to encompass boundary lines between ALL zoning classifications, not just between OH and non OH zoned properties. What is the intent of the ordinance as now written and as proposed to be amended? If the purpose of moving the line is that LESS property lies in the OH zone, I am not sure I oppose it, but if it allows the Director to move the line so that MORE property is ADDED to the OH zone, or to any zoning classification that has a potentially adverse impact on the property owner, then I am opposed to this enhanced power. Please explain the intent. Once that is ascertained then I may have further comment on suggested revisions to the manner in which the amendment is drafted so that the ambiguity is eliminated and the intent made manifestly clear. Right now it seems wide open. Perhaps I am misinterpreting. Please explain. Thank you. Sharon Yarber 10/17/2011 From: Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.coml Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 11:00 AM To: Carla Morreale Cc: Teri Takaoka Subject: Fwd: Code Amendment, Interpretive Procedure. Attachments: COMMENT ON CODE INTERPRETATION PROCEDURE.docx; ATT00210.htm Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: "Lowell R Wedemeyer" <lowell cr.transtalk.com> Date: October 17, 2011 10:56:00 AM PDT To: <ccrmv.cotn>, <pc(cr7`rpv.com> Subject: Code Amendment, Interpretive Procedure. Honorable Mayor and City Council: I am appending a comment concerning Agenda Item. 5, for the October 18, 2011 City Council Meeting, which concerns a proposed code amendment to increase the discretionary zoning -line adjustment authority of the Community Development Director. Lowell R. Wedemeyer C of /o 10/17/2011 ,5. COMMENT ON CODE IINTERPRETATION PROCEDURE, RPVMC CHAPTER 17.90 The Community Development Director proposes that the authority of his office be expanded "to make adjustments of a zoning or special district boundary line from thirty feet to one hundred feet without the processing of a Zoning Map Amendment." Memorandum of Joel Rojas to City Council, for October 18, 2011 City Council Meeting. Please always keep in mind that the following comment addresses public policy issues, not personalities. It is not directed at and does not criticize Director Rojas nor any other public employee or official. The grant of discretionary authority to the office of Director should stand on its own merits. This is not an argument against delegation of any discretion to Staff. Rather, the policy question is: How much discretion, of what character, should be delegated to the position of Development Director? This comment supports in principle the delegation of discretion to City Staff, if: (1) the discretion is carefully defined and limited, (2) the affected land owners are given clear notice and sufficient opportunity to protect their interests without excessive fees and costs, (3) the discretion does not shift to land owners burdens of proof or other burdens that more properly are governmental burdens of the City; and (4) the discretionary power viewed as a whole does not create unacceptable risks of cronyism, arbitrariness, bribery or other corruption. The proposed expansion of the discretionary authority of the office of Community Development Director from 30 to 100 feet is not consistent with these four standards. The following comments suggests (1) that the entire interpretive procedure in RPVMC Chapter 17.90 should be reconsidered and revised, and (2) that the proposed increase in the Director's authority from thirty feet to one hundred feet should be better defined and much more constrained. Wedemeyer Comment on Revision of RPVMC Chapter 17.90 1 THE ECONOMIC IMPACT ON LOT OWNERS IS UNLIMITED AND POTENTIALLY HUGE. Consider the following hypothetical: Suppose there is a residence on a lot of 100 feet by 100 feet constructed along a ridge with a slope falling away from the building pad. The Director decides that the zoning line drawn on the city zoning map is "uncertain" (which in some degree always will be the case for thousands of lots in the City because of inherent uncertainties in the zoning maps). Assume that the existing drawing line on the city zoning map covers the equivalent of 40 feet wide when zoomed to single parcel size. That is, on the sloping ground the "uncertainty" in the location of the zoning line is 40 feet wide. The difference in market value between land on which building is permitted and land that is defined by zoning line as non -buildable is $100 per square foot -- say $150 per square foot for building pad versus $50 per square foot for non -buildable land. The zoning -line uncertainty, 40 feet wide by 100 feet long, is an area of 4,000 sq. feet. With a valuation difference of $100 per square foot riding on the precise location of the zoning line, a $400,000 strip on a single