Loading...
20170815 Late CorrespondenceAmy Seeraty From: nickole.petersen@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 5:08 PM To: Ara Mihranian Cc: Amy Seeraty; So Kim Subject: Re: Revised Resolution for 8/15 Agenda -2950 Crownview Ara, That sounds great. I am a bit busy with other things and people so it's making responding a bit difficult. What if the roots get cut and it all dies? Will the roots need to be cut? Does the specifics on what the fence looks like and the possible replacement of hedge need to be addressed tonight? I mean decided tonight? We still want stakes in the ground marking the fence height as Amy mentioned our hedge height isn't fixed. So let's now make a fixed spot that will be lived by for all. We aren't saying we are opposed to option #2. Sent from my 1Phone On Aug 15, 2017, at 4:25 PM, Ara Mihranian <AraMgrpvca.goov-> wrote: Nikole, The wall was lowered at your request so that the guardrail wouldn't exceed 4" above your hedge. In regards to the hedge, it appears to me that it will only need to be trimmed back a few inches to accommodate the grading and the guardrail meaning the hedge can likely be salvaged. Ara Michael Mihranian Community Development Director <image003.jpg> 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5228 (telephone) 310-544-5293 (fax) aram(a).rpvca.gov www.rpvca.gov ADo you really need to print this e-mail? This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. From: Amy Seeraty Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 4:16 PM To: 'nickole.petersen@gmail.com' <nickole.petersen@gmail.com> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: Revised Resolution for 8/15 Agenda -2950 Crownview Hi Nickole- Yes, but the grade behind the wall is going to be lowered, so the 42" will not be measured from the current grade but from the new lower level. Please see the diagram below, thanks. <image002.jpg> Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amys@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: nickole.petersen@gmail.com [mailto:nickole.petersen@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 4:10 PM To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: Revised Resolution for 8/15 Agenda -2950 Crownview All I see here is the City wanting 42 inches above grade fence. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 15, 2017, at 3:35 PM, Amy Seeraty <AmySSkrpvca.gov> wrote: Hi Nickole- Please see the attached revised resolution for your information. Also, I was looking more at the photos and since the new slope is proposed to extend approximately 8 inches beyond the existing edge of the hedge, you may just be able to trim back that side of the hedge by about 8 inches in depth, while still keeping the main trunks. It just depends on where the main trunks are, but I would think that a landscaper would be able to easily provide you with this information. Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amys6d�rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: Ara Mihranian Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 10:58 PM To: Amy Seeraty <AmVS@rpvca.gov>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> Subject: FW: Revised Resolution for 8/15 Agenda -2950 Crownview FYI... From: Ara Mihranian Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 10:58 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: Doug Willmore <DWilImore@rpvca.gov> Subject: FW: Revised Resolution for 8/15 Agenda -2950 Crownview Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council, At tomorrow night's City Council meeting, you will be considering a revision to a previous Council -approved Grading Permit at 2950 Crownview Drive. As you may recall, this project has been under construction for several years and has exchanged property owners a few times as well. Since the transmittal of the Staff Report last week, Staff has continued to meet with the Applicant and the neighbors to address their concerns. In response, Staff is proposing additional minor revisions to the resolution and conditions of approval as late correspondence. The proposed revisions are highlighted in yellow. The added text is underlined and deleted text is shown as a StFikethmugh. Staff is speaking with the neighbor tomorrow morning to discuss the location and material of the proposed guardrail along the west property line. Any subsequent changes will be presented at the council meeting. Thank you, Ara <Attachment A - Reso_2950 Crowview Revision -REVISED FOR LATE CORRESP.docx> 9 From: Doug Willmore Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 4:56 PM To: Mickey Rodich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>; CC Cc: Deborah Cullen Subject: RE: July 15, 2017 - C.C. Meeting Mickey, Thanks for your email. A few clairifcations: (1) SCE hates selling their streetlights because they make so much profit on them year over year. That is one of the reasons why they have discontinued to sale process to cities. And it is also one of the reasons why there is a significant payback to the RPV. (2) The License agreement you cite limit the wireless equipment they can attach to equipment that is needed for SCE and their operation of their utility business. It does not include for profit installation of cell equipment for third parties. SCE does not collect any revenue from any carriers. (3) We own the poles and can install what we want on them. SCE does not have full control. "non-comforming loads" are not ALPR or wireless devices. (4) There are many successful and reliable contracting companies that maintain streetlights in Southern California. SCE and their lower levels of service would be one of the last resources the City would go to for maintenance. (5) The $37,000/annual maintenance cost came from a consultant that has overseen many other municipal purchases. Also, the present sales tax audit contract has been on our website for the entire year and is still there. If you would like a copy, I can send you a link. Please just let me know. Doug From: Mickey Rodich [mailto:mickeyrodich@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 4:38 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: July 15, 2017 - C.C. Meeting I am writing my comments on items on your Agenda for tonight's C.C. meeting. I hope you will read them and if you agree with me please vote appropriately. Consent Calendar, Item G, Sales/Use Tax: 1) The present contract with our existing provider has not been made available to the public for review. I think it is important to know what is in that contract. 2) I am still concerned with protecting personal information. I feel that a new contract should protect the personal information of all residents and businesses. 3) I think the new contract still allows the Staff to change the scope of the contract without City Council approval. This could lead to abuses. The new contract should allow only the collection of sales/use taxes from businesses and any scope changes should be approved by the City Council. Agenda Item #5, Street Lights: 1) This Item looks like a lucrative deal for SCE. 2) We pay them over $725,000 to purchase a lighting system that is 50+ years old. 3) We pay for all maintenance costs forever including necessary replacement costs as needed. 4) What is the remaining useful life of this 50+ year old system? 5) SCE has a no fee right, thru a Pole Attachment License Agreement ( Attach. #E) to attach tele communication equipment and collect annual fees forever from the carriers. 6) With all of installations for the upcoming 5G networks SCE stands to sign lucrative contracts using our poles. 7) Staff states that we will have leverage when dealing with Cell Tower carriers. This is not true because SCE has complete authority. We have none. 8) This analysis is missing many costs associated with RPV ownership and is very confusing. a) RPV Staff time to oversee all phases of this agreement. b) Maintenance costs will exceed $37,000 annually. Just arranging SCE installations will exceed that. 9) According to the chart on page A-2, spending $650,000 to upgrade to LED only shows a 4.77% savings on electricity. That's a 20+ year payback. Not so great. 10) Page B-13 Paragraph 6.5 (Prohibition on connecting non -conforming loads). I think RPV will have difficulty installing ALPR's on our own poles because SCE has full control. 11) Throughout these agreements SCE has 60 to 90 days to comply, while RPV has 3 business days. 12) Who will we hire to do the maintenance; probably SCE at their high rates. This agreement is not a good deal for RPV. We pay a lot of money to SCE for the purchase and we must take care of maintenance forever including replacement of a 50+ year old system and SCE collects all of the revenue from the carriers. Agenda Item #6, NCCP. I think this program is very onerous and should be tabled. The stated purpose of this program is "to identify and provide for the area -wide protection of natural wildlife diversity, while allowing for compatible and appropriate development growth, particularly City projects". The majority may be City projects but these types of programs usually extend a lot further. Once you get the State and Federal wildlife agencies involved, their focus changes your way of life. We do not need more programs that will be telling us what we can and cannot do. This will lead to many more requirements including vegetation. Think of the gnat catcher and the milkweed plant they feed on. I think the gnat catcher was removed from the endangered species list some years ago, however the State wildlife agency then placed the milkweed on the endangered species list. It could come down to me having to plant milkweed in my back yard if I wanted to obtain a permit for a re -modeling project on my home. I was personally involved in such a project 30+ years ago and i can tell you how onerous the State and Federal wildlife agencies can be. N CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VFRDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: AUGUST 15, 2017 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 Study Session Updated Tentative Agendas 2 Updated Attachment A (Resolution No. 2017-); Emails from various residents 3 Email exchange between Assistant Planner Caraveo and Yani Wong 4 Emails from: Diana Bailey; Jennifer Taggart ** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted through Monday, August 14, 2017**. Respectfully submitted, A — Emily Colborn W A01 City Clerk\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2017 Cover Sheets\20170815 additions revisions to agenda.doc TENTATIVE AGENDAS Agenda items listed below will be presented to the City Council for their consideration. This list is a tool used by City staff to plan and coordinate Council agendas. As a working document, items on this list are subject to frequent changes. Time estimates include an hour for the first section of the agenda (Mayor's Announcements, Public Comments, etc. through the Consent Calendar) and 15 minutes for the last section (Future Agenda Items through Adjournment). DEPARTMENT AGENDA SECTION AGENDA TITLE ESTIMATED TIME September 5, 2017 00 PM CLOSED SESSION CITY COUNCIL• • SESSION NO ITEMS SCHEDULED AT THIS TIME September 5, 2017 0• PM AGENCY MEETING CITY COUNCIL Improvement Authority Meeting 0:05 AGENCY MEETING Successor Agency Meeting 0:05 MAYOR ANNOUNCEMENTS NO ITEMS SCHEDULED ATTHISTIME {, i ADMIN ICONSENT CALENDAR Minutes FINANCE 1CONSENTCALENDAR Warrant Register I FINANCE CONSENT CALENDAR Treasury Report REC & PARKS CONSENT CALENDAR Portuguese Bend Nursery School Lease REC & PARKS CONSENT CALENDAR Contract for PVIC exhibits PUBLIC WORKS CONSENT CALENDAR FY 17-18 IMAC Work Plan PUBLIC WORKS CONSENT CALENDAR Contract for Project Management and/or Engineering Design Services I 1:00 I CDD REGULAR BUSINESS !Coyotes report on options other cities are using 0:30 CDD REGULAR BUSINESS Fire Code Information and possible First Reading and Intro of Ordinance for Fire Code !adoption 10:15 PUBLIC WORKS REGULAR BUSINESS First Reading of Ordinance Modifying the Municipal Code for Haul Route Permits 0:10 REC & PARKS REGULAR BUSINESS Options for Preserve Access 0:20 REC & PARKS REGULAR BUSINESS 'Options for Conqueror Trail Security 0:45 REC & PARKS REGULAR BUSINESS Public Drinking and Smoking Ordinances 0:30 REC &PARKS REGULAR BUSINESS Preserve Permitted Uses 0:20 8/15/2017 TENTATIVE AGENDAS Agenda items listed below will be presented to the City Council for their consideration. This list is a tool used by City staff to plan and coordinate Council agendas. As a working document, items on this list are subject to frequent changes. Time estimates include an hour for the first section of the agenda (Mayor's Announcements, Public Comments, etc. through the Consent Calendar) and 15 minutes for the last section (Future Agenda Items through Adjournment). DEPARTMEtVT AGENDA SECTION AGENDA TITLE ESTIMATED TIME SeptemberCOUNCIL ;Civic Center Committee Chair Interviews September00 PM jCLOSED SESSION CITY COUNCIL• •SESSION j NO ITEMS SCHEDULED AT THIS TIME I I STUDY SESSION Study Session Discussion September 19, 2017 00 PM MAYOR ANNOUNCEMENTS CITY COUNCILA• MEETING NO ITEMS SCHEDULED AT THIS TIME 3:50 ADMIN CONSENT CALENDAR Minutes FINANCE CONSENT CALENDAR Warrant Register PUBLIC WORKS CONSENT CALENDAR Contracts for Construction, Inspection, and Community Outreach Services for the Residential Street Rehabilitation Project (Area 7/Phase II) PUBLIC WORKS CONSENT CALENDAR Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance Modifying the Municipal Code for Haul Route Permits 1:00 CDD PUBLIC HEARING Consideration Fire Code Ordinance 0:10 PUBLIC WORKS REGULAR BUSINESS Cal Water presentation on construction project planned for vicinity of Crenshaw Blvd. to Crest Road 0:20 CDD (REGULAR BUSINESS Overlay district 26919 Western Ave 0:20 ADMIN REGULAR BUSINESS Appointment of Civic Center Committee Chair 0:10 ADMIN REGULAR BUSINESS Health Insurance Options 0:30 ADMIN REGULAR BUSINESS I Presentation by Los Angeles County Sheriff regarding AB109 (Early Release Program) 0:30 ADMIN !REGULAR BUSINESS First Reading and Into of Ord for Cable Company Enforcement 0:15 ADMIN j REGULAR BUSINESS RPVTV Program Options _ 0:20 8/15/2017 TENTATIVE AGENDAS Agenda items listed below will be presented to the City Council for their consideration. This list is a tool used by City staff to plan and coordinate Council agendas. As a working document, items on this list are subject to frequent changes. Time estimates include an hour for the first section of the agenda (Mayor's Announcements, Public Comments, etc. through the Consent Calendar) and 15 minutes for the last section (Future Agenda Items through Adjournment). DEPARTMENT AGENDA SECTION AGENDA TITLE ESTIMATED TIME October 3, 2017 6:00 PM CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING - CLOSED SESSION CLOSED SESSION NO ITEMS SCHEDULED AT THIS TIME October 7:00 PM AGENCY MEETING i CITY COUNCIL Improvement Authority Meeting 0:05 AGENCY MEETING !Successor Agency Meeting 0:05 MAYOR ANNOUNCEMENTS NO ITEMS SCHEDULED AT THIS TIME ADMIN CONSENT CALENDAR Minutes FINANCE CONSENT CALENDAR Warrant Register FINANCE CONSENT CALENDAR Treasury Report 1:00 PUBLIC HEARING NO ITEMS SCHEDULED ATTHISTIME PUBLIC WORKS REGULAR BUSINESS Financing Options for Abalone Cove Sewer Maintenance District 0:30 FINANCE REGULAR BUSINESS ACLAD finance options 10:30 ADMIN REGULAR BUSINESS Update Council Policies/Procedure (Aleshire) 10:20 ADMIN REGULAR BUSINESS ;City Council Goals Update 0:30 i i October 17, 2017 6:00 PM CLOSED SESSION CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING - CLOSED SESSION/STUDY SESSION NO ITEMS SCHEDULED AT THIS TIME STUDY SESSION !Study Session Discussion October00 PM MAYOR ANNOUNCEMENTS i CITY COUNCIL• NO ITEMS SCHEDULED ATTHIS TIME ADMIN ;CONSENT CALENDAR Minutes FINANCE !CONSENT CALENDAR Warrant Register 1:00 8/15/2017 TENTATIVE AGENDAS Agenda items listed below will be presented to the City Council for their consideration. This list is a tool used by City staff to plan and coordinate Council agendas. As a working document, items on this list are subject to frequent changes. Time estimates include an hour for the first section of the agenda (Mayor's Announcements, Public Comments, etc. through the Consent Calendar) and 15 minutes for the last section (Future Agenda Items through Adjournment). DEPARTMENT AGENDA SECTION AGENDA TITLE ESTIMATED TIME PUBLIC HEARING NO ITEMS SCHEDULED AT THIS TIME ADMIN REGULAR BUSINESS City Council Goals Update 0:30 REC & PARKS/PW REGULAR BUSINESS Revisions to the Special Event Permit Process 0:20 I 00 WEDNESDAY •UNCIL REGULAR MEETING - CLOSED SESSION THIS MEETING HAS BEEN RESCHEDULED TO WEDNESDAY DUE TO THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL ELECTION CLOSED SESSION j NO ITEMS SCHEDULED ATTHIS TIME � I November 8, 2017 00 PM - WEDNESDAY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING THIS MEETING HAS BEEN RESCHEDULED TO WEDNESDAY DUE TO THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL ELECTION 1:45 AGENCY MEETING I Improvement Authority Meeting 0:05 _ AGENCY MEETING Successor Agency Meeting 0:05 i I MAYOR ANNOUNCEMENTS NO ITEMS SCHEDULED AT THIS TIME ADMIN CONSENT CALENDAR jMinutes FINANCE CONSENT CALENDAR Warrant Register FINANCE ICONSENT CALENDAR Treasury Report 1:00 PUBLIC HEARING NO ITEMS SCHEDULED AT THIS TIME ADMIN I REGULAR BUSINESS Employer/Employee Relations (EER) Resolution 0:20 November 21, 2017 i i 6:00 PM !CLOSED SESSION CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING - CLOSED SESSION/STUDY SESSION NO ITEMS SCHEDULED AT THIS TIME I ISTUDY SESSION Study Session Discussion 8/15/2017 TENTATIVE AGENDAS Agenda items listed below will be presented to the City Council for their consideration. This list is a tool used by City staff to plan and coordinate Council agendas. As a working document, items on this list are subject to frequent changes. Time estimates include an hour for the first section of the agenda (Mayor's Announcements, Public Comments, etc. through the Consent Calendar) and 15 minutes for the last section (Future Agenda Items through Adjournment). DEPARTMENT AGENDA SECTION AGENDA TITLE ESTIMATED TIME November 21, 2017 00 PM MAYOR ANNOUNCEMENTS CITY COUNCIL NO ITEMS SCHEDULED AT THIS TIME ADMIN CONSENTCALENDAR Minutes FINANCE CONSENT CALENDAR Warrant Register REC & PARKS CONSENT CALENDAR Special Event Enforcement Ordinance - 2nd Reading PUBLIC WORKS CONSENT CALENDAR Use Restriction Running with the Land Against Certain Open Space Properties in the Vicinity of Portuguese Bend that Were Acquired Using Measure A Funds PUBLIC WORKS CONSENT CALENDAR Award of Commercial Trash Hauler Contracts 1:00 PUBLIC HEARING NO ITEMS SCHEDULED ATTHISTIME i REGULAR BUSINESS INO ITEMS SCHEDULED ATTHISTIME FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS .��w.. - dentified at Council meetings & pending receipt of memo from Councilmember . ...-. ... m.__ _ _�_ _ ..___.__.. Request Date. Requested By: jItem: 6/20/2017 Dyda ! Consider study session as work session with discussion on specific topic of interest i FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS AGENDIZED OR OTHERWISE BEING ADDRESSED Request Date. 1 Req .... uested Bv: Item: 0:15 _.___ _. A�endized Date: 3/7/2017 113rooks Public Drinking Ordinance 9/5/2017 3/7/2017 Brooks Special Events Permit Enforcement Ordinance 10/17/2017 3/7/2017 iBrooks Preserve Permitted Uses 9/5/2017 4/18/2017 Dyda Update Council Policies/Procedures 10/3/2017 5/16/2017 Misetich Presentation by Los Angeles County Sheriff regarding AB109 (Early Release Program) 9/19/2017 5/16/2017 Dyda Options for Preserve Access 9/5/2017 6/6/2017 Brooks RPVTV Program Report options to expand programming 9/19/2017 6/6/2017 Brooks Health Insurance- Review other options for staff and City Council 9/19/2017 6/7/2017 Brooks Coyotes- Report on options other cities are using 9/5/2017 8/1/2017 Duhovic Full cost recovery on CUPS 'TBD 8/1/2017 Duhovic Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) requirements TBD 8/1/2017 Misetich/Duhovic Attorney research on SB -649 Wireless telecommunications facilities TBD 8/15/2017 TENTATIVE AGENDAS Agenda items listed below will be presented to the City Council for their consideration. This list is a tool used by City staff to plan and coordinate Council agendas. As a working document, items on this list are subject to frequent changes. Time estimates include an hour for the first section of the agenda (Mayor's Announcements, Public Comments, etc. through the Consent Calendar) and 15 minutes for the last section (Future Agenda Items through Adjournment). DEPARTMENT, AGENDA SECTION AGENDA TITLE ESTIMATED TIME 8/1/2017 Brooks City Attorney memo addressing rules on Conflict of Interest and recusals on agenda items', TBD I 8/15/2017 From: Ara Mihranian Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 10:58 PM To: CC Cc: Doug Willmore Subject: FW: Revised Resolution for 8/15 Agenda -2950 Crownview Attachments: Attachment A - Reso 2950 Crowview Revision -REVISED FOR LATE CORRESP.docx Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council, At tomorrow night's City Council meeting, you will be considering a revision to a previous Council -approved Grading Permit at 2950 Crownview Drive. As you may recall, this project has been under construction for several years and has exchanged property owners a few times as well. Since the transmittal of the Staff Report last week, Staff has continued to meet with the Applicant and the neighbors to address their concerns. In response, Staff is proposing additional minor revisions to the resolution and conditions of approval as late correspondence. The proposed revisions are highlighted in yellow. The added text is underlined and deleted text is shown as a &t4ket4F@*g4. Staff is speaking with the neighbor tomorrow morning to discuss the location and material of the proposed guardrail along the west property line. Any subsequent changes will be presented at the council meeting. Thank you, Ara From: Amy Seeraty Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 6:55 PM To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Cc: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> Subject: Revised Resolution for 8/15 Agenda -2950 Crownview Hello - Based on information recently received by the applicant, Staff has revised the resolution for the project at 2950 Crownview Drive and has incorporated this updated information. Please note that the removed text has been struck out and the new information is underlined, with all edits highlighted. Thank you. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amys(cbrpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 a RESOLUTION NO. 2017- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A GRADING PERMIT REVISION, MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT, AND FENCE/WALL PERMIT TO ALLOW MODIFICATIONS TO A PREVIOUS COUNCIL - APPROVED GRADING PERMIT AT 2950 CROWNVIEW DRIVE. WHEREAS, on May 14, 2004, Staff received a code violation complaint alleging that unpermitted retaining walls were being constructed and grading was occurring on the property located at 2950 Crownview Drive (formerly 29664 Grandpoint Lane). Staff confirmed the unpermitted construction activity, and after several attempts to contact the property owner, on November 10, 2005, the property owner submitted Site Plan Review and Grading Permit applications for the construction of a new 5,306 square foot one-story residence and to legalize the unpermitted retaining walls with 388yd3 of grading to accommodate the proposed improvements; and, WHEREAS, on July 7, 2006, the Director of Community Development approved the project with conditions; and, WHEREAS, on July 20, 2006, a timely appeal was filed by Rod White, Harry and Peggy Fussganger, and Ruperto Elpusan and Lula Bullale, the property owners of 2952, 2960, and 3070 Crownview Drive, respectively, raising concerns with destruction of the natural contour of the hill, underestimation of lot coverage, resulting in appearance of bulk and mass, and mischaracterization of the illegal retaining wall along the western property line; and, WHEREAS, on November 28, 2006, the Planning Commission, at a duly noticed public hearing, adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2006-59, upholding the Director's decision to approve the applicant's project with a condition requiring that the upper retaining wall be demolished and the lower retaining wall at the northeast corner of the property be reduced to 3' 6" in height; and, WHEREAS, a timely appeal was filed by the same appellants, Rod White, Harry and Peggy Fussganger, and Ruperto Elpusan and Lula Bullale, the property owners of 2952, 2960 and 3070 Crownview Drive, respectively. The appellants raised concerns about the structural integrity of the unpermitted walls, the measurement methods for the retaining walls, and the location of the northeast corner retaining wall; and, WHEREAS, On June 7, 2007, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing and adopted Resolution No. 2007-63, upholding the Planning Commission's decision to approve the applicant's project; and, WHEREAS, on December 16, 2008, a building permit was issued for the construction of the approved project; and, WHEREAS, after three years and two time extensions, the construction permit expired in December 2010. In April 2016, the planning entitlement was reissued and a new Building Permit was issued to complete the work started under the original Building Permit; and, WHEREAS, during construction, the property owner realized that the Council - approved 4' 6" tall retaining wall would not be tall enough retain the extreme slope just north of the garage. Additionally, it also became apparent that the retaining walls that were built years ago were beginning to fail. The property owner was informed that these walls would have to be rebuilt to meet current Building Codes. As a result, the property owner submitted a request to revise the Council -approved Major Grading permit to stabilize the transitional slopes and to improve the structural integrity of the existing retaining walls: and, WHEREAS, On July 28, 2017, a public notice was mailed to owners of property within a 500' radius of the subject site and published in the Daily Breeze. During the public comment period, Staff received correspondence from three neighbors expressing concerns with the proposed revisions and Staff met with these neighbors to discuss their concerns; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt under Class 2 (Section 15302); and, WHEREAS, on August 15, 2017, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The proposed project is a request for the following: A. Replace the Council -approved 4' 6" -tall retaining wall north of the garage with two terraced walls consisting of an 8.22' -tall lower retaining wall and an 8.04' -tall upper combination wall (includes 3.5 -tall guardrail along the property line). Resolution No. 2017 - Page 2 of 12 B. Replace and relocate the two unpermitted terraced retaining walls that partially encroach into the neighbor's property at the north-east corner of the property with two new terraced walls consisting of an 3' -tall lower retaining wall and a 7' -tall upper combination wall (includes 3.5' -tall guardrail) entirely on the subject property. C. Replace the existing deteriorating 3.9' -tall retaining wall along the west property line with a new 8.1' -tall combination wall (includes 3.5 -tall guardrail) that will extend around to the rear yard, which will replace a previously approved 2.5' -tall wall in the rear yard. The portion of said wall extending into the rear yard will not require a guardrail. D. Conduct 128.13 126.42 yd3 of additional grading consisting of 126.83 125.12 yd3 cut and 1.3 yd3 fill to accommodate the proposed retaining walls. Section 2: Approval of the Revised Major Grading Permit is warranted because: A. The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot. More specifically, the primary use of the subject lot is residential as identified in the City's General Plan and Zoning map and the applicant requests approval to replace retaining walls with 128.13 126.42 yd3 of associated grading. One of the walls was found to be too short to support the existing extreme slope, Building & Safety Division identified structural issues with several of the unpermitted retaining walls, and a set of unpermitted retaining walls at the northeast corner were built partially on the neighbor's property by the previous property owner. The proposed project is to correct these issues by either reconstructing or building new retaining walls that are properly engineered entirely on the subject property to accommodate the residential development on the site. The applicant is not proposing grading beyond what is necessary to replace the improperly constructed retaining walls. B. The proposed grading and/or related construction does not significantly adversely affect the visual relationships with, nor the views from, the viewing area of neighboring properties. The property is accessed via a private driveway that is higher in elevation than the building pad. As a result, the upsloping retaining walls north of the garage will face the subject property and only a few inches of the retaining wall and the 3.5' tall required guardrail on top will be visible from the adjacent properties and the private access driveway. As for the two downslope terraced walls at the north-east corner of the property facing 2938 Crownview Drive, the area between the 7.5' -tall upper combination wall (includes 3.5' -tall guardrail) and the lower 3' -tall retaining wall will be landscaped to soften the appearance of these walls from neighboring properties. The upslope neighboring properties, to the south, on Grandpoint Lane are located Resolution No. 2017 - Page 3 of 12 approximately 40 to 50 feet higher in elevation than the subject property and therefore, the proposed retaining walls do not impair their view. The properties to the east on Crownview Drive are located at least 20 feet lower in elevation than the subject property and therefore do not have views over the proposed project area. In regards to the properties to the west, although the 3.5' -tall guardrail is required along the majority of the west property line wall, the guard rail will not cause a significant view impairment from 2952 Crownview Drive, as articulated in the Fence/Wall Permit Section below. C. The nature of the grading minimizes disturbance to the natural contours and finished contours are reasonably natural. Per the geotechnical investigation report dated April 4, 2005, the existing "natural" contours of the project sites are largely the result of past grading, which occurred in 1959 for the development of Tract No. 22615, and in the early 1960s for the current Tract No. 28321. Additionally, the current layout of the site was permitted per the previously approved grading permit. The proposed replacement retaining walls are in the same general location as what was originally approved by the Council. The unpermitted retaining wall that partially encroaches over a neighbor's property will be reconstructed with a properly engineered retaining wall that will be in the same general location, but solely on the subject property. The proposed project is limited to the previously approved grading area. D. The grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographic features and appearances by means of land sculpturing so as to blend any man-made or manufactured slope into the natural topography. The existing "natural" contours of the project site are largely the result of tract grading in the past, as well as past development, which included the existing retaining walls. Additionally, there is minimal land -sculpturing as the proposed grading area will be limited to the previously approved areas to replace retaining walls in the same general location. E. The approval is consistent with the purposes set forth in the grading section of the Municipal Code (17.76.040.A) and the grading conforms to standards related to maximum finished slopes and driveways. The proposed terraced retaining walls consist of an 8.04' -tall upper combination wall (4.54' -tall retaining wall topped with a 3.5' -tall guardrail) and an 8.22' -tall lower retaining wall north of the garage. Subsection (e) states that only one 8' tall upslope wall shall be permitted. However, as the existing maximum elevation difference between the building pad and the adjacent private access driveway is approximately 13', any proposed wall or combination of walls must be more than 8' in height to allow the continued reasonable use of the subject property. Additionally, the proposed retaining wall up to 8.22' in height inevitably requires a depth of cut in excess of 5' in height. The proposed 5' -tall retaining wall along the west side property line extends into the rear yard over slopes greater than 50%. This new wall is proposed primarily Resolution No. 2017 - Page 4 of 12 to replace an improperly built wall, as required by the Building & Safety Division. The proposed grading to support the construction of the retaining walls is primarily limited to only what's necessary to replace walls in the same general location as the previous approval. Additionally, the proposed walls and associated grading will not affect the natural scenic character of the area, as articulated in Finding No. 2 above, and will preserve the reasonable economic use of the property. F. Allowing retaining walls that exceed 8' against an ascending slope and 3.5' in the side yard, and grading over extreme slope would not constitute granting special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other neighboring properties. This is because similar improvements exist on neighboring lots which have comparable terraced retaining walls in the side, front, and/or rear yards. G. Notice of decision will be given to the applicant and to all owners of property adjacent to the property. Section 3: Approval of the Minor Exception Permit is warranted by practical difficulties because of the grade differential (more than 13) between the building pad and the private driveway and the abutting property to the west. There isn't enough area between the proposed walls and the existing residence to support a one third shorter terraced wall, and proposing additional walls may result in inconsistencies with other sections of the grading criteria. Alternatively, portions of the walls exceeding 8' in height may be covered with additional earth to reduce the height of the wall, but that would require a substantial burden to engineer a wall that could support this additional weight since a portion of the lower wall is integrated into the garage. Section 4: The project also meets all the criteria in the Fence/Wall Permit section for Minor Exception Permits: A. The height of the combination walls will not be detrimental to the public safety and welfare. The improperly built retaining walls will be replaced with Code - compliant engineered walls, which will improve the public safety and welfare. Additionally, City Geologist and Building & Safety Division review and approval will be required. B. The line of sight over or through the guardrail is adequate for safety and does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of an adjacent parcel as defined in RPVDC Section 17.02.040. C. The height of the retaining portion of the combination walls meet all of the findings required for a Grading Permit to be approved. Resolution No. 2017 - Page 5 of 12 D. As articulated in the above "Revised Major Grading Permit" section above, all findings required for a Grading Permit have been met. Section 5: Approval of the Fence/Wall Permit is warranted because: A. The combination wall along the western side property line will not significantly impair a view from the viewing area, as defined in RPVDC Chapter 17.02 (Single -Family Residential (RS) Districts), of another property or a view from public property which has been identified in the city's general plan or coastal specific plan, as a city -designated viewing area. The upslope neighboring properties to the south located on Grandpoint Lane are located approximately 40 to 50 feet higher in elevation than the subject property and the proposed fence is not located within their protected view. The properties to the east on Crownview Drive are located at least 20 feet lower in elevation than the subject property and therefore do not have views over the proposed project area. The upslope property at 2952 Crownview Drive is approximately 13 feet higher in elevation and has a view over the subject property. Specifically, this property has a view of city lights, Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors, the Vincent Thomas Bridge and the ocean. The top portions (guardrail) of the proposed combination wall will minimally extend into the bottom of the protected view of the city lights, while the remaining components of the view will not be impacted. Portions of the proposed combination walls along the north are visible from the viewing area of 2952 Crownview, but only impair views of a neighboring vacant residential property, which is not considered a protected view. Additionally, the portions of the proposed combination wall along the northeast are not visible from the viewing area of this property. As the overall amount of impairment is minimal, as compared with the entirety of the view frame, the Council finds that the view impairment caused by said guardrail is not significant. Notwithstanding the above, as the upslope neighbor had expressed a concern with the proposed guardrail impacting their view, the applicant has agreed and a condition is attached which states that prior to issuance of Building and/or Grading permits, a portion of the property at 2952 Crownview Drive Ahe pertieR „f the property behind the upper western retaining wall shall be excavated and regraded with a 2:1 slope that would reduce the required height for the upper retaining wall, and consequently lower the top of the guardrail by at least 6" in the view, to 34! 42" above the finished grade at the upslope side of the wall. upstepe neighbor's building pad-. B. The proposed combination wall meets all applicable standards and requirements of the General Plan and the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, including but not limited to setbacks, height, and views. Resolution No. 2017 - Page 6 of 12 Section 6: The City Clerk shall certify to the passage, approval, and adoption of this Resolution, and shall cause this Resolution and her certification to be entered in the Book of Resolutions of the City Council. Section 7: The time within which judicial review of the decision reflected in this Resolution must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure or other applicable short periods of limitation. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 15th day of August 2017. Brian Campbell, Mayor ATTEST: Emily Colborn, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ) I, Emily Colborn, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2017-_, was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on August 15, 2017. CITY CLERK Resolution No. 2017 - Page 7 of 12 EXHIBIT 'A' CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PLANNING CASE NO. ZON2017-00224 (2950 Crownview Drive) 1. All conditions of City Council Resolution No. 2007-63, unless otherwise amended herein, shall remain in full force and effect. 2. PRIOR TO THE SUBMITTAL OF PLANS INTO BUILDING AND SAFETY PLAN CHECK, the applicant and the property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have read, understand, and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this decision. Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void. 3. The applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other actions and proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolutions procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and other such procedures) (collectively "Actions"), brought against the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City), for or concerning the project. 4. Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws and regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code shall apply. 5. Pursuant to Section 17.78.040, the Director of Community Development is authorized to make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions of approval if such modifications will achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with the approved plans and conditions. Substantial changes to the project shall be considered a revision and require approval by the final body that approved the original project, which may require new and separate environmental review and public notification. 6. The project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards contained in these conditions of approval or, if not addressed herein, shall Resolution No. 2017 - Page 8 of 12 conform to the residential development standards of the City's Municipal Code, including but not limited to height, setback and lot coverage standards. 7. Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be cause to revoke the approval of the project pursuant to the revocation procedures contained in Section 17.86.060 of the City's Municipal Code or administrative citations as described in Section 1.16 of the City's Municipal Code. 8. If the applicant has not submitted an application for a building permit for the approved project or not commenced the approved project as described in Section 17.86.070 of the City's Municipal Code within one year of the final effective date of this Resolution, approval of the project shall expire and be of no further effect unless, prior to expiration, a written request for extension is filed with the Community Development Department and approved by the Director. 9. In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations and/or requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter standard shall apply. 10. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be completed in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the City with the effective date of this decision. 11. The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that material used for immediate construction purposes. Such excess material may include, but not be limited to: the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap metal, concrete asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or discarded furniture, appliances or other household fixtures. 12. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly manner, to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official. All construction waste and debris resulting from a construction, alteration or repair project shall be removed on a weekly basis by the contractor or property owner. Existing or temporary portable bathrooms shall be provided during construction. Portable bathrooms shall be placed in a location that will minimize disturbance to the surrounding property owners, to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official. 13. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturday, with no construction activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section 17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. During demolition, construction and/or grading operations, trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining street rights-of-way before 7:00 AM Monday Resolution No. 2017 - Page 9 of 12 through Friday and before 9:00 AM on Saturday, in accordance with the permitted hours of construction stated in this condition. When feasible to do so, the construction contractor shall provide staging areas on-site to minimize off-site transportation of heavy construction equipment. These areas shall be located to maximize the distance between staging activities and neighboring properties, subject to approval by the building official. 14. All grading, landscaping and construction activities shall exercise effective dust control techniques, either through screening and/or watering. 15. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING OR BUILDING PERMITS all applicable soils/geotechnical reports, if required by the Building and Safety Division, shall be approved by the City's Geologist. 16. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING OR BUILDING PERMITS, haul routes to transport soil shall be approved by the Public Works Department. 17. Construction projects that are accessible from a street right-of-way or an abutting property and which remain in operation or expect to remain in operation for over 30 calendar days shall provide temporary construction fencing, as defined in Section 17.56.050(C) of the Development Code. Project Specific Conditions: 18. This approval allows for the following improvements on the subject property: a. Replace the Council -approved 4' 6" -tall retaining wall north of the garage with two terraced walls consisting of an 8.22' -tall lower retaining wall and an 8.04' tall upper combination wall (includes 3.5' -tall guardrail along the property line). b. Replace and relocate the two unpermitted terraced retaining walls that partially encroach into the neighbor's property at the north-east corner of the property with two new terraced walls consisting of an 3' -tall lower retaining wall and a 7' -tall upper combination wall (includes 3.5' -tall guardrail) entirely on the subject property. C. Replace the existing deteriorating 3.9' -tall retaining wall along the west property line with a new 8.1' -tall combination wall (includes 3.5' -tall guardrail) that will extend around to the rear yard, which will replace a previously approved 2.5' -tall wall in the rear yard. The portion of said wall extending into the rear yard will not require a guardrail. Resolution No. 2017 - Page 10 of 12 d. Conduct 128.13 126.42 yd3 of additional grading consisting of 126.83 125.12 yd3 cut and 1.3 yd3 fill to accommodate the proposed retaining walls. 19. Unless modified by the approval of future planning applications, the approved project shall maintain a maximum of 37.4% lot coverage. 20. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, wall height elevation certifications and location certifications for the new 8.1' tall combination wall (includes 3.5' tall guardrail) that will extend around to the rear yard, along the western side property line, and the two terraced retaining walls at the north-east corner of the property consisting of an 3' tall lower retaining wall and a 7' tall upper combination wall (includes 3.5' tall guardrail) entirely on the subject property shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development for review and approval. A licensed civil engineer or surveyor shall prepare and wet -stamp the Certifications. 21. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING AND/OR BUILDING PERMITS, the Director shall review and approve a landscaping plan for the area between the two downsloping terraced walls at the north-east corner of the property, facing the property at 2938 Crownview Drive. 22. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, the landscaping between the two downsloping terraced walls at the north-east corner of the property shall be installed. 23. PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL OF PLANS TO THE BUILDING & SAFETY DIVISION, revised plans shall be submitted to Planning the Director of Community Development `"'high sho,ei showin that the guardrail on top of the upper western side pFenorty lino combination wall located along the west side property line shall does not exceed 42" above the finished grade at the upslope side of the wall, which ranges between 937.6' and 939.5'. 36" On measured fF i pslepe neighbor's hol The guardrail shall be constructed and maintained as a dark colored metal material. -a series of horizontal brown matte metal flat bars 24. PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL OF PLANS TO THE BUILDING & SAFETY DIVISION, if any earth movement on the upslope property at 2952 Crownview Drive is required, an application signed by the upslope property owner shall be submitted to Planning. 25. Any proposed change to the location, size, material and color of the approved Resolution No. 2017 - Page 11 of 12 guardrails shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development through a Minor Modification Permit process per RPVDC Section 17.78.040. 26. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING AND/OR BUILDING PERMITS, the applicant shall obtain an easement construction agreement for work within the ingress, egress and public utilities easement for 2952 Crownview Drive, in addition to any other easements where permanent improvements are proposed. Resolution No. 2017 - Page 12 of 12 Amy Seeraty From: Amy Seeraty Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 4:16 PM To: 'nickole.petersen@gmail.com' Cc: Ara Mihranian; So Kim Subject: RE: Revised Resolution for 8/15 Agenda -2950 Crownview Hi Nickole- Yes, but the grade behind the wall is going to be lowered, so the 42" will not be measured from the current grade but from the new lower level. Please see the diagram below, thanks. ITEM #2 �FL Z1•aw 59. •'I[X['S R Si' a C IRy 0W!, !, } GL1lL SYZMc[ Previous grade was here Ia c+Kix^ xrseZc['f �1- a• �.. r -� BASE serer s,as ar'<nrf /DIwSe x Y" L ATE ATE eraR0 x �nv , . • :Y (:e jI rA RkY C 91Y 95 �,1+ r� 3 OLD PLAN UPPER WEST R RETAINING WALL 1 Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amys(@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: nickole.petersen@gmail.com[mailto:nickole.petersen@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 4:10 PM M New grade i! "1f sa 61.f@ 4iIIIi MCKM *; S1O fMy IY +. ppyC swi onnas a (2)030 4,G NQa2 Qq11)7 Y INRRA qr c 0411 1U Ii5'TFll `.} RAY 7M4 PRON716 (ARYNWSAPt � FpAY 9aAP'G}} I�tAale GR Y Ib• WIM ODTTCI+ OF Irll W1 F111S1 IEiO 52' Y S2. 0.G. F y Ch Why 1�4- NEW PLAN UPPER WEST R RET'AIh To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: Revised Resolution for 8/15 Agenda -2950 Crownview All I see here is the City wanting 42 inches above grade fence. Sent from my Whone On Aug 15, 2017, at 3:35 PM, Amy Seeraty <Amy(Y.rpyca.yoy> wrote: Hi Nickole- Please see the attached revised resolution for your information. Also, I was looking more at the photos and since the new slope is proposed to extend approximately 8 inches beyond the existing edge of the hedge, you may just be able to trim back that side of the hedge by about 8 inches in depth, while still keeping the main trunks. It just depends on where the main trunks are, but I would think that a landscaper would be able to easily provide you with this information. Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amys(abrpvca.clov - (310) 544-5231 From: Ara Mihranian Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 10:58 PM To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> Subject: FW: Revised Resolution for 8/15 Agenda -2950 Crownview FYI... From: Ara Mihranian Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 10:58 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov> Subject: FW: Revised Resolution for 8/15 Agenda -2950 Crownview Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council, At tomorrow night's City Council meeting, you will be considering a revision to a previous Council - approved Grading Permit at 2950 Crownview Drive. As you may recall, this project has been under construction for several years and has exchanged property owners a few times as well. Since the transmittal of the Staff Report last week, Staff has continued to meet with the Applicant and the neighbors to address their concerns. In response, Staff is proposing additional minor revisions to the resolution and conditions of approval as late correspondence. The proposed revisions are highlighted in yellow. The added text is underlined and deleted text is shown as a stFikethFeugh. Staff is speaking with the neighbor tomorrow morning to discuss the location and material of the proposed guardrail along the west property line. Any subsequent changes will be presented at the council meeting. Thank you, Ara <Attachment A - Reso 2950 Crowview Revision -REVISED FOR LATE CORRESP.docx> Amy Seeraty From: Ara Mihranian Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 10:58 PM To: Amy Seeraty; So Kim Subject: FW: Revised Resolution for 8/15 Agenda -2950 Crownview Attachments: Attachment A - Reso 2950 Crowview Revision -REVISED FOR LATE CORRESP.docx FYI.. From: Ara Mihranian Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 10:58 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: Doug Willmore <DWilImore@rpvca.gov> Subject: FW: Revised Resolution for 8/15 Agenda -2950 Crownview Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council, At tomorrow night's City Council meeting, you will be considering a revision to a previous Council -approved Grading Permit at 2950 Crownview Drive. As you may recall, this project has been under construction for several years and has exchanged property owners a few times as well. Since the transmittal of the Staff Report last week, Staff has continued to meet with the Applicant and the neighbors to address their concerns. In response, Staff is proposing additional minor revisions to the resolution and conditions of approval as late correspondence. The proposed revisions are highlighted in yellow. The added text is underlined and deleted text is shown as a stFikethreugh. Staff is speaking with the neighbor tomorrow morning to discuss the location and material of the proposed guardrail along the west property line. Any subsequent changes will be presented at the council meeting. Thank you, Ara RESOLUTION NO. 2017- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A GRADING PERMIT REVISION, MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT, AND FENCE/WALL PERMIT TO ALLOW MODIFICATIONS TO A PREVIOUS COUNCIL - APPROVED GRADING PERMIT AT 2950 CROWNVIEW DRIVE. WHEREAS, on May 14, 2004, Staff received a code violation complaint alleging that unpermitted retaining walls were being constructed and grading was occurring on the property located at 2950 Crownview Drive (formerly 29664 Grandpoint Lane). Staff confirmed the unpermitted construction activity, and after several attempts to contact the property owner, on November 10, 2005, the property owner submitted Site Plan Review and Grading Permit applications for the construction of a new 5,306 square foot one-story residence and to legalize the unpermitted retaining walls with 388yd3 of grading to accommodate the proposed improvements; and, WHEREAS, on July 7, 2006, the Director of Community Development approved the project with conditions; and, WHEREAS, on July 20, 2006, a timely appeal was filed by Rod White, Harry and Peggy Fussganger, and Ruperto Elpusan and Lula Bullale, the property owners of 2952, 2960, and 3070 Crownview Drive, respectively, raising concerns with destruction of the natural contour of the hill, underestimation of lot coverage, resulting in appearance of bulk and mass, and mischaracterization of the illegal retaining wall along the western property line; and, WHEREAS, on November 28, 2006, the Planning Commission, at a duly noticed public hearing, adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2006-59, upholding the Director's decision to approve the applicant's project with a condition requiring that the upper retaining wall be demolished and the lower retaining wall at the northeast corner of the property be reduced to 3' 6" in height; and, WHEREAS, a timely appeal was filed by the same appellants, Rod White, Harry and Peggy Fussganger, and Ruperto Elpusan and Lula Bullale, the property owners of 2952, 2960 and 3070 Crownview Drive, respectively. The appellants raised concerns about the structural integrity of the unpermitted walls, the measurement methods for the retaining walls, and the location of the northeast corner retaining wall; and, WHEREAS, On June 7, 2007, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing and adopted Resolution No. 2007-63, upholding the Planning Commission's decision to approve the applicant's project; and, WHEREAS, on December 16, 2008, a building permit was issued for the construction of the approved project; and, WHEREAS, after three years and two time extensions, the construction permit expired in December 2010. In April 2016, the planning entitlement was reissued and a new Building Permit was issued to complete the work started under the original Building Permit; and, WHEREAS, during construction, the property owner realized that the Council - approved 4' 6" tall retaining wall would not be tall enough retain the extreme slope just north of the garage. Additionally, it also became apparent that the retaining walls that were built years ago were beginning to fail. The property owner was informed that these walls would have to be rebuilt to meet current Building Codes. As a result, the property owner submitted a request to revise the Council -approved Major Grading permit to stabilize the transitional slopes and to improve the structural integrity of the existing retaining walls: and, WHEREAS, On July 28, 2017, a public notice was mailed to owners of property within a 500' radius of the subject site and published in the Daily Breeze. During the public comment period, Staff received correspondence from three neighbors expressing concerns with the proposed revisions and Staff met with these neighbors to discuss their concerns; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt under Class 2 (Section 15302); and, WHEREAS, on August 15, 2017, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The proposed project is a request for the following: A. Replace the Council -approved 4' 6" -tall retaining wall north of the garage with two terraced walls consisting of an 8.22' -tall lower retaining wall and an 8.04' -tall upper combination wall (includes 3.5' -tall guardrail along the property line). Resolution No. 2017 - Page 2 of 12 B. Replace and relocate the two unpermitted terraced retaining walls that partially encroach into the neighbor's property at the north-east corner of the property with two new terraced walls consisting of an 3' -tall lower retaining wall and a 7' -tall upper combination wall (includes 3.5' -tall guardrail) entirely on the subject property. C. Replace the existing deteriorating 3.9' -tall retaining wall along the west property line with a new 8.1' -tall combination wall (includes 3.5' -tall guardrail) that will extend around to the rear yard, which will replace a previously approved 2.5' -tall wall in the rear yard. The portion of said wall extending into the rear yard will not require a guardrail. D. Conduct 128.13 12-6.42 yd3 of additional grading consisting of 126.83 125.12 yd3 cut and 1.3 yd3 fill to accommodate the proposed retaining walls. Section 2: Approval of the Revised Major Grading Permit is warranted because: A. The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot. More specifically, the primary use of the subject lot is residential as identified in the City's General Plan and Zoning map and the applicant requests approval to replace retaining walls with 128.13 126.42 yd3 of associated grading. One of the walls was found to be too short to support the existing extreme slope, Building & Safety Division identified structural issues with several of the unpermitted retaining walls, and a set of unpermitted retaining walls at the northeast corner were built partially on the neighbor's property by the previous property owner. The proposed project is to correct these issues by either reconstructing or building new retaining walls that are properly engineered entirely on the subject property to accommodate the residential development on the site. The applicant is not proposing grading beyond what is necessary to replace the improperly constructed retaining walls. B. The proposed grading and/or related construction does not significantly adversely affect the visual relationships with, nor the views from, the viewing area of neighboring properties. The property is accessed via a private driveway that is higher in elevation than the building pad. As a result, the upsloping retaining walls north of the garage will face the subject property and only a few inches of the retaining wall and the 3.5' tall required guardrail on top will be visible from the adjacent properties and the private access driveway. As for the two downslope terraced walls at the north-east corner of the property facing 2938 Crownview Drive, the area between the 7.5' -tall upper combination wall (includes 3.5 -tall guardrail) and the lower 3' -tall retaining wall will be landscaped to soften the appearance of these walls from neighboring properties. The upslope neighboring properties, to the south, on Grandpoint Lane are located Resolution No. 2017 - Page 3 of 12 approximately 40 to 50 feet higher in elevation than the subject property and therefore, the proposed retaining walls do not impair their view. The properties to the east on Crownview Drive are located at least 20 feet lower in elevation than the subject property and therefore do not have views over the proposed project area. In regards to the properties to the west, although the 3.5 -tall guardrail is required along the majority of the west property line wall, the guard rail will not cause a significant view impairment from 2952 Crownview Drive, as articulated in the Fence/Wall Permit Section below. C. The nature of the grading minimizes disturbance to the natural contours and finished contours are reasonably natural. Per the geotechnical investigation report dated April 4, 2005, the existing "natural" contours of the project sites are largely the result of past grading, which occurred in 1959 for the development of Tract No. 22615, and in the early 1960s for the current Tract No. 28321. Additionally, the current layout of the site was permitted per the previously approved grading permit. The proposed replacement retaining walls are in the same general location as what was originally approved by the Council. The unpermitted retaining wall that partially encroaches over a neighbor's property will be reconstructed with a properly engineered retaining wall that will be in the same general location, but solely on the subject property. The proposed project is limited to the previously approved grading area. D. The grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographic features and appearances by means of land sculpturing so as to blend any man-made or manufactured slope into the natural topography. The existing "natural" contours of the project site are largely the result of tract grading in the past, as well as past development, which included the existing retaining walls. Additionally, there is minimal land -sculpturing as the proposed grading area will be limited to the previously approved areas to replace retaining walls in the same general location. E. The approval is consistent with the purposes set forth in the grading section of the Municipal Code (17.76.040.A) and the grading conforms to standards related to maximum finished slopes and driveways. The proposed terraced retaining walls consist of an 8.04' -tall upper combination wall (4.54' -tall retaining wall topped with a 3.5 -tall guardrail) and an 8.22' -tall lower retaining wall north of the garage. Subsection (e) states that only one 8' tall upslope wall shall be permitted. However, as the existing maximum elevation difference between the building pad and the adjacent private access driveway is approximately 13', any proposed wall or combination of walls must be more than 8' in height to allow the continued reasonable use of the subject property. Additionally, the proposed retaining wall up to 8.22' in height inevitably requires a depth of cut in excess of 5' in height. The proposed 5 -tall retaining wall along the west side property line extends into the rear yard over slopes greater than 50%. This new wall is proposed primarily Resolution No. 2017 - Page 4 of 12 to replace an improperly built wall, as required by the Building & Safety Division. The proposed grading to support the construction of the retaining walls is primarily limited to only what's necessary to replace walls in the same general location as the previous approval. Additionally, the proposed walls and associated grading will not affect the natural scenic character of the area, as articulated in Finding No. 2 above, and will preserve the reasonable economic use of the property. F. Allowing retaining walls that exceed 8' against an ascending slope and 3.5' in the side yard, and grading over extreme slope would not constitute granting special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other neighboring properties. This is because similar improvements exist on neighboring lots which have comparable terraced retaining walls in the side, front, and/or rear yards. G. Notice of decision will be given to the applicant and to all owners of property adjacent to the property. Section 3: Approval of the Minor Exception Permit is warranted by practical difficulties because of the grade differential (more than 13') between the building pad and the private driveway and the abutting property to the west. There isn't enough area between the proposed walls and the existing residence to support a one third shorter terraced wall, and proposing additional walls may result in inconsistencies with other sections of the grading criteria. Alternatively, portions of the walls exceeding 8' in height may be covered with additional earth to reduce the height of the wall, but that would require a substantial burden to engineer a wall that could support this additional weight since a portion of the lower wall is integrated into the garage. Section 4: The project also meets all the criteria in the Fence/Wall Permit section for Minor Exception Permits: A. The height of the combination walls will not be detrimental to the public safety and welfare. The improperly built retaining walls will be replaced with Code - compliant engineered walls, which will improve the public safety and welfare. Additionally, City Geologist and Building & Safety Division review and approval will be required. B. The line of sight over or through the guardrail is adequate for safety and does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of an adjacent parcel as defined in RPVDC Section 17.02.040. C. The height of the retaining portion of the combination walls meet all of the findings required for a Grading Permit to be approved. Resolution No. 2017 - Page 5 of 12 D. As articulated in the above "Revised Major Grading Permit" section above, all findings required for a Grading Permit have been met. Section 5: Approval of the Fence/Wall Permit is warranted because: A. The combination wall along the western side property line will not significantly impair a view from the viewing area, as defined in RPVDC Chapter 17.02 (Single -Family Residential (RS) Districts), of another property or a view from public property which has been identified in the city's general plan or coastal specific plan, as a city -designated viewing area. The upslope neighboring properties to the south located on Grandpoint Lane are located approximately 40 to 50 feet higher in elevation than the subject property and the proposed fence is not located within their protected view. The properties to the east on Crownview Drive are located at least 20 feet lower in elevation than the subject property and therefore do not have views over the proposed project area. The upslope property at 2952 Crownview Drive is approximately 13 feet higher in elevation and has a view over the subject property. Specifically, this property has a view of city lights, Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors, the Vincent Thomas Bridge and the ocean. The top portions (guardrail) of the proposed combination wall will minimally extend into the bottom of the protected view of the city lights, while the remaining components of the view will not be impacted. Portions of the proposed combination walls along the north are visible from the viewing area of 2952 Crownview, but only impair views of a neighboring vacant residential property, which is not considered a protected view. Additionally, the portions of the proposed combination wall along the northeast are not visible from the viewing area of this property. As the overall amount of impairment is minimal, as compared with the entirety of the view frame, the Council finds that the view impairment caused by said guardrail is not significant. Notwithstanding the above, as the upslope neighbor had expressed a concern with the proposed guardrail impacting their view, the applicant has agreed and a condition is attached which states that prior to issuance of Building and/or Grading permits, a portion of the property at 2952 Crownview Drive ;he pertioR -of the ^repeFty behind the upper western retaining wall shall be excavated and regraded with a 2:1 slope that would reduce the required height for the upper retaining wall, and consequently lower the top of the guardrail by at least 6" in the view, to W 42" above the finished grade at the upslope side of the wall. epslope nenghber's building nam B. The proposed combination wall meets all applicable standards and requirements of the General Plan and the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, including but not limited to setbacks, height, and views. Resolution No. 2017 - Page 6 of 12 Section 6: The City Clerk shall certify to the passage, approval, and adoption of this Resolution, and shall cause this Resolution and her certification to be entered in the Book of Resolutions of the City Council. Section 7: The time within which judicial review of the decision reflected in this Resolution must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure or other applicable short periods of limitation. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 15th day of August 2017. Brian Campbell, Mayor ATTEST: Emily Colborn, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ) I, Emily Colborn, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2017-, was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on August 15, 2017. CITY CLERK Resolution No. 2017 - Page 7 of 12 EXHIBIT 'A' CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PLANNING CASE NO. ZON2017-00224 (2950 Crownview Drive) 1. All conditions of City Council Resolution No. 2007-63, unless otherwise amended herein, shall remain in full force and effect. 2. PRIOR TO THE SUBMITTAL OF PLANS INTO BUILDING AND SAFETY PLAN CHECK, the applicant and the property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have read, understand, and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this decision. Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void. 3. The applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other actions and proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolutions procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and other such procedures) (collectively "Actions"), brought against the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City), for or concerning the project. 4. Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws and regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code shall apply. 5. Pursuant to Section 17.78.040, the Director of Community Development is authorized to make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions of approval if such modifications will achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with the approved plans and conditions. Substantial changes to the project shall be considered a revision and require approval by the final body that approved the original project, which may require new and separate environmental review and public notification. 6. The project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards contained in these conditions of approval or, if not addressed herein, shall Resolution No. 2017 - Page 8 of 12 conform to the residential development standards of the City's Municipal Code, including but not limited to height, setback and lot coverage standards. 7. Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be cause to revoke the approval of the project pursuant to the revocation procedures contained in Section 17.86.060 of the City's Municipal Code or administrative citations as described in Section 1.16 of the City's Municipal Code. 8. If the applicant has not submitted an application for a building permit for the approved project or not commenced the approved project as described in Section 17.86.070 of the City's Municipal Code within one year of the final effective date of this Resolution, approval of the project shall expire and be of no further effect unless, prior to expiration, a written request for extension is filed with the Community Development Department and approved by the Director. 9. In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations and/or requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter standard shall apply. 10. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be completed in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the City with the effective date of this decision. 11. The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that material used for immediate construction purposes. Such excess material may include, but not be limited to: the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap metal, concrete asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or discarded furniture, appliances or other household fixtures. 12. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly manner, to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official. All construction waste and debris resulting from a construction, alteration or repair project shall be removed on a weekly basis by the contractor or property owner. Existing or temporary portable bathrooms shall be provided during construction. Portable bathrooms shall be placed in a location that will minimize disturbance to the surrounding property owners, to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official. 13. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturday, with no construction activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section 17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. During demolition, construction and/or grading operations, trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining street rights-of-way before 7:00 AM Monday Resolution No. 2017 - Page 9 of 12 through Friday and before 9:00 AM on Saturday, in accordance with the permitted hours of construction stated in this condition. When feasible to do so, the construction contractor shall provide staging areas on-site to minimize off-site transportation of heavy construction equipment. These areas shall be located to maximize the distance between staging activities and neighboring properties, subject to approval by the building official. 14. All grading, landscaping and construction activities shall exercise effective dust control techniques, either through screening and/or watering. 15. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING OR BUILDING PERMITS all applicable soils/geotechnical reports, if required by the Building and Safety Division, shall be approved by the City's Geologist. 16. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING OR BUILDING PERMITS, haul routes to transport soil shall be approved by the Public Works Department. 17. Construction projects that are accessible from a street right-of-way or an abutting property and which remain in operation or expect to remain in operation for over 30 calendar days shall provide temporary construction fencing, as defined in Section 17.56.050(C) of the Development Code. Project Specific Conditions: 18. This approval allows for the following improvements on the subject property: a. Replace the Council -approved 4' 6" -tall retaining wall north of the garage with two terraced walls consisting of an 8.22' -tall lower retaining wall and an 8.04' tall upper combination wall (includes 3.5' -tall guardrail along the property line). b. Replace and relocate the two unpermitted terraced retaining walls that partially encroach into the neighbor's property at the north-east corner of the property with two new terraced walls consisting of an 3' -tall lower retaining wall and a 7' -tall upper combination wall (includes 3.5' -tall guardrail) entirely on the subject property. C. Replace the existing deteriorating 3.9' -tall retaining wall along the west property line with a new 8.1' -tall combination wall (includes 3.5' -tall guardrail) that will extend around to the rear yard, which will replace a previously approved 2.5 -tall wall in the rear yard. The portion of said wall extending into the rear yard will not require a guardrail. Resolution No. 2017 - Page 10 of 12 d. Conduct 128.13 126.42 yd3 of additional grading consisting of 126.83 125.12 yd3 cut and 1.3 yd3 fill to accommodate the proposed retaining walls. 19. Unless modified by the approval of future planning applications, the approved project shall maintain a maximum of 37.4% lot coverage. 20. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, wall height elevation certifications and location certifications for the new 8.1' tall combination wall (includes 3.5' tall guardrail) that will extend around to the rear yard, along the western side property line, and the two terraced retaining walls at the north-east corner of the property consisting of an 3' tall lower retaining wall and a 7' tall upper combination wall (includes 3.5' tall guardrail) entirely on the subject property shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development for review and approval. A licensed civil engineer or surveyor shall prepare and wet -stamp the Certifications. 21. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING AND/OR BUILDING PERMITS, the Director shall review and approve a landscaping plan for the area between the two downsloping terraced walls at the north-east corner of the property, facing the property at 2938 Crownview Drive. 22. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, the landscaping between the two downsloping terraced walls at the north-east corner of the property shall be installed. 23. PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL OF PLANS TO THE BUILDING & SAFETY DIVISION, revised plans shall be submitted to Planning the Director of Community Development whi"h show showing that the guardrail on top of the upper westerR side property lino combination wall located along the west side property line shall does not exceed 42" above the finished grade at the upslope side of the wall, which ranges between 937.6' and 939.5'. 36" in height, as measured from upslene neighher's h„nry pad —el. The quardrail shall be constructed and maintained as a dark colored metal material. a series of horizontal brown matte metal flat bars 24. PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL OF PLANS TO THE BUILDING & SAFETY DIVISION, if any earth movement on the upslope property at 2952 Crownview Drive is required, an application signed by the upslope property owner shall be submitted to Planning. 25. Any proposed change to the location, size, material and color of the approved Resolution No. 2017 - Page 11 of 12 guardrails shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development through a Minor Modification Permit process per RPVDC Section 17.78.040. 26. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING AND/OR BUILDING PERMITS, the applicant shall obtain an easement construction agreement for work within the ingress, egress and public utilities easement for 2952 Crownview Drive, in addition to any other easements where permanent improvements are proposed. Resolution No. 2017 - Page 12 of 12 Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www. rpvca. qov amys(a)rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: nickole.petersen@gmail.com [mailto:nickole.petersen@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 1:29 PM To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Cc: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>; Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: Upper Retaining Wall update -LOWERED Also, it was said that their wall is 20 inches from our property line and it's not. Our corners are certified. Please see attachment. ONIdlinEi 10.11 Sent from my Whone On Aug 15, 2017, at 1:08 PM, Ara Mihraman <AraM(cr rpvca.gov> wrote: U -A Nikole, You are not being asked to fix the problem... similar to other projects we process at the city, when issues arise, we bring the parties together to come to some agreement. Ara Michael Mihranian Community Development Director <image002.jpg> 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5228 (telephone) 310-544-5293 (fax) aram(c)-rpvca.gov www.rpvca.gov ADo you really need to print this e-mail? This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. From: nickole.petersen@gmail.com [mailto:nickole.petersen@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 1:02 PM To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Cc: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>; Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: Upper Retaining Wall update -LOWERED For 10 years fines and liens could have been applied against that property for not complying with the City Council's original decision and now it's our sole responsibility to fix this situation by basically saying do whatever you want to our property. But the City gets to have specific specifications that property owner has to meet? We tried to be reasonable and extremely accommodating but it wasn't enough. The City would have never addressed that wall hadn't it collapsed. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 15, 2017, at 12:50 PM, Ara Mihranian <AraMkrpvca.gov> wrote: Nikole, This is why it is important that a decision is rendered sooner than later so that the conditions memorialize what the property owner or future property owner has to do. Ara Michael Mihranian Community Development Director <image002 Jpg> 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5228 (telephone) 310-544-5293 (fax) aram(a-rpvca.gov www.rpvca.gov ADo you really need to print this e-mail? This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. From: nickole.petersen@gmail.com [mailto:nickole.petersen@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 12:00 PM To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Cc: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>; Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: Upper Retaining Wall update -LOWERED Ara, Bryce just informed me that he's selling the property as is. The City has yet another opportunity to lien this property so it can be sold for the correct price. To a buyer with enough funds leftover to assume the responsibility of the lien and finish the property correctly. As it stands the property continually gets resold without potential buyers have proper knowledge of the issues of this property. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 15, 2017, at 9:59 AM, Amy Seeraty <AmyS(?rpvca.gov> wrote: Sounds good, we will call you. Thank you. Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www. rpvca. gov amys(cD-rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: nickole.petersen@gmail.com [mailto:nickole.petersen@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 9:55 AM To: Amy Seeraty <AmvS@rpvca.gov> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: Upper Retaining Wall update -LOWERED 10:15. Just got email Sent from my iPhone On Aug 14, 2017, at 9:05 PM, Amy Seeraty <AmySklpvca. og_v> wrote: Hello Nickole- Thank you for your email and Pete's email. Are you available to speak with Ara and myself via telephone tomorrow (Tuesday) at loam? Please let me know, thank you. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 amy(a)rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: nickole.petersen@gmail.com <nickole.petersen@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 7:53 PM To: Amy Seeraty Cc: Ara Mihranian; So Kim Subject: Re: Upper Retaining Wall update -LOWERED Amy, To be clear, we are opposed to the current plan. I plan to address the City Council with these concerns. It has also not been explained to us how much further away from our property line the new wall will be? It sounds like it's moving closer. It should be moving away and therefore would not require our hedge to come down. There is plenty of room for the new wall to move away from our property line easily by six inches to a foot. Pete Sent from my iPhone On Aug 11, 2017, at 7:29 PM, nickole.petersengjzmail.com wrote: Amy, We are trying desperately to our inconvenience to help the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and Bryce. As a reminder, we or any of the past property owners of our property in no way created this situation. We are not in agreement with all the details. Specifically, the fence. Now we are being told we are going to have an unattractive fence as well as loose all our hedges. The combination of the two is not acceptable. Respectfully, Pete Sent from my iPhone On Aug 11, 2017, at 5:18 PM, Amy Seeraty <AmySgKpvca.gov> wrote: Hi Nickole- I just wanted to let you know that I was able to speak with Ara regarding the height of the guardrail and the possibility of using the hedge height as an additional measurement. However, as the hedge height is not a fixed measurement, this would not provide you with an accurate level. Also, the current resolution gives a measurement of 36" above your building pad level. However, the more accurate measurement which matches what we discussed should be described as 42" above the finished grade behind the upper portion of the wall, as that grade level will be lowered by 6". Thus, we will be bringing a revised resolution to the Council meeting with this more exact description of the railing height. I received revised plans yesterday (attached) and the top of the guardrail will be 6" lower. However, after looking carefully over the plans, it appears that your hedges will actually need to be removed and/or relocated. This because there is not enough room to cut into the slope while still providing the drainage channel behind the wall per Building Code. I also spoke with a Building Inspector yesterday to see if there were any more options for drainage which would allow you to keep your hedges. However, the inspector stated that even if the applicant was able to install an underground pipe behind that upper wall for the drainage, they still would not have enough room to cut away the slope while still keeping the hedges. Also, I corresponded with Bryce after I sent him the fence photos and he said that the one you showed us in the photos actually must be custom built and is expensive. We will therefore be providing the Council with an alternate Resolution which includes the original steel guardrail option for their review, in addition to the horizontal guardrail proposed in the current resolution. I will also provide the photos taken from your property at the meeting for the Council's reference. I will send you a copy of the revised resolution once the revised language is approved by the Director, before the meeting. Please let me or Ara know if you have any questions, thank you. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amt's rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: Amy Seeraty Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2017 5:30 PM To: 'nicl<ole.petersen@gmail.com' Cc: Ara Mihranian Subject: RE: Upper Retaining Wall update -LOWERED Hi Nickole- I haven't had a chance to meet with Ara today but I will follow up with him regarding your question tonight or tomorrow. Thank you. Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amys(�Drpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: nickole.petersenkgmail.com[mailto:nickole.petersenkgmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2017 6:45 PM To: Amy Seeraty <AmySAp2vca.gov> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@,Tvca.gov> Subject: Re: Upper Retaining Wall update -LOWERED Amy, Pete has some concerns about the statement of stipulation limiting the railing to no more than 36" above the grade. He says we can't be certain where this grade will be and wants the stipulation to be no more than 4 inches above the current hedge. It doesn't sound like the 4 inches will be part of the stipulation? Nickole Petersen Sent from my iPhone On Aug 8, 2017, at 4:26 PM, Amy Seeraty <AmyS(a rpvca.gov> wrote: Hi Nickole- I'm hoping it doesn't but I don't know for certain yet. I should know more on Thursday, when the engineer will be able to finish revising the plans. I'll let you know as soon as I get the information. The report will be distributed tonight, and you will see the condition we have placed, limiting to railing to 36" above the grade, which is about 4" above the hedge, and also the design of the guardrail. Thank you. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty From: nickole.petersenkgmail.com[mai Ito: nickole.petersenkgmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2017 1:13 PM To: Amy Seeraty <AmySkrpvca.gov> Cc: Ara Mihraman <AraMArpvca.gov> Subject: Re: Upper Retaining Wall update -LOWERED Amy, I forgot to ask. Will it cost us our current hedge? Nickole Sent from my iPhone On Aug 8, 2017, at 10:26 AM, Amy Seeraty <AmyS(krpvca.gov> wrote: Thank you. Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 am ssCcDrpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: nickole.petersenkgmail.com[mai Ito: nickole.petersenkgmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2017 10:21 AM To: Amy Seeraty <AmySkrpvca.gov> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraMArpvca.gov> Subject: Re: Upper Retaining Wall update -LOWERED Ok. I think that will be fine. I'll run it by Pete. The fence is a matte metal brown. Nickole Petersen Sent from my iPhone On Aug 8, 2017, at 10:03 AM, Amy Seeraty <AmyS(krpvca.gov> wrote: Hi Nickole- I'll ask them to place stakes before the meeting. However, when I spoke with the engineer, they stated that the dirt level behind the upper wall will remain the same, so they would just put a 36" tall stake right there to measure. Also, what color is the railing you show below? Is it painted black or grey or it is a matte metal color? Thanks. Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 amys(a-)-rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: nickole.petersen&gmail.com[mailto:nickole.petersen&gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2017 9:45 AM To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS(a),rpvca.gov> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM(a vca.gov> Subject: Re: Upper Retaining Wall update -LOWERED Hi Amy, This sounds wonderful!! Just to confirm it will be no higher than 4 inches above hedge on the end closest to my patio and living room? Also, will you be able to mark the height with stakes? I have not been able to discuss railing with Bryce but it is attached. <image001.jpg> Thank you so much Amy. We are very excited about this change. Nickole Sent from my iPhone On Aug 8, 2017, at 9:19 AM, Amy Seeraty <AmySkKpvca.goovv> wrote: Hi Nickole- I received a confirmation from Bryce last night that they are willing to grade a slope into the top of the upper retaining wall, which will result in a lower guardrail. As we will not be able to receive the plans in time for distribution of the Staff Report to the Council, we have inserted a condition which requires that this upper wall be re -engineered and lowered by at least 6" on the plans, prior to submittal to Building & Safety, which would result in a guardrail a maximum of 4" above your hedges. Also, can you please email me a photo of the railing that you showed me last week, so I can accurately describe it in the Staff Report? Thank you. <image001.jpg> Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 amysCa)rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 <Mapleton Retaining Wall - PRELIM REV7 - l0Aug2017.pdf> From: nickole.petersen@gmail.com [mailto:nickole.petersen@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 3:21 PM To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Cc: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>; Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: Upper Retaining Wall update -LOWERED Well, it doesn't specifically mention how it may pertain to fences so there may be some room for interpretation. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 15, 2017, at 2:44 PM, Amy Seeraty <ArnySkEpvca.gov> wrote: Hi Nickole- I checked with the interim Building Official and this section of the code does apply to any drop in elevation over 30", inside or outside. Thank you. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www. rpvca. gov amys(cD-rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: nickole.petersen@gmail.com [mailto:nickole.petersen@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 12:55 PM To: Amy Seeraty <AmvS@rpvca.gov> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: Upper Retaining Wall update -LOWERED This seems to apply to specifications regarding the interior of the home and not a fence, hedge or property line?? Sent from my iPhone On Aug 15, 2017, at 11:56 AM, Amy Seeraty <AmySkEpvca.gov> wrote: Hi Nickole- Please see the attached highlighted section of the Building Code. Thank you. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www. rpvca. gov amys(cD-rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: nickole.petersen@gmail.com [mailto:nickole.petersen@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 11:43 AM To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Cc: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>; Amy Seeraty <AmvS@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: Upper Retaining Wall update -LOWERED Ara, I asked almost an hour ago. What is the City Code requiring this fence? Nickole Petersen Sent from my iPhone On Aug 15, 2017, at 10:58 AM, nickole.petersenkgmail.com wrote: I've asked for this twice before, but what City Code now requires this rail that the City didn't originally require back in 2007 when they ruled this wall had to be done correctly? Wow, 10 years and how many owners ago. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 15, 2017, at 9:59 AM, Amy Seeraty <AMySgrpvca.gov> wrote: Sounds good, we will call you. Thank you. Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www. rpvca. gov amys(cD-rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: nickole.petersen@gmail.com [mailto:nickole.petersen@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 9:55 AM To: Amy Seeraty <AmvS@rpvca.gov> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: Upper Retaining Wall update -LOWERED 10:15. Just got email Sent from my Whone On Aug 14, 2017, at 9:05 PM, Amy Seeraty <AmySkEpvca.gov> wrote: Hello Nickole- Thank you for your email and Pete's email. Are you available to speak with Ara and myself via telephone tomorrow (Tuesday) at l0am? Please let me know, thank you. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amys(cD-rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: nickole.petersen@gmail.com <nickole.petersen@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 7:53 PM To: Amy Seeraty Cc: Ara Mihranian; So Kim Subject: Re: Upper Retaining Wall update -LOWERED Amy, To be clear, we are opposed to the current plan. I plan to address the City Council with these concerns. It has also not been explained to us how much further away from our property line the new wall will be? It sounds like it's moving closer. It should be moving away and therefore would not require our hedge to come down. There is plenty of room for the new wall to move away from our property line easily by six inches to a foot. Pete Sent from my iPhone On Aug 11, 2017, at 7:29 PM, nickole.petersen a,gmail.com wrote: Amy, We are trying desperately to our inconvenience to help the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and Bryce. As a reminder, we or any of the past property owners of our property in no way created this situation. We are not in agreement with all the details. Specifically, the fence. Now we are being told we are going to have an unattractive fence as well as loose all our hedges. The combination of the two is not acceptable. Respectfully, Pete Sent from my iPhone On Aug 11, 2017, at 5:18 PM, Amy Seeraty <AmySg!pvca.gov> wrote: Hi Nickole- I just wanted to let you know that I was able to speak with Ara regarding the height of the guardrail and the possibility of using the hedge height as an additional measurement. However, as the hedge height is not a fixed measurement, this would not provide you with an accurate level. Also, the current resolution gives a measurement of 36" above your building pad level. However, the more accurate measurement which matches what we discussed should be described as 42" above the finished grade behind the upper portion of the wall, as that grade level will be lowered by 6". Thus, we will be bringing a revised resolution to the Council meeting with this more exact description of the railing height. I received revised plans yesterday (attached) and the top of the guardrail will be 6" lower. However, after looking carefully over the plans, it appears that your hedges will actually need to be removed and/or relocated. This because there is not enough room to cut into the slope while still providing the drainage channel behind the wall per Building Code. I also spoke with a Building Inspector yesterday to see if there were any more options for drainage which would allow you to keep your hedges. However, the inspector stated that even if the applicant was able to install an underground pipe behind that upper wall for the drainage, they still would not have enough room to cut away the slope while still keeping the hedges. Also, I corresponded with Bryce after I sent him the fence photos and he said that the one you showed us in the photos actually must be custom built and is expensive. We will therefore be providing the Council with an alternate Resolution which includes the original steel guardrail option for their review, in addition to the horizontal guardrail proposed in the current resolution. I will also provide the photos taken from your property at the meeting for the Council's reference. I will send you a copy of the revised resolution once the revised language is approved by the Director, before the meeting. Please let me or Ara know if you have any questions, thank you. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 amys(a-)-rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: Amy Seeraty Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2017 5:30 PM To: 'nickole.petersen@gmail.com' Cc: Ara Mihranian Subject: RE: Upper Retaining Wall update -LOWERED Hi Nickole- I haven't had a chance to meet with Ara today but I will follow up with him regarding your question tonight or tomorrow. Thank you. Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amt's rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: nickole.petersenkgmail.com[mailto:nickole.petersenkgmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2017 6:45 PM To: Amy Seeraty <AmySAp2vca.gov> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@,Tvca.gov> Subject: Re: Upper Retaining Wall update -LOWERED Amy, Pete has some concerns about the statement of stipulation limiting the railing to no more than 36" above the grade. He says we can't be certain where this grade will be and wants the stipulation to be no more than 4 inches above the current hedge. It doesn't sound like the 4 inches will be part of the stipulation? Nickole Petersen Sent from my iPhone On Aug 8, 2017, at 4:26 PM, Amy Seeraty <AmyS(a rpvca.gov> wrote: Hi Nickole- I'm hoping it doesn't but I don't know for certain yet. I should know more on Thursday, when the engineer will be able to finish revising the plans. I'll let you know as soon as I get the information. The report will be distributed tonight, and you will see the condition we have placed, limiting to railing to 36" above the grade, which is about 4" above the hedge, and also the design of the guardrail. Thank you. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty From: nickole.petersenkgmail.com[mai Ito: nickole.petersenkgmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2017 1:13 PM To: Amy Seeraty <AmySkrpvca.gov> Cc: Ara Mihraman <AraMArpvca.gov> Subject: Re: Upper Retaining Wall update -LOWERED Amy, I forgot to ask. Will it cost us our current hedge? Nickole Sent from my iPhone On Aug 8, 2017, at 10:26 AM, Amy Seeraty <AmyS(krpvca.gov> wrote: Thank you. Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 am ssCcDrpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: nickole.petersenkgmail.com[mai Ito: nickole.petersenkgmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2017 10:21 AM To: Amy Seeraty <AmySkrpvca.gov> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraMArpvca.gov> Subject: Re: Upper Retaining Wall update -LOWERED Ok. I think that will be fine. I'll run it by Pete. The fence is a matte metal brown. Nickole Petersen Sent from my iPhone On Aug 8, 2017, at 10:03 AM, Amy Seeraty <AmyS(krpvca.gov> wrote: Hi Nickole- I'll ask them to place stakes before the meeting. However, when I spoke with the engineer, they stated that the dirt level behind the upper wall will remain the same, so they would just put a 36" tall stake right there to measure. Also, what color is the railing you show below? Is it painted black or grey or it is a matte metal color? Thanks. Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 amys(a-)-rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: nickole.petersen&gmail.com[mailto:nickole.petersen&gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2017 9:45 AM To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS(a),rpvca.gov> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM(a vca.gov> Subject: Re: Upper Retaining Wall update -LOWERED Hi Amy, This sounds wonderful!! Just to confirm it will be no higher than 4 inches above hedge on the end closest to my patio and living room? Also, will you be able to mark the height with stakes? I have not been able to discuss railing with Bryce but it is attached. <image001.jpg> Thank you so much Amy. We are very excited about this change. Nickole Sent from my iPhone On Aug 8, 2017, at 9:19 AM, Amy Seeraty <AmySkKpvca.goovv> wrote: Hi Nickole- I received a confirmation from Bryce last night that they are willing to grade a slope into the top of the upper retaining wall, which will result in a lower guardrail. As we will not be able to receive the plans in time for distribution of the Staff Report to the Council, we have inserted a condition which requires that this upper wall be re -engineered and lowered by at least 6" on the plans, prior to submittal to Building & Safety, which would result in a guardrail a maximum of 4" above your hedges. Also, can you please email me a photo of the railing that you showed me last week, so I can accurately describe it in the Staff Report? Thank you. <image001.jpg> Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 amysCa)rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 <Mapleton Retaining Wall - PRELIM REV7 - l0Aug2017.pdf> <Building Code Section R312.pdf> <Building Code Section R312.pdf> From: YanTien Wong <yani.wong.2015@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2017 8:47 AM To: Jason Caraveo Subject: Re: 30717 Rue Langlois Appeal Attachments: 2017_08_08_30717_Rue_Langlois_Petition.pdf Thanks Jason. Should I have to anticipate having to speak? I don't see the need, but just wondering if I am expected to. Also, just attaching for the record, a petition that was signed by neighbors in support of the appeal (just for the city file.) Thank you, Yani On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 5:24 PM, Jason Caraveo <JasonC(a,rpvca..og_v> wrote: Hello, Here is a link to the City Council Agenda Here is a link to the Staff Report Jason Caraveo Assistant Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.r vca. ov Phone: (310)544-5232 — Fax: (310) 544-5293 iasonc(a�rpvca.gov From: YanTien Wong[mailto:yani.wong.2015@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 07, 2017 6:43 PM To: Jason Caraveo <JasonC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: 30717 Rue Langlois Appeal Yes that Jason, I can support the project with the changes that you described in the email below. Thank you, Yani Wong On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 6:11 PM, Jason Caraveo <JasonCnrpvca. ov> wrote: Hello Mrs, Wong, I'm just sending you a confirmation email about what we discussed earlier for the 30717 Rue Langlois Project. I just want to make sure that you are comfortable with the modifications the Applicant has presented you to reduce the height of the overall structure by one foot, keep the proposed 4,507 square foot structure size above grade, include a new 810 square foot basement, and keep the three -car garage with one parking space that is tandem? Can you please provide me a response by tomorrow morning? Thank you, Jason Caraveo Assistant Planner LCity of !Rancho Taos Verdes Planning Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www. vca. oy Phone: (310) 544-5232 — Fax: (310) 544-5293 jasoncCc rpvca.gov From: Diana Bailey <dianalisab.rhe@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 6:13 PM To: CC; Emily Colborn Cc: Rob Kautz Subject: Fwd: City Council Meeting Agenda for August 15, 2017 -- Resident Input Regarding Draft Noise Control Ordinance Attachments: RPV Noise Ord Input.pdf Rancho Palos Verdes City Council: Please be advised that I support Robert Kautz's position that RPV should adopt noise ordinances lower than that of surrounding urban communities. The Palos Verdes Peninsula is valued by the community for its quiet, natural state. Noise ordinances should be adopted that reflect the nature of the community. Thank you, Diana Bailey ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Rob K <rfkautzagmail.com> Date: Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 3:09 PM Subject: Fwd: City Council Meeting Agenda for August 15, 2017 -- Resident Input Regarding Draft Noise Control Ordinance To: Allen Franz <AFranz cr,marymountcalifornia.edu>, Amy Friend <abfriendgyahoo.com>, Bill Ailor <billailorgcox.net>, Bob Ford <rforducla(c-)mac.com>, Carolynn Petru <carolynn.petruga gmail.com>, Cassie Jones <cassiej(a�aol.com>, Diana Bailey <Dianalisab.rheggmail.com>, John Spielman <johnspielman e sent.com>, Ken Swenson<Ken.Swenson@bankofamerica.com>, Mike Kilroy <mla�,kilro m>, Randy Harwood <randykharwood a,gmail.com>, Rick Wallace <wallace.richard.h@gmail.com>, Scott Ammons <sammonsnrei.com>, Andrea Vona <avona@pvplc.org> Hi, Thank you for your support. I received enough responses to decide to send this to everyone since time has been short. Below is the letter/email that I sent to City Council. If you want to email support for my position to the council, you can forward this email to the email address below (the general City Council email and the City Clerk's email). Please cc me so I will know that you have expressed your support. If you email by 4pm today, Monday, the clerk may include your input in the supplemental materials for the meeting. If it is later than that, that is okay too, because I will be able to provide that information to the Council when I speak. Again, this will not be related to PVPLC at all. Best regards, 4:7 Begin forwarded message: IN, From: Rob K <rfkautz ,gmail.com> Subject: City Council Meeting Agenda for August 15, 2017 -- Resident Input Regarding Draft Noise Control Ordinance Date: August 14, 2017 at 2:58:43 PM PDT To: cc �,rpvca.gov Cc: ecolborn(a)-rpvca.gov Dear City Council and City Clerk, I am submitting the attached letter regarding the Draft Noise Control Ordinance for consideration at tomorrow night's meeting, and I plan to also attend the meeting in person to summarize my input. The first page of the attached letter summarizes the key noise limits for Rancho Palos Verdes as proposed in comparison to LA County, Gardena, and Costa Mesa. This data and data regarding human noise perception should be a key consideration for City Council. The majority of the pages provide excerpts from their codes and online links to the official websites. The draft Noise Limits did not come to my attention until this weekend, and I apologize for not providing this input earlier. Best regards, Rob Kautz 310-418-8016 32072 Pacifica Drive From: Jennifer T. Taggart <JTaggart@ddsffirm.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 11:30 AM To: CC; Brian Campbell; Jerry Duhovic; Susan Brooks; Ken Dyda; Anthony Misetich Cc: Leza Mikhail; Ara Mihranian Subject: RPV City Council Meeting August 15, 2017 - Agenda Item #4 Draft Noise Control Ordinance Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: I am a resident of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("City") and write in connection with the Draft Noise Control Ordinance ("Ordinance") under consideration for referral to the City Planning Commission. I have previously commented on earlier versions of the Ordinance and appreciate the revisions and changes. However, I remain particularly concerned with several issues, including the prohibition on landscape activities outside specified limited hours. As a threshold, the City states that it has experienced a growing number of complaints from residences. Those complaints are not tabulated or provided with the staff report. In the review of materials provided by the City, the City states that noise complaints have stemmed from: ATV noise, roadway trucks, altered motor vehicle exhaust systems, tree -trimming on Sundays and Holidays, car stereos, late night parties, musical instruments, amplified music/sound systems, barking dogs, drive-thru speakers, mechanical equipment - pool pumps and mechanical equipment - air conditioning units. (See Agenda Report, 02/21/2017.) The various communications submitted by residents include complaints about activities at Del Cerro Park, Green Hills Memorial Park, and Los Verdes. Notably absent from this list are landscaping activities (with the exception of leaf blowers and certain activities at Los Verdes which appear to be landscaping activities). Yet, the City is proposing a ban on all landscaping activities with electrical or motorized equipment outside of certain limited hours even though there appear to be no noise complaints related to such activities. The ban outside very limited hours is without any factual or technical support provided. The weekday hours are more restrictive than permitted construction activities which can be significantly noisier. A resident's contractor can use a nail gun or other percussive type equipment beginning at 7 am until 6 pm, but the City wants to ban me from mowing my lawn before 8 am and after 5 pm? That doesn't make any sense. Also, the standard "noise disturbance" is vague and ambiguous. The term "noise disturbance" should be an objective standard. Otherwise, I am sure it will lead to substantial difficulty in enforcement. I urge the City Council to reconsider the narrow hours allowed for landscape activities. At least for my family, both my husband and I work and both our kids are active in club sports and school related activities such as VEX Robotics. The limited hours will make it virtually impossible to maintain our property. I can tell you that maintaining a 5 acre parcel with hand tools is simply not realistic. I am also concerned with the prohibition on mechanical equipment. It is my understanding that mechanical equipment installed outside of a setback previously had no decibel limit/restriction. By enacting a complete ban on mechanical equipment that creates a "noise disturbance" across property lines, it could pose a significant hardship to those with existing equipment. Many may need to take corrective action to meet a vague "noise disturbance" criteria. The term "noise disturbance" is vague and ambiguous. What constitutes an "unnecessary noise" is subject to wide interpretation. If the City is going to enact an enforceable noise ordinance, the terms must be clearly defined to give notice to those subject to it. Jennifer Taggart City of Rancho Palos Verdes resident 2 AM CITY OF I RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: AUGUST 14, 2017 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, August 15, 2017 City Council meeting: Item No. Description of Material Study Session Email from Sunshine 2 Emails from various residents 4 Email exchange between Senior Administrative Analyst Fox and Craig Weintraub; Email exchange between Code Enforcement Officer Peterson and Craig Weintraub; Emails from: Craig Weintraub; Shu Yen; Rob Kautz; Bruce Ross; Randy Ross; Bob Ford; Randy Harwood; Letters from: Green Hills Memorial Park; Jennifer Taggart 9 Email from Sunshine Respectfully submitted, A�— Emili-C-lb—lborn WA01 City Clerk\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2017 Cover Sheets\20170815 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.doc From: SunshineRPV@aol.com Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2017 4:53 PM To: CC Subject: August 15, 2017 RPV City Council Study Session RE: Goals update Dear Mr. Mayor and City Council. What is it going to take to reinforce the notion that your goal of Enhancing Trails applies to the whole City and not just in the PV Nature Preserve? Actually, things are not going so well in the Reserves, either. The Trails Network Plan has not yet been updated to integrate the Conceptual Trails Plan with the various Reserve Trails Plans. Public Works and therefore the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee, doesn't know which trails are in which state of disrepair. One little example about the "Trails Management Team". I sent the following email to Doug Willmore, Terry Rodrigue, Ara Mihranian, Cory Linder, Charles Eder, Sean Larvenz and Dave Pearce. Nobody has replied. The signs are ready for delivery. My phone calls have not turned up anyone who knows: Where, when and to whom the signs should be delivered; Which sign should go exactly where; Who is going to supervise the installations (quality control) and... When will this work happen once the signs are delivered? According to the current Conceptual Trails Plan, installing these signs should have been included in the Sunnyside Trail Restoration Contract. (So should the "equestrian crossing" caution signs.) Your goal appears to have become a "black hole". I certainly hope that you, collectively, do not choose to abandon this recreational element in RPV's infrastructure. If you need more examples of the lack of oversight, just ask me. If it should be in the form of a petition from your constituents, mention it as a part of your motion to have Staff follow-up with updating this GOAL. Thank you for your attention to this matter. SUNSHINE 6 Limetree Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-377-8761 In a message dated 7/26/2017 1:23:57 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, SunshineRPV@aol.com writes: Hello RPV Trails Team, Following is a look at the standardized PV Loop Trail, every approximately quarter mile, insignia and plaque. (1993 CTP page i-1. Last paragraph.) Due to requests from pedestrians, the mounting protocol has been changed. The top of the wood sign is to be 6-6" above the trail tread. To mitigate view blockage, signs mounted on the fence on the ocean side of the bluff top trail are to be no higher than 6 inches above the top rail of the fence. S -r0 Dy S �ssian� Regarding the signs at each end of the work on CTP trail A27, (Sunnyside) the plaques are being fabricated with the arrow directions based on the locations agreed upon by Dave Pearce, Charles Eder and myself. I have been asked to deliver the assembled signs (which include the 4x4 treated wood posts) to the City so that Staff can arrange to have them installed, ASAP. I am rather concerned that nobody I speak with has an understanding of the whole objective. Each sign assembly is custom made. The RPV City Council has approved the insignia, the language on the plaques and the concept of placing them as a portion of a Peninsula wide trails network. The assembled signs will be available for delivery, later this week. Who is in charge of receiving said signs and making sure that each one is installed in the correct location with the correct orientation? SUNSHINE On behalf of the Palos Verdes Loop Trail Project 310-377-8761 R NG JESTNT' ■ .PEPPERFOUNDATION NEWSLETTER tri r d# ddCaYt or IN etrsr of t.to1€.1109 votdos €.0411 Trots w9n, The P ilra 3§dEmfcif , U.x) Trail p ,,a.�-...aay� pp d y aa�, ,.j tujert 4,, oaairnittee rllax.��'ntl roar. ed a raatic; tai oe With Vl ("' c odicai.cfra of its first official taail sign, E, arlier this year, the. 01y raf Rollin Hilts Estales paved the way lt)a We placement of donaled Nugnagv along each segment Df tho t.,ortta Trail within As beast€erg An, addittorial 23 signs di be innialled in the cofning year, The idoa to es-lablish <;a loop trml around the Palosi Nerds Perainsartaa began, at 1957 milt tho, masa plelion of ilio Los Angeles County flegional cat raaati ra ria. An Idea[ route" was do Pi ne d to allow for a continuous, b6dte and hiking trail of approxarra ately 6 irakia Intorest and a tart enlom kn the frr,p<)5ed tr ati loop was regenerated in M�5 with <'a grant p of Olizen s frrrra r;afl four Periffistila CJIW" , West Property Line Guardrail Amy Seeraty Sat 8/12/2017 9:09 AM To:Bryce Overend <Bryce@triwestdev.com>; cc Omer Ivanir <Omer@triwestdev.com>; John Schuricht <john@pvec.com>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>; 'Shane Adams' <shane@pvec.com>; Hello Bryce - I just wanted to let you know that I was able to speak with Ara regarding the design of the guardrail. Because you stated that the version that the neighbor prefers is custom built and therefore quite expensive, we will be providing the Council with an alternate Resolution which includes the original steel guardrail option for their review. Also, we will be clarifying a couple additional items in the revised resolution. First, we will be more accurately describing the height of the guardrail, using the lowered finished grade at the measuring point, and not the neighbor's pad level. The more accurate measurement which matches what we discussed will be described as 42" above each specific finished grade number behind the upper portion of the wall, as that grade level will be lowered by 6". It also appears that to cut into the slope per the upslope neighbor's request, this will require removal and/or relocation of their hedges. I have advised the upslope neighbor of this, and although she had previously stated she would be amenable to this, she is now expressing some concerns with this. We will also be revising the amount of grading in the resolution, which has increased by 3.7 cubic yards due to the addition cutting into the slope. will send you a copy of the revised resolution once the revised language is approved by the Director, before the meeting. Please let me or Ara know if you have any questions, thank you. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amys(a-)rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: Amy Seeraty Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2017 3:37 PM To:'Shane Adams' ITEM #2 Cc: Bryce Overend; Omer Ivanir; John Schuricht; Ara Mihranian; So Kim Subject: RE: 2950 Crownview Update Hi Shane - Thanks for the revised drawings. However, can you revise the sections to show the level of the dirt? Thank you. Re: Upper Retaining Wall update -LOWERED nickole.petersen@gmail.com Fri 8/11/2017 7:52 PM To:Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>; Cc Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>; Amy, To be clear, we are opposed to the current plan. I plan to address the City Council with these concerns. It has also not been explained to us how much further away from our property line the new wall will be? It sounds like it's moving closer. It should be moving away and therefore would not require our hedge to come down. There is plenty of room for the new wall to move away from our property line easily by six inches to a foot. Pete Sent from my iPhone On Aug 11, 2017, at 7:29 PM, nickole.petersen(a@gmail.com wrote: Amy, We are trying desperately to our inconvenience to help the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and Bryce. As a reminder, we or any of the past property owners of our property in no way created this situation. We are not in agreement with all the details. Specifically, the fence. Now we are being told we are going to have an unattractive fence as well as loose all our hedges. The combination of the two is not acceptable. Respectfully, Pete Sent from my iPhone On Aug 11, 2017, at 5:18 PM, Amy Seeraty <AmySPrpvca.gov> wrote: Hi Nickole- I just wanted to let you know that I was able to speak with Ara regarding the height of the guardrail and the possibility of using the hedge height as an additional measurement. However, as the hedge height is not a fixed measurement, this would not provide you with an accurate level. Also, the current resolution gives a measurement of 36" above your building pad level. However, the more accurate measurement which matches what we discussed should be described as 42" above the finished grade behind the upper portion of the wall, as that grade level will be lowered by 6". Thus, we will be bringing a revised resolution to the Council meeting with this more exact description of the railing height. I received revised plans yesterday (attached) and the top of the guardrail will be 6" lower. However, after looking carefully over the plans, it appears that your hedges will actually need to be removed and/or relocated. This because there is not enough room to cut into the slope while still providing the drainage channel behind the wall per Building Code. I also spoke with a Building Inspector yesterday to see if there were any more options for drainage which would allow you to keep your hedges. However, the inspector stated that even if the applicant was able to install an underground pipe behind that upper wall for the drainage, they still would not have enough room to cut away the slope while still keeping the hedges. Also, I corresponded with Bryce after I sent him the fence photos and he said that the one you showed us in the photos actually must be custom built and is expensive. We will therefore be providing the Council with an alternate Resolution which includes the original steel guardrail option for their review, in addition to the horizontal guardrail proposed in the current resolution. I will also provide the photos taken from your property at the meeting for the Council's reference. I will send you a copy of the revised resolution once the revised language is approved by the Director, before the meeting. Please let me or Ara know if you have any questions, thank you. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amvs(c)rovca.00v - (310) 544-5231 From: Amy Seeraty Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2017 5:30 PM To: 'nickole.petersen(@gmail.com' Cc: Ara Mihranian Subject: RE: Upper Retaining Wall update -LOWERED Hi Nickole- I haven't had a chance to meet with Ara today but I will follow up with him regarding your question tonight or tomorrow. Thank you. Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amys(a-)rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: nickole.petersen@gmail.com [mailto:nickole.petersen@amail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2017 6:45 PM To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.goov> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.aov> Subject: Re: Upper Retaining Wall update -LOWERED Amy, Pete has some concerns about the statement of stipulation limiting the railing to no more than 36" above the grade. He says we can't be certain where this grade will be and wants the stipulation to be no more than 4 inches above the current hedge. It doesn't sound like the 4 inches will be part of the stipulation? Nickole Petersen Sent from my iPhone On Aug 8, 2017, at 4:26 PM, Amy Seeraty <AmyS(d) rpvca.cLov> wrote: Hi Nickole- I'm hoping it doesn't but I don't know for certain yet. I should know more on Thursday, when the engineer will be able to finish revising the plans. I'll let you know as soon as I get the information. The report will be distributed tonight, and you will see the condition we have placed, limiting to railing to 36" above the grade, which is about 4" above the hedge, and also the design of the guardrail. Thank you. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty From: nickole.petersen@amail.com[mailto:nickole.petersen@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 20171:13 PM To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.aov> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: Upper Retaining Wall update -LOWERED Amy, I forgot to ask. Will it cost us our current hedge? Nickole Sent from my iPhone On Aug 8, 2017, at 10:26 AM, Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> wrote: Thank you. Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amys@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: nickole.petersen@gmail.com [mailto:nickole.petersen@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2017 10:21 AM To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rPvca.gov> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.cLov> Subject: Re: Upper Retaining Wall update -LOWERED Ok. I think that will be fine. I'll run it by Pete. The fence is a matte metal brown. Nickole Petersen Sent from my Phone On Aug 8, 2017, at 10:03 AM, Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> wrote: Hi Nickole- I'll ask them to place stakes before the meeting. However, when I spoke with the engineer, they stated that the dirt level behind the upper wall will remain the same, so they would just put a 36" tall stake right there to measure. Also, what color is the railing you show below? Is it painted black or grey or it is a matte metal color? Thanks. Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www. rpvca. gov amys(a)ri)vca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: nickole.petersen@gmail.com [mailto:nickole.petersenPgmail.coml Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2017 9:45 AM To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.cLov> Subject: Re: Upper Retaining Wall update -LOWERED Hi Amy, This sounds wonderful!! Just to confirm it will be no higher than 4 inches above hedge on the end closest to my patio and living room? Also, will you be able to mark the height with stakes? I have not been able to discuss railing with Bryce but it is attached. <image001 jpg> Thank you so much Amy. We are very excited about this change. Nickole Sent from my Phone On Aug 8, 2017, at 9:19 AM, Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> wrote: Hi Nickole- I received a confirmation from Bryce last night that they are willing to grade a slope into the top of the upper retaining wall, which will result in a lower guardrail. As we will not be able to receive the plans in time for distribution of the Staff Report to the Council, we have inserted a condition which requires that this upper wall be re -engineered and lowered by at least 6" on the plans, prior to submittal to Building & Safety, which would result in a guardrail a maximum of 4" above your hedges. Also, can you please email me a photo of the railing that you showed me last week, so I can accurately describe it in the Staff Report? Thank you. <image001.jpg> Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www. rpvca. gov amys(cDrovca.gov - (310) 544-5231 <Mapleton Retaining Wall - PRELIM REV7-10Aug2017.pdf> Re: Conditions of approval Amy Seeraty Fri 8/11/2017 2:20 PM ToJony Antich <tony.antich@gmail.com>; cc -Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; a 1 attachment CC RES 2007-63.pdf; Hi Tony - I did not yet. Please see the attached resolution. However, I don't believe it was a condition from the City Council; I believe it was a LA County Fire Department requirement which came up during the building permit plan check. If you wish to speak with them, you can find the contact info for the Fire Prevention Engineering Office in Hawthorne at: https://www.fire.lacounty.gov/fire-prevention-division/regional-plan-check-offices/ Thank you. -Amy From: Tony Antich <tony.antich@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2017 4:10 PM To: Amy Seeraty Cc: His Excellency Tony Antich Subject: Re: Conditions of approval Hi Amy, Did you already respond to this inquiry? Tony Tony Antich, 2016-17 President - Kiwanis Club of Santa Monica P.O. Box 7368 Santa Monica, CA 90406 310-614-5357 tony.antichC@Rmail.com On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Tony Antich <tony.antich gmail.com> wrote: Amy, can you email me the conditions of approval for 2950 Crownview. In particular I'm interested in seeing the requirements by the fire department for the emergency access vehicle road. Was that part of the resolution adopted by city Council when they approve the project? Tony Sent from my iPhone Amy Seeraty From: Amy Seeraty Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2017 5:31 PM To: 'nickole.petersen@gmail.com' Cc: Ara Mihranian Subject: RE: Upper Retaining Wall update -LOWERED Hi Nickole- I haven't had a chance to meet with Ara today but I will follow up with him regarding your question tonight or tomorrow. Thank you. Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amt's cDrpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: nickole.petersen@gmail.com [mailto:nickole.petersen@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2017 6:45 PM To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: Upper Retaining Wall update -LOWERED Amy, Pete has some concerns about the statement of stipulation limiting the railing to no more than 36" above the grade. He says we can't be certain where this grade will be and wants the stipulation to be no more than 4 inches above the current hedge. It doesn't sound like the 4 inches will be part of the stipulation? Nickole Petersen Sent from my iPhone On Aug 8, 2017, at 4:26 PM, Amy Seeraty <AmvS@rpvca.gov> wrote: Hi Nickole- I'm hoping it doesn't but I don't know for certain yet. I should know more on Thursday, when the engineer will be able to finish revising the plans. I'll let you know as soon as I get the information. The report will be distributed tonight, and you will see the condition we have placed, limiting to railing to 36" above the grade, which is about 4" above the hedge, and also the design of the guardrail. Thank you. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty From: nickole.petersen@gmail.com [mailto:nickole.petersen@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2017 1:13 PM To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: Upper Retaining Wall update -LOWERED Amy, I forgot to ask. Will it cost us our current hedge? Nickole Sent from my iPhone On Aug 8, 2017, at 10:26 AM, Amy Seeraty <AmvS@rpvca.gov> wrote: Thank you. Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amysCcDrpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: nickole.petersen@gmail.com [mailto:nickole.petersen@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2017 10:21 AM To: Amy Seeraty <AmvS@rpvca.gov> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: Upper Retaining Wall update -LOWERED Ok. I think that will be fine. I'll run it by Pete. The fence is a matte metal brown. Nickole Petersen Sent from my iPhone On Aug 8, 2017, at 10:03 AM, Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> wrote: Hi Nickole- I'll ask them to place stakes before the meeting. However, when I spoke with the engineer, they stated that the dirt level behind the upper wall will remain the same, so they would just put a 36" tall stake right there to measure. Also, what color is the railing you show below? Is it painted black or grey or it is a matte metal color? Thanks. Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amysCcD-rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: nickole.petersen@gmail.com [mailto:nickole.petersen@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2017 9:45 AM To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: Upper Retaining Wall update -LOWERED Hi Amy, This sounds wonderful!! Just to confirm it will be no higher than 4 inches above hedge on the end closest to my patio and living room? Also, will you be able to mark the height with stakes? I have not been able to discuss railing with Bryce but it is attached. <image001.jpg> Thank you so much Amy. We are very excited about this change. Nickole Sent from my Phone On Aug 8, 2017, at 9:19 AM, Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> wrote: Hi Nickole- I received a confirmation from Bryce last night that they are willing to grade a slope into the top of the upper retaining wall, which will result in a lower guardrail. As we will not be able to receive the plans in time for distribution of the Staff Report to the Council, we have inserted a condition which requires that this upper wall be re -engineered and lowered by at least 6" on the plans, prior to submittal to Building & Safety, which would result in a guardrail a maximum of 4" above your hedges. Also, can you please email me a photo of the railing that you showed me last week, so I can accurately describe it in the Staff Report? Thank you. <image001.jpg> Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amysQrpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 Amy Seeraty From: Bryce Overend < Bryce@triwestdev.com > Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2017 10:09 PM To: Amy Seeraty Cc: Omer Ivanir; Ara Mihranian Subject: Re: 2950 Crownview Update Attachments: image004jpg; image002jpg We will be installing a standard rod iron gate the gate you Specked is custom and very expensive. Bryce Overend Managing Partner Triwest Development, LLC 3727 Coolidge Ave Los Angeles. CA 90066 Cell: (714)-585-5208 Fax: (424)-332-5014 On Aug 9, 2017, at 10:47 AM, Amy Seeraty <AmySk!pvca.gov> wrote: Hi Bryce - I understand that Shane will be drawing up those changes on Thursday. Also, it would still be much appreciated if before the 8/15 Council meeting, you could place a stake that extends a maximum of 36128; above the walking surface behind the wall. However, if the railing actually ends up being a little lower, please indicate that specific height, rather than the 36128; . Also, please see a couple photos of the preferred type of railing below. It is a brown matte metal with flat bars. I found the lower photo on the following website: http:Hdeck- rail.com/products/aluminum-flat-bar-railing/ <image002 Jpg><image004 Jpg> Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amys(a-)-rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: Amy Seeraty Sent: Monday, August 07, 2017 9:33 PM To: Bryce Overend <Bryce@triwestdev.com> Cc: Omer Ivanir <Omer@triwestdev.com>; Shane Adams <shane@pvec.com>; John Schuricht 'T ft 11 ni �M& <john@pvec.com>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: 2950 Crownview Update �128;<Hello Bryce - Thanks so much for letting me know. I'll touch base with PV Engineering tomorrow morning to see if they will be able to make this change before the Staff Report is distributed to the Council tomorrow. However, because I realize this may not be feasible, I will place a condition on the project that says something like "Prior to submittal of plans to the Building & Safety Division, the upper retaining wall shall be revised such that the guardrail shall not exceed 36" from the pad level of the upslope property." Thank you. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty From: Bryce Overend <Bryce@triwestdev.com> Sent: Monday, August 7, 2017 6:35 PM To: Amy Seeraty Cc: Omer Ivanir; Ara Mihranian; Shane Adams; john@pvec.com Subject: Re: 2950 Crownview Update Sure we're ok with the revision Bryce Overend Managing Partner Triwest Development, LLC 3727 Coolidge Ave Los Angeles, CA 90066 Cell: (714)-585-5208 Fax: (424)-332-5014 On Aug 7, 2017, at 2:33 PM, Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> wrote: Hi Bryce - We should be able to keep it on the 8/15 meeting. However, before we finalize the report, we would like to at least know if you and your partners are willing to revise the top part of the wall as suggested below in order to reduce the height of the upper western property line retaining wall by about 6 inches. I spoke with Bill briefly today at PV Engineering and he said that if the ground behind the wall can be kept flat, no additional engineering would be required. However, he did say that if the option below was selected, this would require some additional calculations to ensure it could be done. We simply just need to figure out by tomorrow whether you and your partners are amenable to this minor revision which would hopefully eliminate any issues at the City Council meeting, and if so, if PV Engineering can confirm it is possible via calculations and provide revised plans. <image003.jpg> Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amys@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: Bryce Overend [mailto:Bryce@triwestdev.com] Sent: Monday, August 07, 2017 12:23 PM To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> Cc: Omer Ivanir <Omer@triwestdev.com>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: 2950 Crownview Update Amy: Why do you need to know by noon today? Regardless you need to keep us on the agenda for the 15th as we discussed. Bryce Overend Managing Partner Triwest Development, LLC 3727 Coolidge Ave Los Angeles, CA 90066 Cell: (714)-585-5208 Fax: (424)-332-5014 On Aug 7, 2017, at 6:43 AM, Amy Seeraty <AmySk!pvca.gov> wrote: Good Morning I am just following up on the email below as we do need to know before noon today whether or not the option below will be feasible. And if it will be possible from an engineering perspective, please let me know if you would be able to send me revised plans by tomorrow. Thank you. <image002.jpg> Amy Seeraty Exist IngCross 5ection•Safety rail IlIg Propowd Cross Section -Safety raiiin,gdoes exwndsabove existing hedges not ex[L-nd above existing hedges. MAcmavrouMbo eiiiiiinrrd m int a 1o+��r w.lu w W Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amysC@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: Amy Seeraty Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2017 10:12 AM To: Shane Adams <shane@pvec.com>; Omer Ivanir <Omer@triwestdev.com> Cc: Bryce Overend <Bryce@triwestdev.com>; Tony Antich <tony.antich@Bmail.com>; john@pvec.com; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.Bov> Subject: Re: 2950 Crownview Update Hello Everyone - Thank you for working on this. However, if what Shane stated it true, that the finished grade of the walking surface is not changing, this will result in a railing that is still too high for that upslope neighbor's preference. However, she stated that she would be willing to have a portion of the edge of her property cut away, so that a lower retaining wall is needed. She would like the safety railing to be at least 6 inches lower. Also, she would like to keep the hedges, but would be ok if they must be remove, if this would result in a lower retaining wall and thus, a safety railing where the max height is at a lower elevation. Please see the diagram below and let me know as soon as possible if this would be feasible, while still meeting the Building Code requirements. �128;«image003.jpg> Thank you. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amysC@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: Shane Adams <shane@pvec.com> Sent: Friday, August 4, 2017 4:42 PM To: Omer Ivanir Cc: Amy Seeraty; Bryce Overend; Tony Antich; john@pvec.com; Ara Mihranian; So Kim Subject: Re: 2950 Crownview Update You'll have to ask the neighbor if the wood stakes alone are sufficient. Or if they need something continuous along the top. Shane Adams Palos Verdes Engineering 550 Deep Valley Dr., Ste. 273 Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 Office: (310) 541-5055 Fax: (310) 541-0321 Click here for a map to our new location On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Omer Ivanir <Omer@triwestdev.com> wrote: Why does that require a string? Cant the neighbor visualize it? From: Shane Adams [mailto:shanekpvec.com] Sent: Friday, August 4, 2017 4:14 PM To: Omer Ivanir <Omerktriwestdev.com> Cc: Amy Seeraty <AmyS &rpyea. gov>; Bryce Overend <Brycektriwestdev.com>; Tony Antich <tony.antich(kgmail.com>; iohnkpvec.com; Ara Mihranian <AraMkrpvca.gov>; So Kim <SoK&Ipvca.gov> Subject: Re: 2950 Crownview Update Hi Omer, Please see attached documents. The guardrail string should be easy and can be done without the plans... Guardrails need to be Y-6" high above the walking surface. Since the walking surface (dirt above the retaining wall) is staying the same, all one would need to do is have wood stakes extend Y-6" above the dirt and connect string between them. Let me know if you need anything else. Thanks, Shane Adams Palos Verdes Engineering 550 Deep Valley Dr., Ste. 273 Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 Office: (310) 541-5055 Fax: (310) 541-0321 Click here for a map to our new location On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Omer Ivanir <Omerktriwestdev.com> wrote: Shane: Can you send plans for wall and survey so tnat our contractor can put up a string? Omer From: Amy Seeraty [mailto:AmySkrpvca.gov] Sent: Friday, August 4, 2017 1:53 PM To: Omer Ivanir <Omer(a�triwestdev.com> Cc: Bryce Overend <Brycektriwestdev.com>; Tony Antich <tony.antich(a gmail.com>; shanegpvec.com; johngpvec.com; Ara Mihranian <AraMk1pvca.gov>; So Kim <SoKkp2vca.gov> Subject: 2950 Crownview Update Hello Omer - Thank you for speaking with me this afternoon. As we discussed, Staff met out at the site with the upslope neighbor at 2952 Crownview Drive yesterday afternoon, and some concerns about the height of the safety railing were relayed to City Staff. (The neighbors at 2960 were in attendance as well.) Staff discussed this issue further with the neighboring property owner today, and believe that we may have a potential solution to address her concerns. As I mentioned to you, the upslope neighbor -\128 ;TMS main concern is that she does not know exactly how tall the proposed safety railing will be, in relation to her property. We believe that the best way to address her concern and to maintain progress with the project, is to have a mockup/silhouette of the proposed railing constructed. As we discussed, this would entail a contractor using your existing survey to accurately measure the height of the proposed retaining wall and safety railing, and simply marking the highest point with a tape attached to posts. Shane at Palos Verdes Engineering mentioned that most contractors should be able to accurately create such a mockup. Additionally, if for some reason the mockup shows the top of the railing taller than expected, the adjacent property owner proposed an idea to City Staff if the edge of her property could be cut away slightly, in order to require a slightly lower retaining wall height, which would also lower the height of the safety railing. As I mentioned, I realize this option may not be necessary, but wanted to see if your firm would be amenable to this revision, if neded. Also, I have pointed out to Shane at PV Engineering that there are still a couple discrepancies on the plans regarding Section �128;oeA-A-\128; , Section -,-,128;oeB- B�128; and Detail No. 1 and Detail No. 3 on Sheet SD1. If you can authorize him to fix these, please let me know, as these pages should be corrected and replaced as 6 soon as possible. I believe Shane mentioned this would require him to visit the site, to complete additional measurements. Please let me know if you will be able to have a contractor go out to the site by Monday morning (8/7). If not, as I mentioned, we may have to continue the item to the September 3rd City Council meeting. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amy�rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 Amy Seeraty From: Shane Adams <shane@pvec.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2017 11:14 AM To: Amy Seeraty Cc: Bryce Overend; Ara Mihranian;john@pvec.com; Omer Ivanir Subject: Re: 2950 Crownview Update Attachments: Mapleton Retaining Wall - REV6 - 04Aug2017.pdf Hi Amy, I won't be able to check the proposed slope until this Thursday. Attached are the most current plans. We've moved to the 2nd level of The Promenade on the Peninsula. Please update your records with our new address. Shane Adams Palos Verdes Engineering 550 Deep Valley Dr., Ste. 273 Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 Office: (310) 541-5055 Fax: (310) 541-0321 Click here for a map to our new location On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Amy Seeraty <Amykp2vca.gov> wrote: Hello again Shane - Please email me an electronic copy of the non -revised plans as soon as possible this morning. However, if you will be able to finish the revisions sometime this morning, please then email me the revised version instead. Thank you! Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amys6d�rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: Amy Seeraty Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2017 8:45 AM To: Shane Adams <shane@pvec.com> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Subject: FW: 2950 Crownview Update Importance: High Hi Shane - I just spoke with John and he let me know you were working on the revision described below this morning, which is great! I just wanted to touch base with you to ensure that the proposed revision of the at least 6,128; reduction to the upper western retaining wall height will be feasible, and if so, if you can give me an estimate ASAP of how much additional cut will be required, in addition to the 123.12 that is already proposed. Thanks! Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 a&N'MPzLC-&9 'I amysC@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: Amy Seeraty Sent: Monday, August 07, 2017 9:33 PM To: Bryce Overend <Bryce@triwestdev.com> Cc: Omer Ivanir <Omer@triwestdev.com>; Shane Adams <shane@pvec.com>; John Schuricht <iohn@pvec.com>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: 2950 Crownview Update �128;<Hello Bryce - Thanks so much for letting me know. I'll touch base with PV Engineering tomorrow morning to see if they will be able to make this change before the Staff Report is distributed to the Council tomorrow. However, because I realize this may not be feasible, I will place a condition on the project that says something like "Prior to submittal of plans to the Building & Safety Division, the upper retaining wall shall be revised such that the guardrail shall not exceed 36" from the pad level of the upslope property." Thank you. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty From: Bryce Overend <Bryce@triwestdev.com> Sent: Monday, August 7, 2017 6:35 PM To: Amy Seeraty Cc: Omer Ivanir; Ara Mihranian; Shane Adams; iohn@pvec.com Subject: Re: 2950 Crownview Update Sure we're ok with the revision Bryce Overend Managing Partner Triwest Development, LLC 3727 Coolidge Ave Los Angeles, CA 90066 Cell: (714)-585-5208 Fax: (424)-332-5014 On Aug 7, 2017, at 2:33 PM, Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> wrote: Hi Bryce - We should be able to keep it on the 8/15 meeting. However, before we finalize the report, we would like to at least know if you and your partners are willing to revise the top part of the wall as suggested below in order to reduce the height of the upper western property line retaining wall by about 6 inches. I spoke with Bill briefly today at PV Engineering and he said that if the ground behind the wall can be kept flat, no additional engineering would be required. However, he did say that if the option below was selected, this would require some additional calculations to ensure it could be done. We simply just need to figure out by tomorrow whether you and your partners are amenable to this minor revision which would hopefully eliminate any issues at the City Council meeting, and if so, if PV Engineering can confirm it is possible via calculations and provide revised plans. <image003.jpg> Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amysCa)-rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: Bryce Overend [mailto:Bryce@triwestdev.com] Sent: Monday, August 07, 2017 12:23 PM To: Amy Seeraty <AmvS@rpvca.gov> Cc: Omer Ivanir <Omer@triwestdev.com>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: 2950 Crownview Update Amy: Why do you need to know by noon today? Regardless you need to keep us on the agenda for the 15th as we discussed. Bryce Overend Managing Partner Triwest Development, LLC 3727 Coolidge Ave Los Angeles, CA 90066 Cell: (714)-585-5208 Fax: (424)-332-5014 On Aug 7, 2017, at 6:43 AM, Amy Seeraty <AmySk!pvca.gov> wrote: Good Morning - I am just following up on the email below as we do need to know before noon today whether or not the option below will be feasible. And if it will be possible from an engineering perspective, please let me know if you would be able to send me revised plans by tomorrow. Thank you. <image002.jpg> Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amys@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: Amy Seeraty Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2017 10:12 AM To: Shane Adams <shane@pvec.com>; Omer Ivanir <Omer@triwestdev.com> Cc: Bryce Overend <Bryce@triwestdev.com>; Tony Antich <tony.antich@gmail.com>; john@pvec.com; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: 2950 Crownview Update Hello Everyone - Thank you for working on this. However, if what Shane stated it true, that the finished grade of the walking surface is not changing, this will result in a railing that is still too high for that upslope neighbor's preference. However, she stated that she would be willing to have a portion of the edge of her property cut away, so that a lower retaining wall is needed. She would like the safety railing to be at least 6 inches lower. Also, she would like to keep the hedges, but would be ok if they must be remove, if this would result in a lower retaining wall and thus, a safety railing where the max height is at a lower elevation. Please see the diagram below and let me know as soon as possible if this would be feasible, while still meeting the Building Code requirements. �128;«image003 Jpg> Thank you. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amys(cDrpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: Shane Adams <shane@pvec.com> Sent: Friday, August 4, 2017 4:42 PM To: Omer Ivanir Cc: Amy Seeraty; Bryce Overend; Tony Antich; john@pvec.com; Ara Mihranian; So Kim Subject: Re: 2950 Crownview Update You'll have to ask the neighbor if the wood stakes alone are sufficient. Or if they need something continuous along the top. Shane Adams Palos Verdes Engineering 550 Deep Valley Dr., Ste. 273 Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 Office: (310) 541-5055 Fax: (310) 541-0321 ►/ Click here for a map to our new location On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Omer Ivanir <Omer@triwestdev.com> wrote: Why does that require a string? Cant the neighbor visualize it? From: Shane Adams [mailto:shanegpvec.com] Sent: Friday, August 4, 2017 4:14 PM To: Omer Ivanir <Omer(cr�,triwestdev.com> Cc: Amy Seeraty <AMySgrpvca. og_v>; Bryce Overend <Brycegtriwestdev.com>; Tony Antich <tony.antichAgmail.com>; johngpvec.com; Ara Mihranian <AraM(c p2vca. og_v>; So Kim <SoK&Mvca.gov> Subject: Re: 2950 Crownview Update Hi Omer, Please see attached documents. The guardrail string should be easy and can be done without the plans... Guardrails need to be Y-6" high above the walking surface. Since the walking surface (dirt above the retaining wall) is staying the same, all one would need to do is have wood stakes extend Y-6" above the dirt and connect string between them. Let me know if you need anything else. Thanks, Shane Adams Palos Verdes Engineering 550 Deep Valley Dr., Ste. 273 Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 Office: (310) 541-5055 Fax: (310) 541-0321 Click here for a map to our new location On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Omer Ivanir <Omer(a)triwestdev.com> wrote: Shane: Can you send plans for wall and survey so tnat our contractor can put up a string? Omer From: Amy Seeraty [mailto:AmySkKpvca.gov] Sent: Friday, August 4, 2017 1:53 PM To: Omer Ivanir <Omer(ktriwestdev.com> Cc: Bryce Overend <BIycektriwestdev.com>; Tony Antich <tony.antichkgmail.com>; shanekpvec.com; john( pvec.com; Ara Mihranian <AraMkKpvca.gov>; So Kim <SoKka rpvca.gov> Subject: 2950 Crownview Update Hello Omer - Thank you for speaking with me this afternoon. As we discussed, Staff met out at the site with the upslope neighbor at 2952 Crownview Drive yesterday afternoon, and some concerns about the height of the safety railing were relayed to City Staff. (The neighbors at 2960 were in attendance as well.) Staff discussed this issue further with the neighboring property owner today, and believe that we may have a potential solution to address her concerns. As I mentioned to you, the upslope neighbor�128;TMS main concern is that she does not know exactly how tall the proposed safety railing will be, in relation to her property. We believe that the best way to address her concern and to maintain progress with the project, is to have a mockup/silhouette of the proposed railing constructed. As we discussed, this would entail a contractor using your existing survey to accurately measure the height of the proposed retaining wall and safety railing, and simply marking the highest point with a tape attached to posts. Shane at Palos Verdes Engineering mentioned that most contractors should be able to accurately create such a mockup. Additionally, if for some reason the mockup shows the top of the railing taller than expected, the adjacent property owner proposed an idea to City Staff if the edge of her property could be cut away slightly, in order to require a slightly lower retaining wall height, which would also lower the height of the safety railing. As I mentioned, I realize this option may not be necessary, but wanted to see if your firm would be amenable to this revision, if neded. Also, I have pointed out to Shane at PV Engineering that there are still a couple discrepancies on the plans regarding Section �128;oeA- A�128; , Section �128;oeB-B-\128; and Detail No. 1 and Detail No. 3 on Sheet SD1. If you can authorize him to fix these, please let me know, as these pages should be corrected and replaced as soon as possible. I believe Shane mentioned this would require him to visit the site, to complete additional measurements. Please let me know if you will be able to have a contractor go out to the site by Monday morning (8/7). If not, as I mentioned, we may have to continue the item to the September 31d City Council meeting. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov 10 amys(o)rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 11 Amy Seeraty From: Amy Seeraty Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2017 5:26 PM To: Tony Antich Cc: Shane Adams; Omer Ivanir; Bryce Overend; john@pvec.com; Ara Mihranian; So Kim; Noel Aquino Subject: Re: 2950 Crownview Update �128;<It is probably the same sewer line, but the easement turns and goes onto the 2952 Crownview property as shown on the excerpted plan below: From: Tony Antich <tony.antich@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, August 5, 2017 5:13 PM To: Amy Seeraty Cc: Shane Adams; Omer Ivanir; Bryce Overend; john@pvec.com; Ara Mihranian; So Kim; Noel Aquino Subject: Re: 2950 Crownview Update If this is the same one we discussed. PVE is handling this matter. Tony Antich, 2016-17 President - Kiwanis Club of Santa Monica P.O. Box 7368 Santa Monica, CA 90406 310-614-5357 tony.antich@gmail.com On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 4:25 PM, Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> wrote: Also, I was just reviewing a survey I have for the 2952 neighbor's property and it appears there is a 6' wide Sanitary Sewer easement for the County of Los Angeles which runs along that property line, on the 2952 property. In determining if the option discussed below is feasible, you may wish to also contact the LA County Dept of Public Works Consolidated Sewer Maintenance District at: http://dpw.lacounty.gov/smd/smd/ Thank you, Amy Seeraty From: Amy Seeraty Sent: Saturday, August 5, 2017 10:11 AM To: Shane Adams; Omer Ivanir Cc: Bryce Overend; Tony Antich; john@pvec.com; Ara Mihranian; So Kim Subject: Re: 2950 Crownview Update Hello Everyone - Thank you for working on this. However, if what Shane stated it true, that the finished grade of the walking surface is not changing, this will result in a railing that is still too high for that upslope neighbor's preference. However, she stated that she would be willing to have a portion of the edge of her property cut away, so that a lower retaining wall is needed. She would like the safety railing to be at least 6 inches lower. Also, she would like to keep the hedges, but would be ok if they must be remove, if this would result in a lower retaining wall and thus, a safety railing where the max height is at a lower elevation. Please see the diagram below and let me know as soon as possible if this would be feasible, while still meeting the Building Code requirements. Existing tress Suction -Safety r.11 ing Proposed Cross Suction. SOL tv rail ing docs rxtcarls A.— eklsnng hedges not extend.hove existing hedges. i xa —.1d hz rqm sa Aur,"""—lt__ Fe reryulrrA thus lo'nwn Ne merall hulRh[Meha raillnq r ,128;( Thank you. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amys6a�rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: Shane Adams <shane@pvec.com> Sent: Friday, August 4, 2017 4:42 PM To: Omer Ivanir Cc: Amy Seeraty; Bryce Overend; Tony Antich; john@pvec.com; Ara Mihranian; So Kim Subject: Re: 2950 Crownview Update You'll have to ask the neighbor if the wood stakes alone are sufficient. Or if they need something continuous along the top. Shane Adams Palos Verdes Engineering 550 Deep Valley Dr., Ste. 273 Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 Office: (310) 541-5055 Fax: (310) 541-0321 Click here for a map to our new location On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Omer Ivanir <Omer@triwestdev.com> wrote: Why does that require a string? Cant the neighbor visualize it? From: Shane Adams [mailto:shanekpvec.com] Sent: Friday, August 4, 2017 4:14 PM To: Omer Ivanir <Omerktriwestdev.com> Cc: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca. _og_v>; Bryce Overend <Bryce c� triwestdev.com>; Tony Antich <tony.antich&gmail.com>; johnkpvec.com; Ara Mihranian <AraMkp2vca.2ov>; So Kim <SoK9KPvca.gov> Subject: Re: 2950 Crownview Update Hi Omer, Please see attached documents. The guardrail string should be easy and can be done without the plans... Guardrails need to be Y-6" high above the walking surface. Since the walking surface (dirt above the retaining wall) is staying the same, all one would need to do is have wood stakes extend Y-6" above the dirt and connect string between them. Let me know if you need anything else. Thanks, Shane Adams Palos Verdes Engineering 550 Deep Valley Dr., Ste. 273 Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 Office: (310) 541-5055 Fax: (310) 541-0321 Click here for a map to our new location On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Omer Ivanir <Omer e,triwestdev.com> wrote: Shane: Can you send plans for wall and survey so tnat our contractor can put up a string? Omer From: Amy Seeraty [mailto:AmySgtpvca.gov] Sent: Friday, August 4, 2017 1:53 PM To: Omer Ivanir <Omergtriwestdev.com> Cc: Bryce Overend <Brycegtriwestdev.com>; Tony Antich <tony.antichggmail.com>; shanekpvec.com; john(kpvec.com; Ara Mihranian <AraM(a,rpvca.gov>; So Kim <SoK( tpvca.gov> Subject: 2950 Crown -view Update Hello Omer - Thank you for speaking with me this afternoon. As we discussed, Staff met out at the site with the upslope neighbor at 2952 Crownview Drive yesterday afternoon, and some concerns about the height of the safety railing were relayed to City Staff. (The neighbors at 2960 were in attendance as well.) Staff discussed this issue further with the neighboring property owner today, and believe that we may have a potential solution to address her concerns. As I mentioned to you, the upslope neighbor�128;TMS main concern is that she does not know exactly how tall the proposed safety railing will be, in relation to her property. We believe that the best way to address her concern and to maintain progress with the project, is to have a mockup/silhouette of the proposed railing constructed. As we discussed, this would entail a contractor using your existing survey to accurately measure the height of the proposed retaining wall and safety railing, and simply marking the highest point with a tape attached to posts. Shane at Palos Verdes Engineering mentioned that most contractors should be able to accurately create such a mockup. Additionally, if for some reason the mockup shows the top of the railing taller than expected, the adjacent property owner proposed an idea to City Staff if the edge of her property could be cut away slightly, in order to require a slightly lower retaining wall height, which would also lower the height of the safety railing. As I mentioned, I realize this option may not be necessary, but wanted to see if your firm would be amenable to this revision, if neded. Also, I have pointed out to Shane at PV Engineering that there are still a couple discrepancies on the plans regarding Section -,-,128;oeA-A�128; , Section -\-,128;oeB-B-\128; and Detail No. 1 and Detail No. 3 on Sheet SD1. If you can authorize him to fix these, please let me know, as these pages should be corrected and replaced as soon as possible. I believe Shane mentioned this would require him to visit the site, to complete additional measurements. Please let me know if you will be able to have a contractor go out to the site by Monday morning (8/7). If not, as I mentioned, we may have to continue the item to the September 3rd City Council meeting. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amys(C-rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: nickole.petersen@gmail.com [mailto:nickole.petersen@gmail.comj Sent: Friday, August 04, 2017 4:25 PM To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Cc: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: 2950 Crownview Meeting and Public Notice Ara and Amy, Thank you both very much for making time to meet today and finding a work around that is satisfying to everyone. If we need to postpone the council meeting that might be a good idea to give everyone time to get things together. Have a good weekend Nickole Petersen Sent from my iPhone On Aug 4, 2017, at 2:07 PM, Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> wrote: Nikole, Thank you for making the time to meet with Amy and I. We are working with the engineers to address your concerns and will have more information to you soon. Ara Ara Michael Mihranian Community Development Director <image002.jpg> 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5228 (telephone) 310-544-5293 (fax) aramCc)-rpvca.gov www.rpvca.gov ADo you really need to print this e-mail? This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. From: nickole.petersen@gmail.com [mailto:nickole.petersen@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 4, 2017 10:12 AM To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Cc: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: 2950 Crownview Meeting and Public Notice I can meet with you at the City at noon to fpm or a technical person to discuss a slight alternative could come to the house or fpm phone conversation. Sorry. My son has a full day of three different therapies today. Nickole Sent from my iPhone On Aug 4, 2017, at 9:40 AM, Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> wrote: Do you want to meet with me at City Hall this afternoon at 1 pm? Otherwise, I will call you then. Thank you. Ara Ara Michael Mihranian Community Development Director <image002 Jpg> 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5228 (telephone) 310-544-5293 (fax) aram(@_rpvca.gov www.rpvca.gov ADo you really need to print this e-mail? This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. From: nickole.petersen@gmail.com [mailto:nickole.petersen@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 4, 2017 9:28 AM To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Cc: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: 2950 Crownview Meeting and Public Notice I'm on the way to physical therapy with my son. Would you call me at noon or fpm to discuss? Our number is 310-971-7210. Nickole Sent from my iPhone On Aug 4, 2017, at 8:33 AM, Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> wrote: Mrs. Petersen, What number can I call you at this morning to discuss this matter? Ara Sent from my iPhone On Aug 4, 2017, at 7:48 AM, "nickole.petersen@gmail.com" <nickole.petersen@gmail.com> wrote: Ara, Yesterday's meeting went so horribly wrong and was completely insulting. Nobody made any effort to actually invite the property owner. Nobody came out here with any sense of definitive answers other than "hanging" a tape measure over an edge and going it's going to be about this high some where in this general area give or take not sure by how much. This person could not talk technically regarding alternative ideas. Everything was a completely and utter waste of everyones time. To top it off, she started crying for no reason other than to sway my position emotionally. Every effort will be made to get a lawyer by the 15th. I will type up a list of our concerns, plus our neighbors, along with a detail perspective of our situation for the City Council Meeting and deliver no later than Monday. Thanks for blowing us off and wasting our time. Respectfully, Nickole Petersen Sent from my iPhone On Aug 3, 2017, at 12:19 PM, Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> wrote: Thank you! Ara Michael Mihranian Community Development Director <image002 Jpg> 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5228 (telephone) 310-544-5293 (fax) cram rpvca.gov www.rpvca.gov ADo you really need to print this e-mail? This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. From: nickole.petersen@gmail.com [mailto:nickole.petersen@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2017 12:05 PM To: Amy Seeraty <AmvS@rpvca.gov> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: 2950 Crownview Meeting and Public Notice I texted Vivien and Peggy about meeting tonight in my driveway at 5pm. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 2, 2017, at 9:56 PM, Amy Seeraty <AmvS@rpvca.gov> wrote: Hi Nickole- A meeting at the site at 5pm works for me also. I'll see everyone there at 5pm. Thank you. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www. rpvca. g ov amysCcDrpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: nickole.petersen@gmail.com <nickole.petersen@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2017 7:13 PM To: Ara Mihranian Cc: Amy Seeraty; So Kim Subject: Re: 2950 Crownview Meeting and Public Notice 4 Sent from my iPhone On Aug 2, 2017, at 6:40 PM, Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> wrote: Ok. Stay tuned for a confirmation. Ara Michael Mihranian Community Development Director <image002 Jpg> 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5228 (telephone) 310-544-5293 (fax) cram rpvca.gov www.rpvca.gov ADo you really need to print this e-mail? This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. From: nickole.petersen@gmail.com [mailto:nickole.petersen@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2017 6:41 PM To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Cc: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: 2950 Crownview Meeting and Public Notice Yes Sent from my iPhone On Aug 2, 2017, at 6:22 PM, Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> wrote: Amy and Nikole, Bryce is traveling tomorrow evening through August 1411, and is available to meet at the site tomorrow at 5pm. Does that work for both of you? Ara Ara Michael Mihranian Community Development Director <image002.jpg> 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5228 (telephone) 310-544-5293 (fax) aram(a)-rpvca.gov www.rpvca.gov ADo you really need to print this e-mail? This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. From: Amy Seeraty Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2017 5:24 PM To: nickole.petersen@gmail.com Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: 2950 Crownview Meeting and Public Notice Hi Nickole- I am actually scheduling the meeting now. However, the only time I have available to meet before Friday is tomorrow (Thursday) between 10:30 and 12. 1 need to check with Bryce's company to see if they can attend as well though. Please let me know ASAP if that works for you and I'll see if Bryce's company is available. I also misplaced the emails for Peggy and the other neighbor, so if you could forward this to them, and/or give them a call tonight to see if tomorrow works for them as well, that would be much appreciated. Thank you. The contact info we have for the undeveloped lot is attached. August 5th is the deadline to get your comments incorporated into the body of the Staff Report, but if you submit after that date, we can still definitely convey those comments to the Council. It will just be given to them on the night of the meeting. Thank you. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www. rpvca. gov amys(@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: nickole.petersen@gmail.com[mailto:nickole.petersen@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2017 4:00 PM To: Amy Seeraty <AmvS@rpvca.gov> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: 2950 Crownview Meeting and Public Notice Hi Amy, I appreciated the meeting with you all and all the neighbors who live on our shared drive. We talked about meeting at my property with Bryce. Are we in the process of setting that up? Would like to happen before August 5th deadline or can that be extended? Can I get contact info for the undeveloped lot owners? Thank you, Nickole Sent from my iPhone On Jul 29, 2017, at 10:59 PM, Amy Seeraty <AmvS@rpvca.gov> wrote: Hi Nickole- It looks like just you and Peggy will be there but I would be glad to meet with you beforehand separately. Please let me know what time you would like to come in. Thank you. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www. rpvca.gov amysCcD-rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: nickole.petersen@gmail.com[mailto:nickole.petersen@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 1:31 PM To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: 2950 Crownview Meeting and Public Notice It's my understanding we will all be there. This meeting is not for the discussion of my wall. Sent from my Whone On Jul 28, 2017, at 9:38 AM, Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> wrote: Hi Nickole- I spoke with Peggy and 4:30pm on Monday 7/31 works for her and the Community Development Director as well. I'm not sure if your other neighbor is going to come, as Peggy said she hasn't been able to reach them. Also, I wanted to let you know that the decision maker for the site walls project will actually be the City Council, since the project is technically a revision to the original project (see attached resolution), for which the City Council was the final decision maker. The meeting has been scheduled for August 15th. You should receive a public notice in the mail today, but I have attached it for your convenience here as well. Please feel free to email me or send a letter with any comments by next Friday, August 4th, and those comments will be incorporated into the Staff Report. I look forward to seeing you here at the City on Monday afternoon and I hope you have a nice weekend. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www. rpvca. gov amysCa)-rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 <MEP -Grading Revision -Fence -wall CC Notice.pdf> <CC RES 2007-63.pdf> Amy Seeraty From: Amy Seeraty Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2017 5:25 PM To: Bryce Overend Subject: Extension request Attachments: extension request.docx Bryce - Per our conversation today, please see the attached memo for your signature.;nbsp; Please email back to me when done.;nbsp; Thank you. Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amys(@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: Bryce Overend [ma iIto: Bryce @triwestdev.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2017 4:46 PM To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> Subject: Fwd: 2950 Crownview Follow Up Bryce Overend Managing Partner Triwest Development, LLC 3727 Coolidge Ave Los Aneeles. CA 90066 Cell: (714)-585-5208 Fax: (424)-332-5014 Begin forwarded message: From: <Joseph.Martinez2@wellsfargo.com> Date: August 2, 2017 at 4:44:43 PM PDT To: <Bryce@triwestdev.com> Subject: FW: 2950 Crownview Follow Up Bryce: Can you please provide Exhibit E-2. Counsel is requesting it. From: Bryce Overend [mailto:Bryce@triwestdev.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 6:02 PM To: Martinez, Joseph Cc: alex megeredchian; Omer Ivanir Subject: 2950 Crownview Follow Up Joseph: As a follow up to our discussion in regards to Mrs. Weavers property in Rancho Palos Verdes, attached is the finalized easement language from the cities attorney. Please review and respond with any questions. Please address this as quickly as you can as it is an extremely urgent matter for us. It,128;TM s been a long road and we are eager to wrap this up. Thanks We Have Moved, Please Note Our New Addresses OFFICE ADDRESS 4223 Glencoe Ave Suite B-121 Marina Del Rey CA 90292 MAILING ADDRESS P O BOX 9879 Marina Del Rey CA 90295-2279 Bryce Overend Managing Partner Triwest Development, LLC 4223 Glencoe Ave Suite B-121 Marine Del Rey CA 90292 Cell: (714)-585-5208 Fax: (424)-332-5014 CITYOF TriWest Homes II, LP Attn: Bryce Overend 4223 Glencoe Ave Suite B-121 Marina Del Rey CA 90292 PALOS VERDES SUBJECT: MAJOR GRADING PERMIT (REVISION TO ZON2005-00593) CASE NO. ZON2016-00224 2950 CROWNVIEW DRIVE To the Planning Department: I, Bryce Overend, homeowner for 2950 Crownview Drive, grant a request for an extension to the Permit Streamlining Act 60 -day deadline. An additional ten (10) days is granted, and as my application request was deemed complete on June 7, 2017, this extends the Planning action deadline to Thursday, August 17, 2017. Bryce Overend, Property Owner CC: Project File Amy Seeraty From: Amy Seeraty Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2017 4:56 PM To: Bryce Overend Cc: Ara Mihranian Subject: RE: 2950 Crownview Follow Up Thank you Bryce. Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amys6d�rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: Bryce Overend [mailto:Bryce@triwestdev.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2017 4:46 PM To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> Subject: Fwd: 2950 Crownview Follow Up Bryce Overend Managing Partner Triwest Development, LLC 3727 Coolidge Ave Los Aneeles. CA 90066 Cell: (714)-585-5208 Fax: (424)-332-5014 Begin forwarded message: From: <Joseph.Martinez2@wellsfargo.com> Date: August 2, 2017 at 4:44:43 PM PDT To: <Bryce@triwestdev.com> Subject: FW: 2950 Crownview Follow Up Bryce: Can you please provide Exhibit E-2. Counsel is requesting it. From: Bryce Overend [ma iIto: Bryce@triwestdev.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 6:02 PM To: Martinez, Joseph Cc: alex megeredchian; Omer Ivanir Subject: 2950 Crownview Follow Up Joseph: As a follow up to our discussion in regards to Mrs. Weavers property in Rancho Palos Verdes, attached is the finalized easement language from the cities attorney. Please review and respond with any questions. Please address this as quickly as you can as it is an extremely urgent matter for us. It's been a long road and we are eager to wrap this up. Thanks We Have Moved, Please Note Our New Addresses OFFICE ADDRESS 4223 Glencoe Ave Suite B-121 Marina Del Rey CA 90292 MAILING ADDRESS P 0 BOX 9879 Marina Del Rey CA 90295-2279 Bryce Overend Managing Partner Triwest Development, LLC 4223 Glencoe Ave Suite B-121 Marine Del Rey CA 90292 Cell: (714)-585-5208 Fax: (424)-332-5014 Amy Seeraty From: Tony Antich <tony.antich@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2017 11:19 AM To: Amy Seeraty Cc: Ara Mihranian; Bryce Overend; So Kim Subject: Re: Meeting re: Crownview project? me too Tony Antich, I nbsp; 2016-17 President - Kiwanis Club of Santa Monica P.O. Box 7368 Santa Monica, CA 90406 310-614-5357 tony.antichkgmail.com On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 7:53 AM, Amy Seeraty <AmySkp2vca.gov> wrote: And me as well, thank you and I look forward to seeing everyone at 4pm today here at the City. ;nbsp; Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amysCcD-rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 ;nbsp; From: Ara Mihranian Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2017 5:58 PM To: 'Bryce Overend' <Bryce@triwestdev.com>; Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> Cc: Tony Antich <tony.antich@gmail.com>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: Meeting re: Crownview project? 1 ;nbsp; That works for me. nbsp; From: Bryce Overend [mailto:Bryce@triwestdev.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2017 5:40 PM To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> Cc: Tony Antich <tony.antich@gmail.com>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: Meeting re: Crownview project? ;nbsp; I can do 4 pm; nbsp; nbsp; We Have Moved, Please Note Our New Addresses OFFICE ADDRESS 4223 Glencoe Ave Suite B-121 Marina Del Rey CA 90292 ;nbsp; MAILING ADDRESS P O BOX 9879 Marina Del Rey CA 90295-2279 nbsp; Bryce Overend nbsp; Managing Partner Triwest Development, LLC 4223 Glencoe Ave Suite B-121 Marine Del Rey CA 90292 Cell: ; nbsp; (714)-585-5208 Fax: ; nbsp; (424)-332-5014 ra T1 # 1 TRiWi s l DE ar`L:L.C11",Mid N l nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; From: Amy Seeraty [mailto:AmyS@rpvca.gov] Sent: Monday, July 31, 2017 11:07 PM To: Bryce Overend <Bryce@triwestdev.com> Cc: Tony Antich <tony.antich@gmail.com>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> Subject: Meeting re: Crownview project? ;nbsp; \128;<Hi Bryce- nbsp; Ara and I would like to invite you to meet with us at the City; nbsp;to discuss the status of your project. We understand; nbsp;you are; nbsp;frustrated with the process; nbsp;and; nbsp;would like to update you on the status of the report, as well as Staff's outreach to the neighbors.; nbsp; Please let me know if Wednesday August 2nd at 3:30pm; nbsp;would; nbsp;work; nbsp;for you, thank you. nbsp; Sincerely, nbsp; Amy Seeraty Amy Seeraty From: Amy Seeraty Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2017 11:00 PM To: nickole.petersen@gmail.com Cc: Ara Mihranian; So Kim Subject: RE: 2950 Crownview Meeting and Public Notice Hi Nickole- It looks like just you and Peggy will be there but I would be glad to meet with you beforehand separately. Please let me know what time you would like to come in. Thank you. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amys(a�rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: nickole.petersen@gmail.com [mailto:nickole.petersen@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 1:31 PM To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: 2950 Crownview Meeting and Public Notice It's my understanding we will all be there. This meeting is not for the discussion of my wall. Sent from my Whone On Jul 28, 2017, at 9:38 AM, Amy Seeraty <AmvS@rpvca.gov> wrote: Hi Nickole- I spoke with Peggy and 4:30pm on Monday 7/31 works for her and the Community Development Director as well. I'm not sure if your other neighbor is going to come, as Peggy said she hasn't been able to reach them. Also, I wanted to let you know that the decision maker for the site walls project will actually be the City Council, since the project is technically a revision to the original project (see attached resolution), for which the City Council was the final decision maker. The meeting has been scheduled for August 151h. You should receive a public notice in the mail today, but I have attached it for your convenience here as well. Please feel free to email me or send a letter with any comments by next Friday, August 4th, and those comments will be incorporated into the Staff Report. I look forward to seeing you here at the City on Monday afternoon and I hope you have a nice weekend. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amysCcD-rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 <MEP -Grading Revision -Fence -wall CC Notice.pdf5 <CC RES 2007-63.pdf5 Amy Seeraty From: Amy Seeraty Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 8:18 AM To: Bryce Overend Cc: Tony Antich; Ara Mihranian; So Kim Subject: Project Update for 2950 Crownview Attachments: CC RES 2007-63.pdf Hi Bryce Please note that the decision maker for your site walls project will actually be the City Council, since the project is technically a revision to the original project (see attached resolution), for which the City Council was the final decision maker. The good news is that City Council approval is not appealable, while a Director -level approval (typical for most Major Grading Permits) would be appealable to Planning Commission, and then again to the City Council. Also, we were able to schedule the meeting fairly quickly and get it on the August 15th City Council meeting agenda. Please let me know if you and/or Tony will be available to attend the Tuesday August 15th meeting at 7pm. However, we will need authorization from you for an extension to the permit processing timeline. That timeframe is 60 days, which ends on 8/6, so a 10 -day extension should be all that is needed. You should be able to submit to Building & Safety right after the City Council decision as well. Also, please note that Ara & I will be meeting with your neighbor soon to answer any questions she has and try to smooth out all the issues before the City Council meeting. Thanks again for your patience and cooperation. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amys(cDrpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 Amy Seeraty From: nickole.petersen@gmail.com Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 9:27 AM To: Amy Seeraty Cc: Ara Mihranian; So Kim Subject: Re: Touching base concerns on surrounding property work around 2952 Crownview Peggy informed me of the dates. I responded with whatever worked for her. We'd be there. Sounds like you haven't heard back. I'll touch base with her. Sent from my iPhone On Jul 20, 2017, at 9:06 AM, Amy Seeraty <AmyS rpvca.gov> wrote: HI Nickole- I was able to talk to the Director and he said that we will be able to condition the permit to require a specific type and color of safety railing. Also, I don't know if Peggy talked to you, but she said that you would like to have a meeting with the Director to review the status of all the activity on your street. She said that she would also invite the last neighbor on the street as well, next to her. I gave Peggy a couple potential times when the Director is available, which is 4:30pm on Thursday 7/27 or 4:30pm on Monday 7/31. If these times do not work for you please let me know and I will find a couple new times. Also, it would be great to discuss the safety railing at that meeting as well, but I would be glad to meet with you anytime earlier than that as well. Thank you. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amysCa-)-rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: Amy Seeraty Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 4:56 PM To: 'nickole.petersen@gmail.com'<nickole.petersen@gmail.com> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: safety railing at 2950 Crownview So sorry about that Nickole. I will check with Ara about the feasibility of requiring a condition which would specify the type of safety railing (material, color, etc.) in the easement document and/or the permit itself and get back to you as soon as possible. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amysCcDrpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: nickole.petersen@gmail.com [mailto:nickole.petersen@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 4:55 PM To: Amy Seeraty <AmvS@rpvca.gov> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: safety railing at 2950 Crownview Amy, You didn't respond that would be possible so I'm still on edge?? Nickole Petersen Sent from my iPhone On Jul 12, 2017, at 4:12 PM, Amy Seeraty <AmyS(c !pvca.gov> wrote: Hi Nickole- I am very glad to hear that, thanks for letting me know. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amysCcDrpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: nickole.petersen@gmail.com [mailto:nickole.petersen@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 4:12 PM To: Amy Seeraty <AmvS@rpvca.gov> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: safety railing at 2950 Crownview I spoke with Bryce. He said he'd talk with you, the City, about what we can write into the easement so that we maintain the fence and that it will always be agreeable in style our house. It makes us sick that someone could paint it pink after Bryce sells it. Sincerely and much calmer. Nickole Petersen Sent from my iPhone On Jul 12, 2017, at 3:24 PM, Amy Seeraty <AmySg vca.gov> wrote: Hi Nickole- Thank you for your email. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amys(a)rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: Nickole Petersen[mailto:nickole.petersen@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 3:17 PM To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; So Kim <Sol<@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: safety railing at 2950 Crownview Hi Amy, Yes, we will be appealing this. There are height restrictions on this property. This is a railing/fence that was not initially required by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes for many years. It was only required when a portion of the wall fell down that we and other neighbors have been complaining about for many years. We have documentation from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes kept telling us it was a garden wall and permitted. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is only doing this as harassment toward us as homeowners. I will be sending a letter to address before the next City Council Meeting regarding this property and it's many safety issues, including Fire Safety, hazards, and mold issues that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes still refuses to address that I talked to you about when you were out here. I will also be addressing with them how you've allowed this underdeveloped property boarding mine to do it's core sampling and start putting in it's pylons without a permit or consequences for doing so thereby creating another Blessum situation all over again. Access to our property at 2952 Crownview Drive in Rancho Palos Verdes for any reason or other permits will not be allowed until this issue of a railing/fence is agreeably resolved. Sincerely, Nickole Petersen <ima e001.j> Virus -free. www.avast.com On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Amy Seeraty <Am S4vca.gov> wrote: Hi Nickole- I had a chance to discuss the question about the safety railing with Paul as well as Ara, and unfortunately there is no other acceptable way to provide a safe barrier per the Building Code for the drop from your property to the 2950 Crownview property, thus, we will be processing a Fence Permit along with their Grading Permit and Minor Exception Permit for the walls and the safety railings. Please also note that based on the analysis of the entire view, although the railing will be impairing a small portion of your overall view from some of your windows, it is not a significant view impairment, and thus we will be recommending approval of the railing. I will send you a notice soon regarding this project which will provide for a comment period, where you can submit comments in writing which will then be incorporated into the Staff Report. Then, once the report is approved, I will also send you a copy of the report for your review during the 15 -day appeal period. Also, as the safety railing will be a fence, not a wall, the view should be somewhat visible through the fence as well. Please also note that we may be asking if you are amenable to meeting with City Staff and the 2950 Crownview property owner sometime soon to discuss easements, as although the work for this permit is located fully on the 2950 Crownview property, the applicant will need to obtain authorization from you to construct within the areas on their property that are also within the recorded easements that benefit your property. Please let me know if you have any questions, thank you. View from other windows: View from living room windows: <image002. j pg><image003 . j pg> Sincerely, Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov <http://www.rpvca.gov> amys(a�rpvca.gov <mailto:amyskp2vca.gov> - (310) 544-5231 Amy Seeraty From: Amy Seeraty Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 1:38 PM To: nickole.petersen@gmail.com Cc: Ara Mihranian; So Kim Subject: Re: safety railing at 2950 Crownview Thanks Nickole, I will contact her. -Amy Sent from my iPhone On Jul 20, 2017, at 1:36 PM, "nickole.petersen kgmail.com" <mckole.petersenkgmail.com> wrote: I think you should contact Peggy. Whatever date she picks we will be there. Sent from my iPhone On Jul 20, 2017, at 1:12 PM, Amy Seeraty <AmySkKpvca.gov> wrote: Thank you for clarifying Ara. Nickole, I'll look forward to hearing from you regarding the meeting dates that work for Peggy and the other neighbor. Please also note that we will actually be scheduling this for a City Council hearing, since it is technically a revision to the original project, for which the City Council was the final decision maker. The project is scheduled to be heard at the August 15th City Council meeting. Thank you. Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amys(@_rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: Ara Mihranian Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 10:15 AM To: nickole.petersen@gmail.com; Amy Seeraty <AmvS@rpvca.gov> Cc: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: safety railing at 2950 Crownview Nickole, Amy and I have discussed your concern, a legitimate one, regarding the railing. I mentioned to Amy that a condition would be added to the project regulating the color (to your satisfaction). If the condition is violated by the future property owner, it becomes a code enforcement and subject to administrative fines that start at $2500 and go up to $7500 per occurrence. I am committed to requiring this condition. I hope this addresses your concern. Ara Ara Michael Mihranian Community Development Director <image001.jpg> 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5228 (telephone) 310-544-5293 (fax) aram(crpvca.gov www.rpvca.gov ADo you really need to print this e-mail? This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. From: nickole.petersen@gmail.com [mailto:nickole.petersen@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 9:24 AM To: Amy Seeraty <AmvS@rpvca.gov> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: safety railing at 2950 Crownview Amy, Our "biggest" concern about the railing is actually after he sells the house and whatever the new owner or any future owner may decide to do with it. It's smack up against our property's property line and will be the face of this property. If the color or style ever changes from what is agreed upon now it could really effect our property. So with that said, he want it written into the easement rules that the style and color of the fence has to be neutral to both properties. That's the only way we see moving forward. That is a huge concern. I mean someone could tear it down and want some type of charming short picket fence. Also the height restrictions of the fence has to be written into the shared easement agreement that is filed with the county. There can be a shared maintenance agreement as well. 2 How do we accomplish that? Nickole Petersen Sent from my iPhone On Jul 20, 2017, at 9:06 AM, Amy Seeraty <AmySkp2vca.gov> wrote: HI Nickole- I was able to talk to the Director and he said that we will be able to condition the permit to require a specific type and color of safety railing. Also, I don't know if Peggy talked to you, but she said that you would like to have a meeting with the Director to review the status of all the activity on your street. She said that she would also invite the last neighbor on the street as well, next to her. I gave Peggy a couple potential times when the Director is available, which is 4:30pm on Thursday 7/27 or 4:30pm on Monday 7/31. If these times do not work for you please let me know and I will find a couple new times. Also, it would be great to discuss the safety railing at that meeting as well, but I would be glad to meet with you anytime earlier than that as well. Thank you. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amys(a)rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: Amy Seeraty Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 4:56 PM To: 'nickole.Petersen @gmail.com' <nickole.Petersen @gmail.com> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: safety railing at 2950 Crownview So sorry about that Nickole. I will check with Ara about the feasibility of requiring a condition which would specify the type of safety railing (material, color, etc.) in the easement document and/or the permit itself and get back to you as soon as possible. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amysCcD-rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: nickole.petersen@gmail.com [mailto:nickole.petersen@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 4:55 PM To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: safety railing at 2950 Crownview Amy, You didn't respond that would be possible so I'm still on edge?? Nickole Petersen Sent from my iPhone On Jul 12, 2017, at 4:12 PM, Amy Seeraty <AmyS(c»rpvca.gov> wrote: Hi Nickole- I am very glad to hear that, thanks for letting me know. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amysCcDrpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: nickole.petersen@gmail.com [mailto:nickole.petersen@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 4:12 PM To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; So Kim <SoK@ rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: safety railing at 2950 Crownview I spoke with Bryce. He said he'd talk with you, the City, about what we can write into the easement so that we maintain the fence and that it will always be agreeable in style our house. It makes us sick that someone could paint it pink after Bryce sells it. Sincerely and much calmer. Nickole Petersen Sent from my iPhone On Jul 12, 2017, at 3:24 PM, Amy Seeraty <AmyS(krpvca.gov> wrote: Hi Nickole- Thank you for your email. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amys(cDrpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: Nickole Petersen [ma iIto: nickole.petersen@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 3:17 PM To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: safety railing at 2950 Crownview Hi Amy, Yes, we will be appealing this. There are height restrictions on this property. This is a railing/fence that was not initially required by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes for many years. It was only required when a portion of the wall fell down that we and other neighbors have been complaining about for many years. We have documentation from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes kept telling us it was a garden wall and permitted. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is only doing this as harassment toward us as homeowners. I will be sending a letter to address before the next City Council Meeting regarding this property and it's many safety issues, including Fire Safety, hazards, and mold issues that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes still refuses to address that I talked to you about when you were out here. I will also be addressing with them how you've allowed this underdeveloped property boarding mine to do it's core sampling and start putting in it's pylons without a permit or consequences for doing so thereby creating another Blessum situation all over again. Access to our property at 2952 Crownview Drive in Rancho Palos Verdes for any reason or other permits will not be allowed until this issue of a railing/fence is agreeably resolved. Sincerely, Nickole Petersen <ima e001. > Virus -free. www.avast.com On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Amy Seeraty <AMSkp2vca.gov> wrote: Hi Nickole- I had a chance to discuss the question about the safety railing with Paul as well as Ara, and unfortunately there is no other acceptable way to provide a safe barrier per the Building Code for the drop from your property to the 2950 Crownview property, thus, we will be processing a Fence Permit along with their Grading Permit and Minor Exception Permit for the walls and the safety railings. Please also note that based on the analysis of the entire view, although the railing will be impairing a small portion of your overall view from some of your windows, it is not a significant view impairment, and thus we will be recommending approval of the railing. I will send you a notice soon regarding this project which will provide for a comment period, where you can submit comments in writing which will then be incorporated into the Staff Report. Then, once the report is approved, I will also send you a copy of the report for your review during the 15 -day appeal period. Also, as the safety railing will be a fence, not a wall, the view should be somewhat visible through the fence as well. Please also note that we may be asking if you are amenable to meeting with City Staff and the 2950 Crownview property owner sometime soon to discuss easements, as although the work for this permit is located fully on the 2950 Crownview property, the applicant will need to obtain authorization from you to construct within the areas on their property that are also within the recorded easements that benefit your property. Please let me know if you have any questions, thank you. View from other windows: View from living room windows: <image002. j pg><image003 . j pg> Sincerely, Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.Wvca.gov <httA//www.rpvca.gov> amy&p2vca.gov <mailto:am (a�rpvca.gov> - Ql0 544-5231 Amy Seeraty From: Amy Seeraty Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 12:20 PM To: Bryce Overend Cc: Tony Antich; Ara Mihranian; Paul Christman; So Kim Subject: RE: 2950 Crownview Attachments: Easement Agreement v2.docx; Construction Encroachment Agreement -2950 Crownview Drive.docx Hello Bryce - We heard back from the City Attorney and she said that although the law does not require the property where the easement is located to maintain the wall, she also stated that can be changed by the parties in their agreement.;nbsp; Accordingly, she sent us a revised document with that provision removed.;nbsp; Please see the attached revised document entitled �128;oeEasement Agreement v2�128; .;nbsp; • Please also see the attached final version of the agreement for 2952 Crownview Drive to sign which will allow the permanent improvements to be constructed within their ingress/egress and public utilities easement.;nbsp; • 1 have also completed the Minor Exception Permit notice, which will be reviewed and mailed out soon, as notice of the received application must be mailed to all adjacent properties prior to approval of the permit.;nbsp; Any comments received by the notified parties are then incorporated into the Staff Report.;nbsp; On that note, I am also currently working on the Staff Report as well. • Also, I recently visited the property at 2952 and while I had originally thought that the 42128; tall safety railing on the western property line wall would not be at all visible above their bushes, upon further measurement, it will actually be somewhat visible above their bushes.;nbsp; The City�128;TMS Municipal Code states that if the top of a fence extends above the upslope neighbor,128;TMs building pad, and has the potential to significantly impair a view, a Fence/Wall Permit is required.;nbsp; Because it has the potential to impair a view, a Fence/Wall Permit must be processed.:nbsp; However, although I will be processing this additional permit, the analysis will just be wrapped into the existing Staff report I am already working on and so will not extend the processing time frame, but a fee is still required. Thus, please submit the $1,992 Fence/Wall Permit fee at your earliest convenience. Please also note that I have already reviewed the photos of the view from 2952 with the Director and we don�128;TMt believe the proposed railing will cause a significant view impairment, and thus will be including the safety railing in my recommendation of approval.;nbsp; Also, although we will be recommending approval, please note that I believe that the upslope neighbor may have some concerns with this railing extending into the bottom of the view. Also, I know we had previously discussed setting up a meeting with the neighbors to discuss the easement agreements, both for the new easements as well as for the existing easements.:nbsp; I would be glad to set that up for you at this time.;nbsp; Please just let me know a few days that you are available perhaps next week and the week after.;nbsp; Or at another time if that works better for you.;nbsp; I would then reach out to the neighbors at 2952 Crownview, the vacant lot, and the 2978 Crownview, as well as their representatives to see if they would be willing to attend. ;nbsp;Also, if the 2952 neighbors agree to attend, perhaps at this meeting also we could discuss the railing and see if there is a way to make it less visible in their view which would be amendable to everyone. Thank you for all your cooperation and patience through this complicated project and please feel free to contact me with any additional questions.;nbsp; Thank you. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amus@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: Bryce Overend [ma iIto: Bryce@triwestdev.com] Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 5:39 PM To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> Cc: Tony Antich <tony.antich@gmail.com>; Paul Christman <PaulC@rpvca.gov>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: 2950 Crownview Ok thanks We Have Moved, Please Note Our New Addresses OFFICE ADDRESS 4223 Glencoe Ave Suite B-121 Marina Del Rey CA 90292 MAILING ADDRESS P O BOX 9879 Marina Del Rey CA 90295-2279 Bryce Overend Managing Partner Triwest Development, LLC 4223 Glencoe Ave Suite B-121 Marine Del Rey CA 90292 Cell: (714)-585-5208 Fax: (424)-332-5014 T-11 -kT TRlW1-:S1' DLVEL01',mLP4T From: Ara Mihranian [mailto:AraM@rpvca.gov] Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 5:37 PM To: Bryce Overend <Bryce@triwestdev.com>; Amy Seeraty <AmvS@rpvca.gov> Cc: Tony Antich <tony.antich@gmail.com>; Paul Christman <PaulC@rpvca.Rov>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: 2950 Crownview Bryce, Amy and I are talking to the City Attorney about this tomorrow. Ara Michael Mihranian Community Development Director 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5228 (telephone) 310-544-5293 (fax) cram rpvca.gov www.rpvca.gov ADo you really need to print this e-mail? This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. From: Bryce Overend [ma iIto: Bryce@triwestdev.com] Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 5:37 PM To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> Cc: Tony Antich <tony.antich@gmail.com>; Paul Christman <PaulC@rpvca.gov>; So Kim <SoKSoK@rpvcagov> Subject: RE: 2950 Crownview Where are we on this? We Have Moved, Please Note Our New Addresses OFFICE ADDRESS 4223 Glencoe Ave Suite B-121 Marina Del Rey CA 90292 MAILING ADDRESS P O BOX 9879 Marina Del Rey CA 90295-2279 Bryce Overend Managing Partner Triwest Development, LLC 4223 Glencoe Ave Suite B-121 Marine Del Rey CA 90292 Cell: (714)-585-5208 Fax: (424)-332-5014 T -E 1{t TRIWEST DEVELOPMENT From: Ara Mihranian [mailto:AraM@rpvca.gov] Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 11:00 AM To: Bryce Overend <Bryce@triwestdev.com>; Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> Cc: Tony Antich <tony.antich@gmail.com>; Paul Christman <PaulC@rpvca.gov>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: 2950 Crownview Bryce, Your concern is a legitimate one and we have reached out to the City Attorney to see if the maintenance responsibility can be removed. I will have Amy update you as soon as we hear back. We let her know that this is time sensitive. Ara Ara Michael Mihranian Community Development Director C67VOF LiRANa iQ \,tmES 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5228 (telephone) 310-544-5293 (fax) aram(@_rpvca.gov www.rpvca.gov ADo you really need to print this e-mail? This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. From: Bryce Overend [mailto:Bryice@triwestdev.com] Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 10:21 AM To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> Cc: Tony Antich <tony.antich@gmail.com>; Paul Christman <PaulC@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: 2950 Crownview Have you guys given this any thought? I need to make a pretty big decision here. Meeting with my partners to discuss going through the foreclosure process�128;. Not sure what do about the road and retaining wall maintenance. We Have Moved, Please Note Our New Addresses OFFICE ADDRESS 4223 Glencoe Ave Suite B-121 Marina Del Rey CA 90292 MAILING ADDRESS P O BOX 9879 Marina Del Rey CA 90295-2279 Bryce Overend Managing Partner Triwest Development, LLC 4223 Glencoe Ave Suite B-121 Marine Del Rey CA 90292 Cell: (714)-585-5208 Fax: (�424)-332-5014 l!, TRIWEST DE'VEl_rJPmLN'j From: Amy Seeraty [mailto:AmyS@rpvca.gov] Sent: Monday, June 26, 2017 4:57 PM To: Bryce Overend <Bryce@triwestdev.com> Cc: Tony Antich <tony.antich@gmail.com>; Paul Christman <PaulC@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: 2950 Crownview Hi Bryce - I will consult with Ara and get back to you asap. Thank you. Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amys(cD-rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: Bryce Overend [mailto:Bryce@triwestdev.com] Sent: Friday, June 23, 2017 6:01 PM To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> Cc: Tony Antich <tony.antich@gmail.com>; Paul Christman <PaulC@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: 2950 Crownview Amy/Paul/Ara: I have run into a significant issue\128; not that they come as a surprise to me anymore. The problem lies in that fact that I am building this house to sell. I am not an end user and as such, whoever buys this house will adopt the responsibility of having to maintain the retaining wall per the language the city attorney added. My agents have advised me that this is an impossible sell. I cannot pass that responsibility on to a new homeowner. Is there any solve for this,128;..? I cannot proceed with building the wall if this will be the case�128;. Need some help Thanks We Have Moved, Please Note Our New Addresses OFFICE ADDRESS 4223 Glencoe Ave Suite B-121 Marina Del Rey CA 90292 MAILING ADDRESS P O BOX 9879 Marina Del Rey CA 90295-2279 Bryce Overend Managing Partner Triwest Development, LLC 4223 Glencoe Ave Suite B-121 Marine Del Rey CA 90292 Cell: (714)-585-5208 Fax: ((4424)-332-5014 TRIW ES -I' DEVELOPMENT From: Amy Seeraty [mailto:AmyS@rpvca.gov] Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2017 8:55 AM To: Bryce Overend <Bryce@triwestdev.com> Cc: Tony Antich <tony.antich@gmail.com>; Paul Christman <PaulC@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: 2950 Crownview Hi Bryce - I sent the City Attorney the version with the City Engineer corrections. She did not track the changes, but you can see that she edited the descriptions of the property owners in addition to the items she mentions in her email below. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amys(a)rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: Bryce Overend [mailto:Bryce@triwestdev.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 5:24 PM To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> Cc: Tony Antich <tony.antich@gmail.com>; Paul Christman <PaulC@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: 2950 Crownview Thanks, Amy. Did the city engineers comments get incorporated into the document the city attorney revised? I need a consolidated document. I also don�128;T11t see any changes made. Were they tracked? We Have Moved, Please Note Our New Addresses OFFICE ADDRESS 4223 Glencoe Ave Suite B-121 Marina Del Rey CA 90292 MAILING ADDRESS P O BOX 9879 Marina Del Rey CA 90295-2279 Bryce Overend Managing Partner Triwest Development, LLC 4223 Glencoe Ave Suite B-121 Marine Del Rey CA 90292 Cell: (714)-585-5208 Fax: ((4424)-332-5014 1'�' Tl�.141{L•"57' C7LV'ELUI'rriLN'r From: Amy Seeraty [mailto:AmyS@rpvca.gov] Sent: Friday, June 16, 2017 3:13 PM To: Bryce Overend <Bryce@triwestdev.com> Cc: Tony Antich <tony.antich@gmail.com>; Paul Christman <PaulC@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: 2950 Crownview Please see the attached revised document as well as the original document (with minor engineer corrections). Thank you. Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amysQrpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: Amy Seeraty Sent: Friday, June 16, 2017 3:09 PM To: 'Bryce Overend' <Bryce@triwestdev.com> Cc: Tony Antich <tony.antich@gmail.com>; Paul Christman <PaulC@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.Rov>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.Rov> Subject: RE: 2950 Crownview Hi Bryce - I just got an email back from the City Attorney. She did make a few edits so please take a look. She also provided the following comments: Amy X128;" I revised the agreement a bit�128;.to specify that the easements are non-exclusive. I also added specific standard language regarding the easements running with the land, etc. I also clarified that the easement holder has the right to construct the improvements and the duty to maintain them. This language should be sufficient for the grantee to construct the improvements over the easements. I corrected the signature lines for the grantee using a deed of trust it executed. I am not confident regarding the title vesting for Lot 11 as there was a quitclaim deed recorded by Wells Fargo for a portion of the trust. It is important that the titled vesting be confirmed with the Lot 11 owner. An alternative would be to have the Grantee ask its title company to provide the vesting information for Lot 11. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amysC@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: Bryce Overend [mailto:Bryce@triwestdev.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 2:39 PM To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> Cc: Tony Antich <tony.antich@gmail.com>; Paul Christman <PaulC@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; So Kim <Sol<@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: 2950 Crownview Amy: Did the easement docs get approved by your attorney? We Have Moved, Please Note Our New Addresses OFFICE ADDRESS 4223 Glencoe Ave Suite B-121 Marina Del Rey CA 90292 MAILING ADDRESS P O BOX 9879 Marina Del Rey CA 90295-2279 Bryce Overend Managing Partner Triwest Development, LLC 4223 Glencoe Ave Suite B-121 Marine Del Rey CA 90292 Cell: (714)-585-5208 Fax: (424)-332-5014 T'% 11t TRIWEST DEVELOPMENT From: Bryce Overend Sent: Friday, June 02, 2017 2:41 PM To: Amy Seeraty <AmvS@rpvca.gov> Cc: Tony Antich <tony.antich@gmail.com>; Paul Christman <PaulC@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: 2950 Crownview Yes Bryce Overend Managing Partner Triwest Development, LLC 3727 Coolidge Ave Los Angeles, CA 90066 Cell: (714)-585-5208 Fax: (424)-332-5014 On Jun 2, 2017, at 2:20 PM, Amy Seeraty <AmySkKpvca.gov> wrote: Hello - Is everyone available to meet at 9:00am on Tuesday 6/6 instead? A conflict just came up with the 9:30 time. Please let me know. Thank you. Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov<htip://www.rpvca.go > Ms(a rpvca.gov<mailto:Ms(a rpvca.gov> - (310) 544-5231 From: Amy Seeraty Sent: Friday, June 02, 2017 9:13 AM To: 'Tony Antich' <tony.antichggmail.com>; Bryce Overend <B , cegtriwestdev.com> Cc: Paul Christman <PaulCgrpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraMgrpvca.gov>; So Kim <SoKgrpvca.gov> Subject: RE: 2950 Crownview Thank you. I will see everyone there at 9:30am on Tuesday. Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvcq.gov<http://www.lpvca.go > amigipvca.gov<mailto:ams(c- ipvca.gov> - (310) 544-5231 From: Tony Antich [mailto:tony.antichggmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 9:42 PM To: Bryce Overend <Bryce(a triwestdev.com<mailto:Brycegtriwestdev.com>> Cc: Amy Seeraty <Amy(c- g2vca.gov<mailto:Am Sgp2vca. og_v>>; Paul Christman <Pau1CAjPvca.gov<mailto:Pau1C axpvca.gov>>; Ara Mihranian <AraMgrpvca.gov<mailto:AraMglpvca.gov>>; So Kim <SoK@jTvca.gov<mailto: SoKgrpvca.gov>> Subject: Re: 2950 Crownview Works for me too Tony Antich, 2016-17 President - Kiwanis Club of Santa Monica P.O. Box 7368 Santa Monica, CA 90406 310-614-5357 tony. antichk gmail. com<mailto : tony. antich(k gm a i L c om> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 5:43 PM, Bryce Overend <Brycektriwestdev.com<mailto:B . cektriwestdev.com>> wrote: Yes 9:30 works We Have Moved, Please Note Our New Addresses OFFICE ADDRESS 4223 Glencoe Ave Suite B-121 Marina Del Rey CA 90292 10 MAILING ADDRESS P O BOX 9879 Marina Del Rey CA 90295-2279 Bryce Overend Managing Partner Triwest Development, LLC 4223 Glencoe Ave Suite B-121 Marine Del Rey CA 90292 Cell: (714)-585-5208<tel:(714)%20585-5208> Fax: (424)-332-5014<tel:(424)%20332-5014> [ori 3west transparent] From: Amy Seeraty [mailto:AMySkrpvca.gov<mailto:AMySkp2vca.goy>] Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 5:19 PM To: Bryce Overend <Brycektriwestdev.com<mailto:Bryce(c-r�,triwestdev.com>> Cc: Tony Antich <tony.antichggmail.com<mailto:tony.antich(kgmail.com>>; Paul Christman <Pau1Cg vca.gov<mailto:Pau1C&p2vca.gov>>; Ara Mihraman <AraMgrpvca.gov<mailto:AraM(a rpvca.gov>>; So Kim <SoK(crca. gov<mailto: SoK(a�rpvca. gov>> Subject: RE: 2950 Crownview Hi Bryce - Thanks for your email and I would be glad to meet. I will send a meeting request to Ara for Tuesday morning next week. Does 9:30am on Tuesday work for you? Thank you. Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.n2vcq.gov<http://www.n2vca.gov> am sglpvca.gov<mailto:amysgp2vca.gov> - (310) 544-5231<tel:(310)%20544-5231> From: Bryce Overend [mailto:Bryce(ktriwestdev.com] Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 4:59 PM To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS&rpvca.gov<mailto:AmyS(c rpvca.gov>> Cc: Tony Antich <tony.antichggmail.com<mailto:tony.antichkgmail.com>>; Paul Christman <Pau1C@,Tvca.gov<mailto:PaulCgrpvca.gov>>; Ara Mihranian <AraM(c�r�,rpvca.gov<mailto:AraMklpvca.gov>>; So Kim <SoK@jTvca.gov<mailto: SoK@xpvca.gov>> Subject: RE: 2950 Crownview Amy: 11 Why am I being sent a draft? I need the final version. The attorneys comments to my easement were grammatical and I was unaware I needed to return them, 128;. But its attached again. Amy/Ara/Paul: I suggest we have another meeting at the city Monday or Tuesday of next week. It seems as though we are missing timelines and are still very far away from bringing this project to a conclusion. I need to be able to provide transparency to my partner as I continue to overpromise and under deliver. What time works for everyone? We Have Moved, Please Note Our New Addresses OFFICE ADDRESS 4223 Glencoe Ave Suite B-121 Marina Del Rey CA 90292 MAILING ADDRESS P O BOX 9879 Marina Del Rey CA 90295-2279 Bryce Overend Managing Partner Triwest Development, LLC 4223 Glencoe Ave Suite B-121 Marine Del Rey CA 90292 Cell: (714)-585-5208<tel:(714)%20585-5208> Fax: (424)-332-5014<tel:(424)%20332-5014> [ori 3west transparent] From: Amy Seeraty [mailto:Am (a�Mvca.gov] Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 8:48 AM To: Bryce Overend <Brycegtriwestdev.com<mailto:Bryce(c�r�,triwestdev.com>> Cc: Tony Antich <tony.antichngmail.com<mailto:tony.antichggmail.com>>; Paul Christman <Pau1CA,rpvca.gov<mailto:Pau1C(a rpvca.gov>>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@,Mvca.gov<mailto:AraMglpvca.gov>>; So Kim <SoKvca.gov<mailto: SoKgrpvca.gov>> Subject: RE: 2950 Crownview Hi Bryce - Yes, the attached draft agreement is for the work within the existing ingress/egress/public utilities easement highlighted in yellow below. The area of the two new easements are highlighted in pink. Please note that I am still waiting for the text corrections on this from you so I can send the new easements to the City Attorney for review. I have attached these 12 corrections as -,,.128;ceEmailed comments from City Engineer -5-17-17 with redlines�,128; [cid:ima eg 002JpggOID2DBAB.59D29830] Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.!pvcq.go—v<htip://www.fpvca.go > amys&rpvca.gov<mailto:amys&rpvca.gov> - (310) 544-5231<tel:(310)%20544-5231> From: Bryce Overend [mailto:Bryce&triwestdev.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 12:14 AM To: Amy Seeraty <AmySkp2vca.gov<ma1lto:AMyS& pvca.gov>> Cc: Tony Antich <tony.antich(a gmail.com<mailto:tony.antichggmail.com>>; Paul Christman <Pau1Cg vca.gov<mailto:Pau1C&p2vca.gov>>; Ara Mihranian <AraMgipvca.gov<mailto:AraM(a rpvca.gov>>; So Kim <SoK(a rpvca.gov<mailto:SoK(a�mvca.gov>> Subject: Re: 2950 Crownview Any- this is for the retaining walls correct? What agreement do I need to get signed for the road widening that was mentioned today? 13 Bryce Overend Managing Partner Triwest Development, LLC 3727 Coolidge Ave Los Angeles, CA 90066 Cell: (714)-585-5208<tel- 714)-585-5208> Fax: (424)-332-5014<tel:(424)-332-5014> On May 31, 2017, at 12:09 AM, Amy Seeraty <Amy(a rpvca.gov<mailto:AmyS@Ipvca.gov>> wrote: I-, 128; <Bryce - Please see the attached draft construction encroachment agreement. Thank you. Amy From: Amy Seeraty Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 12:04 AM To: Bryce Overend; Tony Antich Cc: Paul Christman; Ara Mihranian; So Kim Subject: Re: 2950 Crownview Hi Bryce - Please see the attached letter and note that I'll get you the finalized document for the 2952 e,128;<asement shortly. Thank you. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty From: Bryce Overend <Bryce&triwestdev.com<mailto:Brycektriwestdev.com>> Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 5:30:14 PM 14 To: Amy Seeraty; Tony Antich Cc: Paul Christman; Ara Mihranian Subject: RE: 2950 Crownview Thanks 112 8; " meeting homeowners tomorrow at 8 am We Have Moved, Please Note Our New Addresses OFFICE ADDRESS 4223 Glencoe Ave Suite B-121 Marina Del Rey CA 90292 MAILING ADDRESS P O BOX 9879 Marina Del Rey CA 90295-2279 Bryce Overend Managing Partner Triwest Development, LLC 4223 Glencoe Ave Suite B-121 Marine Del Rey CA 90292 Cell: (714)-585-5208<te1:714)0/o20585-5208> Fax: (424)-332-5014<tel:(424)0/620332-5014> [ori 3west transparent] From: Amy Seeraty [mailto:AmyS(agrpvca. ov] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 5:29 PM To: Bryce Overend <Brycegtriwestdev.com<mailto:Brycegtriwestdev.com>>; Tony Antich <tony.antichggmail.com<mailto:tony.antich a,gmail.com>> Cc: Paul Christman<PaulCgr2vca.gov<mailto:Pau1C(a),r2vca.gov>>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@,Mvca. gov<mailto:AraMgrpvca. gov>> Subject: RE: 2950 Crownview Hi Bryce - I will get this information to you tonight. Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.Wvca.gov<hLtp://www.rpvca.gov> amys&p2vca.gov<mailto:amykp2vca.gov> - (310) 544-5231<tel:(310)%20544-5231> From: Bryce Overend [mailto:Bryce&triwestdev.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 2:43 PM 15 To: Amy Seeraty<AmySgr2vca.gov<mailto:AmySgp2vca. og_v>>; Tony Antich <tony. antichggmail. c om<mailto : tony. antichg gmail. com>> Cc: Paul Christman<PaulC(a-),rpvca.gov<mailto:PaulCgKpvca.gov>>; Ara Mihranian <AraMgrpvca. gov<mailto:AraMgrpvca. gov>> Subject: RE: 2950 Crownview This is crazy-\ 128; once again another curveball. They have already submitted separate building applications for the retaining wall and they have to execute the easements. Why a third piece of paper? If I had already gotten the easements signed which I had lined up to do last week then I would have had to meet with each owner again for more paperwork and explanation as to why. I continue to have to jump through unexpected hoops on my end. Is this absolutely necessary? If it is please send the paperwork by the end of the day today as I am meeting the owners tomorrow. We Have Moved, Please Note Our New Addresses OFFICE ADDRESS 4223 Glencoe Ave Suite B-121 Marina Del Rey CA 90292 MAILING ADDRESS P O BOX 9879 Marina Del Rey CA 90295-2279 Bryce Overend Managing Partner Triwest Development, LLC 4223 Glencoe Ave Suite B-121 Marine Del Rey CA 90292 Cell: (714)-585-5208<tel:(714)%20585-5208> Fax: (424)-332-5014<tel:(424)%20332-5014> [ori 3west transparent] From: Amy Seeraty [mailto:AmySgTpvca.gov] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 11:54 AM To: Tony Antich <tony.antich(a gmail.com<mailto:tony.antichggmail.com>> Cc: Shane Adams <shane(kpvec.com<mailto:shane(kpvec.com>>; Bryce Overend <Brycegtriwestdev.com<mailto:Bryce(a triwestdev.com>>; John Schuricht <john(kpvec.com<mailto:john(kpvec.com>>; Paul Christman <Pau1C(c�r�,rpvca.gov<mailto:Pau1C(ab,rpvca.gov>>; Ara Mihranian <AraMgrpvca. gov<mailto:AraMgrpvca. gov>> Subject: RE: 2950 Crownview Hi Tony - 16 h128;TM11 have information for you by the end of the day. Also, please note that h128;TMve been contacted by the trustees for the property owner at 2978 as well as the property owner at 2952. 1 will actually be preparing a covenant for you to give to them to sign and notarize to authorize the work that is occurring in the easement. Thanks. Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov<hqp://www.!pvca.gov> ami&p2vca.gov<mailto:amyskipvca.gov> - (310) 544-5231<tel:(310)%20544-5231> From: Tony Antich [mailtoaony.anticliggmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 11:49 AM To: Amy Seeraty <AmykKpvca.gov<mailto:AMySk pvca.gov>> Cc: Shane Adams <shanekpvec.com<mailto:shanegpvec.com>>; Bryce Overend <Brycektriwestdev.com<mailto:Brycektriwestdev.com>>; John Schuricht <iohn(ae,pvec.com<mailto:johngpvec.com>>; Paul Christman <Pau1Cgrpvca.gov<mailto:Pau1Ckrpvca.gov>>; TONY ANTICH <tony.antich@gmail.com<mailto:tony.antich(&,gmail.com>>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@ rpvc a. gov<mailto : AraMkKpvc a. gov>> Subject: Re: 2950 Crownview Amy, any news to share. We want to finish the project. Tony Tony Antich, 2016-17 President - Kiwanis Club of Santa Monica P.O. Box 7368 Santa Monica, CA 90406 310-614-5357<tel:(310)%20614-5357> tony. antichk gmail. com<mailto : tony. antichk gmail. com> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 7:56 AM, Tony Antich <tony.antich@gmail.com<mailto:tony.antich(cre,gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Amy, Are they any plan check corrections you have given to PVE or is all OK with their submittal? Tony Tony Antich, 2016-17 President - Kiwanis Club of Santa Monica P.O. Box 7368 Santa Monica, CA 90406 310-614-5357<tel:(310)%20614-5357> tony.antich(ce,gmail.com<mailto:tony.antichggmai l .com> 17 On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 10:31 AM, Amy Seeraty <AmyS@ca.gov<mailto:AmS(a�rpvca.gov>> wrote: Good Morning - I actually just took a look at the plans with Paul and he confirmed that no guardrail will be required by Building & Safety because there is such a steep slope behind the wall. However, please note that you if you still wish to place the guardrail for your own purposes, separate permits will be required by Planning. A combination wall (retaining plus freestanding) may be up to 8�128;TM in height per RPVMC Section 17.76.030.C.l.b.iii (link below), but to construct a combination wall over that height would require a Variance application for the portions of the wall within a front yard setback, and a Minor Exception Permit for the portions of the wall located within the side or rear yard setbacks. So, if the engineer can actually remove the guardrail details or keep them crossed out, that would be the best. I apologize for neglecting to mention that earlier. Thank you. https://www.municode.com/library/ca/rancho palos_verdes/codes/code_of ordinances?nodeld= TIT17ZO ARTVIIDEAPRE CH17.76MIPEST 17.76.030FEWAHE Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov<http://www.Wyv a.gov> ami&p2vca.gov<mailto:amys&U2vca.gov> - (310) 544-5231<tel:(310)%20544-5231> From: Tony Antich [mailto:tony.antich&amail.com<mailto:tony.antichkgmail.com>] Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 9:19 AM To: Shane Adams <shanekpvec.com<mailto:shanekpvec.com>> Cc: Amy Seeraty <Amykfl2vca.gov<mailto:AmySAp2vca.gov>>; Bryce Overend <Brycektriwestdev.com<mailto:Brycektriwestdev.com>>; John Schuricht <johngpvec.com<mailto:johnC&,pvec.com>>; Paul Christman <Pau1Cgrp� vca.gov<mailto:Pau1C&p2vca.gov>>; TONY ANTICH <tony. antich@email. com<mailto:tony. antichkgmail. com» Subject: Re: 2950 Crownview Remove the red markings. Tony Antich, 2016-17 President - Kiwanis Club of Santa Monica P.O. Box 7368 Santa Monica, CA 90406 310-614-5357<tel:(310)%20614-5357> tony. anti ch(a- , gmail. com<mailto : tont'. anti chk gmai 1. com> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 8:46 AM, Paul Christman 18 <Pau1C(c rpvca.gov<mailto:Pau1Ckrpvca.gov>> wrote: B&S has not reviewed these plans yet and the guardrail may be required From: Shane Adams [mailto:shanekpvec.com<mailto:shane&pvec.com>] Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 8:42 AM To: Tony Antich <tony.antichkgmail.com<mailto:tony.antichkgmail.com>> Cc: Paul Christman<PaulC(kr2vca.gov<mailto:Pau1C(a),rpvca.gov>>; Amy Seeraty <Amigmvca.gov<mailto:AmS@rpvca.gov>>; Bryce Overend <Bryce@triwestdev.com<mailto:Bryce(a triwestdev.com>>; John Schuricht <j ohn(kpvec. com<mailto: j ohnkpvec. com» Subject: Re: 2950 Crownview Tony, Did you find out yesterday if I need to remove the guardrail for the EVAR stamped plans? [Inline image 1 ] Shane Adams Palos Verdes Engineering 27520 Hawthorne Blvd., #250 Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 Tel (310) 541-5055<tel:%28310%29%20541-5055> Fax (310) 541-0321<tel:%28310%29%20541-0321> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 8:09 PM, Tony Antich <tony.antichkgmail.com<mailto:tony.antichkgmail.com>> wrote: Hi Paul and Amy, Please review the and give me your comments or corrections. I want to make sure we understand the next steps. There are two plan sets still needing city review and their approval would like to get your input so we can efficiency process the plans and get to building the improvments. STEPS TO GET APPROVAL 1. SITE PLAN APPROVAL Planning .128; Amy (RPV Planning) is still reviewing the Site Plan submittal by PVE 128; Amy to email (hopefully; end of this week) a pdf showing corrections, if any. -\128; PVE will make any changes and prepare three (3) wet stamped sets. The three (3) Site Plan sets will be returned to the Planning Department so Amy can approve by placing a Planning Department approval stamp on each of the three (3) drawing sets. ,128; Planning Department will retain one (1) set and two (2) sets will be returned to applicant. 19 Building and Safety -\128; At this point, the two (2) Planning Department approved stamped sets along with the retaining wall structural calculations will be submitted to the Building & Safety Department. X128; They will have five (5) business days to review. 2. EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN (EVAR) Planning X128; PVE to prepare three (3) wet stamped sets. X128; The three (3) EVAR Plan sets will be returned to the Planning Department so Amy can approve by placing a Planning Department approval stamp on each of the three (3) drawing sets. X128; Planning Department will retain one (1) set and two (2) sets will be returned to applicant. Building and Safety ,128; At this point, the two (2) Planning Department approved stamped sets along with the retaining wall structural calculations will be submitted to the Building & Safety Department. X128; They will have five (5) business days to review. Tony Antich, 2016-17 President - Kiwanis Club of Santa Monica P.O. Box 7368 Santa Monica, CA 90406 310-614-5357<tel:(310)%20614-5357> tony.antichkgmail.com<mailto:tony. antich(cr�,gmail.com> <Construction Encroachment Agreement -2950 Crownview Drive-DRAFT.pdf> <image001.jpg> <image002.jpg> <image003.png> 20 Amy Seeraty From: Amy Seeraty Sent: Friday, June 16, 2017 3:09 PM To: Bryce Overend Cc: Tony Antich; Paul Christman; Ara Mihranian; So Kim Subject: RE: 2950 Crownview Amy Seeraty From: Amy Seeraty Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2017 1:18 PM To: Bryce Overend Cc: Tony Antich; Ara Mihranian; So Kim Subject: 2950 Crownview-Site Walls Attachments: Complete Letter (6-7-17).pdf; Chapter_17.66_MINOR_EXCEPTION_PERMITS.pdf; At - Risk Letter for Site Retaining Walls-6-6-17.pdf Hi Bryce - Thank you for meeting with Ara and myself yesterday. I have forwarded the easement documents to the City Attorney, and I hope to receive comments within the next week or so. I will keep you apprised if they have any comments and/or questions. I have also attached a letter deeming your project complete, which will go out in the mail today as well. Also, regarding the timeline for the Minor Exception Permit/Grading Permit, please see the following bullet points: 1) 1 will prepare the public notice, which will then be mailed out (most likely early next week) to the adjacent property owners per the attached Minor Exception Permit Code Section (17.66). The public Notice has a 15 -day comment period, during which the notified parties can submitted comments, which would then be addressed within the Staff Report. 2) Once the notice is mailed out, I will start working on the Staff Report, which will be completed as soon as possible, ideally within 2-3 weeks. I will let you know if there are any unforeseen delays. The law states that a decision shall be rendered within 60 days of Staff deeming a project complete. 3) Once the Staff Report is reviewed and approved by the Planning Manager (So), and Director (Ara), copies will be sent to you, Tony and the notified parties, with a Notice of Decision attached which summarizes the project approval and provides details regarding the 15 -day appeal period. 4) Typically, plans may not be submitted to Building & Safety prior to the end of the 15 -day appeal period. However, I believe that we have discussed allowing you to submit to Building & Safety prior to the end of this appeal period, as you have signed the attached "At -Risk" letter. I will then stamp the three sets of plans you gave me yesterday, and you will bring two sets plus the associated calculations, which Tony has. Also, I would like to just double-check that you are not also paving the rest of the existing access driveway, correct? The plans appear to show that you will simply be paving the new portions of the access driveway. Thank you. Also, although the easements labeled as Item Nos. 11 and 15 below are indeed for the benefit of 2952 Crownview, which is what necessitates the notarizing and recordation of the easement encroachment agreement, I also I see what you and Tony were talking about with respect with some other easements being for the benefit of 2950. The easements labeled as Parcel 2 and Parcel 3, as shown on the plan below are described as being for the benefit of Lot 3. DETAI L Sincerely, Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amys(a�rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 75 •,tm NPd c¢+3ene4, IC.z�ketrn gem ra3 4B^I41@71 `4rrt7 Fb.79 6s.-inc rin c93�re4Fn dPn ryp,7 5i�eaAr e wm Fte i8 ���' rn irJ34Fb' �m F1a7'. [Ta. RDK Orr rte9a4C 0 FAM Ha W ® Rwa NO 7 ipn ryp„ eek 7 OF7rder . rh•a p-pWer1w"4 dtecr4:: 6v�j h np�7i1+. W Ctrrt t.]MR f'iFL f U1� tMl7at7•rtnl A Yry' tFl �rtr,7'l+k. IGlatlsnM W 7hrpti Y se71 xxw. ms t �1 _r 'A�Pt_1F rte" r •.. 4. ���i v +n ` m 1 �f t aewryw k' ley. .Y ryN+. F7 JY r.• 4" OF' w w r a� • ,Aaq"�Fss�" dpgaror Aa 410 ro'.:— Gtw# � g5. qT �YY DETAI L Sincerely, Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amys(a�rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 75 •,tm NPd c¢+3ene4, IC.z�ketrn gem ra3 4B^I41@71 `4rrt7 Fb.79 6s.-inc rin c93�re4Fn dPn ryp,7 5i�eaAr e wm Fte i8 ���' rn irJ34Fb' �m F1a7'. [Ta. RDK Orr rte9a4C 0 FAM Ha W ® Rwa NO 7 ipn ryp„ eek 7 OF7rder . rh•a p-pWer1w"4 dtecr4:: 6v�j h np�7i1+. W Ctrrt t.]MR f'iFL f U1� tMl7at7•rtnl A Yry' tFl �rtr,7'l+k. IGlatlsnM W 7hrpti CITY OF Litht, RANCHO June 7, 2017 TriWest Homes II, LP Attn: Bryce Overend 4223 Glencoa Ave. Marina Del Rey, CA 90292 SUBJECT: GRADING PERMIT & MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT CASE NO. ZON2016-00224 2950 CROWNVIEW DRIVE Dear Mr. Overend, PALOS VERDES Thank you for submitting additional information for the applications listed above for the property located at 2950 Crownview Drive (Case No. ZON2016-224). The additional information for your application was submitted on June 6, 2017. As discussed, the Director is authorizing Staff to deem this project complete and write a Staff Report for the Major Grading permit and Minor Exception Permit prior to the recordation of the Construction and Encroachment agreement for the work within the easement on 2950 Crownview Drive which is for the benefit of 2952 Crownview Drive. Pursuant to State Law, Staff has completed the review of your application within the prescribed 30 -day period, and determined that the information submitted is generally complete to begin processing the application. Please note that the City may require further information to clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise supplement existing and/or future data. If the City requires such additional information, it is strongly suggested that you supply the information in a timely manner to avoid any delay in the processing of the application. Staff will begin processing the application by issuing a public notice, which will allow for the 15 - day public comment period to commence. Upon the completion of the public comment period, a Staff Report will be presented to the Community Development Director for review and approval. You will receive a Notice of Decision in the mail once a final decision is rendered by the Director. If you should have any questions, or would like to discuss your application in further detail, please feel free to contact me at (310) 544-5231, or via email at amys(a)_rpvca.gov. Sincerely, 444� Amy Seeraty Associate Planner CC: Tony Antich, P.O. Box 7368, Santa Monica, CA 90406 Ara Mihranian, Director of Community Development So Kim, Deputy Director/Planning Manager Project File Chapter 17.66 - MINOR EXCEPTION PERMITS Sections: 17.66.010 - Purpose. This chapter provides for minor exceptions to the development standards of this title in those cases where such minor exceptions are warranted by practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships or results that may be inconsistent with the general intent of this title. Any minor exception permit in the coastal specific plan district shall be in conformity with the policies and requirements of the coastal specific plan. (Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997: Ord. 78 (part), 1975) 17.66.020 - Scope. The director may grant minor exception permits authorizing the following: A. Construction of fences, walls or hedges which require a minor exception permit pursuant to Section 17.76.030 (Fences, walls and hedges); B. A reduction of any setback and open space requirement contained in this title by twenty percent or less. However, a minor exception permit shall not be granted to reduce the setback and open space requirements for the following: 1. New direct access garages or the conversion of existing indirect access garages to direct access garages which encroach into the required front or street -side setback, 2. A structural addition or modification to an existing structure that has been approved through a discretionary permit by the planning commission or city council within two years of the proposed addition and/or modification. C. An increase of no more than twenty percent of the fifty percent land coverage restriction which is applicable to driveways, parking areas and paved walkways within the required front or street - side setback areas in single-family residential (RS) districts, set forth in Section 17.48.030 (Lots, Setbacks, Open Space Area and Building Height) of this title. (Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997: Ord. 194 § 16 (part), 1985: Ord. 158 § 3, 1982: Ord. 150 § 17, 1982: Ord. 149 § 13, 1982: Ord. 78 (part), 1975) (Ord. No. 529, § 15, 11-15-11) 17.66.030 - Application. Application for a minor exception permit shall be made on forms provided by the city and shall include such plans as may reasonably be required by the director for a complete understanding of the request, and a filing fee as established by resolution of the city council. (Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997: Ord. 78 (part), 1975) 17.66.040 - Notification. Upon receipt of a complete application for a minor exception permit, the director shall notify the owners of all parcels located adjacent to the proposed use or development by letter, using the last known county Page 1 assessor tax roll. Notification shall also include all parcels which are located directly across any public or private right-of-way from the subject property. (Amended during 11-97 supplement; Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997: Ord. 194 § 16 (part), 1985: Ord. 78 (part), 1975) 17.66.050 - Action by the director. A. The director may grant a minor exception permit only upon finding that: 1. The requested minor exception is warranted by practical difficulties; or 2. The requested minor exception is warranted by an unnecessary hardship; or 3. The requested minor exception is necessary to avoid inconsistencies with the general intent of this title. B. The director may impose conditions upon the approval of a minor exception permit to assure that the minor exception permit is within the intent of this chapter. Noncompliance with any conditions of a minor exception permit shall constitute a violation of this title. C. Upon approval of a minor exception permit by the director, notice of the decision shall be given pursuant to Section 17.80.040 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures) of this title. (Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997: Ord. 194 § 16 (part), 1985: Ord. 90 § 9 (part), 1977: Ord. 78 (part), 1975) 17.66.060 - Appeals. Any interested person may appeal a decision of the director to the planning commission and a decision of the planning commission to the city council pursuant to Chapter 17.80 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures) of this title. No minor exception permit shall be effective and no development permitted by a minor exception permit shall be initiated or construction started, until the appeal period has been exhausted. (Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997: Ord. 194 § 16 (part), 1985: Ord. 150 §§ 18, 19, 1982; Ord. 90 § 9 (part), 1977: Ord. 78 (part), 1975) Page 2 CITY OF LAMWL RANCHO June 6, 2017 TriWest Homes II, LP Attn: Bryce Overend 4223 Glencoa Ave. Marina Del Rey, CA 90292 PALOS VERDES SUBJECT: "AT -RISK" SUBMITTAL INTO BUILDING & SAFETY PLAN CHECK, CASE NO. ZON2016-00224 ADDRESS: 2950 CROWNVIEW DRIVE I, Bryce Overend, representative of TriWest Homes II, LP, property owner of 2950 Crownview Drive, request to submit the plans approved by the Director on 2017, to the Building & Safety Division for the Plan Check process prior to meeting all conditions of approval including recordation of any required easement encroachment construction agreements for any owners of easements within the area of the proposed project which includes but is not limited to: site retaining walls, grading and new driveway. I request to submit the project plans to the Building and Safety Division at my own risk, fully acknowledging that the required easement encroachment construction documents have not yet been approved by the City and recorded at the Los County Recorder's Office for my project, and this approval and recordation must be completed prior to any Building Permit and/or Grading Permit issuance. Thus, I acknowledge that if the City requires any changes to the plans and/or the Major Grading Permit is appealed, the project plans may have to be modified and/or withdrawn from Building & Safety Plan Check at my own expense. F rthermore, I understand that,the City will not issue any grading or building permits dil all Director -approved Cogdffions of Approval have been met. Y, ,d t nat re o roe caner/ pplicant Date Amy Seeraty From: nickole.petersen@gmail.com Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 10:16 AM To: Amy Seeraty Cc: nikki000@cox.net; Ara Mihranian; Paul Christman; Tom DeFazio Subject: Re: 2950 Crownview Hi Amy, Thank you for following up with me. Yes, I have been in your office several times last week regarding the flood of water six inches deep under the house, the unfenced pool 3-4 feet deep with water, and the retaining wall that has and may continue to collapse further that retains my driveway and is a few feet from my house. It is my understanding that the City inspectors have informed the owner of 2950 Crownview Drive that their retaining wall has failed due to water run off from my flat property that absolutely did not happen. And that only sandbags are needed to protect their wall from further collapse from water run off from my property. Thankfully I have convinced them that it is the vibration from vehicles pulling in and out of my driveway as well as the trash trucks and FedEx trucks that is putting too much of a surge and vibration against this seven foot retaining "garden wall". They put some bracing against the retaining wall near my driveway to hold it in place. He has also informed me that you do not believe that there is any harm in leaving the water under the house and in the pool. No additional safety precautions need to be taken other than putting a lock at the top of the fence. Of course, any child or person can still get pass the fence, fall into a half full or empty pool and crawl under a swampy house that is now breeding mosquitos and mold. The neighbors here are getting together to request to be addressed at the next City council meeting. We the neighbors have been raising our concerns about the stability of the "garden walls" and lack of other walls for sometime but for some odd reason you continue to let this hazard evolve. Someone could seriously get injured or sick from this property some day if the hazards are not properly mitigated and the property owners won't be the only ones at fault. I'm not sure why there is not some type of outlining document attached to this property so that all potential owners and current owners know all the issues that must be addressed with this property? That way this property would actually sell for the correct value so that whomever does end up buying it can make the appropriate investments. It's not okay to say that our backs were turned at the Planning Commission while current owner removed documents outlining specifics of the property. That should never happen even if it wasn't allowed. Respectfully, Nickole Petersen Sent from my iPhone On Jan 30, 2017, at 8:04 AM, Amy Seeraty <AmvS@rpvca.gov> wrote: Hello - I know that you had called with several concerns about the retaining walls on the property and wanted to follow up with you, as Tom (Building Inspector), Paul (Building Official) and I visited the property at 2950 Crownview last week. We viewed all the retaining walls and I believe that the property owner is going to have an engineer assess all the existing walls. However, for details about how that process works, either Tom or Paul will give you a call to provide additional details, as that is not my area of expertise. Also, please confirm that the correct phone number to reach you is: (310) 971-7210. Thank you. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amys6d�rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: Kit Fox Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 7:50 AM To: Craig Weintraub; Julie Peterson Cc: CC; Ara Mihranian; Leza Mikhail Subject: RE: Sunday Night Golf course noise Driving Range Dear Mr. Weintraub: I have copied Leza and Julie on this reply to you. You may also reach out to them directly via email at lezam@rpvca.gov and iuliep@rpvca.gov. The City Council meeting tomorrow night starts at 7:00 PM at Hesse Park. Click here to review the Staff report for the draft noise ordinance (Item No. 4). Sincerely, Kit Fox, AICT' Cluj of Rancho Palos Verdes (310044-5226 kitf@)wvca.Aov From: Craig Weintraub [mailto:cisco333@aol.com] Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 7:28 AM To: Kit Fox <KitF@rpvca.gov>; Julie Peterson <JulieP@rpvca.gov> Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Leza Mikhail <LezaM@rpvca.gov>; Craig Weintraub <cisco333@aol.com> Subject: Re: Sunday Night Golf course noise Driving Range Dear Kit, Can you ask Leza Mihail to write me an email. I'd really like to know how the proposed ordinance affects the noise from the golf course. I was awoken last night at 11:45 by the worker Los Verdes picking up golf balls on the range. It was midnight! And when I went to talk to him and ask him about why he was doing this at such an hour he told he angrily that he was just a minimum wage worker and he was just trying to get his work done. Perhaps Leza Mikhail can respond to this email as well. As you suggest, I'd like to know how these new ordinance affect this late night golf course operations. I'd also like to get Julie Peterson to respond to me so I can officially voice my complaints. I am not getting any receptive response from the Los Verdes Golf Course management. In fact, I get nothing but cynical and hostile comments, implying that I'm just a trouble -maker. Could you also please send once again the location of the August 15 meeting. I know it's at 7:00. Is it at the Hesse Park recreation center? Thank you, Craig Weintraub 1 On Aug 6, 2017, at 10:57 AM, Kit Fox wrote: Dear Mr. Weintraub: I'm sorry to hear that you're experiencing late-night/early-morning noise issues with Los Verdes - again. I'm copying Code Enforcement Officer Julie Peterson on this reply so that she can look into this. Have you contacted the GM at Los Verdes about this latest incident? On a related topic, the City Council will be considering a citywide noise control ordinance at its upcoming meeting on August 15th. I've copied Senior Planner Leza Mikhail on this reply. She can assist you if you have questions about how the proposed ordinance may address this issue. Sincerely, Kit Fox Senior Administrative Analyst From: Craig Weintraub <cisco333@aol.com> Sent: Sunday, August 6, 2017 1:23 AM To: Kit Fox Subject: Re: Sunday Night Golf course noise 1:20 AM! Dear Kit, The Palos Verdes Golf Course situation rears it ugly head again 12 I have been awoken by 10 minutes of back up beeps from a semi -trailer in the Palos Verdes Golf Course. This was an issue that we have all discussed earlier and semi's are not supposed to idling their trucks nor making deliveries that wake up the neighborhood. I have called the police and filed a complaint. Can someone please get back to me about this situation? Sincerely, Craig Weintraub On Aug 15, 2016, at 7:50 AM, Kit Fox <KitF@rpvca.gov> wrote: Dear Mr. Weintraub: Thank you for your e-mail. I agree that it is unacceptable for Los Verdes to be conducting noisy operations at midnight. I will ask our code enforcement officer, Julie Peterson, to look into this matter. Also, please note that Carolynn Petru retired last fall. Our new Deputy City Manager is Gabriella Yap (gyap@rpvca.gov). Sincerely, Kit Fox, AICD Senior Administrative Anahist Citti Managers Office ("itg of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 1 (310) 544.5226 P: (310) 544.