20230502 Late Correspondence
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: CITY CLERK
DATE: MAY 2, 2023
SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA
_____________________________________________________________________
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented
for tonight’s meeting.
Item No. Description of Material
1 Updates from Staff (Attachment A – Resolution)
Emails from: Kathy Labarbera; Susan Caldwell
** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted
through Monday, May 1, 2023**.
Respectfully submitted,
_______________
Teresa Takaoka
L:\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2023\2023 Coversheets\20230502 additions revisions to agenda.docx
CITY OF
v~
.p<)
"' ~ RANCHO PALOS VERDES
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Octavio Silva
Tuesday, May 2, 2023 3:35 PM
CityClerk
Ara Mihranian
Late Correspondence
Attachments: Attachment A_RPV -125 Spindrift Dr._Resolution_Updated.docx; ORD 526.pdf
Hi Team,
I am introducing late correspondence for the Spindrift Appeal item for this evening's CC meeting. The late
correspondence presents updates to the project resolution to clarify that Ordinance No. 526 (not Urgency Ordinance
No. 459U) supersedes code language in Ordinance No. 407. The update in the resolution is to Section 7 (A) of the
resolution. I also attached a copy of Ordinance No. 526 for reference.
Thank you,
-'z:t:
\
J' '!> 971,: :2? ry,
Octavio Silva
Interim Director of
Community Development
Octavios@rpvca.gov
Phone -(310) 544-5234
Address:
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
~ GETITON
~, Google Play
Th;s c,rnail mcssaqe contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged,
ccmfidcntiai, anci/or protected from discioswe. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity
,1"111<:cl. Unautl,or,izecl clissernination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you recrived this email in error,
or arc not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your c1ssistance and
coopualion.
1
/.
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, DENYING THE APPEAL AND
UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF
VARIANCES, COASTAL PERMIT, AND SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH
NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY ALLOWING THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,181 FT 2 ADDITION, CONSISTING OF A
NEW 1,041 FT 2 SECOND FLOOR AND A 140 FT 2 ADDITION TO
THE EXISTING 1,670 FT 2 SINGLE-STORY RESIDENCE FOR A
NEW TOTAL STRUCTURE SIZE OF 2,851 FT 2 (GARAGE
INCLUDED), A NEW 45 FT 2 BALCONY, AND ANCILLARY SITE
IMPROVEMENTS, ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 125
SPINDRIFT DRIVE (CASE NO. ZON2017-00489)
WHEREAS, on August 28, 2017, the Community Development Director
conditionally approved a Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit (Case No. ZON2015-
00086), pursuant to Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC) §15.20.040(H)
thereby allowing the landowner to proceed with the filing of the appropriate planning
applications for additions to the existing residence including a new second-story along with
ancillary site improvements.
WHEREAS, on October 26, 2017, Russ Barto ("Applicant"), representing property
owners Michael and Kathy Labarbera, submitted the subject applications to the
Community Development Department.
WHEREAS, on November 21, 2017, staff completed the initial review of the
applications, at which time the applications were deemed incomplete for processing.
WHEREAS, on July 8, 2021, after several additional submittals of supplemental
information, the Applicant submitted revised project plans for review, which included a
revised second-story configuration and increased second-story setbacks along the
westerly side elevation.
WHEREAS, on March 25, 2022, based on a review of the revised plans, staff
deemed the application complete for processing.
WHEREAS, on March 31, 2022, a public notice was published in the Palos Verdes
Peninsula News, and mailed to all property owners within a 500-foot radius of the project
site and to the Coastal Commission.
WHEREAS, on April 26, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a public
hearing on the proposed project and considered public testimony. The Planning
Commission continued the public hearing to a date uncertain to allow the Applicant the
Resolution No. 2023-_
Page 1 of 13
opportunity to cons.icier project revisions in response to comments raised as part of the
public hearing.
WHEREAS, on October 10, 2022, the Applicant submitted revised project plans,
which included modifications to the project design.
WHEREAS, on January 7, 2023, a public notice was published in the Daily Breeze,
and mailed to all property owners within a 500-foot radius of the project site and to the
Coastal Commission.
WHEREAS, on January 23, 2023, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed
public hearing to consider project revisions and unanimously adopted P.C. Resolution No.
2023-02, conditionally approving the proposed project.
WHEREAS, on February 9, 2023, a timely appeal of the Planning Commission's
decision was filed by neighboring property owners, Michael Fabian and Sue Schmidt, at
124 Spindrift Drive and joining parties including Joseph Lay IV, Lynda Lima at 102
Spindrift Drive, Ann Lineberger at 104 Spindrift Drive, Kevin and Allison Wolcott at 100
Spindrift Drive and Dr. Jerry Schwartz at 105 Spindrift Drive (Appellants).
WHEREAS, on April 13, 2023, a public notice of this appeal was published in the
Palos Verdes Peninsula News and mailed to all property owners within a 500-foot radius
from the project site.
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act,
Public Resources 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, the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt under Section
15301 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines. Specifically, the project involves the
construction of a negligible expansion to an existing residence.
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on May 2, 2023, at which time all
interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by
reference.
Section 2: The project involves the construction of a 1,181 ft 2 addition, consisting
of a new 1,041 ft 2 second floor and a 140 ft 2 first floor addition to the existing 1,670 ft 2
single-story residence for a new total structure size of 2,851 ft 2 (garage included); and
ancillary site improvements.
Resolution No. 2023-_
Page 2 of 13
Section 3: The City Council denies the appeal and upholds the Planning
Commission's approval of Variances, Coastal Permit, and Site Plan Review with
Neighborhood Compatibility for the project, and in connection therewith makes the
following findings based on all of the evidence and testimony provided in the staff report
and at the public hearing.
Section 4: The Variances are granted to allow the following deviations from the
development standards: reduced nonconforming front yard setback from 20 feet to 4.5
feet; an addition of 1,181 ft2 , which is over the allowable 250 ft 2 within the Coastal Setback
Zone; increased lot coverage from 51.3% to 52.8%; one enclosed and one unenclosed
parking space; and reduced open space within the front yard setback from 50% to 15.6%.
Based on the findings required by RPVMC §17.64.050, i.e., extraordinary circumstances
of the property, preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the Applicant,
no materially detrimental impacts to public welfare or injurious to property and
improvements in the area, and consistency with the City's General Plan and Coastal
Specific Plan can be made. Specifically, the project site was created and improved prior to
City incorporation with a nonconforming lot size (4,180 ft 2) that is substantially smaller than
the required minimum lot size (20,000 ft 2) for RS-2 zoning districts. As a result, most
homes in the vicinity have nonconforming setbacks similar to those for this project. The
project site is located entirely within the Costa! Setback Zone where any addition or
improvements cannot be built outside of the Coastal Setback Zone, unless a Variance is
granted to expand the residence closer in size to similar properties nearby.
Section 5: The Coastal Permit for the project in the City's Coastal Zone is
approved based on the following findings:
A. The development is consistent with Subregion 6 of the Coastal Specific Plan.
Specifically, the project will replicate the existing character and homogeneity found
within the Portuguese Bend Club neighborhood by maintaining exterior elements
that are similar to other homes in the neighborhood including a second floor with
multi-story facades, which are consistent with downslope lots located on the
southside of Spindrift Road. The development also incorporates the use of stucco
finishes and a flat roof design, which are consistent with the neighborhood and help
to maintain the character and homogeneity found within this neighborhood.
B. The development, located between the sea and the first public road, is consistent
with applicable public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act. The
Applicant is not proposing to develop within a private road or outside of the property
and therefore the project will not affect any paths, trails, easements, or public rights-
of-way identified as access corridors (C-6 & C-7) within the Coastal Specific Plan.
Section 6: The Site Plan Review is approved for the proposed 1, 181 ft2 of
additions and ancillary site improvements, which include a 45 ft 2 balcony, an entry porch, a
Resolution No. 2023-_
Page 3 of 13
water fountain, access stairs, and AC unit, as these plans comply with all applicable
Zoning Code requirements for the RS-2 zoning district.
In addition, the plans for additions to the residence are compatible with the
character of the immediate neighborhood in terms of the scale, architectural style, and
setbacks. As designed, the project will match the exterior finishes and roof style of other
homes in the area. There will be no apparent bulk or mass resulting from the proposed
additions, as the design of the new second-floor includes articulation and varying fa9ade
features to break up the scale and massing of the residence. As the project site is
configured as a down-sloping lot, the residence and new second floor generally appear as
single-story home as observed from the street of access (Spindrift Drive). The proposed
project will also maintain the existing streetscape of the immediate area, which features
some homes with direct garage access.
The project will not present an unreasonable privacy infringement to neighboring
properties as the new 45 ft 2 balcony is sited in a manner that orients views toward the
south-east of the project site and away from neighboring property to the west of the project
site.
Section 7: The appeal is denied as follows:
A. Appeal Ground No. 1: "The Planning Commission unlawfully approved a 1,181
ft2 addition based upon its misinterpretation and misapplication of RPVMC
§15.20.040(H) which limits the maximum size of an Addition, Garage, Accessory
Dwelling, and Enclosed Patio "cumulatively" to 1,200 ft 2 -but where this City
has adopted Ordinance No. 407 clarifying its intention was for Additions to be
limited to 600 ft 2 and Garages to be limited to 600 ft2 (with a 1,200 ft2 cumulative
project size between the 2 components.) The Planning Commission's Approval
directly violates the law as adopted by this City."
The project site is located in the City's Landslide Moratorium Area, which
requires the approval of a Landslide Moratorium Exception permit (LME Permit)
prior to construction pursuant to RPVMC § 15.20.040. The LME Permit is issued
by the Director of Community Development based on geological considerations.
An LME Permit authorizes an Applicant to submit formal development
applications for processing.
An LME Permit was issued in 2017 under RPVMC § 15.20.040(H), and included
the baseline geological review and approval that allowed the project Applicant
the opportunity to submit the required development applications for the 1,181 ft2
addition to the Planning Division for the processing. The issuance of the LME
Permit is time-barred by Section 15.20.070 of the RPVMC, which provides a 15-
day appeal period of a decision by the Director of Community Development.
Resolution No. 2023-_
Page 4 of 13
The current code provides that 1,200 ft 2 limitation is cumulative between any
addition under Exception Category 'H' and any new garage under Exception
Category 'L'. An addition can be larger than 600 ft2, provided the total project
does not exceed 1,200 ft2 including any new garage (if applicable), and all of the
other requirements are met. The language currently in RPVMC § 15.20.040(H)
was intended to loosen prior limitations by making the 1,200 ft 2 number
cumulative rather than capped at a max of 600 ft 2 for additions and 600 ft 2 for a
new garage. The relevant language introduced in Ordinance No. 526
supersedes code language in Ordinance No. 407 or any other prior ordinance
inconsistent with the updated language and has not changed since October 18,
2011.
B. Appeal Ground No. 2: "The Planning Commission applied [the] wrong law in the
calculation of setbacks -ignoring that structures are closer than the property
line and, here, just inches apart, when the law of this City intended setbacks to
provide for minimum distances to permit open space and light between each
property and a property line -or a structure or easement interceding those
sectors -so as to conform with its statutory purpose and fire codes."
The Planning Commission's approval of the project considered the
measurement of the side yard setback consistent with code requirements
outlined in RPVMC § 17.20.040 (A)(10). The project plans and related property
survey do not identify any easements between the project site and the
neighboring property at 124 Spindrift Drive.
In order to establish an easement by prescription, it must be shown that the
easement is hostile and adverse to the owner of the burdened land, among
other requirements. (Civ. Code,§ 1007; Code Civ. Proc.,§ 321; Ditzian v. Unger
(2019) 31 Cal. App. 5th 738, 743.) A use is adverse if it is without the permission
of the owner of the burdened land. (Abbott v. Pond (1904) 142 Cal. 393, 398.)
The burdened property owner's permission to use the land can be express or
implied. (Richmond Ramblers Motorcycle Club v. Western Title Guaranty Co.
(1975) 47 Cal. App. 3d 747, 754.) Thus, if an owner has permitted their neighbor
to use the land, either expressly or by implication, then a prescriptive easement
cannot be established.