lot is placed at economic risk -- all at the sole discretion of the Development Director on only 15 days notice to the lot owner. If there are ten lots similarly situated on the same ridge and slope, this "interpretation" could affect $4,000,000 worth of land. If, as likely is the fact, there are hundreds or thousands of lots city-wide that are affected by "uncertain" zoning lines, then this uncertainty in zoning lines has an economic price tag for lot owners in tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, of dollars. If, as the Director now proposes, the Director's authority to re -define zoning lines is expanded from thirty feet to one hundred feet, the land area and value at stake are more than tripled. In principle, a zoning adjustment of one hundred feet could cut right through existing houses, or define an existing residence to be entirely non -conforming — and thus destroy the market value of that residence. Wedemeyer Comment on Revision of RPVMC Chapter 17.90 2 At some point, the financial magnitude of uncertainty in zoning lines merits systematic, legislative or quasi-judicial attention, not just discretionary staff action on an ad hoc basis. The proposed increase in adjustment authority from 30 to 100 feet crosses that line. THIS PROPOSAL IMPLICATES FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF GOOD GOVERNMENT. This proposal does not reduce government regulation. Rather, RPVMC section 17.90 shifts the existing regulatory power into the hands of a single individual and away from the Planning Commission and the City Council; "the preparation of an interpretation may be initiated by the city council, planning commission, view restoration commission OR DIRECTOR, OR upon the written request and payment of fee, as established by city council resolution, ANY PERSON." RPVMC § 17.90.020. Thus, under the existing code, the Director may simply publish a zoning change on his own motion. Similarly, a hostile neighbor ("any person") can initiate a zoning change on a disfavored neighbor's lot. This implicates the fundamental principle that we have a government of laws, not individual authority. Long experience shows that transfer of great discretionary power to any individual human enables cronyism, arbitrariness, personal whim; vendetta, and political retaliation. It increases the temptations to bribery and corruption. Ask yourself the questions, "Would want [an adversary] to exercise this individual power?", and "Would l fear this power in the hands of [name someone]?" The "interpretation power" in Chapter 17.90 actually is both a City-wide power and a power to adjust single lots: "Except in the case of a zoning or special district boundary adjustment, interpretations shall be generally applicable to all future situations of the same type and shall not be limited or directed to specific parcels or circumstances thereon." Wedemeyer Comment on Revision of RPVMC Chapter 17.90 3 §17.90.010. This implicates the fundamental principle that laws should be adopted by an elected legislature, not by fiat of a non -elected individual. The innocuous -sounding label "interpretation" is dangerously beguiling. Recall the aphorism 'the devil is in the details.' A devil can be introduced by interpretation — whether by design or by unintended effect. The quoted sentence from §17.90.010 can literally be read to authorize an astonishing application to a single lot. This can more readily be seen simply by altering the order of the clauses within the existing code sentence to read as follows: "Interpretations shall be generally applicable to all future situations of the same type and shall not be limited or directed to specific parcels or circumstances thereon except in the case of a zoning or special district boundary adjustment." The existing code can literally be read to authorize by exception adjustments to zoning and special district boundaries by the Director on a specific parcel -- on the Director's own initiative or on the initiative of a single hostile neighbor, This further implicates the fundamental principle that we are governed by law, not by a single individual, or by arbitrary discretion of a government official. Under the existing code a lot owner can return from a 15 -day vacation to find that in his absence his lot has already been finally, legally rezoned by "interpretation" of the director made on the director's own motion or at the behest of a private adversary. A lot owner need only be given fifteen days notice of the Director's "interpretation" that rezones a person's lot: "Within fifteen calendar days after the date of the notice, the planning commission, city council or any interested person may make a written request to the director for a hearing. if no such request for a hearing is received, the interpretation shall become effective