-5291 citf@rP=v 'g_v_ <image001.jpg> From: Craig Weintraub [mailto:cisco333@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2016 12:04 AM To: Los Verdes Golf Club General Manager <gm@losverdesgc.com> Cc: Susan Brooks <Subrooks08@gmail.com> <Subrooks08@gmail.com>; wwleary@parks.lacounty.gov; Julie Peterson <JulieP@rpvca.gov>; Carolynn Petru <Carolynn@rpvca.gov>; Larry Lee <Ilee@parks.lacounty.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca. ov>; Los Verdes GC Assistant General Manager <agm@losverdesgc.com> Subject: Re: Saturday Night Golf course noise 12 AM Saturday Night Dear Mr. Lockhart, It is 12:00 and I have just been down to the golf course because there is the intermittent large clanking of golf balls into a metal bin. The worker there said he had to load up the golf range and had to get his work done. Can you please arrange to have this loud work done at a more appropriate time? Perhaps you need to re-examine your scheduling so this activity doesn't take place at midnight. Or maybe you can hire an extra worker to make sure the work is done at a better time than the hours when people are trying to go to sleep. We've been through this many times before. This loud noise at late hours is unacceptable. And it's a problem easily solved with sufficient planning. Thank you, Craig Weintraub On Jul 11, 2014, at 7:57 AM, Los Verdes Golf Club General Manager <gi-n alosverdes c.corn> wrote: Mr. Weintraub, 1.. It's very difficult to ask people to be at the tee box without notifying them prior to their time. 2. Customers at 5:30 know their time however they always need a little help making their way to the tee. 3. We are the busiest golf course in the country and as such it's imperative that we stay on time. We do this by making several announcements letting customers know they are on deck, 7 minutes away from the tee, etc.. A chalkboard as you stated simply won't work. Maybe the City members can chime in. To the best of my knowledge I'm not aware of any ordinance preventing us from using the PA. If there is hopefully the city can make me aware of such a provision. 4 FYI, by 8:00 AM we've already sent 125 golfers out on the golf course. Refraining from using the PA before this time would simply not work. Thank You, Robert Lockhart General Manager Los Verdes Golf Course (310) 377-7888 x10 (310) 377-0336 (Fax) www.Golfzing.com Book tee times, find friends, join tourneys, get tips, and find Special Offerslfl From: Craig Weintraub [mailto:cisco333@aol.com] Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 7:29 AM To: Los Verdes Golf Club General Manager; Susan Brooks; wwleary@parks.lacounty.gov Cc: Julie Peterson; Carolynn Petru; Larry Lee; CC; Los Verdes GC Assistant General Manager; Craig Weintraub Subject: Re: What is a reasonable solution? Dear Mr. Lockhart, I am all for a reasonable solution. 1. Is there no other way to call tee times at 5:00 other than with a PA system? 2. Don't people with a 5:30 AM call know that they should be around the Pro Shop to begin their round? Maybe Susan Brooks and Mr. Leary can come up with something acceptable. Hearing the loudspeaker at 5:00 AM is not acceptable. I've listened to it for years and I've had it. I'd be amenable to 7:00. Surely there must be some way for people to realize their call time times without blasting it out on a loudspeaker? The noise from this PA system echoes up to my apartment. It's particularly annoying on Saturdays and Sundays at 5:30 AM, even more so at 5:00 when I am sleeping. I normally get up about 6:00 so losing an hour of sleep is a drag. I'm willing to compromise. I understand the need for the community to have a golf course. But surely, it's not necessary to use the PA system before 6:30 or 7:00. There must be some other way for Golfer's to know their tee times. This isn't rocket science. How about posting it on a large chalkboard during these early hours? I don't understand why not using the PA in the early AM is so difficult. You say that you will control the volume. I know that this will not happen. You need to figure out another way to announce tee -times between 5:00 AM and 6:30. I await your response, Craig Weintraub On Jul 11, 2014, at 7:17 AM, Los Verdes Golf Club General Manager wrote: Mr. Weintraub, I respectively request some leniency regarding this new policy you would like us to implement. If we are to refrain from using the PA until 8 AM during the summer months we will be in real trouble. This would prevent us from calling groups to the tee for approx.. 3 hours. If we could find some sort of middle ground that would be helpful. We recently replaced our Pa system and it looks like it was turned up to a level that was obviously too loud. We've made adjustments, hopefully the level is acceptable now. We do our best as you know to prevent any loud noise that may interrupt your sleep. We've cancelled our street sweeper and we've altered our maintenance practices. To not allow us to use the PA until 8:00 AM would really hurt our operation. Hopefully the PA sound level is now acceptable and you can understand the need for the use of the PA in the AM. Thank You, Robert Lockhart General Manager Los Verdes Golf Course (310) 377-7888 x10 (310) 377-0336 (Fax) www.Golfzing.com Book tee times, find friends, join tourneys, get tips, and find Special OffersW 6 From: Craig Weintraub [mailto:cisco333(&aol.com1 Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 5:24 AM To: Julie Peterson; Carolynn Petru; Los Verdes Golf Club General Manager; Larry Lee; <wwleary@parks. lacounty.gov>; CC; Susan Brooks Cc: Craig Weintraub Subject: Re: Leafblowers at Saturday 7 AM Greetings to all at 5:00 AM, I was awakened today by the electronic PA Systems announcing tee time reservations this morning. I have put up with this years. I insist that you don't use the PA before 8 AM. I would like the city to implement this policy immediately. Can you all confirm that this policy is stopped!!! I'm tired of the Golf Course not being a good neighor and I'm tired of waking up and having to write this 5 AM emails. Craig Weintraub On Jun 26, 2014, at 1:44 PM, Julie Peterson wrote: Mr. Weintraub, Thank you for the email regarding the early morning noise at Los Verdes. You're right, 5:30 is much too early to be listening to this noise. I'll contact Los Verdes right away and inform them of the Municipal Code requirements. If there is a continuing problem, please let me know. Julie Peterson Code Enforcement Officer 310-544-5228 From: Craig Weintraub [mailto:cisco333@aol.com] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 5:35 AM To: Carolynn Petru Cc: Los Verdes Golf Club General Manager; CC; <wwleary@parks.lacounty.gov>; Larry Lee; Susan Brooks <Subrooks08@Rmail.com>; Greg Pfost; Julie Peterson Subject: Re: Leafblowers at Saturday 7 AM Carolynn, Last year you helped me out when I had a problem with the noise in the early morning from the Los Verdes Golf Course. It is 5:30 in the morning and I have been awoken for the past 15 minutes due to some municipal machine that is apparently cleaning the Los Verdes Golf Course. I thought this loud noise was against the law at 5:30 in the morning. This happens every year. I don't know why people don't have some common courtesy. I have to go to work today and there's no way I can sleep with this racket. Even with my windows closed I can hear this. Can you direc the appropriate people to stop this excesesive noise at 5:30 in the morning? Everyone is supposed to have been alerted that this activiity is prohibited. I am so angry that I have to continually deal with this. Sincereley, Craig Weintraub Palos Verdes Resident for 10 years 310 544-3723 On Jan 28, 2013, at 8:43 AM, Carolynn Petru wrote: Dear Mr. Lockwood — I was copied on the email exchange below and just wanted to take the opportunity to let you know that Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code Section 8.16.010 states: "It is unlawful for any person to use or operate a mechanical blower before eight a.m. or after five p.m. Monday through Friday, or before nine a.m. or after four p.m. on Saturday or at any time on Sunday, or national holidays." (emphasis added) The City would greatly appreciate it if the Los Verdes Golf Course would adhere to these regulations in consideration of the residents living around the golf course. Thank you very much for your consideration. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Julie Peterson, Code Enforcement Officer, at (310) 544-5299. Sincerely, Carolynn Petru Deputy City Manager (310) 544-5023 From: Mayor Susan Brooks [mailto:subrooks08C&gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 6:56 PM To: Los Verdes Golf Club General Manager Cc: Craig Weintraub; CC; <wwleary a@parks.lacounty.gov>; Larry Lee Subject: Re: Leafblowers at Saturday 7 AM Thank you Mr. Lockhart. We've heard complaints about this for over a year now. Hopefully, you've taken care of the problem. Susan Brooks Mayor Sent from my iPad On Jan 26, 2013, at 9:13 AM, "Los Verdes Golf Club General Manager" < rm, 11.9@ameri.cang;olf.com> wrote: Mr. Weintraub, I apologize for the noise this AM. We will absolutely begin our leaf blowing no earlier than 8:00 AM on Saturdays. I spoke to the superintendent this morning and he understands the situation. Thank You, Robert Lockhart General Manager Los Verdes Golf Course (310) 377-7888 x10 (310) 377-0336 (Fax) www.Golfzing.com Book tee times, find friends, join tourneys, get tips, and find Special Offersrlr From: Craig Weintraub [mailto:cisco333C)aol.com] Sent: Sat 1/26/2013 7:36 AM To: Los Verdes Golf Club General Manager; CC@r v.com; wwleary@bparks.lacou nty.gov; Larry Lee; Susan Subject: Re: Leafblowers at Saturday 7 AM Hello, It's Saturday morning and I've been woken at 7 AM to listen to an hour of a loud leafblower. I know it's not 4:30 but is it possible to start the leafblowers on Saturdays at 8:00. Saturdays and Sundays are my days to rest, my one time for some peace and quiet. Or maybe you can consider getting quieter electric blowers than these gas ones which are horrible polluters anyway. Please, I'm sure none of you would want to hear this noise at 7 AM on a Saturday and I suspect there is a city ordinance about having these Leafblowers start before 8 am on a Saturday or Sunday. We all live here. Craig Weintraub PV Victoria Apartments (A resident for 8 years) & a significant taxpayer 10 On Jun 20, 2012, at 3:43 PM, Los Verdes Golf Club General Manager wrote: Mr. Weintraub, I apologize for the early wakeup. I've talked with my superintendent and we will instruct the crew to delay the mowing of the greens near you as late as we can. Thank You, Robert Lockhart General Manager Los Verdes Golf Course (310) 377-7888 x10 (310) 377-0336 (Fax) www.Golfzing.com Book tee times, find friends, join tourneys, get tips, and find Special OffersM From: Craig Weintraub [mailto:dsco333@aol.com] Sent: Wed 6/20/2012 5:30 AM To: wwleary@parks.lacounty.gov; Los Verdes Golf Club General Manager Subject: Awoken AT 4:30 AM Dear Mr. Leary, I have been awoken at 4:30 AM this morning. There are two mowers on the greens just below my house that are making a lot of noise. The noise travels uphill. I know they do these greens early but this morning it's particularly loud this morning. All my windows are shut. Can you please have them do these greens closest to the PV Victoria Apartments at a later time? I await your response. Thank you, Craig Weintraub 11 From: Leza Mikhail Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 9:42 AM To: CityClerk Subject: FW: The lack of noise jurisdiction over the Los Verdes Golf Course Hello, Please include in the Late Correspondence to the City Council. Leza From: Craig Weintraub [mailto:cisco333@aol.com] Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 8:32 AM To: Julie Peterson <JulieP@rpvca.gov> Cc: Jerry Duhovic <Jerry.Duhovic@rpvca.gov>; Susan Brooks <SusanB@rpvca.gov>; Anthony Misetich <AnthonyM@rpvca.gov>; Brian Campbell <BrianC@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Leza Mikhail <LezaM@rpvca.gov>; Kit Fox <KitF@rpvca.gov>; Craig Weintraub <cisco333@aol.com> Subject: Re: The lack of noise jurisdiction over the Los Verdes Golf Course Dear All, How discouraging to hear that the city of Palos Verdes has no jurisdiction at all over the Los Verdes Golf Course! Really! I called a Scott (I don't know if it was Scott Young) whose number I had received from the Los Verdes Golf Course. The Scott I talked to has some managerial capacity with the golf course and when I called him him at 12:00 last night he was rather angry. He asked why I was calling and I told him that I was awoken by a worker collecting golf balls at midnight. That can't be, he said. I'm watching him right now from my balcony, I told Scott. I put the phone to the air so he could hear the noise. Scott said he didn't have any capacity to do anything and didn't believe that my claim that a worker was doing this at the golf course. When I went down to the Golf Course I saw the worker driving the vehicle and emptying his golf balls into metal containers which were the primary source of noise that I was hearing. I asked the worker if he could stop his work since it was midnight on a Sunday. The worker was rather angry himself. I know who you are he told me. You're the rich man at the top of the hill. I'm just a minimum wageworker trying to do his job. Listen, I don't begrudge a worker trying to make a living and support a plan. But I do get upset that the Golf Course management, supposedly one of the busiest golf courses in the country, in the middle of a residential neighborhood, can't schedule their work schedule more accordingly. I'm asking the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council to get more involved in this. Why have city ordinances if a major entity such as the Golf Course is not subject to such ordinances? I have a water fountain on my deck to drown out late noise noise and also have noise canceling headphones. But golf balls shouldn't be mechanically picked up at midnight on a Sunday!!! This is a matter of bad scheduling by the golf course and/or those working and associated with Los Angeles Golf Course. i The solution is easy. Make sure those at the top of the management chain implement some strict guidelines for their workers about this late night work flow. And schedule this golf ball collection earlier in the morning. And maybe these workers should be paid more than minimum wage so they feel some sort of responsibility towards the larger community or else hire a few more minimum wage workers so they don't have to work at midnight. Sincerely, Craig Weintraub On Aug 14, 2017, at 8:14 AM, Julie Peterson wrote: Mr. Weintraub, I'm sorry you're having so much trouble with Los Verdes. Unfortunately, as I've explained to you in the past, the City does not have jurisdiction over the golf course. It is under the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County. With that, I don't believe the proposed noise ordinance going before the City Council will apply to Los Verdes. In the past when you've emailed me I have contacted golf course personnel and talked to them about your concerns. It was always my understanding that they corrected the issues at the time. Scott Young is my contact at Los Verdes and I'll call him first thing this morning. Again, however, the City does not have the authority over the golf course and their operations. In the past Mr. Young has been apologetic and seemed to correct whatever the issue was. Hopefully he will do the same again this time. Julie Peterson Code Enforcement Officer 310-544-5299 From: Craig Weintraub [mailto:cisco333@aol.com] Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 12:06 AM To: Jerry Duhovic <Jerry.Duhovic@rpvca.gov>; Susan Brooks <SusanB@rpvca.gov>; Anthony Misetich <AnthonvM@rpvca.gov>; Brian Campbell <BrianC@rpvca.gov> Cc: Julie Peterson <JulieP@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Leza Mikhail <LezaM@rpvca.gov>; Craig Weintraub <cisco333@aol.com> Subject: Re: Sunday Aug 6 at 11:45 PM Dear All, It's 11:45 on Sunday and I have been awakened by a golf course worker driving around on the driving range collecting golf balls. Look, I'm not trying to cause trouble but I thought it was a rule that they shouldn't be working this late at night collecting balls because it makes quite a racket. I called Scott (??? don't know last name) who works in some operational capacity at the golf course. I called him home at night which didn't please him and he said he knew nothing about this activity and said he wasn't responsible for this personnel. He hardly believed me and said I should go down to the golf course and talk to the person myself. I didn't think this was a good idea because I think these decisions should be handled by management personal. However, I went down to the golf course to explain to the person making the noise that it was 11:45 PM and they weren't supposed to be doing this at this hour. The worker was rather angry and told me he had a job to do and that it was a minimum wage job and he knew who I was, the rich man at the top of the hill who complained. After listening to his tirade about the rich people I left without saying anything because I sensed some anger and hostility and in this day and age who knows what might happen. Who is the person I am supposed to talk to regarding these matters? I write these emails and no one really responds. They just direct the problem to someone else and no one every really gets back to me. If this operational noise at the Golf Course on late night noise is acceptable to the Rancho Palos Verdes council and meets their code, then I'm willing to accept that. But it would be nice to have someone respond (besides Jerry) to my complaint and get back to me. Listen, I don't begrudge the poor guy who has to make minimum wage picking up golf balls on a late Sunday night. I suspect this is a management problem at the Golf Course. Clearly this is a scheduling program. Clearly no guidelines have been given to workers about what times they may be able to do the tasks assigned to them. They just need to get their work done. Can someone please tell me to whom I am supposed to address these issues. Or better yet, can you forward my email to them and have them respond to me. I don't want to communicate any further with the Golf Course people because for them it's only about a job that they have to do and they're really not vested in trying to maintain good relations with the people living near the golf course. Thank you, Craig A Palos Verdes Resident living in the Apartments above the Golf Course On Aug 6, 2017, at 1:23 AM, Jerry Duhovic <Jerry.Duhovic cr,rpvca. ov> wrote: Mr. Weintraub, Sorry for the trouble you're experiencing. I have forwarded your issue directly to the City Manager. He is the appropriate individual to look into the situation. PS - Jim Knight is no longer on the City Council. Regards, Jerry Jerry V. Duhovic Mayor Pro Tem - City of Rancho Palos Verdes errs. duhovi egrpvca. gov City Hall: (310)544-5207 Cell: (310)502-8036 City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov The view(s), opinion(s) and content expressed/contained in this email do not necessarily reflect the view(s), opinion(s), official positions or policies of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes or any of its employees, agents, contractors, Commissions or Committees (the "City"). It should be interpreted solely as the view(s), opinion(s) and/or work product of the individual author and should not be relied upon as the official position, direction or decision of the City. From: Craig Weintraub <cisco333(cDaol.com> Sent: Sunday, August 6, 2017 1:17:56 AM To: CC; Jim Knight; Susan Brooks; Brian Campbell; Jerry Duhovic; Anthony Misetich Subject: Re: Sunday Aug 6 at 1:15 AM Hello, I have been awoken by 10 minutes of back up beeps from a semi -trailer in the Palos Verdes Golf Course. This was an issue that we have all discussed earlier and semi's are not supposed to idling their trucks nor making deliveries that wake up the neighborhood. I have called the police and filed a complaint. Can someone please get back to me about this situation? Sincerely, Craig Weintraub On Jul 26, 2015, at 5:56 AM, Craig Weintraub <cisco333 &aol.com> wrote: Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council, It is 5:15 on a Sunday morning and I was awoken by golf course noise. First, it's the car alarms going off briefly on a early arrival, maybe it's same golfer who I hear thwacking balls at 5:30, then the motor noise of the mowers. I've suggested before that in a brief survey I did that the Los Verdes Golf Course early morning tee times of 5 AM, were out of line with other golf courses in suburban areas, most of which open at sunrise (5:45 and many later). In the email I sent out I inquired whether some local official could do a more extensive survey to see what times the majority of golf courses open. This is particularly a problem on Saturdays, even more so on Sunday, because it's the one day I sleep in. Can the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council do a brief survey on other golf courses and see what the norm of opening golf times is. It won't take long. You'll find few golf courses that open at this time. Might we not request that the Golf Course offer sunrise or after tee times on Saturdays and Sundays? Doesn't that make some sense? I don't go to Church but still consider Sunday my day of rest. I know we live in a world of 24/7 but cannot some common sense prevail? The acoustics of this hill amplifies the sound coming directly up from the course. Can you please discuss the possibility of doing this brief survey about tee times? Can we at least consider the possibility of asking the Golf Course to delay their summer starting tee times on Saturday and Sunday to sunrise like most everyone else. What about even Sunday? Would that be asking too much? I am going on Vacation next week. Maybe I'll try to talk to a few neighbors, maybe I'll try to make a city council meeting. But it would be nice if the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council could appraise the tee times of other LA city governments and consider asking the Los Verdes Golf course to delay their summer tee times to a more sane time such as sunrise, at least on weekends, please, at least on Sundays. Sincerely, Craig Weintraub From: Leza Mikhail Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 9:37 AM To: CityClerk Subject: FW: Sunday Aug 6 at 11:45 PM Hello, Please include in late correspondence. Leza From: Craig Weintraub [mailto:cisco333@aol.com] Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 12:06 AM To: Jerry Duhovic <Jerry.Duhovic@rpvca.gov>; Susan Brooks <SusanB@rpvca.gov>; Anthony Misetich <AnthonyM@rpvca.gov>; Brian Campbell <BrianC@rpvca.gov> Cc: Julie Peterson <JulieP@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Leza Mikhail <LezaM@rpvca.gov>; Craig Weintraub <cisco333@aol.com> Subject: Re: Sunday Aug 6 at 11:45 PM Dear All, It's 11:45 on Sunday and I have been awakened by a golf course worker driving around on the driving range collecting golf balls. Look, I'm not trying to cause trouble but I thought it was a rule that they shouldn't be working this late at night collecting balls because it makes quite a racket. I called Scott (??? don't know last name) who works in some operational capacity at the golf course. I called him home at night which didn't please him and he said he knew nothing about this activity and said he wasn't responsible for this personnel. He hardly believed me and said I should go down to the golf course and talk to the person myself. I didn't think this was a good idea because I think these decisions should be handled by management personal. However, I went down to the golf course to explain to the person making the noise that it was 11:45 PM and they weren't supposed to be doing this at this hour. The worker was rather angry and told me he had a job to do and that it was a minimum wage job and he knew who I was, the rich man at the top of the hill who complained. After listening to his tirade about the rich people I left without saying anything because I sensed some anger and hostility and in this day and age who knows what might happen. Who is the person I am supposed to talk to regarding these matters? I write these emails and no one really responds. They just direct the problem to someone else and no one every really gets back to me. If this operational noise at the Golf Course on late night noise is acceptable to the Rancho Palos Verdes council and meets their code, then I'm willing to accept that. But it would be nice to have someone respond (besides Jerry) to my complaint and get back to me. Listen, I don't begrudge the poor guy who has to make minimum wage picking up golf balls on a late Sunday night. I suspect this is a management problem at the Golf Course. Clearly this is a scheduling program. Clearly no i guidelines have been given to workers about what times they may be able to do the tasks assigned to them. They just need to get their work done. Can someone please tell me to whom I am supposed to address these issues. Or better yet, can you forward my email to them and have them respond to me. I don't want to communicate any further with the Golf Course people because for them it's only about a job that they have to do and they're really not vested in trying to maintain good relations with the people living near the golf course. Thank you, Craig A Palos Verdes Resident living in the Apartments above the Golf Course On Aug 6, 2017, at 1:23 AM, Jerry Duhovic <Jerry.DuhovicArpvca.gov> wrote: Mr. Weintraub, Sorry for the trouble you're experiencing. I have forwarded your issue directly to the City Manager. He is the appropriate individual to look into the situation. PS - Jim Knight is no longer on the City Council . Regards, Jerry Jerry V. Duhovic Mayor Pro Tem - City of Rancho Palos Verdes i erry.duhovicnrpvca. gov City Hall: (310)544-5207 Cell:(310)502-8036 City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.Epvca.gov The view(s), opinion(s) and content expressed/contained in this email do not necessarily reflect the view(s), opinion(s), official positions or policies of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes or any of its employees, agents, contractors, Commissions or Committees (the "City"). It should be interpreted solely as the view(s), opinion(s) and/or work product of the individual author and should not be relied upon as the official position, direction or decision of the City. From: Craig Weintraub <cisco333@aol.com> Sent: Sunday, August 6, 2017 1:17:56 AM To: CC; Jim Knight; Susan Brooks; Brian Campbell; Jerry Duhovic; Anthony Misetich Subject: Re: Sunday Aug 6 at 1:15 AM Hello, I have been awoken by 10 minutes of back up beeps from a semi -trailer in the Palos Verdes Golf Course. This was an issue that we have all discussed earlier and semi's are not supposed to idling their trucks nor making deliveries that wake up the neighborhood. I have called the police and filed a complaint. Can someone please get back to me about this situation? Sincerely, Craig Weintraub On Jul 26, 2015, at 5:56 AM, Craig Weintraub <cisco333naol.com> wrote: Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council, It is 5:15 on a Sunday morning and I was awoken by golf course noise. First, it's the car alarms going off briefly on a early arrival, maybe it's same golfer who I hear thwacking balls at 5:30, then the motor noise of the mowers. I've suggested before that in a brief survey I did that the Los Verdes Golf Course early morning tee times of 5 AM, were out of line with other golf courses in suburban areas, most of which open at sunrise (5:45 and many later). In the email I sent out I inquired whether some local official could do a more extensive survey to see what times the majority of golf courses open. This is particularly a problem on Saturdays, even more so on Sunday, because it's the one day I sleep in. Can the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council do a brief survey on other golf courses and see what the norm of opening golf times is. It won't take long. You'll find few golf courses that open at this time. Might we not request that the Golf Course offer sunrise or after tee times on Saturdays and Sundays? Doesn't that make some sense? I don't go to Church but still consider Sunday my day of rest. I know we live in a world of 24/7 but cannot some common sense prevail? The acoustics of this hill amplifies the sound coming directly up from the course. Can you please discuss the possibility of doing this brief survey about tee times? Can we at least consider the possibility of asking the Golf Course to delay their summer starting tee times on Saturday and Sunday to sunrise like most everyone else. What about even Sunday? Would that be asking too much? I am going on Vacation next week. Maybe I'll try to talk to a few neighbors, maybe I'll try to make a city council meeting. But it would be nice if the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council could appraise the tee times of other LA city governments and consider asking the Los Verdes Golf course to delay their summer tee times to a more sane time such as sunrise, at least on weekends, please, at least on Sundays. Sincerely, Craig Weintraub From: Leza Mikhail Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 9:43 AM To: CityClerk Subject: FW: Draft of Noise Ordinance Hello, Please include in Late Correspondence to the City Council. Leza From: Shu Yen[mailto:springvalley567@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 9:05 AM To: Leza Mikhail <LezaM@rpvca.gov> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Subject: Draft of Noise Ordinance Dear Ms. Mikhail, I have reviewed the latest draft of Noise Ordinance posted on 8/9/2017 in City of Rancho Palos Verdes' website and noticed that it does not regulate the noise from sports activities. The following information is intended as an input for the City to consider based on my personal experience. I have found online that many disputes triggered by basketball playing have ended up in the court, for example, in Schild v. Rubin case [1991] (http://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/3d/232/755.html). The court ruled, among other things, a limitation of basketball playing time is required. In West Linn City, Oregon, years of neighborhood conflict over children playing basketball have led the City Council to propose an amendment to the Community Development Code to regulate the "outdoor recreational facilities". (For news release, please see 1-ttp. /%w� w.ore �oril �-e.coi /'sN-.e_s - 1 rlx l r c c / ()„] >Ifi� %y ............... o f nee-yh dor c orr ` rc,twwove. �1 all and for the proposed amenment, please see l ttl - <stiit rarecus.cf ,n' flet4iVi r er. h w id. --2- cfi a icl :384&neW id -=14944). The city proposed that outdoor recreational facilities shall be set back from property lines a minimum of 20 feet. The municipal codes of the City of Palos Verdes Estates specify that sports courts must be kept a minimum distance of 50 feet from any part of an adjacent residential building (see lztt) ",��%w.code rr}.�lrshrn« �oj. ........ ..._.__.._.._...._..........._..._.-...__.._......._..........�.._....._.._............_._.........__...._ ....___...___ ...._..__.... ) Clearly, noise nuisance from sports activities should be regulated. Two months ago, my neighbor in the back installed a basketball court. The basketball hoop is permanently anchored on the ground about 10 feet away from the common fence next to which our 3 bedrooms and living room are facing. Due to the noise from the neighbor's basketball playing, a senior member of my family who has a physical need to take a nap after lunch, not only was unable to fall asleep but also developed headaches. In addition, once when the neighbor had a party, both adults and children continuously played basketball for almost 7 hours. The pounding of the ball was as intrusive to our ears as a dog's endless barking. Although we tried to close all our double layer doors and windows in this hot weather, the annoying noise still bothered us a lot. I have talked to my neighbor to no avail. In short, the annoying noise has adversely impacted our daily life! 7,1 I would like to humbly suggest that the regulation for noise from sports activities be included in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes' Noise Ordinance so that the residents will have clear rules to abide by and, hopefully, future neighborhood conflict can be reduced. Respectfully, Shu Yen From: Rob K <rfkautz@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 2:59 PM To: CC Cc: Emily Colborn Subject: City Council Meeting Agenda for August 15, 2017 -- Resident Input Regarding Draft Noise Control Ordinance Attachments: RPV Noise Ord Input.pdf; ATT00001.txt Dear City Council and City Clerk, I am submitting the attached letter regarding the Draft Noise Control Ordinance for consideration at tomorrow night's meeting, and I plan to also attend the meeting in person to summarize my input. The first page of the attached letter summarizes the key noise limits for Rancho Palos Verdes as proposed in comparison to LA County, Gardena, and Costa Mesa. This data and data regarding human noise perception should be a key consideration for City Council. The majority of the pages provide excerpts from their codes and online links to the official websites. The draft Noise Limits did not come to my attention until this weekend, and I apologize for not providing this input earlier. Best regards, Rob Kautz 310-418-8016 32072 Pacifica Drive q - ROBERT KAUTZ 32072 Pacifica Drive City Council Rancho Palos Verdes Re: City Council Meeting Agenda for August 15, 2017 -- Resident Input Regarding Draft Noise Control Ordinance Overview Thank you for taking on the challenge of updating noise regulation in RPV. This letter provides suggestions and data to support the need for further consideration of 3 points: A. The RPV draft residential exterior noise limits are substantially HIGHER than nearby urban communities whereas the semi -rural atmosphere in RPV seems to call for lower noise limits. B. Moreover, nearby communities have separate, even lower interior noise limits (measured with windows open) and provide adjustments upward for shorter term legitimate noise. The use in the RPV draft of a single 30 minute period and of one standard for only exterior noise limits is unusual, and this may be a barrier to agreement on the lower noise limits set by other nearby communities. C. Enforcement seems to be very limited by the realities of staffing and should be updated with current technology to provide a more enforceable ordinance. A. Draft residential noise limits are substantially HIGHER than nearby communities. The RPV Draft Exterior Noise Limits (TABLE A - 9.02.040) for single and multi -family residences are 2-3 times louder than the limits in three nearby municipal codes (chosen because their codes are easily accessible online). City Council should adopt noise limits lower than the proposed draft based on a principle of being lower than surrounding, more urban community codes and not exceeding the noise levels set by the broader LA County code. Note that 60 decibels (db) is perceived as about 2 times as loud as 50 db, and 65 db is perceived as about 3 times as loud as 50 db. While the differences below may be `only" 10-30% in decibels, they are quite large in terms of how sound is perceived. Exterior Noise Draft RPV LA Gardena* Costa Suggested Limits Ordinance* County* Mesa* RPV Single Family — day 60 50 55 55 50 Single Family — eve 45 45 50 50 45 Multi-Fam. — day 65 50 55 55 50 Multi-Fam. — eve 55 45 50 50 45 See below, Supporting Noise Ordinance Tables, for excerpts and online links for other municipal codes. * RPV draft standards are for average decibels over 30 minute periods. LA County and Costa Mesa limits shown are for average decibels over 30 minute periods and Gardena is for 15 minute periods. The other codes also provide higher limits for "mixed-use" residential but are the same for "multi -family". During my research, I also noted that in permit applications to RPV, developers often cited noise standards promulgated by the Railroad Commission or governmental health organizations which will cite 75 decibels as when problems occur for most people. These noise standards are designed to protect hearing and avoid mental health issues related to continuous sound, and using them is very misleading when applied in a pastoral setting such as RPV. Assuredly, the City Council is concerned about the enjoyment of the atmosphere that residents chose when moving here, not noise levels as they relate to concerns about human health. A common misnomer regarding noise levels is the quote that "60 decibels is a normal human conversation" which makes 60 decibels seem like a reasonable noise limit; however, reference.com provides this explanation in layman's terms of the significance of the difference between 50 and 60 decibels: "Quiet conversation in a home is approximately 50 decibels. A sound intensity of 60 decibels is comparable to a conversation that takes place in public, such as at a restaurant." A group having lunch on an outside deck or someone talking on their cellphone outside their home should be using a hushed tone similar to sitting inside one's home, not full voices which would be completely distracting and disrespectful in a community like RPV, especially as an average over a 30 minute period. Conclusion: People move to RPV for the bucolic, pastoral atmosphere, and noise limits will only be helpful if they are sophisticated enough to meaningfully protect this atmosphere. Based on surrounding county and community standards in more urban, nearby communities, RPV should implement lower noise limits than proposed in the draft as suggested in the table above. B. Moreover, nearby communities have separate, even lower interior noise limits (measured with windows open) and also provide adjustments upward for short term legitimate noise. The use in the RPV draft of a single 30 minute period and of one standard for exterior noise s unusual, and this may be a barrier to agreement in RPV on the lower noise limits that have been set by the other nearby communities. Interior noise standards should be added to reflect issues that may not be evident at the property line such as interior resonance or highly penetrating types of noise. The table below is updated to include Exterior and Interior noise limits: Exterior/Interior Draft RPV LA Gardena* Costa Suggested Noise Limits Ordinance* County* Mesa* RPV Single Family - day 60/na 50/45 55/45 55/55 50/45 Single Family — eve 45/na 45/40 50/40 50/45 45/40 Multi-Fam. — day 65/na 50/45 55/45 55/55 50/45 Multi-Fam. - eve 55/na 45/40 50/40 50/45 45/40 * Limits are presented in the form Exterior/Interior. The RPV draft circulated recently does not include any mention of separate interior noise standards. 