Staff has not been presented with any evidence to show that the encroachments
by the property at 124 Spindrift Drive on to the project site have been hostile or
adverse to the project applicants. In fact, the property owners of the project site
have informed Staff that they have no issue with the encroachment, and have
not required or demanded that the encroachment be removed, effectively
permitting it. Absent evidence presented by the owners of 124 Spindrift Drive to
the contrary, no prescriptive easement can be established in this case. No
Resolution No. 2023-_
Page 5 of 13
easement exists, prescriptive or otherwise, and the setback is properly
measured from the property line.
C. Appeal Ground No. 3: "Planning Commission erred in finding the project site to
be a Sloping Lot and thus misapplied the height limit/where situated on the
property."
The project site is a down-sloping lot, whereby pursuant to RPVMC § 17.02.040
(B)(1)(b) has a 16 foot/30 foot 'by-right' building height envelope in which to
accommodate the proposed addition, without triggering the City's View
Ordinance. The project site is a down-sloping lot because the project site
residence is located over an area of the property that is over 5% but below 35%
in slope. Furthermore, the siting of the residence is not configured on a
contiguous level area because the design of the home includes terracing
between the different levels of the home.
D. Appeal Ground No. 4: "The Planning Commission made Findings that View and
Privacy and Neighborhood Compatibility are not to be considered when it is a
requirement of RPVMC, as voted in by the residents."
An assessment of potential privacy impacts and the project's compliance with
Neighborhood Compatibility were considered by the Planning Commission as
part of their April 26, 2022 and January 23, 2023 Planning Commission
meetings. In summary, the proposed 45 ft 2 balcony was found not to result in an
unreasonable infringement of privacy, as it would be sited in a manner that
orients views toward the south-east of the project site and away from Appellant's
property at 125 Spindrift Drive. The Planning Commission further found the
project to be in compliance with the neighborhood's structure size and scale;
architectural design, materials, building height, open spaces; and setbacks, and
thus concluded the proposed project met the Neighborhood Compatibility
requirements. The Planning Commission heard public testimony regarding view
impairment concerns but did not consider such impacts in their evaluation of the
project because the proposed addition will be located within the project site's 16
foot/30 foot 'by-right' building height envelope for down-sloping lots.
Section 8: 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 Section
15301 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines. Specifically, the project involves the
construction of a negligible expansion to an existing residence.
Resolution No. 2023-_
Page 6 of 13
Section 9: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings
included in the Staff Report, Minutes, and other records of proceedings, the City Council of
the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby denies the appeal and upholds the Planning
Commission-approved Variances, Coastal Permit and Site Plan Review with
Neighborhood Compatibility to construct a 1,181 ft 2 addition, consisting of a new 1,041 ft 2
second floor and a 140 ft 2 addition to the existing 1,670 ft 2 single-story residence for a new
total structure size of 2,851 ft 2 (garage included); a new 45 ft 2 balcony; and ancillary site
improvements on the property located at 125 Spindrift Drive (Case No. ZON2017-00489).
Section 10: Any challenge to a final decision by the City Council on the
entitlements and the findings set forth herein must be filed within the 90-day statute of
limitations set forth in Code of Civil Procedure §1094.6 and Section 17.86.1 00(B) of the
RPVMC.
Section 11: 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.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 2nd day of May 2023.
ATTEST:
Teresa Takaoka, City Clerk
Barbara Ferraro, Mayor
Resolution No. 2023-_
Page 7 of 13
EXHIBIT 'A'
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PLANNING CASE NO. ZON2017-00489
(VARIANCES, COASTAL PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH
NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY)
125 SPINDRIFT DRIVE
General Conditions:
1. Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, the Applicant
and/or property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have
read, understand, and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this Exhibit
"A". Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days following the
date of this approval shall render this approval null and void.
2. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City, and/or
any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof, from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of
mandamus, and other actions and proceedings (whether legal, equitable,
declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute
resolutions procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and
other such procedures) (collectively "Actions"), brought against the City, and/or any
of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void,
or annul, the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and/or any of
its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City), for or
concerning the project.
3. Prior to conducting any work in the public right of way, such as for curb cuts,
dumpsters, temporary improvements and/or permanent improvements, the
Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works.
4. Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and
appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws and
regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of the City
of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC) shall apply.
5. Pursuant to RPVMC §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
Resolution No. 2023-_
Page 8 of 13
and separate environmental review and public notification.
6. The project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards
contained in these conditions of approval or, if not addressed herein, shall conform
to the residential development standards of the RPVMC, 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 RPVMC §17.86.060 or administrative citations as described in RPVMC
§1.16.
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 RPVMC
§17.86.070 within one year of the final effective date of this Notice of Decision,
approval of the project shall expire and be of no further effect unless, prior to
expiration, a written request for extension is filed with the Community Development
Department and approved by the Director.
9. In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations and/or
requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter standard
shall apply.
10. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be
completed in substantial conformance with the plans stamped approved by the City
with the effective date of this approval.
11. This approval is only for the items described within these conditions and identified
on the stamped approved plans and is not an approval of any existing illegal or
legal non-conforming structures on the property, unless the approval of such illegal
or legal non-conforming structure is specifically identified within these conditions or
on the stamped approved plans.
12. The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall be
kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that
material used for immediate construction purposes. Such excess material may
include, but not be limited to: the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap
metal, concrete asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or discarded
furniture, appliances or other household fixtures.
13. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly
manner, to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official. All construction waste and
debris resulting from a construction, alteration or repair project shall be removed on
a weekly basis by the contractor or property owner. Existing or temporary portable
Resolution No. 2023-_
Page 9 of 13
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.
14. 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 RPVMC
§17.56.050(C). Unless required to protect against a safety hazard, temporary
construction fencing shall not be erected sooner than 15 days prior to
commencement of construction.
15. 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 RPVMC §17.96.920.
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 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.
16. Exterior residential lighting shall comply with the standards of RPVMC §17.56.030.
No outdoor lighting is permitted where the light source is directed toward or results
in direct illumination of a parcel of property or properties other than that upon which
such light source is physically located.
17. For all grading, landscaping and construction activities, the Applicant shall employ
effective dust control techniques, either through screening and/or watering.
18. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY GRADING AND/OR BUILDING PERMIT,
whichever occurs first, an earth hauling permit shall be approved by the Public
Works Department.
19. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS all applicable soils/geotechnical
reports, if required by the Building and Safety Division, shall be approved by the
City's Geologist.
20. The Applicant shall remove the project silhouette within 7 days after a final decision
has been rendered and the City's appeal process has been exhausted.
Resolution No. 2023-_
Page 10 of 13
Project Specific Conditions:
21. This approval is for the following entitlements:
A. 1,181 ft 2 addition consisting of a new 1,041 ft 2 second floor and a 140 ft 2 first
floor addition to the existing 1,670 ft 2 single-story residence for a new total
structure size of 2,851 ft2 (garage included);
B. 45 ft2 balcony at rear of the residence; and
C. Ancillary site improvements including new entry porch, water fountain,
access stairs and AC unit.
BUILDING AREA CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land
surveyor or civil engineer PRIOR TO THE FRAMING INSPECTION.
22. The approved residence shall maintain a 4.5-foot front, 6.5-foot east side, 5-foot
west side and 15.5-foot rear yard setbacks. SETBACK CERTIFICATION
REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer PRIOR TO
POURING FOUNDATIONS.
23. The overall height of the proposed addition will be 14.81 feet, as measured from the
average elevation of the setback line abutting the street of access (elev. 396.45
feet) to the highest proposed roof ridgeline (elev. 411.26 feet); and an overall height
of 22.53 feet as measured from lowest finished grade adjacent to the structure
(elev. 388.73 feet) to the highest proposed roof ridgeline (elev. 411.26 feet).
HEIGHT CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor
or civil engineer PRIOR TO ROOF SHEATHING INSPECTION.
24. Unless modified by the approval of future planning applications, the approved
project shall maintain a nonconforming 52.8% lot coverage.
25. No more than 50% of any existing interior and exterior walls or existing square
footage may be removed or demolished. Residential buildings that are remodeled
or renovated such that 50% or greater of any existing interior or exterior walls or
existing square footage is demolished or removed within a two-year period shall be
considered a new residence and shall then conform to all current development
standards for that zoning district and the most recently adopted version of the
California Building Code.
26. The approved A/C unit shall be screened from view from adjacent public right-of-
way with foliage or other appropriate screening.
27. The maintenance or operation of mechanical equipment, including but not limited to
AC units or pool filters, generating noise levels in excess of 65 dBA as measured
Resolution No. 2023-_
Page 11 of 13
from the closest property line shall constitute a public nuisance in accordance to
Chapter 8.24 of the RPVMC.
28. Any outdoor furnishings, accessories or plants located on the balcony and roof deck
shall not exceed a height of 8 feet or the bottom of the roof eave, whichever is
lower, as measured from the finished floor of the deck.
29. Any outdoor furnishings, accessories or plants located on the balcony and roof deck
which exceed the height limits established in RPVMC §17.02.040, shall not
significantly impair a view from surrounding properties.
Landslide Moratorium Exception Conditions
30. PRIOR TO ANY BUILDING OR GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE, if lot drainage
deficiencies are identified by the Director of Public Works, all such deficiencies shall
be corrected by the Applicant.
31. PRIOR TO ANY BUILDING OR GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE, roof runoff from
all buildings and structures on the site shall be contained and directed to the streets
or an approved drainage course as deemed acceptable by the City's Engineer.
32. Pursuant to Condition No. 2, a hold harmless agreement satisfactory to the City
Attorney promising to defend, indemnify, and hold the City harmless from any
claims or damages resulting from the requested project. Such agreement shall be
submitted to the Director PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING OR
GRADING PERMIT.
33. PRIOR TO ANY BUILDING OR GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE, the Applicant
shall submit for recordation a covenant agreeing to construct the project strictly in
accordance with the approved plans; and agreeing to prohibit further projects on the
subject site without first filing an application with the Director pursuant to the terms
of RPVMC Chapter 15.20.
34. All landscaping irrigation systems shall be part of a water management system
approved the Director of Public Works. Irrigation for landscaping shall be permitted
only as necessary to maintain the yard and garden.
35. The sewer lateral that serves the property shall be inspected to verify that there
are no cracks, breaks or leaks and, if such deficiencies are present, the sewer
lateral shall be repaired or reconstructed to eliminate them, prior to the issuance
of any building or grading permit for the project that is being approved pursuant to
the issuance of this Landslide Moratorium Exception permit.
36. The property owner shall be responsible for the installation and maintenance of
their sanitary sewer system including their sanitary sewage lateral, any sanitary
Resolution No. 2023-_
Page 12 of 13
sewage lifting systems and the electricity required to power the system, and all
underground pipes associated with their sanitary sewage system under and
adjacent to their development, and the associated fixtures within the property.
37. All other necessary permits and approvals required pursuant to this Code or any
other applicable statute, law or ordinance shall be obtained.
Resolution No. 2023-_
Page 13 of 13
ORDINANCE NO. 526
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
REPEALING URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 459U, ORDINANCE NO.
427U AND URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 439U AND AMENDING
SECTION 15.20.040 AND SECTION 15.20.050 OF THE RANCHO
PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE.
WHEREAS, in September 1978, the City Council adopted Urgency
Ordinance No. 108U, which established the Landslide Moratorium Area in a
portion of the City, as depicted on a map that is on file in the City's Department of
Planning, Building and Code Enforcement; and
WHEREAS, in February 1981, the City Council adopted Ordinance No.
139U, which added the area known as Klondike Canyon to the Landslide
Moratorium Area, which is described as the area outlined in red on the map that
is on file in the City's Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement;
and
WHEREAS, in September 1989, the City Council adopted Ordinance No.