and final fifteen days after the date of the notice." Please carefully note that the lot owner receives only fifteen days, not fifteen days plus thirty days: "Within thirty days after the initiation of an interpretation, the director shall prepare a written interpretation and transmit it to the planning commission and the city council and shall give public notice that such interpretation has been prepared." § 17,90.040.A. Wedemeyer Comment on Revision of RPVMC Chapter 17.90 4 This thirty -day provision does NOT give thirty days notice to the lot owner or the public. Rather, it merely establishes an outside time limit on how long the Director may take to prepare an interpretation after someone else requests the interpretation. The Director can simply decide with his morning coffee to make an interpretation (or can receive a private person's request for interpretation) and the Director can publish the interpretation that same day, without any prior notice to anyone that he is considering an interpretation. THE EXISTING CODE SECTION 15 MATHEMATICALLY ILL-DEFINED. The existing authorization in RPVMC §17.90.010 is mathematically ill-defined as follows.- "Adjustment ollows: "Adjustment of a zoning or special district boundary, except for a coastal specific plan setback zone boundary, of up to thirty feet from the scaled location on the zoning map may be accomplished under this procedure if a code amendment is not initiated and if such adjustment is necessary to resolve uncertainty as to the precise location of such zoning or special district boundary." This is the code sentence within which the Director proposes an increase to one hundred feet from thirty feet The existing code language literally is internally inconsistent and thus it authorizes mathematically arbitrary drawing of zoning lines by the Director. If the "precise location of such zoning or special district boundary" already is "uncertain" as the existing code section requires, then at what starting point does the Director begin the measurement of the thirty feet of adjustment? Do you start at the left edge, right edge or middle of the broad line drawn on the map? The code section does not say. UNCERTAINTIES IN EXISTING CITY ZONING MAPS. What is the meaning of the phrase "the scaled location on the map" in RPVMC §17.90.010? Careful analysis demonstrates that this code phrase does not define a mathematically precise starting point for measuring the thirty feet (or the proposed one hundred feet) of adjustment. Wedemeyer Comment on Revision of RPVMC Chapter 17.90 5 6 o� /iD In RPV zoning historically has been adopted by physically drawing lines on two-dimensional maps of the City. The maps have a relatively high compression in the scale of the map. Zoning is not defined in the Code by professionally surveyed metes and bounds. There are at least five kinds of uncertainties inherent in the City's existing zoning maps: 1. Because of the high compression in the scale of the City's zoning map, the physical width of the drawing line placed on the highly -compressed map can correspond to a width of twenty, thirty or more feet on the ground when the drawing line on the city -sized zoning map is scaled up to individual parcel size for use in a land survey, 2. The maps have been photo reproduced which created spherical aberrations and other optical distortions in the copies. 3. There was wobble in the pen when the line was drawn, which becomes perceptible when the City zoning map is zoomed to individual lot size. Curving lines are especially rough and uncertain on existing maps, 4. The City zoning maps are two-dimensional in a plan view (bird's eye view). Mathematically, the uncertainty in the width of the zone -line drawn on the zoning map is geometrically amplified when a surveyor tries to locate that line on sloping ground. The steeper the slope, the greater the mathematical uncertainty in the location on the ground of the line drawn on the two- dimensional, plan -view, zoning map, [ The amount of this uncertainty can be mathematically quantified using the Pythagorean Theorem: The square of the hypotenuse equals the sum of the squares of the other two sides of a right triangle.] 