2 With these lower noise limits over 30 minute periods, special situations in residential areas may call for allowing louder noise for limited periods of time shorter than 30 minutes. For example, LA County supplements their Interior Noise Limits with three time period "Standards" to account for and allow for legitimate shorter term noise: Standard No. 1 - The applicable interior noise level [applies] for a cumulative period of more than five minutes in any hour; or Standard No. 2 - The applicable interior noise level plus 5dB for a cumulative period of more than one minute in any hour; or Standard No. 3 - The applicable interior noise level plus 10dB or the maximum measured ambient noise level for any period of time [shorter than one minute]. Conclusion: Residential noise standards should not be based on health standards and should not be inflated to conform with the realities of special activities, such as residential construction, or very short periods of louder, legitimate noise. As a means to move forward, perhaps City Council can adopt lower exterior and interior noise limits today based on a principle of being lower than surrounding, more urban communities and not exceeding the noise levels set by the broader reaching LA County. As needs arise, adjustments to the noise limit standards could be adopted. C. Enforcement should be updated to recognize the use of common technology. Since enforcement personnel will not be working on the weekend or in the evening, the entire ordinance somewhat begs the question, what is the realistic method suggested for enforcement? The RPV ordinance should specify the type of decibel meter that is a recognized standard, and citizens should be permitted and advised to create a video of the decibel readings over an appropriate period of time to create a preliminary record for Enforcement Officers to consider during business hours. Such a record of the noise level would be more or less useful depending on how compelling the case is, but certainly would provide a means for enforceability in more egregious cases. If the video record is in dispute, this could be supplemented by Enforcement Officers setting up the appropriate equipment, and this will be much more practical if their time allocation is based on a citizen having collected a compelling video record on their own first. Sincerely, Robert Kautz 32072 Pacifica Drive Attachment — Supporting Noise Ordinance Data Tables SUPPORTING NOISE ORDINANCE DATA TABLES Los Angeles County Code -- Chapter 12.08 - NOISE CONTROL https://library.municode.com/ca/los_angeles_county/codes/code_of ordinances?nodeld =TIT12ENPR CH12.08NOCO Noise Zone Designated Time Exterior Noise Level (dB) Noise Zone Interval Land Use (Receptor property)' I Noise- Anytime 45 sensitive area II i Residential M00 pm 45 properties to '7:00 am (nighttime) 7:00 Earn to 1 50 10:00 pm (daytime) 111 ( Commercial 10:00 pm 55 properties to 7:00 am Unless otherwise herein provided, no person shall operate or cause to be operated, any source of sound at any location within the unincorporated county, or allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise controlled by such person which causes the noise level, when measured on any other property either incorporated or unincorporated, to exceed any of the following exterior noise standards: Standard No. 1 shall be the exterior noise level which may not be exceeded for a cumulative period of more than 30 minutes in any hour. Standard No. 1 shall be the applicable noise level from subsection A of this section; or, if the ambient L50 exceeds the foregoing level, then the ambient L50 becomes the exterior noise level for Standard No. 1. Standard No. 2 shall be the exterior noise level which may not be exceeded for a cumulative period of more than 15 minutes in any hour. Standard No. 2 shall be the applicable noise level from subsection A of this section plus 5dB; or, if the ambient L25 exceeds the foregoing level, then the ambient L25 becomes the exterior noise level for Standard No. 2. Standard No. 3 shall be the exterior noise level which may not be exceeded for a cumulative period of more than five minutes in any hour. Standard No. 3 shall be the applicable noise level from subsection A of this section plus 10dB; or, if the ambient 1-8.3 exceeds the foregoing level, then the ambient 1-8.3 becomes exterior noise level for Standard No. 3. 4 Standard No. 4 shall be the exterior noise level which may not be exceeded for a cumulative period of more than one minute in any hour. Standard No. 4 shall be the applicable noise level from subsection A of this section plus 15dB; or, if the ambient 1-1.7 exceeds the foregoing level, then the ambient 1-1.7 becomes the exterior noise level for Standard No. 4. Standard No. 5 shall be the exterior noise level which may not be exceeded for any period of time. Standard No. 5 shall be the applicable noise level from subsection A of this section plus 20dB; or, if the ambient LO exceeds the foregoing level then the ambient LO becomes the exterior noise level for Standard No. 5. A. No person shall operate or cause to be operated within a dwelling unit, any source of sound, or allow the creation of any noise, which causes the noise level when measured inside a neighboring receiving dwelling unit to exceed the following standards: Standard No. 1 The applicable interior noise level for cumulative period of more than five minutes in any hour; or Standard No. 2 The applicable interior noise level plus 5dB for a cumulative period of more than one minute in any hour; or Standard No. 3 The applicable interior noise level plus 1OdB or the maximum measured ambient noise level for any period of time. B. The following interior noise levels for multifamily residential dwellings shall apply, unless otherwise specifically indicated, within all such dwellings with windows in their normal seasonal configuration. Noise Zone Designated Land Use Time Interval Allowable Interior Noise Level (dB) All Multifamily 10 pm -7 am 40 Residential 7 am -10 pm 45 5 Gardena Municipal Code _ I J/www._co e.._ubI. shin, ........................................................CAarden/l/GardenaO8/C_a_rdenaO6.ht1.3 .0 ... ......... ............................................................. 40 8.86.040 Exterior noise standards. ="WASE _......., _... ............ . _...... ., .. ...... ... . ..... _.. A. The following exterior noise standards, unless otherwise specifically indicated, shall apply to all property within the City. The Land Use category refers to the affected receiver property: Type of Land Use Allowable Exterior Noise Level 15 -Minute Average Noise Level (Leq) Maximum Noise Level (Lmax) 7 a.m. to 10 p.m, 10 p.m, to 7 am 7 a.m. to 10 p,m. 10 p.m, to 7 am Residential 55 dB(A) 50 dB(A) 75 dB(A) 70 dB(A) Residential portions of mixed-use 60 dB(A) 50 dB(A) 80 dB(A) 70 dB(A) Commercial 65 dB(A) 60 dB(A) 85 dB(A) 80 dB(A) Industrial or manufacturing 70 dB(A) 70 dB(A) 90 dB(A) 90 dB(A) In the event the alleged offensive noise contains a pure tone such as a whine, screech, or hum, or contains repetitive, Impulsive or impact noise such as hammering or riveting, or contains music or speech conveying informational content, each of the above noise standards shall be reduced by 5 dB. 8.36.050 Interior noise standards. swnE ._ ... . A. The following interior noise standards, unless otherwise specifically indicated, shall apply to all residential dwellings with windows in their normal seasonal configuration, where such dwelling is the receiver of intrusive noise: Type of Land Use Allowable Interior Noise Level 15 -Minute Average Noise Level (Leq) Maximum Noise Level (Lmax) 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 10 p.m. to 7 am 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 10 p.m. to 7 am Residential 45 dB(A) 40 dB(A) 65 dB(A) 60 dB(A) Residential portions of mixed-use 45 dB(A) 40 dB(A) 70 dB(A) 60 dB(A) In the event the alleged offensive noise contains a pure tone such as a whine, screech, or hum, or contains repetitive, impulsive or impact noise such as hammering or riveting, or contains music or speech conveying informational content, each of the above noise standards shall be reduced by 5 dB. N Costa Mesa Zoning Code taps l/www_.co.stam s_ c .., ov/modu,1, s/showdo:cu_r e_n_fi_ s.px,?docu_mentid=204 Sec. 13-281. INTERIOR NOISE STANDARDS (a) The following interior noise standards, unless otherwise specifically indicated, shall apply to all residential property within the City: RESIDENTIAL INTERIOR NOISE STANDARDS Noise Level Time Period 55 dB(A) 7:00 a.m.-11:00 p.m, 45 dB(A) 11:00 p.m.- TOD a.m. In the event the alleged offensive noise consists entirely of impact noise, simple tone noise, speech, music, or any combination thereof, each of the above noise levels shall be reduced by 5 dB(A), (b) It shall be unlawful for any person at any location within the City to create any noise, or to allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied, or otherwise controlled by such person, when the foregoing causes the noise level when measured within any other dwelling unit on any residential property, either within or outside the City, to exceed: (1) The interior noise standard for a cumulative period of more than 5 minutes in any hour; (2) The interior noise standard plus 5 dB(A) for a cumulative period of more than one minute in any hour; or. (3) The interior noise standard plus 10 dB(A) for any period of time. Sec. 13-280. EXTERIOR NOISE STANDARDS (a) The following noise standards, unless otherwise specifically indicated, shall apply to all residential property within the City: RESIDENTIAL EXTERIOR NOISE STANDARDS Noise Level Time Period 55 dB(A) 7:00 a.m.-11:00 p.m. 50 dB(A) 11:00 p.m.- 7:00 a.m. In the event the alleged offensive noise consists entirely of impact noise, simple tone noise, speech, music, or any combination thereof, each of the above noise levels shall be reduced by 5 dB(A). (b) It shall be unlawful for any person at any location within the City to create any noise, or to allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied, or otherwise controlled by such person, when the foregoing causes the noise level, when measured on any other residential property, either within or outside the City, to exceed: (1) The noise standard for a cumulative period of more than 30 minutes in any hour; (2) The noise standard plus 5 dB(A) for a cumulative period of more than 15 minutes in any hour; (3) The noise standard plus 10 dB(A) for a cumulative period of more than 5 minutes in any hour; (4) The noise standard plus 15 dB(A) for a cumulative period of more than one minute in any hour; or (5) The noise standard plus 20 dB(A) for any period of time. 183 Chapter XIII Noise Control Revised 02110 Ordinance 10-3 7 From: Bruce L. Ross <bruce.ross@blross.com> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 3:14 PM To: CC Cc: Emily Colborn Subject: FW: City Council Meeting Agenda for August 15, 2017 -- Resident Input Regarding Draft Noise Control Ordinance Attachments: RPV Noise Ord Input.pdf Dear Sir or Madam, I understand that Robert Kautz has proposed information to be taken into consideration regarding a noise ordinance in Rancho Palos Verdes. I am attaching his letter as a reference. As a resident of Rancho Palos Verdes since 1985, 1 support the Council's efforts to bring a noise ordinance into reality. I do, however, ask that you take into account the information supplied by Mr. Kautz with regard to the noise limitations. I think the points he raises are important to bringing the peace and quiet that RPV residents want and deserve. Thank you Bruce L. Ross 32026 Sea Ridge Circle Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Cell: 310-738-8881 From: Randy Ross <randy.ross@blross.com> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 3:29 PM To: CC Cc: Emily Colborn; Rob Kautz (RFKautz@gmail.com) Subject: Draft Noise Ordinance - City Council Meeting - August 15, 2017 Attachments: Kautz City Council RPV Noise Ord Input -August 15, 2017.pdf Dear City Council and City Clerk, It has come to my attention that you will be considering a draft ordinance to raise the noise level, both interior and exterior, permissible in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. This email is to inform you that I support the opinion of Mr. Robert Kautz, attached hereto. He will be presenting this opinion at tomorrow's Council Meeting. I urge you to listen to Mr. Kautz and give his opinions due consideration. Thank you Randy Ellen Ross Randy Ellen Ross Attorney at Law Bruce L. Ross & Com_pany 609 Deep Valley Drive, Suite 390 Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274-3629 Office Voice: 310-544-8881 Office Fax: 310-544-8841 Cell: 310-850-2239 q i From: Robert Ford <rforducla@mac.com> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 4:04 PM To: CC; Emily Colborn Cc: Rob K Subject: City Council Meeting Agenda for August 15, 2017 -- Resident Input Regarding Draft Noise Control Ordinance Attachments: RPV Noise Ord Input.pdf; ATT00001.txt I support this position. 6429 Parklynn Drive RPV CA 90275 From: Randy Harwood <randykharwood@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 4:10 PM To: CC; Emily Colborn Cc: Rob Kautz Subject: Fwd: City Council Meeting Agenda for August 15, 2017 -- Resident Input Regarding Draft Noise Control Ordinance Attachments: RPV Noise Ord Input.pdf Dear City Council and City Clerk, I agree with and support this letter from Mr. Kautz. Randy Harwood From: Rob K <rfkautz .gmail.com> Subject: City Council Meeting Agenda for August 15, 2017 -- Resident Input Regarding Draft Noise Control Ordinance Date: August 14, 2017 at 2:58:43 PM PDT To: cc _rpvca.gov Cc: ecolborn(a7.rpvca.gov Dear City Council and City Clerk, I am submitting the attached letter regarding the Draft Noise Control Ordinance for consideration at tomorrow night's meeting, and I plan to also attend the meeting in person to summarize my input. The first page of the attached letter summarizes the key noise limits for Rancho Palos Verdes as proposed in comparison to LA County, Gardena, and Costa Mesa. This data and data regarding human noise perception should be a key consideration for City Council. The majority of the pages provide excerpts from their codes and online links to the official websites. The draft Noise Limits did not come to my attention until this weekend, and I apologize for not providing this input earlier. Best regards, Rob Kautz 310-418-8016 32072 Pacifica Drive August 14, 2017 VIA U.S. MAIL Honorable Members of the City Council City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Re: Proposed Draft Noise Ordinance Dear Honorable Councilmembers: Green Hills Memorial Park (Green Hills) provides this letter to express concerns related to the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Draft Noise Ordinance, which would amend Title 9 and other provisions of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code. To address our concerns, we recommend certain modifications to the Noise Ordinance, as explained further below. The proposed Noise Ordinance limits noise based on defined "daytime" and nighttime" hours where daytime hours are defined as the hours from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on weekends. The Noise Ordinance proposes 45 dBA for nighttime hours for the "cemetery zone," which would only include Green Hills. Green Hills proposes that the Noise Ordinance be amended to provide that "daytime" hours begin at 7:00 a.m. There are several reasons for this suggestion. Numerous provisions of Green Hills Master Plan Conditional Use Permit ("CUP") allow a start time of 7:00 a.m. for certain common, day-to-day operations associated with Green Hills' activities. Below are several provisions from the Green Hills' Conditions of Approval that went into effect on January 31, 2017 per Resolution No. 2017-03. • Section 9(i): Historic Church in Area 6. The Chapel may be open to the public from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday through Sunday. Section 20 (b): Hours of Facilities. Unless otherwise specified in these conditions, hours of operation are as follows .. . Park Hours: 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. — November through March 7 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. —April through October Mausoleum Hours: 7 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. — November through March 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. — April through October Integrity, Commitment, Care, Protection and Respect 27501 S. Western Avenue • Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 • Phone: (310) 831-0311 • FAX: (310) 521-1235 www.GreenHiUsMemorial.com F �\j H i i, i_; Section 20 (c): Construction Working Hours. Construction and grading activities, including but not limited to equipment warm up, geologic investigations, interments excavation for placement of vaults and installation of removal of large landscape materials or landscaping maintenance shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on weekdays only. Section 20 (d): Non -Construction and Burial Related Activity. Excavation for removal and replacement of vault tops and earth for preparation of interment sites, individual placement of vaults for funeral services and operation of landscape maintenance equipment shall be allowed in any area of the park between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Saturday, Sunday, and federally observed holidays. • Section 22: Mitigation Monitoring o N-1: Construction activity of the mausoleum buildings and grading operations shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. o N-2: During demolition, construction and/or grading operations, trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining street rights-of-way before 7:00 a.m. Monday through Friday. Based on the foregoing, 7:00 a.m. should continue to constitute "daytime" hours for Green Hills. Anything later would significantly hinder Green Hills' ability to open and operate the cemetery beginning at 7:00 a.m., consistent with the terms of the CUP and consistent with what the families Green Hills serves currently consider its "morning hours." Based on a noise study that Green Hills had conducted in 2014, if Green Hills continues to accommodate families and guests by opening at 7:00 a.m., it would likely be in immediate violation of the Noise Ordinance, as such activities no doubt would exceed the 45 dBA noise level. Results from Green Hills' noise study indicate that even a regular conversation exceeds a 45 dBA. According to the United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), typical conversations register between 50 and 60 dBA, at a few feet. Moreover, the Council has already ensured that Green Hills does not conduct activities that would generate excessive noise during the morning hours. Activities that would create any sort of loud noise, particularly with regard to those areas of the park that are located in close proximity to residential areas, are not permitted to begin until much later in the day. Below are several key provisions, which regulate these activities: • Section 11(e)(1): o Pre and Post Service. Pre -service interment preparation and post -service plot backfilling of the rooftop earth interments on the Pacific Terrance/Memorial Integrity, Commitment, Care, Protection and Respect 27501 S. Western Avenue • Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 • Phone: (310) 831-0311 • FAX: (310) 521-1235 www.GrecnHillsMemorial.com Terrace Mausoleum building shall only be allowed between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Monday through Sunday. o Hours. Burials and all associated services on the roof top earth interments of the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building shall only be allowed between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Sunday. o Sales. Sales personnel shall be allowed to show potential roof -top earth interment plots on the Pacific Terrance/Memorial Terrance Mausoleum building in Area 11, only between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Monday through Sunday. o Haul Vehicle. The use of a mini -haul vehicle shall be limited to pre -service interment preparation and post -service plot backfilling of the rooftop earth interments during the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Monday through Sunday. o Sound. The use of amplified sound is prohibited on the rooftop of the Pacific Terrance/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building. This prohibition shall not apply to the amplified sound for the playing of "Taps" as part of funeral services for military personnel and for police, fire and other first responders. • Section 12(h): Hours. The Administration Building public hours are limited to 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday through Sunday. • Section 20(d): Construction in Proximity to Residential. Notwithstanding the foregoing, within 120 feet of any property line abutting a Residential Zoning District, no construction or grading, including grading operations to prepare sites for earth interments shall occur before 9:00 a.m. or after 3:30 p.m. All equipment shall be equipped with a muffler to reduce on-site grading and construction noise levels. We have conducted a brief review of the codes of several neighboring municipalities and discovered that all of the cities in this region of Southern California consider "daytime" hours to begin at 7:00 a.m. For example: Torrance Municipal Code, Chapter 6 Noise Regulation. "Day means the time period from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m." (Section 46.1.2(p)). "Night means the time period from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m." (Section 46.1.2(q)). Lomita Municipal Code, Chapter 4 Noise Regulations and Neighborhood Sound and Yard Maintenance Controls. "Day shall mean the time period from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m." (Section 4-4.02(c)). "Night shall mean the time period from 9:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m." (Section 4-4.02(i)). Integrity, Conitnitment, Care, Protection and Respect 27501 S. Western Avenue • Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 • Phone: (310) 831-0311 • FAX: (310) 521-1235 www.GreenHiRsMemorial.com HTS ., NJ . • City of Rolling Hills Municipal Code, Chapter 15.36 Hours of Construction. "There shall be no work of improvement or the operation of mechanical equipment used in connection with the work of improvement within the territorial limits of the City except on Monday through Saturday of each week, commencing at the hour of seven [7] a.m. and ending at the hour of six [6] p.m. on each day." • City of Redondo Beach Municipal Code, Section 4-24.301 Maximum Permissible Sound Levels by Land Use Categories. "The Noise standards for the various categories of land use districts identified shall be the higher of either the presumed or actual measured ambient and shall apply to all such property within a designated category as follows: Realviug Land Lie DM*i C'amgorr Time Period P ---d .{!!tbi,u, L-1 WBA) Pu!. 3Se uu: Deno-i!y i n. •a',...rm. , FrsLiza6et P.i. PJ. P-D.P„ P -L'.➢ 0� zdzr �.,� .2.LM1, t>'s:C: p.w. Hrvr D<rsit;, 10 P!0 1=al. tc -,:+::°v a.al. .. .,e d.nl R -5,P -5.P -D -K .0 .D 4z::L++;, C -s ..L*":;a,, 10?I-33pe;. S3 Gran:. ,.iaj NSC. .0>.l^•p.!a. r.. CSC. GC, P -D -C 7'X, Lt. `.:uiai P -D 'sa;hvsumi P-`: t�:^L j.r,... '.,.� ,..v.. 'f• The proposed Noise Ordinance restricts Green Hills to a noise level of 45 dBA before 8:00 a.m. as measured at the property line or district boundary. Such a restriction may be literally impossible to meet. In July of 2014, an environmental consulting firm conducted a noise study of the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum and prepared a report summarizing its findings. According to the report, the consultant first performed a control reading at 12:00 p.m. from the rooftop of the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum at Green Hills, to determine baseline or ambient (without equipment) noise levels. Integrity, Coinrnitment, Care, Protection and Respect 27501 S. Western Avenue • Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 • Phone: (310) 831-0311 • FAX: (310) 521-1235 www.GreenHiUsMemorial.com 6 y W The control reading indicated that the baseline or ambient noise — that is, the noise emanating from the surrounding area with no construction or landscaping work being performed, no burial services occurring and no machines in operation — was 52.2 dBA. Ambient noise within the area of the rooftop of the Mausoleum was comprised of birds chirping, occasional over flights by small aircraft and traffic noise emanating from Western Avenue. Granted, this reading was taken at noon and not at 7:00 a.m. or 9:00 p.m. Nevertheless, before the City considers imposing a threshold of 45 dBA, we suggest it would be important to determine the level of the existing ambient noise during so-called "nighttime" hours. Similar activities occur at 7:00 a.m. as occurred when the reading was taken at noon: birds chip, flights occasionally fly overhead, and there is traffic on Western Avenue. If the ambient readings exceed 45 dBA as occurred during the prior noise test, then the City has imposed a standard that is impossible to meet. In general, any noise in excess of "library noise" would exceed 45 dBA. Many natural occurring sounds — including birds chirping and rainfall falling — are estimated to exceed 45 dBA. To further put this noise level in context, some of the following common activities that occur within normal cemetery operations may result in a violation of this threshold if the noise were to occur during what are defined as "nighttime" hours: a vehicle driving through the cemetery, a conversation between two people above a whisper, a car door shutting, an air circulation fan running, pond equipment operating, and many others. If these types of activities were prohibited before 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. during the weekdays and weekends, respectively, Green Hills and the numerous families, residents and visitors who count on Green Hills' many services would be severely impacted. For all practical purposes, guests would be precluded from visiting loved ones, or going to the chapel, or meeting with staff to make arrangements before those hours because even the most innocuous activities would trip the noise threshold. Thus, Green Hills and it families would suffer negatively. A cemetery operation is a type of commercial operation. As an effort to be courteous to its' neighbors, Green Hills has employed a series of Rules of Conduct that are enforced thanks to a robust team of patrols; their effectiveness can be seen from the decrease in complaints since the new management team has taken over. For that reason, it seems unjust to subject our business to a limitation that is so much stricter than that imposed on other businesses within the City. Accordingly, Green Hills asks that the "cemetery" zone's limit be consistent with other "commercial" zones: 70 dBA during "daytime" hours and 60 dBA during "nighttime" hours. Green Hills agrees with Council's recommendation that hours and not decibel levels should regulate landscaping and construction activities, particularly given that landscaping and construction activities typically exceed the 65 dBA limitation. Even the operation of one lawn mower, for example, would exceed that level. Because construction and landscaping activities typically last for short, intermittent intervals, it is more practical to place "daytime" hour restrictions on such activity rather than impose a strict dBA limit. Green Hills recommends that the Council restrict landscaping and construction activities between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and between 7:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekends, but suggests that the City not Integrity, Commitment, Care, Protection and Respect 27501 S. Western Avenue • Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 • Phone: (310) 831-0311 • FAX: (310) 521-1235 www.GreenHiRsMcmorial.com apply "daytime" dBA levels to these activities. Furthermore, as set forth above as part of the Green Hills Conditions of Approval, the City could maintain its restriction on Green Hills' construction related activity which is within 120 feet of any property line abutting a Residential Zoning District and limit such construction or grading to occur between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. Monday through Sunday. Alternatively, with respect to Green Hills, the City could restrict landscaping and construction activities in accordance with its Conditions of Approval. For example, in Manhattan Beach, the City specifically exempts all landscape maintenance activities from noise regulations for a site over five (5) acres. As noted, since our new management team was put into place, the number of noise complaints has dramatically reduced. Moreover, the existing restrictions on Green Hills ensure that the community is adequately protected. We ask the City not to impose punitive measures on Green Hills that would seriously impact our business operations or curtail the ability for our families to visit the Park when it opens at 7:00 a.m. Accordingly, Green Hills asks that the proposed Noise Ordinance be revised as follows: (1) "daytime" hours should begin at 7:00 a.m.; (2) the same Exterior Noise Limits should be imposed on Cemetery Zoning Districts as on Commercial Zoning Districts: 70 dBA during "daytime" hours as measured at Property Line and 60 dBA during "nighttime" hours as measured at Property Line; and (3) landscaping and construction activities should be restricted to between 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on weekends but dBA limits should not be placed on such activities unless such activities occur within 120 feet of any property line abutting a Residential Zoning District, in which case the activities could be limited to the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. Alternatively, Green Hills asks that the City permit Green Hills to perform such activities in accordance with its Conditions of Approval and continue to operate in accordance with the noise restrictions imposed by the Conditions of Approval. Thank you for your consideration of such requests. Thomas W. Frew, General Manager Nick Resich, Director of Building and Park Operations Steve Espolt, Manager of Strategic Planning and Compliance Chris Wendel, Director of Sales Cc: Doug Wilmore, City Manager Ara Mihranian, Director of Community Development So Kim, Deputy Director/Planning Manager Leza Mikhail, Senior Planner Integrity, Commitment, Care, Protection and Respect 27501 S. Western Avenue • Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 • Phone: (310) 831-0311 • FAX: (310) 521-1235 www.GreenHiUsMemorial.com DEMETRIOU, DEL GUERCIO, SPRINGER & FRANCIS, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 915 WILSHIRE BLVD, SUITE 2000 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017 JEFFREY Z 8, SPRINGER (213) 624-8407 STEPHEN A. DEL GUERCIO F FAX (21 3) 624-0174 MICHAEL A. FRANCIS BRIAN D. LANGA WWW.DDSFFtRM.COM JENNIFER T. TAGGART LESLIE M, DELGUERCIO TAMMY M. J, HONG August 14, 2017 Iiia electronic mail (ec(a rpvca.gov) The Honorable Mayor Brian Campbell (brian.carnpbell@rpvca.gov) Mayor Pro Tem Jerry V. Duhovic Yerry.duhovic@rpvca.gov) Councilwoman Susan M, Brooks (susan.brooks@rpvca.gov) Councilman Ken Dyda (ken.dyda@rpvca.gov) Councilman Anthony M. Misetich (anthonymisetich@rpvca.gov) City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 CHRIS G. DEMETRIOU (1915-1989) RONALD J. DEL GUERC(O (RETIREo) RICHARD A. DEL GIiERCIO (Rm REo) SENDER'S EMAIL ADDRESS JTAG GART@DDSFFI R WCOM SENDER'S DIRECT LINE (213) 624.6407 ExT. 150 Re: City Council Meeting August 15, 2017 — Agenda Item #4 Draft Noise Control Ordinance Dear Mayor Campbell and Members of the City Council; This letter is sent on behalf of the Palos Verdes American Youth Soccer Organization ("PV AYSO") in connection with Agenda Item #4 for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council meeting on August 15, 2017 concerning the draft Noise Control Ordinance. PV AYSO urges the City Council to amend the draft Noise Control Ordinance before referring it to the Planning Commission, or to refer it to the Planning Commission for additional study and amendment with a recommendation to address the concerns expressed herein. PV AYSO is an all -volunteer non-profit entity that provides recreational and competitive soccer programs for the children in the Palos Verdes Peninsula area. All of its money and resources are used for the benefit of the children. All 60 plus Board members, hundreds of coaches, and hundreds of referees volunteer thousands of hours to support Palos Verdes Peninsula youth and families. PV AYSO provides opportunities for athletic development for boys and girls. But team sports provide so much more than athletic development. Studies have shown a direct correlation between physical activity and academic performance. Team sports help build communication skills, improve emotional development, foster community spirit, foster mentor relationship and enhance critical decision making skills. Team sports bolster competence, confidence, connections, character, and caring. PV AYSO routinely enrolls more than 2,500 boys and girls ages 4 to 19 in its fall soccer program. To provide practice and playing space, PV AYSO leases soccer fields from the Palos Rancho Palos Verdes City Council August 14, 2017 Page 2 Verdes Peninsula Unified School District ("PVPUSD") including school sites and the Ladera Linda soccer fields. PV AYSO provides improvements, donations and equipment to the schools and the fields. PV AYSO has also used various City -owned park facilities, but generally the City's Park facilities are not adequately maintained for soccer playing purposes. For example, the field at Hesse Park is currently mostly dirt and not suitable for soccer in its current condition. The Draft Noise Control Ordinance ("Ordinance") may significantly curtail PV AYSO's activities, as well as the activities of other adult and youth sports activities that use school facilities but are not school activities. As drafted, the Ordinance imposes an exterior noise limit by Zoning District for "daytime" and "nighttime" activities. The "daytime" exterior noise limit for Institutional zoned properties is 70 dBA (30 minute average). The "nighttime" exterior noise limit is 45 dBA (30 minute average). Certain activities are exempt from the noise level regulation. Three of the exemption could be relevant to PV AYSO and similar outdoor sports activities - activities that have a City - issued permit, outdoor activities conducted pursuant to a permit or license issued by the City, and school activity. However, none of these exemptions appear to apply to PV AYSO's practices and games. They also do not seem to apply to a host of other private organizations that provide outdoor organized recreational activities, including baseball, football, cheer, soccer, lacrosse, basketball, swimming, etc. The first exemption — City -issued permit exemption — does not seem to apply to PV AYSO practices and games that occur on PVPUSD or private property (not owned by the City). Special Use Permits are required for the erection of temporary structures such as fences, booths, tents, or parking of trailers for such activities as carnivals, circuses, fairs, festivals, non-profit fund raising events, charitable events, religious meetings; temporary outdoor displays for the sale of Christmas trees, Halloween pumpkins, art objects, or other items; recycling centers and any other similar activities conducted for a temporary period either outdoors or within a temporary structure which has the potential to result in an adverse effect on surrounding properties. Special Event Permits are required for activities that occur on public property and streets owned by the City. These permits do not apply to the PV AYSO soccer activities. Similarly, the other categories of permits are not relevant. The second exemption — outdoor activities conducted pursuant to a permit or license -- also does not seem to apply. Generally speaking, the PV AYSO activities are not outdoor activities conducted pursuant to a permit or license issued by the City. PV AYSO obtains a license from PVPUSD to use its fields. PV AYSO assumes the other organizations that use PVPUSD's fields do as well. However, a permit or license is not obtained from the City. The third exemption — school activities — also does not seem to apply. The PV AYSO activities also do not appear to be school activities. The Ordinance defines exempt school activities as those reasonably related to official or authorized school activities or events. PV AYSO's activities are not "school" activities, although they are authorized by PVPUSD through Rancho Palos Verdes City Council August 14, 2017 Page 3 its grant of a license or permission to use the fields. However, that does not seem to be within the Ordinance's definition of exempt school activities. Thus, PV AYSO does not believe that its activities are exempt under the Ordinance from the exterior noise restrictions. PV AYSO believes that other team sports activities that are not school activities including club soccer, club lacrosse, swimming, basketball, baseball, outdoor volleyball, cheer, Pop Warner football, and similar activities also are not exempt from the Ordinance's noise regulation. All of these activities may exceed the specific exterior noise limits, particularly as they often involve the use of whistles, yelling, cheering, clapping and other such noise -making activities. PV AYSO is also concerned about the "nighttime" exterior noise limits. "Nighttime" hours are between 9:00 pm and 9:00 am on weekends. PV AYSO as well as other recreational sports activities traditionally commence at 8:00 am on weekends. PV AYSO believes that it is to the detriment of the residents of the Palos Verdes Peninsula for the City to curtail youth sports activities. It is PV AYSO's understanding from prior City Council consideration of noise regulation that it was the intent of the City to exclude organized sports activities from regulation. The City should be encouraging youth sports activities. Our children benefit physically and mentally frons team sports activities. PV AYSO urges the City Council to exempt outdoor activities that occur on PVPUSD owned properties or other Institutional zoned property From the exterior noise limits. Amplified. music or public address type systems associated with such outdoor activities could be subject to the exterior noise limits. PV AYSO also urges the City Council to be less restrictive in its definition of "daytime" and "nighttime" hours. The Ordinance is much more restrictive than similar ordinances enacted throughout California. "Daytime" hours should be 7:00 am to 10:00 pm on Monday through "I'liursdav: Friday and Saturday should be 7:00 am to 11:00 pm; and Sunday should be 9:00 am to 10:00 pm. M From: SunshineRPV@aol.com Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2017 3:56 PM To: CC Cc: Matt Waters; Cory Linder Subject: August 15, 2017 RPV City Council Agenda Item 9. Civic Center Committee August 13, 2017 MEMO from SUNSHINE TO: RPV City Council and Deputy City Manager RE: August 15, 2017 RPV City Council Agenda Item 9. Civic Center Committee Your Agenda Item is to appoint a Civic Center Master Plan Advisory Committee. I have no problem with that. If selected, I will be happy to serve. I do have a huge problem with your expectations. Why an Advisory Committee instead of a Task Force? Why do you need advice on the "development" of a Civic Center Master Plan? The "task at hand" is to update the Civic, Cultural and Recreation Plan which you already have. Your most recent survey indicates that the citizenry's preferences have not changed all that much since 2003. Your Resolution leaves the whole affair "open ended" and totally dependent on Staff to choose what "advice" comes before the City Council. The Open Space Planning and Rec & Parks Task Force's charge was to draft an update of the RPV Parks Master Plan. Specifically regarding Upper Point Vicente Park, the charge was to find out what the people want, find out the detailed requirements of each facility, fit it onto the allocated space and find other people to pay for it. We did that. Oops. Staff neglected to inform us that there were rather limiting deed restrictions on the "allocated space". Before this Advisory Committee can do anything, Council needs to direct Staff to accomplish two tasks. One is to submit the existing Upper Point Vicente detailed plan to David P. Siegenthaler of the National Parks Service (along with the argument that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes now has an overabundance of passive recreation acreage) and submit the facility by facility response to the City Council. Second, Council needs to approve a Staff generated list of Fed approved prospective facilities including footprint square footage and parking requirements. For instance. Does the current City Council still want a new 3,000 square foot, freestanding, Council Chambers with "after regular park hours" (low lighting) accessible parking? Think of it this way. City Council is their own Advisory Committee on the Ladera Linda Project. You have been asked to approve a conceptual plan without having approved that list of prospective facilities including footprint square footage and parking requirements. Administrative Analysts are not Facilities Designers. Neither are you. You have approved a "shift" in the budgeted funds timing. Do you really expect to get to review that list before the "construction drawings" phase marches on? Like I said. It all comes down to expectations. I have a problem with how the Civic Center task is being managed. It is entirely probable that none of you will be on the RPV City Council when this Committee gets to produce some "advisory input". Speak now or forever hold your peace. I certainly will not. 1