247, which added a new provision to the Landslide Moratorium Ordinance that
provided the possibility for more intense development than previously was
permitted in the Klondike Canyon Area, as outlined in blue on the map that is on
file in the City's Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement ("Blue
Area"); and
WHEREAS, in May 2005, following the unusual winter rains during the
winter of 2004-2005, the first indications that the Blue Area may be experiencing
landslide movement appeared; and
WHEREAS, in October 2005, the City received a report from the City
Geologist, who was reviewing a proposed development in the Blue Area, that
discussed the issue of landslide movement in the Blue Area; and
WHEREAS, based on the new evidence of landslide movement in the
. Blue Area, the City Council has asked the City Geologist to determine whether
the more flexible development standards that had been allowed in the Blue Area
since 1989 should be repealed so that the Blue Area will be subject to the same
development criteria that are applicable to the other areas that are subject to the
Landslide Moratorium Ordinance, as was the case from February 1981 through
September 1989; and,
WHEREAS, on November 15, 2005, the City Council adopted Urgency
Ordinance No. 427U, which established a 60-day moratorium on the processing
and issuance of building, grading or other permits, and landslide moratorium
exception permits and the processing or approval of Environmental
Assessments, Environmental Impact Reports, Conditional Use Permits, height
variation applications, tentative maps or parcel maps in the Blue Area and
temporarily suspended Section 15.20.040 K of the Rancho Palos Verdes
Municipal Code pending the completion of new geological data to determine
whether construction in the Blue Area is safe in light of the newly observed
instability or if the proposed development could adversely impact the stability of
said Area; and,
WHEREAS, because the Global Positioning System ("GPS") Data still was
being collected, and the City Geologist still was in the process of completing the
review of that data to assess the potential impacts of construction in the Blue
Area upon the overall stability of said Area and upon the public health, safety and
welfare and, accordingly, needed additional time to complete that review before
determining if the moratorium imposed by Ordinance 427 U should be lifted,
resulting in several extensions of the moratorium by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, because the City Geologist's report was completed and was
presented to the City Council, and the City Council elected to hold a study
session on October 7, 2006, where additional questions were posed by the City
Council; and
WHEREAS, following the study session, the City Geologist issued a
report, which was subsequently reviewed by a three-member peer review panel,
and because additional time was required for that process to occur, the City
Council further extended the Moratorium that was established by Ordinance
427U, Ordinance No. 439U, so that the last extension will expire on June 22,
2007; and
WHEREAS, on June 5, 2007, the City Council adopted Ordinance No.
459U, to memorialize the changes that were to be made to the Landslide
Moratorium Ordinance (Chapter 15.20 of the Municipal Code) to reflect the
recommendations of the City Geologist; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to adopt a non-urgency version of
Ordinance No. 459U, and an additional revision that expressly precludes
swimming pools and spas within the Landslide Moratorium Area so that there is
no question about the changes that the City Council approved previously in
Ordinance No. 459U and that those changes were intended to be incorporated
into Chapter 15.20 of Title 15 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
PALOS VERDES DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby
repeals Urgency Ordinance No. 459U, Ordinance No. 427U; Urgency Ordinance
432U; Urgency Ordinance 438U and Urgency Ordinance No. 439 U and all of the
1396614v2 Ordinance No. 526
Page 2 of 5
ordinances that extended any of those ordinances, including Ordinance No.
440U,448U,452U, and457U.
SECTION 2. Paragraph H of Section 15.20.040 of Chapter 15.20 of Title
15 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
"H. Minor projects on a lot that is in the 'landslide moratorium area,' as
outlined in red on the landslide moratorium map on file in the director's office,
and currently is developed with a residential structure or other lawfully existing
nonresidential structure and involves an addition to an existing structure,
enclosed patio, conversion of an existing garage to habitable space or
construction of a permanent attached or detached accessory structure and does
not exceed a cumulative project(s) total of one thousand two hundred square feet
per parcel; provided that a landslide moratorium exception permit is approved by
the director and provided that the project complies with the criteria set forth in
Section 15.20.050 and does not include any additional plumbing fixtures, unless
the lot is served by a sanitary sewer system. The one thousand two hundred
square foot limitation on cumulative projects that can be approved on a lot
pursuant to this subsection includes the construction of a new garage, which can
be approved pursuant to subsection L of this section. November 5, 2002, is the
date that shall be used for determining the baseline square footage, based upon
city and county building permit records, for purposes of calculating the square
footage of any cumulative project(s) and of any additions that may be
constructed pursuant to this subsection H. Minor projects involving the
construction of an enclosed permanent detached accessory structure shall
include a requirement that a use restriction covenant, in a form acceptable to the
city, that prevents the enclosed permanent detached accessory structure from
being used as a separate dwelling unit is recorded with the Los Angeles County
register-recorder. Such covenant shall be submitted to the director prior to the
issuance of a building permit. Prior the approval of a landslide moratorium
exception permit for such minor projects, the applicant shall submit to the director
any geological or geotechnical studies reasonably required by the city to
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the city geotechnical staff that the proposed
project will not aggravate the existing situation;"
SECTION 3. Paragraph K of Section 15.20.040 of Chapter 15.20 of Title
15 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
"K. Minor projects on a lot that is in the 'landslide moratorium area,' as
outlined in blue on the landslide moratorium map on file in the director's office,
and currently is developed with a residential structure or other lawfully existing
nonresidential structure and involves an addition to an existing structure,
enclosed patio, conversion of an existing garage to habitable space or
construction of a permanent attached or detached accessory structure and does
1396614v2 Ordinance No. 526
Page 3 of 5
not exceed a cumulative project(s) total of one thousand two hundred square feet
per parcel; provided that a landslide moratorium exception permit is approved by
the director and provided that the project complies with the criteria set forth in
Section 15.20.050 and does not include any additional plumbing fixtures, unless
the lot is served by a sanitary sewer system. The one thousand two hundred
square foot limitation on cumulative projects that can be approved on a lot
pursuant to this subsection includes the construction of a new garage, which can
be approved pursuant to subsection L of this section. November 5, 2002, is the
date that shall be used for determining the baseline square footage, based upon
city and county building permit records, for purposes of calculating the square
footage of any cumulative project(s) and of any additions that may be
constructed pursuant to this subsection K. Minor projects involving the
construction of an enclosed permanent detached accessory structure shall
include a requirement that a use restriction covenant, in a form acceptable to the
city, that prevents the enclosed permanent detached accessory structure from
being used as a separate dwelling unit is recorded with the Los Angeles County
register-recorder. Such covenant shall be submitted to the director prior to the
issuance of a building permit. Prior the approval of a landslide moratorium
exception permit for such minor projects, the applicant shall submit to the director
any geological or geotechnical studies reasonably required by the city to
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the city geotechnical staff that the proposed
project will not aggravate the existing situation;"
SECTION 4. Paragraph N of Section 15.20.040 of Chapter 15.20 of Title
15 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
"N. Minor projects on those lots that are currently developed with a
residential structure,. which do not involve new habitable space or the addition of
a swimming pool or spa, which cannot be used as a gathering space and viewing
area, and which do not constitute lot coverage;"
SECTION 5. Paragraph J of Section 15.20.050 of Chapter 15.20 of Title
15 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
"J. If the lot or parcel is served by a sanitary sewer system, the sewer
lateral that serves the applicant's property shall be inspected to verify that there
are no cracks, breaks or leaks and, if such deficiencies are present, the sewer
lateral shall be repaired or reconstructed to eliminate them, prior to the issuance
of a building permit for the project that is being approved pursuant to the
issuance of the moratorium exception permit."
SECTION 6. Other than Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit (Case
No. Zon2011-00181) that was issued by the Community Development Director
and other related permits to approve an after-the-fact spa, which replaces a pre-
1396614v2 Ordinance No. 526
Page 4 of 5
existing spa, at 46 Seawall Road; the building permit and other permits that were
issued by the City prior to June 5, 2007, to construct the home at 4369 Dauntless
Drive, and any other home where above-ground construction work had been
performed in substantial reliance on a building permit that had been issued by
the City as of June 5, 2007, and the planning approval and other permits that had
been issued by the City as of June 5, 2007, for the construction of the house
located at 4342 Admirable Drive, which shall not be affected by the provisions of
this Ordinance, any building or grading permit, landslide moratorium exception
permit, or other permit for new construction in the Landslide Moratorium Area,
which had been previously granted by the City but which has not been acted
upon in substantial reliance by the holder thereof as of June 5, 2007, is
suspended indefinitely. Construction in reliance on any such suspended permit
shall be prohibited unless and until the City lifts the suspension.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18t ci
Attest:
~~
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )ss
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES )
I, Carla Morreale, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do
hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of said City
is five; that the foregoing Ordinance No. 526 passed first reading on October 4,
2011, was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular
meeting thereof held on October 18, 2011, and that the same was passed and
adopted by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
1396614v2
Misetich, Stern, Wolowicz and Mayor Long
None
Campbell
None
City Clerk
Ordinance No. 526
Page 5 of 5
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES)
The undersigned, being first duly sworn, deposes and says:
That at all times herein mentioned, she was and now is the appointed City Clerk
of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes;
That on October 19, 2011, she caused to be posted the following document entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 526, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES REPEALING URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 459U, ORDINANCE NO. 427U
AND URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 439U AND AMENDING SECTION 15.20.040
AND SECTION 15.20.050 OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE.,
a copy of which is attached hereto, in the following locations:
City Hall
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes
Hesse Park
29301 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes
Ladera Linda Community Center
32201 Forrestal Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes
I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is a true and correct affidavit of
posting. ~
c1AM ~
City Clerk
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
kathy labarbera < kathy.labarbera@gmail.com>
Tuesday, May 2, 2023 2:12 PM
CityClerk
Octavio Silva
125 Spindrift Signatures of Support
2 more Support sigs 125 Spindrift (1).pdf
Here are 2 new support signatures. Thank you for including them in tonight's meeting.
1
Hq:,11111111: Prnp11s1•d L.1H.11 hn,i 1!11ildi111: Prnji 1 cl
I i'1 Sp11l(l1tft !l1
ILrnclio l\1h)'., Ver de~;, C/\ <J027:,
1:111 t 11,· ,1t tt·nttnn ol thv lt1t1rll(l l'i1los Vt'rdcs City Plannt'r ;issigncd to
I Iii p1 nj1•1 t, lht• lt111tho Palos Verdi••, Pl;11rning l)(•p,H't111e11t, the ltrncho
l\tln:, Vt·1d1·s l'l.111rn11g lomm1ss1u11, tilt• Hanclrn P;dm, Vc.·rdes Building
ll(•p,11 t t11t•nt, tht• H,11H ho l'.ilos Vl'nle:. City Coum JI, illld ,111y other
,\J;l'1H 11•s 1\t t'lltit(cs ll'lt•v.111t to tlw .ipprnval of the project ilt 12S
\p1ndr!li [)r.
rlih i wril1t•111n support \llthr-1.,ll)drlH'rcl building project at l2S
\p111d11tt. 1)1 I ,1sk th,it tlw prowct he ;ipproved,
X '
I .
Reg:1rding: Proposed L1Barbern Building Project
125 Spindrift Dr.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CJ\ 9027:i
( '
For the attention of the l{;nirho P;ilos Verdes City Planner assigned to
this project, the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Department, the Rancho
Palos Verdes Planning Commission, the Rancho Palos Verdes Building
Department. the Rancho l\1los Verdes City Council, and any other
agencies or entities relevant to the apprnval of the project at 125
Spindrift Dr.
This ts v,Titten in support of the La Barbera building project at 125
Spindrift. Dr. l .isk thdt the project be approved.
Nan1c / Signature
X
Subject: FW: 5/2/23 (Appeal of Planning Commission's Approval of 125 Spindrift Project) -
Response to City's Letter-Reply
Attachments: Letter of Appeal to the City Council 5-1-23 -service copy.pdf
From: susan caldwell <scaldwell@caldwelllawgroup.com>
Sent: Monday, May 1, 2023 5:45 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; barbara.ferrero@rpvca.gov; John Cruikshank <John.Cruikshank@rpvca.gov>; Eric Alegria
<Eric.Alegria@rpvca.gov>; David Bradley <david.bradley@rpvca.gov>; Paul Seo <paul.seo@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>
Subject: 5/2/23 (Appeal of Planning Commission's Approval of 125 Spindrift Project) -Response to City's Letter-Reply
Good afternoon, Distinguished Mayor, Mayor Pro Tern, and Council Members of the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes.
In advance of oral arguments scheduled for tomorrow, 5/2/23, in re: to the Appeal of the Planning
Commission's Approval of the 125 Spindrift Drive Project in the Portuguese Bend Club neighborhood, attached
please find a letter submitted on behalf of the Appellant Mike Fabian to Respond to Issues Raised by the
Commission in its Letter-Reply served late last week.
The attached response addresses certain arguments raised in the Letter-Reply issued by the Planning
Commission to the extent relevant to errors of law that are the basis of which the underlying Appeal has been
initiated.
Thank you for your time.
Kind Regards -
Susan Caldwell
Susan L. Caldwell
CALDWELL LAW GROUP
9701 Wilshire Boulevard, 10th Floor
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
(310} 858-7000: Main
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail transmission may contain confidential or legally privileged information or attachments that is/are intended only for the individual
or entity named in the e-mail address. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance upon the
contents of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error, please reply to the sender, so that Caldwell Law Group can arrange for proper
delivery, You are requested to subsequently delete the message from your inbox. Thank you
1 /.