5. The original two-dimensional zoning map upon which zoning lines were drawn may itself correspond poorly to professionally- surveyed, official, land markers. There may be other uncertainties in the City zoning maps as well. Sometimes these inherent errors in the maps can cumulate. Sometimes they can offset each other to some extent. All of these errors, individually and collectively can be quantified to some degree for engineering and survey purposes„ but that requires special skills and can be a tedious and expensive process. Wedemeyer Comment on Revision of RPVMC Chapter 17.91 6 `? of---�D In the absence of a mathematically precise starting point, the end point of the "thirty feet" necessarily must have the same uncertainty as the starting point — it is an exercise in arbitrary line shifting. UNCERTAINTIES IN THE CODE DEFINITION OF "THIRTY FEET". The existing code language is mathematically ill-defined as follows: "up to thirty fee from the scaled location on the zoning map ... if such adjustment is necessary to resolve uncertainty as to the precise location of such zoning or special district boundary." This sentence is mathematically illogical. The logic error is circularity: the conclusion is built into an assumption that is adopted at the start of the logical analysis. Using the code's language, if the "precise location of such zoning or special district boundary" is "uncertain", then what is the "scaled location on the zoning map" that is to be used by a professional surveyor as a starting point on the ground? "Scaled location on the zoning map" is obscure }argon. For an example, consider this: On a slope, does one measure the thirty feet horizontally, or does one measure thirty feet along the plane of the slope? The code does not say. THE TOTAL LAND AREA AFFECTED BY AN "INTERPRETATION" IS UNLIMITED UNDER THE EXISTING CODE. Area = length x width. The "thirty feet" defines only width. There is no definition of the length affected by an interpretation. Hence, the land area that can be affected by an interpretation is undefined and unlimited. One is tempted to read the "thirty feet" as a distance perpendicular to a point on the zoning boundary line (but the code does not so state). The code section does not limit the distance along the zoning boundary line ("congruent to the zoning line") to which an interpretation can be applied. Wedemeyer Comment on Revision of RPVMC Chapter 17.90 7 At some point, a mass zoning or re -zoning can be effected by the Director through "Interpretation" on fifteen days notice. Please keep in mind that there still are very large parcels with zoning boundary lines that approach or exceed 1000 feet in length. 1000 feet x 100 feet = 10,000 sq. feet that could be affected by a single "interpretative adjustment At a valuation difference of $100 per sq. ft., a single discretionary decision of the Director could be worth $1,000,000. That is a lot of discretion — too much discretion for a single individual. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING WHY AN INCREASE FROM THIRTY FEET TO ONE HUNDRED FEET IS APPROPRIATE, AND, IF SO, WHERE. In principle, there ought to be some standard to correlate the nature and degree of "uncertainty" in the zoning line with the scope of the "adjustment" that is authorized. None is disclosed here. Thus, a mathematically minor "uncertainty" could still be used to trigger a one hundred foot adjustment. For example, the code might be amended to read, "An adjustment made to cure an existing uncertainty shall fall within, and shall be no greater than the amount of, the uncertainty that is scientifically demonstrated by the proponent of the adjustment." There currently is no evidence showing, for example, what area of land within the City is affected by a one -hundred foot uncertainty in the zoning maps. DUE PROCESS AND COST ISSUES. The Staff and City consultants who are converting the zoning maps to digital systems have to be able to complete the principal worm in a reasonable time at reasonable cost. There necessarily will be substantial winners and losers in this city-wide process. There inevitably will be inequitable and damaging consequences, many of which will only become apparent months or years later when a practical application of the adjusted zone line is evaluated. Lot owners may not understand the consequences for months or years because zoning maps are not readily available at a viewing scale where the results can readily be perceived by lay persons. Wedemeyer Comment on Revision of RPVMC Chapter 17.90 8 Simply fairness indicates that lot owners should not have their rights cut off with some cryptic notice of only 15 days. Appeal rights of individual lot owners against mass zone -line adjustments should be extended and should be at a very low, or no, filing fee. This zone -line mapping system is a fundamental governmental function and should not be financed with a special fee. Wedemeyer Comment on Revision of RPVMC Chapter 17.90 9 From: Virginia Cicoria [ginnymayc@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 1:39 PM T cc@rpv.com Suuject: code amendment Dear Mr. Rojas and Members of the City Council, The recommendation in the October 18, 2011 Staff Report to initiate a code amendment to revise RPVMC Chapter 17.90 (Interpretation Procedure) doesn't go far enough to correct what the report acknowledges are errors in the Zoning Map. A better approach, and one that would not be too costly to the