CALDWELL LAW GROUP
LAWYERS
May 1, 2023
SUSAN L. CALDWELL
scald we ll@caldwclllawgrrn1p.com
Via Email/Hard Copy Delivery
City Council Members
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
RE: APPEAL {AND REBUTTAL) TO CITY PLANNING'S LETTER-REPLY
Case Number: ZON2017-00489
Date of Decision: January 24, 2023
Property Location: 125 Spindrift Drive
Appellant: Michael Fabian and Sue Schmidt(& Joining Parties)
Dear Distinguished Members of the City Council:
This letter is submitted to provide a brief written Rebuttal to the City Planning
Commission's Letter-Response to the Appeal filed by the Mike Fabian Family and scheduled for
hearing May 2, 2023, as to the Planning Commission's Notice of Decision issued 1/24/23,
approving a new 1, 181 ft second floor addition to a residential home in the Coastal Zone.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S "LETTER-REPLY" MAKES NUMEROUS
LEGALLY INACCURATE STATEMENTS, WARRANTING GRANT OF APPEAL
(.Summary Response to the Legal Errors in the Staff Letter-Reply are Below)
This Appeal is one of law -where an approval issued by the City's Planning Commission
is premised on clear errors of law -omissions of law -omissions of (portions) of law -and
which stands in conflict with the laws of this City per se. A Staff Response Letter was issued last
week on behalf of the Planning Commission -and the errors of law therein are addressed below
Issue 1 -Re:Landslide Moratorium Exception (LME) Law Limitation for Additions to 600ft
• A)The Basis o[Appeal: The LME (RPVMC 15.20.040(H) limits Additions to 600ft.
• B) The Staff Letter-Reply: The Commission's Reply admits Appellants were Correct
about the 600ft limit of the LME (RPVMC 15.20.040(H)) and Ord. 407, but, yet:
(1) Argues that Ord. 407 was "Superseded" by Ord. 459U. (It was not.)
(2) Argues Ord. 459U intended to "Expand" Development. (It did not.)
• C)RATHER, in Correction ofthe Errors o[Law in the Staff Reply as to Issue One:
(1) Ord. 407 is the Current Law of this City (Never Repealed or Superseded).
(2) Ord. 407 established the Purpose of the LME (15.20.040H) -to (a) Honor the
City's Intention of "Limiting Expansion" in the Coastal Zone, (b) but to Allow
Exceptions for "Minor Proiects" NOT to Exceed 600ft per Proiect, and ( c)
Providing the Legal Interpretation/Construct of the LME's "1,200Jt Cumulative
Limit" Provision was for Multiple/"Cumulative" Projects Only.(& 600.fi/Project.)
(3) The City's argument that Ord. 459U superseded Ord. 407 is Incorrect. Ord.
459U-Instead -Repealed the Temporary Stay of Building in 2005 during
geologic studies imposed by Ord. 427U -and NOT 407 -and Superseded Related
9701 WILSHIRE BL VD, 1 orn FLOOR, BEYERL Y HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212
Telephone: (310) 858-7000
CALDWELL LAW GROUP
Lawyers
City Council
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Re: Appellants' Response to Staff Letter-Reply-In Re:125 Spindrift
Dr
May 1, 2023
Page 2
Zoning Provisions, NONE of which addressed the Purpose or LME 600ft Size Limit
or, even Ord. 409.
( 4) Ord. 459U, in Fact, Adopted the Identical "l,200ft cumulative limit" of the LME
as Previously Adopted -which Ord. 407 had Defined, Setting forth the Intention of
this Provision as, too, the Legal Construct (defining this for multiple proiects only -
and deeming the Intended Per Proiect Limit -for Additions, Dwelling Units, or
Garages-to 600ft/Each as Intended by the Statue). Ord. 407 not only addressed
entirely different aspects than Ord. 459U -but it was Never Repealed or Superseded.
5) Lastly -Ord. 459U NEVER indicated that its intention was to increase Building in
the Coastal Zones -a Statement Contradicting the LM/ LME, the General Plan --
and Ord. 409. APPEAL is thus warranted as the 1,181ft Addition is Unlawful.
Issue Two -Re: Setback Laws -Minimums (and Maximum Variances)
•
•
•
•
A) Basis of Appeal: The Commission's Approval Violates All Setback Laws -the 5'
Min. Distance Per Home (10' Between Two)(17.48. 0401030) (FN2), the Required
Calculation of Setbacks, Measuring between the 2 Closest Structures (or
"Prescriptive Easement" to the Neighboring Structure when closer than Property
Lines), and/or Applying the Permissible Exception Cap of (20%) -I' per side; Fire
Code Minimums, and/or Mandatory Light/Spacing Requirements.
B) The StafJLetter-Reply: Factually -The Staff Letter-Reply Does NOT Dispute
that the 124/125 Spindrift Homes are 6-18" (Inches) Apart-or that the Property
Line was Moved INTO the Built Home at 124 Spindrift Unilaterally by the 125
Spindrift owners (without notice/payment) AFTER these homes had been built.
Legally -The Staff Letter-Reply Admits Appellants were also Correct on the Law
of Setbacks Presented on Appeal -disputing none of it.
The Commission's Letter-Reply ONLY Response to the Illegality of the Structure
Under Setback Laws -is a proposed Legal Technicality to Circumvent the Setback
Laws (and Fire Codes) of this City: The Staff Letter-Reply argues that the Fabian
(124) Home/Elevated Deck Pathway (Openly built and used on property that is now
partially considered 125 's Parcel Due to the Unilateral Change of the Property Line)
could be subiect to a (Possible) Legal Technicality -where the structure is defined
as something other than a "Prescriptive Easement" (by claiming the structures are
not "adverse" to the 125 Owners to meet the Definition). The Staff's Letter-Reply
argues that if this definition of "Prescriptive Easement" cannot meet the "adverse"
element of the definition, the 125 Project can Sidestep ALL Setback Laws. Wrong.
C) RATHER, in Correction ofthe Errors of Law in the Staff Reply on Issue TWO:
(1) Setback statutes and fire statutes are not discretionary-but, Mandatory.
(2) Even the Limitations of the "Interior Setback Exception" to 1' (20% -Reducing
the 1 O' Requirement to 8' between 2 homes) is not discretionary -but Mandatory.
(3) The Letter-Reply Argues a (proposed, albeit non-existing) legal technicality to
"allow" the City to avoid ALL Setback Laws (which calculate the "setback" as
the distance between 124/125 structures and the property lines (whichever is
2 All references here following are to the RPVMC, unless otherwise stated.
9701 WILSHIRE BL VD., 1 orn FLOOR, BEYERL Y HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212
Telephone: (310) 858-7000 // Facsimile: (310) 858-7008
CALDWELL LAW GROUP
Lawyers
City Council
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Re: Appellants' Response to Staff Letter-Reply-In Re:125 Spindrift
Dr
May 1, 2023
Page 3
closest). The Letter-Reply argues that the Fabian (124) structures are not
"Prescriptive Easement" because the 124 structures do not meet the "hostile or
adverse" requirement of that definition. But, even the Cases cited in the Letter-
Reply do NOT Stand for this Proposition -and (actually) Support Appellant.
(4) The Law cited by the Sta([Letter-Reply (including CA Supreme Court
precedent) REFUTES the Commission's argument-and, rather, these Cases
(and Progeny) provide that any "structure" openly built on property to which
another holds title (regardless of how the change in title happened, or when) -!J.
deemed "hostile and adverse to title" (of the title holder)-if not de facto, and
that this a "Prescriptive Easement" by way of Legal Presumption (certainly
in the Supreme Court Cases), and thus per se a "Prescriptive Easement." The
law is unequivocal, here. The APPEAL response is without Merit, accordingly.
Issue Three -Re: Pad Lot vs Downslope Lot Laws (and the Report the Sta((Relies)
• A) Basis o(Appeal: The 125 Project was Improperly classified as a
"Downslope Lot" when it is a "Pad Lot" per statute. The Commission's
misclassification was a legal error -and was the Result of the Commission
incorrectly following ONLY Some (but Not All) of the statutory requirements
for a "Downslope Lot" (17. 96. I 090) -while also picking/choosing Some
(but Not All) portions of the Engineering Report that the Commission relied
to ascertain the slope -and ignoring all references to the building pad. Due to
the misclassification of this "Pad Lot" to a "Downslope Lot" -the 125 Parcel
was, then, approved for a Different, and much taller Build-Right Height Limit
(30' vs 16') and resulted in the 124 Addition positioned farther to the south
(blocking 124's light, privacy, and views) when, instead, it is mandated to be
built farther to the North, above the building lot.
• B) The Sta(fResponse: The Letter-Reply is entirely silent to the law raised on
the Appeal by Fabian and joining Neighbors -or to the point that the
Engineering Report the Commission Relied acknowledges a "Building
Pad." The Letter-Reply simply relays that it (1) Relied upon the Denn
Engineering Report) to ascertain that the Parcel slope is greater than 5%
and less than 35%. And -without referencing the law ( or the "Building Pad")
-the Commission claims it classified the property properly. Half-law
approaches -much like half-truths -are simply not legally compliant.
• C) RATHER, in Correction ofthe Errors of Law in the Staff Reply on Issue 3:
The Commission's Letter-Reply fails to Apply the entire Law setting forth the
Mandatory Requirements for a "Downslope lot" -and, likewise, Selects Only
Portions from the Denn Engineering Report on which it Relies, as well. In fact
-the Staffs Letter-Reply asserted that (1) Based Upon only 1 of the 2
statutory required elements of a "Downslope Lot" (17.96.1090) --which
requires a "Downslope Lot" to have (i) a grade above 5% ---but below the
9701 WILSHIRE BL VD., 1 orn FLOOR, BEYERL Y HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212
Telephone: (310) 858-7000 II Facsimile: (310) 858-7008
CALDWELL LAW GROUP
Lawyers
City Council
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Re: Appellants' Response to Staff Letter-Reply -In Re:125 Spindrift
Dr
May 1, 2023
Page 4
extreme slope of 35% (by inference) -BUT, the statute also requires there
to be (ii) NO Building Pad on which the Original Home was Built. The Staff
Letter-Reply entirely Omits the 2nd Mandatory Requirement of 17.96.1090 to
permit 125 to be classified as a "Downslope", and (2) Further Fails to advise
this City Council that the (same) Denn Engineering Report the Commission
Relied for the slope in their Letter-Reply (to classify the Parcel as a
"Downslope") also referred to the "Building Pad" on which the Original
House was built (and still sits) on no Less than 3 different occasions.
Looking at the Law and Evidence the Commission relies -it is telling:
o A DOWNSLOPE LOT: RPVMC 17.02.040(B)(l)(b) defines a downward
sloping lot as one which slopes "downhill from the street of access and for
which no building pad exists ... "
o A PAD LOT: By Contrast, is defined at RPVMC 17.02.040(B)(l)(c) as lot
"with a "building pad .... "
o The CITY'S ENG. REPORT (THAT THE CITY RELIES) ADMITS
THERE IS A BUILDING PAD, HOWEVER: Exh. 15 to the Appeal is the
Denn Engineering Repoti which the Commission's Letter-Reply references
as its foundation for determining the "slope" of the property. But, the
Commission and its Letter-Reply ignore that this same report described in
numerous detail the .... "equal building pad lot" ... or, that "the subject site
consists of a level building pad ... " .... or, that "the level building pad is
currently occupied by a one-story residential building."
In sum, clear legal error occurred in the classification of 125 Spindrift as a
"Downslope Lot" when the very report the Commission relies acknowledges
the "building pad" on which the original structure was and is built. The Letter-
Reply reflects a legal error -and a Selective Approach to picking/choosing
which parts of law and evidence the Commission follows only creates
devasting inequities in the legal structure this Council (and Commission) is
duty-bound to protect. This approach undermines -if not guts -the integrity
of the City's laws and is unlawful. APPEAL is meritorious on these grounds.