City, would be to conduct a visual survey of the Open Space Hazard boundaries on the ground and make a determination regarding which areas appear to the eye to have been wrongly classified, then make the correction on the Zoning and General Plan maps. The report acknowledges that there are multiple instances in which a designation on the Zoning Map fails to reflect the existing site conditions on residential property. Within the City, large areas that are designated Open Space Hazard have buildable and built -upon pads that from all appearances and historical data do not fall into any of the categories that justify such a designation. My property is one of those. My property has two pads, one of which appears on the Zoning Map to fall within the OH area. Building on the pads was permissible before the City was in—rporated. Section 17.32.020 of the Municipal Code says, "Lands shall be placed in the open sl- c� hazard district when the use of said land would endanger the public health, safety and welfare." There has never been any indication that the construction on my property presents a threat to the public health, safety or welfare. Nor does a large area of my property (including the pad) that appears to carry the OH designation fali into any of the categories (extreme slope, downslope movement, instability, or erosion) that would justify such a designation. That area shouldn't carry the OH designation at all and moving the OH boundary line 100 feet will not correct the incorrect land use designation. Recently (May 2011), City Staff presented to the Planning Commission a proposal to amend the General Plan Land Use Map to conform to the Zoning Map. The General Plan Land Use Map OH boundaries differ from the Zoning Map OH boundaries. 1 know of no effort to attempt to determine whether one or the other more accurately reflects existing site conditions. Perhaps a visual survey of the OH boundaries should be conducted to determine which areas appear to be improperly designated OH, make the correction on the General Plan Land Use Map during the now -ongoing update process, and then amend the Zoning Map to conform to the General Plan Land Use Map. This procedure would be consistent with California law which requires that the Zoning Map conform to the General Plan Land Use Map, not the other way around. Again, while moving the OH boundary line 100 feet might reflect a good faith effort to help residents, it doesn't address the underlying problem, that the OH designation on the Zoning Map in many instances is simply wrong. Very truly yours, Virginia Cicoria - 10/17/2011 From: cassiej@aol.com Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2011 9.25 AM To: CC@rpv.com Subject: Nature Preserve Management Agreement Dear Mayor Long and Councilmen, This letter is written in strong support for your adoption of the Management Agreement for the Palos Verdes Peninsula Nature Preserve as presented. This agreement would be between the City and the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy. The reasons for supporting the adoption of this modernized agreement are legion but the bottom line is, as always, the bottom line: The PVPLC has the staff and the experience to manage these lands efficiently and effectively. At this time, the financial constraints on cities are such that the outsourcing of undertakings like the management of a large nature preserve makes much more sense than the City hiring equally expert and experienced staff to do it "in-house." Our City has prided itself on being fiscally responsible and financially sound. Utilizing already existing resources like the PVPLC would be another such move ensuring our predicable financial stability over the next few years. The City of RPV funds only a small percentage of the dollars required to fulfill the City's habitat restoration obligations to the state and federal governments—the PVPLC provides the balance of the money, some from government sources working with the City on grants, and much from private party donations, foundations and corporate giving.    While obtaining competitive bids and looking to further outsource such management might seem the responsible thing to do, the reality is such that the PVPLC is a significant local employer, it has the proven track record for obtaining the dollars to help with the management of these lands, and it enjoys broad-based local support. The members, staff and board are also as committed to the quality of life here as any council could ever hope to be. Their fund-raising ability is stellar and I challenge you to better it. I encourage you to adopt the negotiated management agreement and would be dumbfounded if you did otherwise. Cassie L. Jones, DVM RPV resident living adjacent to the Preserve RPV business owner PVPLC Board member cassiej@aol.com 10/17/2011