Issue Four -Re: Consideration of View & Privacy Protection. NeighborhoodCompatibilitv
A) Basis of Appeal: The Commission failed to evaluate whether the 125 Project
substantially interfered with Neighbor's Views -taking 75% of Fabian (124) and I 00%
of shoreline/coastal break views of over 7 Neighbors to the North (Joining Parties)-and
even voiced at Hearing that "Views cannot be Considered" and "Views [of the Coastal
Breaks of the Shoreline] could not be factored." (These positions violated this City's
Development Standards and General Plan (RPVMC 17.01.10), Failed to Factor the Loss
970 I WILSHIRE BL VD., I orn FLOOR, BEYERL Y HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212
Telephone: (310) 858-7000 II Facsimile: (310) 858-7008
CALDWELL LAW GROUP
Lawyers
City Council
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Re: Appellants' Response to Staff Letter-Reply-In Re:125 Spindrift
Dr
May 1, 2023
Page 5
of Privacy to the Fabian Family (124) in the southwest corner of their home -that they
will not be able to sit down to eat, or sit outside on the 1 outdoor space to the southwest,
or sleep on their lanai (as the currently do) without the 125 Homeowners windows just
feet way-and nearly all of the light lost from the home (with the Commission approving
the 125 Project to be built 1 ½' -3 1/2 ' away-and close to DOUBLE the height of the
124 Home -running the entire length of the property inches/mere feet away). The
Commission made fundamental errors in law by ignoring Mandatory View & Privacy
Considerations for the Neighborhood compatibility and, even, Variance Standards.
B) The Staff Response" The Letter-Reply falls silent in its response to challenge any of
the fact or law raised in the Appeal-and while the Letter-Reply provides that view was
considered by the Commission -and refers to is Neighborhood Compatibility Analysis
provided in their Reply -a quick glance tells otherwise. The Neighborhood
Compatibility Analysis makes NO reference to view whatsoever. It's completely silent.
This same Neighborhood Study included in the Staff Letter-Reply Notably
OMITS All Analysis of View Impact for all of the Neighbors -Omits Consideration of
Coastal View Landmarks (shoreline breaks)-or View Preservation Laws as enacted by
this City's Voters -omitted here, as well. The Neighborhood Study also provides
absolution no consideration of the Privacy Standards this Commission was required to
assess (and to determine that no interference occurred) before allowing the 125 Project to
proceed under the General Coastal Plan L8-L 11. The record is revealing.
C) RATHER, in Correction of the Errors of Law in the Staff Replv on Issue 3: The
Commission made fundamental errors in law -here -and the Appeal focuses not on the determination or
findings of fact by the Commission -it faults the lack of application of mandatory analysis that the 125
Project (i) does not substantially impact any Neighbor's views, (ii) does not substantially impact
landmark views -like shorelines, (iii) does not substantially remove views -like it does to the Fabian's
with loss of 75% of their view to the east -and their northing/western walls windowless as bearing walls,
(iv) does not substantially impact privacy-a requirement under the General Plan before 125 can build -
and one which looks to whether the Fabian's would expect privacy in bed, in their kitchen, in their dining
area-or on the one small patio for morning coffee. None of this was considered by the Commission -
much less (v) Neighborhood Compatibility -which necessarily had to consider this stepped-development
and the fact the 125 Project is being provided GREAT FA VORTISM -it is the first to have been allowed
to build above the homes behind it to the north -or within inches/few feet of another -or twice as tall as
the neighbor next door -and it is THE FIRST to allow neighbor's views to be impacted.
APPEAL IS THUS PREMISED ENTIRELY ON LAW -AND THIS COUNCIL IS ASKED TO
UPHOLD IT, warranting the Appeal as Postured.
OF SIGNIFICANCE AS TO THE COMMISSION'S DUE DILGENCE AT THE
UNDERLYING HEARING: At the end of the January, 2023, hearing-the Chair of the Planning
Commission had specifically asked for clarity on the law respecting the 600ft size limit for
Additions under the LME (and how the law defines the "l ,200ft cumulative limit" under this
9701 WILSHIRE BL VD., 10rn FLOOR, BEYERL Y HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212
Telephone: (310) 858-7000 // Facsimile: (310) 858-7008
CALDWELL LAW GROUP
Lawyers
City Council
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Re: Appellants' Response to Staff Letter-Reply-In Re:125 Spindrift
Dr
May I, 2023
Page 6
same statute), as too did the Chair raise question about the law applied for Setbacks and View
Protections being argued by Appellant -to which the City Attorney advised at that time that it
would require further inquiry. In his closing comments, the Chair of the Commission noted,
respectfully, that legal issues remained and that they may very well need to be addressed further
in a different forum since the Planning Commission was not able to address those legal issues at
that time. Fabian does so here, now, by this Appeal.
The Staff Letter-Reply -however -of late last week reflects none of the Chair's
conscientious acknowledgement that the Planning Commission was not clear on the law -or on
certain issues raised by the Fabian Family and neighboring properties at the last hearing. The
Staff Letter-Reply reveals that the law presented on behalf of the Fabian Family on Appeal is and
was "good law" -where the Staff Letter-Response either acknowledges this outright or offers
nothing in dispute. Rather, the Staffs Letter-Reply -when it does take challenge -does so in
great part by proposing methods and means to circumvent this City's Laws-ways supporting
the 125 Project's Approval despite its non-conformity with the laws of this City-or even the
General Plan of the City at-large -and this conveys a hesitancy of the Commission by way of
this Letter to follow the laws, at least for this Project. Whether motivated by favoritism or bias -
or concern that a "Correction" to the Commission's underlying Approval (one the Chair seemed
unafraid to have addressed by a later tribunal) -the Staffs Letter-Reply of last week does not
reflect the same Neutrality of Governmental Administration that prioritizes this City's
consistency when applying the law -and that it be done correctly and with equality -and
without regard to friends and favors in a community to which all of these parties reside.
The Fabian Family and Joining Neighbors -by this Appeal -urge this City Council to
prioritize the adherence of its laws rather than to ratify the Letter-Reply' s proposals to
circumvent or to create technicalities that abrogate the entire legislative history for this City. This
City Council is asked to apply the law of the General Plan, the Landslide Moratorium, the
Landslide Moratorium Exception, including the enacted "Purpose and Intention of the LME of
15 .02.040(H) and legal construct of the "1,200ft cumulative limit" by Ord. 407, the law of
Setbacks, or City/County Fire Codes, or this City's Lot Definition Laws -"Downslope" vs
"Pad" Definitions -and their subsequent height and building location limitations, and -lastly -
to adhere to this City's laws on View Protections (adopted by this City's voters), Landmark
Protections (including coastline/waterbreak), Privacy and Lighting and Height Protections under
the General Plan and Neighborhood Compatibility Requirements (which bar construction if these
are impacted for Neighbors in any significant manner). All were Required, here. This Appeal
seeks to rectify these legal errors -and inconsistence of law that will create an injustice to all.
A further discussion of each Issue -and the errors of law that warrant grant of Appeal -
follows below. Arguments below are distilled, but are not limited to responding to the Staffs
Letter-Reply of last week.
9701 WILSHIRE BL VD., 1 om FLOOR, BEYERL Y HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212
Telephone: (310) 858-7000 II Facsimile: (3 I 0) 858-7008
CALDWELL LAW GROUP
Lawyers
City Council
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Re: Appellants' Response to Staff Letter-Reply-In Re:125 Spindrift
Dr
May 1, 2023
Page 7
THIS CITY COUNCIL-IF APPLYING ITS LAWS FAIRLY-WILL GRANT APPEAL
(Further Analysis Supporting the Fabian Appeal)
There is no legal authority for this project -and this City Council is informed that it will
be directly violating its provisions of law if it fails to grant the Appeal seeking to rectify these
issues. The Errors of Law underlying the Commission's Finding as, too, those raised in its
Letter-Reply are addressed in a summary rebuttal and submitted to this Council.
Issue 1 -The Commission Erred in Approving an 1,181ft Addition Per the LME
(RPVMC 15.20.040(H)) -Where Ord. 409 Defined the Purpose of this Statute and the
Legal Construct of the "l,200ft Cumulative Limit" as Limiting Individual Projects to 600ft.
At the underlying hearing -and on Appeal -Appellants asserted that the Landslide Moratorium
Exception of l 5.20.040(H) permitted "Minor Projects" only -Additions, Enclosed Decks,
Accessory Dwellings, and Garages -but construed the "l ,200ft cumulative Project Limit" to
apply to EACH Project -and to prohibit Stockpiling of square footage into 1 Project vs
"Cumulative Projects" as the LME contemplated. In support, Appellant asserts that Ord. 409
enacted the Purpose and Intention of the LME -and the construct for defining the "1,200ft
cumulative limit" -and ratified that the intention was to prevent expansion and development.
Despite the clear record of law -the Commission made a legal error of consequence and
prejudice when it approved the 1,181 ft Addition of the 125 Spindrift Project. The Commission in
its Letter-Reply -however-does not dispute Appellant's law (or the 600ft/Project Limitation) -
but, rather, argued that Ord. 459U superseded Ord. 409, and that the City had intended Ord.
459U to increase development and expansion in the Coastal Zone. This is legally incorrect.
The Law Supporting Appeal -and Supporting APPEAL (In Re: 600[t/Proiect Limit):
To address the law with greater clarity -and the errors of law by the Commission -a
brief legislative summary proves beneficial to understand that Ord. 409 remains good law.
!) The Landslide Moratorium: September 5, 1978 (15.20.020) All building is
prohibited.
6} The Landslide Moratorium Exception: (15.20.040(H)) --To permit some (small)
balance to the Moratorium, this City subsequently enacted an Exception to the
Landslide Moratorium (LME)-permitting "Minor Projects" only. The law, here,
remains unchanged. The LME, further, provided that Additions, Enclosed Decks,
Dwelling Units, and Garages could be approved and deemed sufficiently "minor" -
but enacted a limitation which provided that there the maximum allowable increase
would be 1,200ft for these projects "cumulatively." This law-has also never
changed.
9701 WILSHIRE BLVD., 10TH FLOOR, BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212
Telephone: (310) 85 8-7000 // Facsimile: (310) 85 8-7008
CALDWELL LAW GROUP
Lawyers
City Council
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Re: Appellants' Response to Staff Letter-Reply-In Re:125 Spindrift
Dr
May I, 2023
Page 8
J} Ord. 309-1995: In 1995, Ord. 309 was enacted, adopting amendment to the LME
(15 .20.040(H)) to Clarify the Legislative Intent of this Statute due to the fact there
was confusion about whether the 1,200ft "cumulative limit" was for I or Multiple
Projects -and inconsistences with the City's approvals. This amendment clarified
that the 1,200ft limit was, in fact, for "cumulative" projects Only (thus, the word -
"Cumulative"), and -consistent with the intention of the enacting body -this
Amendment acknowledged that the City intended each project to be "Minor" and not
to exceed 600ft -with the 1,200ft "cumulative limit" only for multiple projects.
Ord. 309 gave the City Council an ability to exceed the
600ft/Project Limit, of note, a provision long revoked.
~ Ord. 407 (2004): In 2004, Ord. 407 amended the LME of 15.20.040(H) in order to
Provide even greater Clarity of Intention and Interpretation. After opening the issue to
the public for comment, Ord. 407 was enacted and Clarified that the LME was
Limited to a 600ft MAXIMUM for EACH Project -and Confirming Landowners
Could NOT "Borrow" Square Footage from the "Cumulative" Total Set Forth in
15.20.040(H)-or seek up to 1,800ft of additions by requesting 600ft for each of the 4
possible "Minor Project" Categories. Ord. 409 thus adopted the Purpose and Intention
of the LME in a manner that had never been undertaken before -and Set forth that
the LME and Legal Construct of the "1,200ft cumulative Limit" was intended to
Limit multiple projects to no greater than 1,200ft -with Individual Projects not to
exceed 600ft -and with the intention of preventing further development.
Ord. 407 -of note -removed the ability for City Council to
exceed the 600ft per Project Limit of Ord. 309.
~ Ord. 459U (2007): The Commission argues in its Letter-Reply that Ord. 459U was
adopted in 2007 to Supersede and Repeal Ord. 407 -but this is not correct. Ord.
459U superseded the 2005 temporary stay on all building/improvements in the
Coastal Zone while geologic studies were being undertaken.
Ord. 407 was NEVER Repealed and is still cited as the authority in this
City's statues for the LME of 15.20/040(H) -which enacted the Intention and
Purpose of the LME was to approve "Minor Projects" that could not exceed 600ft
each -and could not exceed 1,200ft for multiple "cumulative" projects -and which
confirmed how these terms were defined under the "1,200ft cumulative limitation."
Ord. 459U Amended the LME re: zoning aspects -and the temporary stay-
but in No Way Addressed or Modified the Purpose of the LME, the Legal Construct
or Interpretation of the "1,200ft Cumulative Limit", nor did it Address or Modify the
9701 WILSHIRE BLVD., 1orn FLOOR, BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212
Telephone: (310) 858-7000 // Facsimile: (310) 858-7008
CALDWELL LAW GROUP
Lawyers
City Council
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Re: Appellants' Response to Staff Letter-Reply-In Re:125 Spindrift
Dr
May 1, 2023
Page 9
459U
600ft Per/Project Limit -but it did Supersede the Temporary Building Stay of 2005
and Related Zoning Ordinances. The Letter-Reply stating that 459U superseded 407
is not only incorrect -but it misleading where Ord. 407 was intentionally never
repealed.
To this very day, this City's statutory record of 459U is as follows:
Amends §§ 15.20.040 and 15.20.050; repeals Ords. 427U. 432U. 438U. 439U. 440U. 448U. 452U
and 457U, moratorium on land use permits [15.20]
In Addition to the 600ft Limit of Ord. 407 Remaining the Current Law on the LME of
this City-Even a Straight Read ofthe LME Denotativelv Reflects that the 1,200ft
"Cumulative" Limit Could Never be Misapplied to Single-Proiects without Contradicting the
Express Language and its Intention (even without the Benefit of 409's Enlightenment): Ord.
407 is the law of this City -and certainly stands as the enacting doctrine setting forth the
"Purpose" of the LME -which is to stop expansion and development in the Coastal Zone (not to
increase it, as the Letter-Reply so claims)-and to cease expansion consistent with the General
Plan L8-Ll l ,the Landslide Moratorium, & the Limiting nature of Exceptions to "minor
projects,"
NO later Ordinance has ever been presented by this City for Amendment -nor has one
been enacted -which addresses the underlying purpose and intention and limitations (in size)
that Ord. 407 enacted-and, thus, intentionally, this City chose not to supersede or repeal Ord.
407 setting for that purpose, intention, and statutory limitation.
But, even without this legislative history -the LME' s 1,200ft "cumulative" limit of
15.20.040(H) must be legally defined and constructed in a way that is not inconsistent with the
statute's express language. Not only did this City place a 600ft per limit Project with Ord. 409 -
but even the express statutory language setting for the "1,200ft cumulative limit" -even if this
Council were to ignore Ord. 409 -must still be interpreted as applicable to "multiple" ( or
"cumulative") projects only -and not to the One. By matter of statutory interpretation of the
statutory language, the term "cumulative" denotatively is plural -describing multiple and/or
successive events (plural) and/or accumulation of multiple items (plural) -and is not singular
by construct. (See, Black's Dictionary; see, also, Webster's Dictionary. See, also, Ord. 309 and
407 on construct.) Ord. 409 provides the interpretation and construct and limits for Individual vs
Cumulative Projects -but, even without the benefit of 409 -the language of the LME cannot be
construed in a manner that is inconsistent with its basic meaning in the English Language. There
is no lawful means of interpreting the LME to permit a 1,200ft "Cumulative limit" as meaning
9701 WILSHIRE BL VD., 1 om FLOOR, BEYERL Y HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212
Telephone: (310) 858-7000 II Facsimile: (310) 858-7008
CALDWELL LAW GROUP
Lawyers
City Council
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Re: Appellants' Response to Staff Letter-Reply -In Re:125 Spindrift
Dr
May 1, 2023
Page 10
"Singular Limit" -without disregarding the plain meaning of the statute much less in a manner
that is inconsistent the whole of this City's legislative history reflecting a clear intention to
prohibit expansion. These terms are mutually exclusive, and on these grounds and Ord. 409,
APPEAL is warranted to permit accurate application of this City's LME.
It is worthy to note -however -that yet another reason why Ord. 409 remains the
law of this City as to size limitations under the LME for "Minor Projects" -is that the
LME's Language under Ord. 407 has Never Substantively Changed, Either: Not only did
adoption of Ord. 459U in 2007 and Ord. 474 in 2008 (and others) subsequently become enacted
as it related to zoning updates -but none of the law (none of the amendments) ever changed the
substantive 1,200ft "cumulative limit" that was in the original LME enactment and was in the
Ord. 409 Amendment. Of course, Ord. 409 was never repealed or superseded -and is still cited
as the principal law on the legal construction of the LME -but amendments after the fact made
no substantive change to Ord. 409 as enacted. For example, Ord. 409 had clarified Section Hof
the LME allowed up to 600ft "cumulative" for an Addition/Accessory Dwelling/Covered
Deck -excluding Garages, which -instead, at Section L -were given an allowance for their
own 600ft limit (consistent with the "1,200ft Cumulative Limit"). With the Amendment in 2008
with Ord. 474 -the language of Section (H) changed to accommodate the zoning -but the
purpose and limitation of project size did not. Section H as newly amended WAS IDENTICAL
SUBSTANTIVELY -and referenced the 1,200ft as a "cumulative limit" (and included garages
for the total) so as to be identical with the language under Ord. 409. Specifically -Ord. 407 had
provided permission up to 600ft for Additions (Enclosed Decks, and Accessory Units) -
"EXCLUDING the Garage" (which, separately, had its own 600ft limit at Section L)-while the
2008 amendment of Section H provided a 1,200ft limit for Additions (Enclosed Decks,
Accessory Units) "INCLUDING the Garage." Nothing changed. The 1,200ft "cumulative
limit" remained -and, so, too, by legal construct and interpretation did the 600ft (individual)
project limit as had been enacted by Ord. 407.
Based on the foregoing, the APPEAL of the Commission's approval of an 1,181 ft
exceeds the permissible limit under the LME of 600ft-and violates the LME's express
limitation that 1,200ft be limited to "cumulative" projects only -as, too, the purpose and enacted
intention of this City in application of this law. Here, the Commission incorrectly applied the
law, but so -too -did the underlying Commissioner who issued the (expired) 2017 LME Permit.
BOTH Commission (2023 Constitute) and Commissioner (of 2017) admitted that the sole
authority was application of the LME of 15.20.040(H)-but no such authority exists.
9701 WILSHIRE BL VD., 1 orn FLOOR, BEYERL Y HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212
Telephone: (310) 858-7000 // Facsimile: (310) 858-7008
CALDWELL LAW GROUP
Lawyers
City Council
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Re: Appellants' Response to Staff Letter-Reply -In Re:125 Spindrift
Dr
May 1, 2023
Page 11
Issue 2 City Planning's ONLY Response to Appellant's Issue 1 (Setback) -is (Also)
Legally Incorrect: The Appeal submitted herein asserts that Planning has applied the wrong law
on setbacks -measuring by property lines (which are inside the Fabian's home -and were
troublingly moved unilaterally and without payment of consideration or monies).
This City's Setback Laws Warrant Grant of Appeal (and Denial of the 125 Project): This
City has a wide expanse of setback laws -addressing the purpose, intention, calculation,
exceptions -none of which were followed in the interior setbacks (at a minimum) for the 125
Project. Setbacks Laws Requiring an Interior 5' of distance between each home and that home's
property line -a standard set for Each Property -thus providing 1 O' between two homes.
Exceptions are highly limited -with the Commission only able to Reduce the Setback by 20% --
or 1' per side, no less than 8' between homes). NOTHING permits a setback of 6" -18" -
NONE of which Meets Code or (even) Permissible Exceptions. On the Appeal, Appellant
addressed numerous errors in law by the Planning Commission in its approval of the 125
Spindrift Project-specifically-noting that the approval violated this City's laws which measure
setbacks between a home and another structure, prescriptive easement, or property line --
whichever is closest. (17.48.0 l 0, 17.48.040, 17.48.050). The Staff Letter-Reply does not dispute
that the setback must factor (and be reduced) ifthere are structures built over the property line -
but, here, the 124/125 homes are already 6" (inches) to 18" (inches) apart. Despite the
properties being inches apart at their closest -the City's Letter-Reply ignores the fact this
reduces the setback to 3" (per property) at its closest. (l 7.02.040(A)(l 0) The Letter-Reply
does not address this, nor does it address that the Commission/Council cannot even meet this
City's setback exception requirements -because the actual distance is far in excess of the 8'
(feet) minimum distance between the homes and other structures (if exempt from the 1 O'
minimum).
The Commission's Letter-Reply Acknowledges the Setback Laws Presented in the
Appeal were Correctly Presented by Appellant: In its Letter-Reply, the Commission falls
silent -again -in responding to any and all of the law cited on Appeal specific to how the
Commission had not only miscalculated the setback -but failed to apply the entirely of the
setback laws of this City when so doing. The Commission provides no dispute to the fact the
properties are already 6" -18" apart (their structures) -and does not dispute the fact that the
property line was moved unilaterally (and for no consideration) by the 125 Spindrift owners into
the 124 Property well after these structures were built. The Commission Report does not dispute
that the setback calculations are between the structures (including "prescriptive easements" of
the 124 Home and Deck Walkway now sit on the 125 Property after the property line was
moved) -but, instead, the City's Response proposes to sidestep all of this City's setback
laws (and County/State Fire Codes) by proposing a "technicality" on how to define a
"prescriptive easement" in a manner that the Commission proposes to use to circumvent
obligations to follow setback laws. Independent of the fact these efforts to circumvent this
9701 WILSHIRE BLVD., 10TH FLOOR, BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212
Telephone: (310) 858-7000 II Facsimile: (310) 858-7008
CALDWELL LAW GROUP
Lawyers
City Council
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Re: Appellants' Response to Staff Letter-Reply -In Re:125 Spindrift
Dr
May 1, 2023
Page 12
City's laws (and Fire Codes) are grossly disappointing from a governing neutral body -ALL of
the law cited is also wrong on its face. Even the cases cited by the Commission actually favor the
Appellants -holding that any structure or use of property to which another hold title is "adverse"
presumptively -and a "prescriptive easement" per se, if not de facto.
The City Council cannot reasonably overrule an Appeal -as presented here -unless this
Council is taking the position that none of its laws are enforceable. Appellant trusts that this
Council will be not so cavalier.
The Commission Does NOT have a Legal Basis to Approve the 125 Project's
Violations of this City's Setback and Fire Laws:. The Planning Commission's Letter-Reply is
notably silent in any challenge to the law presented on Appeal setting forth the mandatory
setback provisions -and purpose -which was spacing and light between homes. Instead, the
Planning Commission's Response takes ONLY 1 argument -and the position that the City can
"technically" argue that the Fabian (124) structures are not "adverse to title" of the 125 owners
to circumvent the definition of a "prescriptive easement" -and that this will allow the City/125
to sidestep the need to comply with ALL of this City's setback laws.
(A) The Staff's Letter Proposes a "Technicality" to Circumvent SetBack Laws: The Staff's
Letter-Response does not (and cannot) challenge the Law proposed by the Appeal, but
proposes a "technicality" -in hope of sidestepping the setback rules which would calculate
the setback as 6" -18" between the 125/124 structures. The Staff's Letter-Reply also did not
dispute that setbacks must be calculated between the 125 Structure and any/all "Prescriptive
Easements" or "structures" (which would be the Fabian's home and elevated deck pathway
into the home) -or the property line -whichever is closest. Since the property line had been
moved at some point into the Fabian home next door, however, this City's laws would require
the setback to calculate the distance between the 125 Project and the 124 Deck and Home
next door -which is mere INCHES away -and which, by this calculation, serves to reduce
the 124/Fabian setback down to ZERO.
However, the Letter-Reply proposes that these laws could be ignored if these structures
were not defined as "Prescriptive Easements." (This -itself -is in error since the City also
calculates the setback from "structures" which would include a deck, home, or anything built.
17.02.040(A)(l 0) Nonetheless -the Letter-Reply argues that the structures are not
"Prescriptive Easements" because they do not meet the definitional requirement that the
structures be deemed "adverse of hostile" -and the Commission thus proposes that
compliance with Setback provisions is no longer applicable. There is no such law.
(B) Even Further, the Law Cited by the Staff's Letter-Reply Does not Legally Stand for the
Proposition Asserted: The Planning Commission's Letter-Reply cites to certain statutes
(respecting the "adverse or hostile" requirements under Adverse Possession Doctrine) and
case law respecting the requirements for a "Prescriptive Easement" (which require use or
construction on another's property in a manner which is open -i.e., obvious -and adverse or
9701 WILSHIRE BLVD., 10rn FLOOR, BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212
Telephone: (310) 858-7000 II Facsimile: (310) 858-7008
CALDWELL LAW GROUP
Lawyers
City Council
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Re: Appellants' Response to Staff Letter-Reply-In Re:125 Spindrift
Dr
May 1, 2023
Page 13
hostile to another's ownership interest).The Commission's Letter-Reply relies on Ditzian v
Unger (2019) 31 Cal.App.5111 738, 743 and others -for the proposition that a "Prescriptive
Easement" must have a structure that is "adverse" to another's property interests -and these
cases cited by the City, in turn, rely on California Supreme Court precedent, including the
case of Warsaw v. Chicago Metallic Ceilings, Inc. (1984) 35 Cal.3d 564, 570 for the principal
(espoused also by Ditzian and other cited cases from the lower courts).
Yet, NONE of the analysis of the law cited by the Staff's Letter-Reply is correct-and it
either proposes the wrong or inapposite doctrine -or misquotes and misapplies the law (in a
manner that is nearly antithetical to the actual holding of the caselaw). For example, the
Letter-Reply cites to certain code provisions relevant to "Adverse Possession" Doctrine -
which is irrelevant, here -as "Adverse Possession" involves mechanisms for quieting title
(changing title in a property from one to another) -nothing relevant to "Prescriptive
Easements" (which is a structure or use of another's prope1iy over time that provides a right
to that use, but not a right to change ownership). As for the case law cited by the Commission
in support of its argument that Fabian' s home/elevated deck entrance are not "Prescriptive
Easements" -the Letter-Reply argues that the 124 home/deck, while on 125's property, are
not "adverse" to the 125 Owners -and, thus, not a "Prescriptive Easement." The Staffs
Letter-Reply proposes that if the Fabian (124) structures are not "Prescriptive Easements" -
based upon the structures not being "adverse" to the 125 owners -then the setback
calculations (between the 125/124 structures) are inapplicable and unenforceable.
Specific to this argument, the Letter-Reply is correct that a "Prescriptive
Easement" requires a showing that a structure or use is "adverse" to another's property
interests[fn 3J -and this argument presumes to define the term "adverse" without legal
context, however. In legal context, a use of another's property ( or a structure on another's
property) is "adverse" by definition -because it "adverse" to title of the property owner.
(And, with title comes the right of exclusive possession -which does not exist with a
"Prescriptive Easement.") Thus, the term "adverse' is simply construed in the context of
real estate to an act which is "adverse" to the right of title of another. A house on
another's property -is "adverse" to title of another.
Even further, the cases cited in the Letter-Reply for this proposition -including
Ditzian v Unger (2019) 31 Cal.App.5 th 738, which merely quotes the principal adopted by
the California Supreme Court's in Warsaw, supra, --reveal the Commission's argument
is not well-postured. These cases actually support the Appeal -and define the open and
obvious use of another's property (whether it's by use or by a structure on the property)
is deemed "adverse" (to Title) as a matter oflegal presumption. These cases cited by the
Commission all stand for the proposition that a structure on another's property is
"adverse to title" of the owner and factually meets the "Prescriptive Easement" standard.
In accordance with California Supreme Court precedent, it is deemed to create a legal
presumption ofthe creation of a "Prescriptive Easement "in favor of the Appellant!
3 The Staff Letter-Reply raises Civil Code 1007 and Code a/Civil Procedure 321.
9701 WILSHIRE BLVD., 10TH FLOOR, BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212
Telephone: (310) 858-7000 // Facsimile: (310) 858-7008
CALDWELL LAW GROUP
Lawyers
City Council
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Re: Appellants' Response to Staff Letter-Reply -In Re:125 Spindrift
Dr
May 1, 2023
Page 14
This City Council -therefore -must apply the legal presumption in favor of the
Fabian Family (124) and hold that the structures (his home and deck) are per se "adverse"
for purposes of a "Prescriptive Easement. " On this issue, the California Supreme Court
in the watershed case of Warsaw v. Chicago Metallic Ceilings, Inc. (1984) 35 Cal.3d 564,570,
held, "We agree .... that continuous use of an easement over a longer period of time
without the Landowner's interference is presumptive evidence of its existence." Id. at
570, citing McDonald Properties, Inc. v Bel-Air Country Club (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 693,
702. The cases cited by the Commission are to doctrine created by this Courts -and they
do favor Appellants quite heavily.
Based upon the foregoing, what is evident is that the 125 Project has been
unlawfully approved when this project -in many significant regards -is not compliant
law and will never be compliant with the law of the City as enacted based upon the
current proposed plans. APPEAL of this issue is appropriate, and this Council is asked to
Grant the Appeal on this issue, accordingly.
Issue 3 -Pad Lot vs Down sloping Lot: The Commission did not dispute the law
proffered by Appellant on the issue of parcel classification, either. However, the City Planning's
Response-Letter claims that the parcel can be defined as a "downsloping lot" per RPVMC
17 .96.1090 based upon the engineering report of Denn Engineering -which found the total slope
of the parcel was greater than 5% but less than 35%. However-the Commission OMITS the law
that sets forth the mandatory requirements for parcel/lot classification. Had the law been cited, it
may have called to the Staffs attention that only portions of the statute permitting a lot be
defined as "Downsloping" had been applied. Unlike the argument raised by the Letter-Reply, the
125 Property could only be defined as a "Downs/oping" if the (1) the lot has a downgrade
slope -construed as between 5-35% --AND (2) that the parcel NOT have a pad lot. In the very
engineering report that the Commission relies -however -the engineer refers to the pad lot on
which the home was built --in 3 different locations of the report, no less.
Specifically, RPVMC 17.96.1090 provides that a parcel may be classified as
"Downslope" only if the following requirements are met:
Lot, Downslope -17.96.1090.
"Downslope lot" means a lot that slopes downward from the main street of access with a
slope in excess of five percent AND which does not have a building pad.
[ emphasis added]
970 I WILSHIRE BL VD., I orn FLOOR, BEYERL Y HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212
Telephone: (310) 858-7000 II Facsimile: (310) 858-7008
CALDWELL LAW GROUP
Lawyers
City Council
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Re: Appellants' Response to Staff Letter-Reply-In Re:125 Spindrift
Dr
May 1, 2023
Page 15
As reflected in the Appeal as presented, the 125 Parcel has a "building pad" lot on which the
original house was built -and the very engineering report relied upon by the Commission to
verify the slope acknowledged and stated in 3 different locations within its report that there was
an original pad on which the original structure was built (and still sits). Specifically, a "building
pad" is defined as a portion of a lot with a slope of 5% or less that either exists naturally ... or
graded to form a contiguous level to accommodate a main building." (17.96.320) Not only
does a "pad lot" have a lower build-right height -one far lower than the current 125 Project
proposes -but it also imposes conditions on where the build (if permissible) can be built -
which is from the original building pad. (17.02.040(B)(l)(c), which provides in pertinent part:
"[T]he height [ of a pad lot] shall be measured from the preconstruction ( existing) grade at the
highest elevation of the existing building pad area covered by the structure to the ridge line .... "
Yet, here, by the reclassification -the 125 Project proposes to reorient based upon the slope as
a whole (which notably incorporated an additional ½ parcel to increase the scope and permit a
build far more southern -taking 75% of the views from the Fabian Homes (124) -all of its
views to the east-and eliminating ALL privacy in the viewing location of the home (where
the family eats), the one outdoor patio (the only outdoor space), and the bed on lanai (where
they sleep)-all of these areas in the small southeast corner of the home where they are in a
proverbial "fish bowl." (See, Appeal at Exh. 22 -showing the proposed 125 Home mere feet
away and directly looking into the lanai bed -where the Fabian Family sleeps -or Exh. 5-3,
showing all areas of lost light, view, and privacy in the only outdoor space, indoor eating area
of the southwest corner.
Unless this City Council is only applying "parts" of its statutes -and selecting portions of
evidence from reports submitted -there is no ability for the Commission or this Council to
classify this parcel as a "Downslope lot." There are repercussions to following "half laws and
half-truths" -causing a domino-effect of other violations -height, building location/position on
the parcel -all of which were enacted to prevent interference with views and privacy rights and
to maintain open space and light between neighbors -and ALL of which are in controversy,
here, due to the fall-out of successively inapplicable building permissions.
Here, what proves clear is that APPEAL on this issue should thus be granted, as it is
clear error of law by the Commission or this Council to have classified the property in the
manner designated.
Issue No 4 -City Planning's Response to its Failure to Contemplate View, the
General Plan, or Privacy, or Neighborhood Compatibility) -The City States this was Done
but its Records is DEVOID of Any Such Showing Revealing Clear Errors of Law: The
Commission made errors in law in its failure to Factor Views, Privacy/Light & View Protections
to the degree required under this City's laws. The Letter-Response is remarkably vague as to this
aspect -claiming simply that it "did consider" view -but shows no such consideration in its
9701 WILSHIRE BLVD., 1orn FLOOR, BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212
Telephone: (310) 858-7000 II Facsimile: (310) 858-7008
CALDWELL LAW GROUP
Lawyers
City Council
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Re: Appellants' Response to Staff Letter-Reply-In Re:125 Spindrift
Dr
May 1, 2023
Page 16
Response or its underlying Report. In fact, the City's Letter-Reply ignores the General Plan and
mandatory View and Light and Privacy Assessments -which were Mandatory. Neighborhood
Compatibility was undertaken -in part -although not acknowledging that NO property has ever
received the approvals for these types of violations, much less to this degree, that are being
bestowed to the 125 Spindrift Project. Below provides primary attention to the legal requisites
that were erroneously omitted.
Here, the Commission was required to apply the General Plan L8-Ll 1 specifications -as
a condition requisite for Approval of this Project-and these mandates prohibited approval of
this project without substantial satisfaction of the L-8 -L-11 mandates. Most of these required
legal inquiries were not undertaken-in great part due to the Commission's confusion and
erroneous belief that they were prohibited from considering view, or landmarks (like coastal
breaks), Privacy "inside" the home -or, even, permitted to factor Neighborhood Compatibility
as it pertained to view interference. These errors of law are briefly addressed below.
Portugues Bend Club was built as a Stepped Community Development where each home
had no less than 2 sides of nearly (if not entirely) open views of the ocean to the south, including
of the beach and shoreline waterbreaks -with no house built in front (to the south) of any home
above floor levels of the homes to the north. (Note Lidar surveys showing the hillside homes -
where not one reflects a roof above the floor of a home in its immediate vicinity so as to preserve
those views.) This development was built this way to ensure all if not most homes have
180degree beach/waterbreak views. Historically -reviewing the Commission's approvals of
improvements in this area -NO approval has ever been issued that substantially impacts views
of another -until now; NO approval has ever been issued that permits a second or third story
where the structure is above the floor of homes to the north/west ( or behind that home) in any
substantial manner-until now. NO approval has ever been issued where properties are inches
apart -until now. NO approval has ever been issued where a home is losing 75 of its view and
light-like the Fabian's at 124 -until now. There have been many approvals of second stories
and the additions of improvements and decks throughout the community -just none that have
impacted substantially a Neighbor's views, privacy, light, or space in a significant or substantial
manner-and been approved -until now. The 125 Project seeks to do what has never been
approved by this Commission -and the 125 owners seek to do so without regard to 7
households. Certainly, there has been a change in the manner in which the Commission is
applying the law -and it has created a disparate result if it is not remedied by this Council. That
disparity, however, is rectified once the Commission makes certain corrections of law. viewing
the law that they are required to follow -and where the 2023 Constituted Commission clearly
erred is in its failure to understand and apply the law of view preservation as required by this
City.
Below, Appellant thus addresses which statutory schemes were required yet not
970 I WILSHIRE BL VD., 10rn FLOOR, BEYERL Y HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212
Telephone: (310) 858-7000 II Facsimile: (3 I 0) 858-7008
CALDWELL LAW GROUP
Lawyers
City Council
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Re: Appellants' Response to Staff Letter-Reply -In Re:125 Spindrift
Dr
May 1, 2023
Page 17
undertaken -as these reflect the errors of law (in failing to apply a required standard of review.)
The Commissions Review Records historically in this Neighborhood have been quite
conscientious and rigid on evaluating even minor view changes/impact-but the Approval of the
125 Project is quite distinct historically from this Commission's record. Appellant asserts that
this is due to a failure to apply certain legal requirements that were mistakenly believed by the
Commission to be outside of their scope of review. For instance, on review of whether certain
legal analyses were undertaken as required by the provisions enacted:
General Plan Mandates Satisfied?
L-8 --Were Scenic Views Reasonably Expected by Neighbors Preserved
Did Approval Factor the Views in this Stepped Community?
Did this Factor in the View Preservation Statutes?
Did this Factor in the Amount of View Lost to Some?
No
No
No
No
L-9 --Was Height Controlled to Reasonably Minimize View Obstructions? No
Were Neighbors to the North/west-or their view factored? No
Was the 124 Family's Loss of all eastern Views Considered? No
Was there Coastal Water break/Shoreline Views Factored?
L-10 -Was the Project Address Neighboring Privacy Inside homes?
Would the Fabian Family have Privacy in bed or eating?
L-11 -Was the Project Compliant with Neighborhood Compatibility?
Was Neighborhood Compatibility Standards Met as to:
No
No
No
No
Height -Other Homes Built Below Those Behind it? No
Height-Other Homes Built ~2x Tall (as with 124)? No
(No as to properties this close.)
View -Have Other Homes been Built Impacting View? No
(None like this -neither with the severity as
seen with 124 and loss of 7 5% of views and all
to the east -and none have infringed upon
or eliminated landmark views, like waterbreak)
Setbacks -Have Other Homes been Built As close? No
(Closest is 7'6" -unlike the 6-18", Here)
Did Size/Stories of Others Eliminate Views? No
(No -Commission records show evaluation
Of inches of view interference, and comparing
The difference between pre/post by inches, with
rigid review standards by Commissions Past)
Variance Procedures -Mandating No Substantial View Interference
Was a Variance procedure Applied in light of violations? No
Was the view & privacy evaluated under the Variance Standard? No
9701 WILSHIRE BLVD., lOrn FLOOR, BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212
Telephone: (310) 858-7000 // Facsimile: (310) 858-7008
CALDWELL LAW GROUP
Lawyers
City Council
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Re: Appellants' Response to Staff Letter-Reply-In Re:125 Spindrift
Dr
May 1, 2023
Page 18
View Preservation & Restoration Act-Compliance with 17.02.040
Was the View Preservation & Restoration Act Applied? No
Landmark Preservation (Shoreline/Waterbreak Protections)
Were views of prominent landmarks -like the shoreline -considered? No
Nearly All Neighbors to the west/north will lose 100%.
Conservation & Open Space Land Use Element Policies -General Plan
Was the Open Space Conservation Policy Applied, Here? No.
Compliance with Hardships and Necessity
Was the 125 Project Necessary? No.
This is elective -and building in a way that impacts
Views that no other homes have done in this Neighborhood.
Is not "Necessary" to warrant violating rights of Neighbors.
• The Commission did not factor Views.
Was the 125 Project subject to Hardship? No.
Desire to circumvent statute is not a "hardship", nor is
Deviation from the statutes a basis for "exemption."
Was the Project's Consistency with Laws and Neighbors Factored? No.
• Not as to View Impairment, Height, or Privacy
• No homes have been approved that Interfere
with views and light and open space/setback
requirements in this Stepped-Development
in any manner remotely similar to the 125
Project, although all prior Improvements have
Been subject to strict view interference Review.
Were ALL the Legal Requirements to Factor Views/Privacy Undertaken? No.
The Planning Commission voiced confusion on the law-
and a misunderstanding that view was not a permissible
evaluation (despite numerous Legislative Acts requiring it)
9701 WILSHIRE BLVD., 10rn FLOOR, BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212
Telephone: (310) 858-7000 // Facsimile: (310) 858-7008
CALDWELL LAW GROUP
Lawyers
City Council
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Re: Appellants' Response to Staff Letter-Reply -In Re:125 Spindrift
Dr
May 1, 2023
Page 19
REQUESTED RELIEF: Based on this Response to the Staff Letter-Reply submitted on behalf
of the Planning Commission, it is evident that the Facts and Law are not disputed as raised in the
Mike Fabian Family Appeal. However, the Commission made numerous errors in law in
approving the 125 Spindrift Project -choosing to disregard the enactments that will result in a
gross inequity if this Project proceeds. This City Council is requested to Reverse the Decision by
the Planning Commission approving the 125 Spindrift Drive Project on grounds it is not
consistent with the laws of this City and is violative of the rights of neighbors and residents who
depend on uniform application of the law.
cc: Mr. Michael Fabian
c/o Mr. Octavio Silvo
Interim Director of Community Development
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
Email:octavioS@rpvca.gov
Very truly yours,
CALDWELL LAW GROUP
Isl Susan L. Caldwell
SUSAN L. CALDWELL
9701 WILSHIRE BLVD., lQTH FLOOR, BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212
Telephone: (310) 858-7000 // Facsimile: (310) 858-7008
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: CITY CLERK
DATE: MAY 1, 2023
SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA
_____________________________________________________________________
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agen da material received
through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, May 2, 2023, City Council meeting:
Item No. Description of Material
1 Letter from Bob Nelson and Judy Foote
3 Email from Jim York
Respectfully submitted,
__________________
Teresa Takaoka
L:\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2023\2023 Coversheets\20230502 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.docx
Bob Nelson and Judy Foote
6568 Beachview Drive, Apt. 233
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA. 90275
City Council
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Late Correspondence
Mayor Ferraro, Mayor Pro-Tern Cruikshank, Councilmen Seo, Bradley and Alegria
Subject: May 2, 2023, Meeting:
125 Spindrift Appeal (Public Hearing Item #1)
FAVOR APPROVAL OF STAFF FINDINGS, THEREBY DENYING APPEAL
Council,
Briefly-our thoughts.
1. Michael and Kathy Labarbera deserve the right to remodel their
home in accord with their neighborhood homes and current plans.
2. They should not be subjected to further organized neighborhood
delay-having begun this item in 2015, 8 years ago.
During the intervening period the record will show they have
submitted, modified and, at last, satisfied all requirements of both
our planning staff and your Planning Commission.
3. This will bring their home a street level first story that a
preponderance of their neighbors already have, as well as bring their
home to a much more livable condition and enjoyment!
4. Staff's response to the grounds for appeal (requested by opposing
neighbors who already enjoy homes with what the LaBarbera's plan!)
is a well measured, articulate justification, in only 16 pages, for your
denial of this request and, thereby, confirming your Planning
Commission's approval of these long-sought plans.
Thank you for your time and efforts on behalf of all our citizens!
Bob Nelson and Judy Foote
(BOB WRITES AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN, NOT PC COMMISSIONER)
/.
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Good morning,
Whitney Berry
Monday, May 1, 2023 7:51 AM
CityClerk
Octavio Silva
FW: Code Amendment LME Category T Pools 6001 PVDS
Home Fire Pump .pdf
The below email and attachment are late correspondence for tomorrow's CC item (regular business item #3) for this
code amendment. Thank you for your assistance in getting it distributed to the council members.
Best,
Whitney Berry
Associate Planner
wbe rry@rpvca.gov
Phone -(310) 544-5225
Address:
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
I£\,, GITITON
~•" Google Play
This e-mail mes.sa9c contains information belon9incJ to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, conficlcntial, and/or
prowcted frorn disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the indivich.1al or entity named. Unaut:hol'ized disserninal:ion,
distribution, or copyinq is strictly prohibited. If you receivecl this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the
',ender irnrr('diately. Thank you for your assistance and coopcr·iltion.
From: Jim York <theyorkproperties@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 2'2, 2023 4:26 PM
To: Octavio Silva <0ctavioS@rpvca.gov>; Whitney Berry <wberry@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Code Amendment LME Category T Pools 6001 PVDS
Hi Octavio and Whitney
Thanks for your assistance with the code amendment that will allow us to build a swimming pool that will provide a
critical secondary source of water in case of a fire in this high risk fire area. Attached is the type fire fighting equipment
we would purchase. Additionally, our fire insurance policy provides that the insurance company will send a private fire
fighting crew in case of a wild fire This would keep the entire community safer
Jim
Sent from my iPhone
1 3.
Fire Supply
. ( . ./whatsinmycart.asg)_
~-./whatsinmY.cart.asg).
.( . ./whatsinmY.cart.asP.) .
. ( . ./whatsinmY.cart.asg).
HOME WILDFIRE PUMPS
_( .. /default.asg) ___ _Q
.( .. /whatsinmY.cart.asg) .
HOME ( .. /DEFAULT.ASP).
PRODUCT DETAIL
CATEGORY LIST ( . ./PRODUCTLISTCATEGORY.ASP?URLL=&CATEGORY=21}
High Performance Portable Home Fire Pump Package (Electric Start)
High Pressure 2 Stage Gas Powered Electric Start Fire Pump specifically designed
for home fire fighting, 100 feet of fire hose, nozzle, 12 ft. of PVC Suction Hose, all
fittings & hose adapters already assembled on 10 11 wheel and handle kit.
ht t f)~: i iw :11·!/. il:::. fire') upp ly.com/prod uc t d0 t<:1i!. asp?u rl 1-Hc)rn e_'N ii ... ble_Ho rn.:1_Fin) ___ Pu rn p_Pnc h.<1r,Je_ ( E lectric_S turt j &Prc,cJuc t ! D.:.: 13G 3 ,:i;;:2/ 7 J, :·~: 44 P tA
P;-19C:.' 1 (,f G
Main Benefit:
Free Lifetime Technical Support from a company that specializes in home wildfire
pumps that actually answers their phone! Call 772-284-4233 (tel:772-284-4233).
anytime. We'll help you resolve any problem that ever comes up right over the
phone. This is the main benefit in buying from us. You won't be able to get that level
of immediate service and expertise anywhere else.
Fire Pump Features:
• Electric Start with key
• Battery tray mounted on pump frame
• Battery included
• 3-way cast-iron outlet
• Pump Type: High Pressure Pump
• Pump Style: 2-stage cast-aluminum impeller
• Heavy Duty Steel Frame
• California & EPA Approved!
Specifications:
• 5.0 Horsepower
• Honda GX 160 OHV Gasoline Engine
• 3600 RPM
• .82 Gallon Fuel Tank
• Low oil shutdown alert: Yes
• Engine Run Time: 2.0 hrs
• Max Total Head (Static): 300 ft. (pump to destination)
• Suction height: 20 ft (water source to pump)
• Self Priming Pump: Yes, wet prime
• Maximum Pressure (PSI): 125
• Gallon Per Minute: 80
• Duty Points: 65 GPM @ 50 PSI, 45 GPM @ 75 PSI, 25 GPM @ 100 PSI
• Solids Handling: No
• Outlet Diameter: 2 ea. @ 1 11
, 1 ea. @ 1 .5 11
• Inlet Diameter: 2 11
h It ps://w -vw. jjsf iresu PP ly.co rn/prncluct r.iet ai I. asp?urll= Hom e_'Nil ... I:; le_Horne_F ire_Pum p_Package_ ( Electric_Start) &Procluc t I f):c 1363 4/2 2/2 3, 3: 44 PUI
Paqc2of6
• Impeller and Housing Material: Cast Aluminum
• Inlet & Outlet Port Mtrl: Cast Iron
• Starting System: Electric & Recoil Start
• Weight: 130 lbs
• Check Valve: Yes
• 2 year limited warranty
Fire Hose Specifications:
• Our fire hose is 1-1 /2" high quality single jacket fire hose
• 1 00 feet of hose
• Intended for industrial fire protection use
• Hose has a synthetic rubber liner
• 100% polyester yarns prevent mildew
• Hose has 300 PSI test pressure and a 150 PSI service pressure
• Fire hose comes standard with an FM label
• Hose comes coupled with HARD COAT ALUMINUM couplings (NST) threads
Note: To ensure optimal performance, do not exceed a total length of 300 feet of fire
hose with this system.
11 I I ps ://www.jj,; f ircsu pply.com/productde tail .as p?u rll= Home_W il ... ble_Home_Fire_Pum p_Pacf;age_ (Elect ric_Sta rt) & Product ID= 13G3 4 /2 2/2 3, 3: 44 PM
P,190 3 of o
Price: $4,300.00
~ In Stock
Quantity:
Add to Cart
11 t I il"://www.j1sf,rnsupply.com/p rod uctcieta ii .asp'?l11l 1.c Home_Wil ... ble_Home_F ire_Pu m p_Packaqe_( E lee t ric_S tart) & P rncJuc t I Dec 13G :3 4/22/23, J:44 Pi'v1
Pil,ie 4 of G