The URL can be used to link to this page

CC SR 20230502 01 - 125 Spindrift Appeal PUBLIC HEARING Date: May 2, 2023 Subject: Consideration and possible action to consider an appeal of a Planning Commission approval of Variances, a Coastal Permit, and Site Plan Review with Neighborhood Compatibility for the property located at 125 Spindrift Drive (Case No. ZON2017- 00489). Recommendation: 1) Review the proposed project and merits of the appeal; and 2) Adopt Resolution No. 2023-__; DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF VARIANCES, A COASTAL PERMIT, AND SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY ALLOWING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,181 FT2 ADDITION, CONSISTING OF A NEW 1,041 FT2 SECOND FLOOR AND A 140 FT2 ADDITION TO THE EXISTING 1,670 FT2 SINGLE-STORY RESIDENCE FOR A NEW TOTAL STRUCTURE SIZE OF 2,851 FT2 (GARAGE INCLUDED); A NEW 45 FT2 BALCONY; AND ANCILLARY SITE IMPROVEMENTS ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 125 SPINDRIFT DRIVE (CASE NO. ZON2017-00489). 1. Report of Notice Given: City Clerk 2. Declare Public Hearing Open: Mayor Ferraro 3. Request for Staff Report: Mayor Ferraro 4. Staff Report & Recommendation: Octavio Silva, Interim Director of Community Development 5. Council Questions of Staff (factual and without bias): 6. Public Testimony: Principal Parties 10 Minutes Each. The appellant or their representative speaks first and will generally be allowed ten minutes. If the applicant is different from the appellant, the applicant or their representative will speak following the appellant and will also be allowed ten minutes to make a presentation. Appellants: Michael Fabian and Sue Schmidt (124 Spindrift Drive) and joining parties including: Joseph Lay IV and Lynda Lima (102 Spindrift Drive), Ann Lineberger (104 Spindrift Drive), Kevin and Allison Wolcott (100 Spindrift Drive), and Dr. Jerry Schwartz (105 Spindrift Drive) Mayor Ferraro invites the Appellants to speak. (10 mins.) Applicant: Russell Barto for Property Owners Michael and Kathy Labarbera Mayor Ferraro invites the Applicant to speak. (10 mins.) A. Testimony from members of the public: The normal time limit for each speaker is three (3) minutes. The Presiding Officer may grant additional time to a representative speaking for an entire group. The Mayor also may adjust the time limit for individual speakers depending upon the number of speakers who intend to speak. 7. Rebuttal: Mayor Ferraro invites brief rebuttals by Appellant and Applicant. (3 mins) Normally, the applicants and appellants will be limited to a three (3) minute rebuttal, if requested after all other interested persons have spoken. 8. Council Questions of Applicant (factual and without bias): 9. Declare Hearing Closed/or Continue the Public Hearing to a later date: Mayor Ferraro 10. Council Deliberation: The Council may ask staff to address questions raised by the testimony, or to clarify matters. Staff and/or Council may also answer questions posed by speakers during their testimony. The Council will then debate and/or make motions on the matter. 11. Council Action: The Council may: vote on the item; offer amendments or substitute motions to decide the matter; reopen the hearing for additi onal testimony; continue the matter to a later date for a decision. CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 05/02/2023 AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Public Hearing AGENDA TITLE: Consideration and possible action to consider an appeal of a Planning Commission approval of Variances, a Coastal Permit, and Site Plan Review with Neighborhood Compatibility for the property located at 125 Spindrift Drive (Case No. ZON2017-00489). RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: (1) Review the proposed project and merits of the appeal; and (2) Adopt Resolution No. 2023-__; DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF VARIANCES, A COASTAL PERMIT, AND SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY ALLOWING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,181 FT2 ADDITION, CONSISTING OF A NEW 1,041 FT2 SECOND FLOOR AND A 140 FT2 ADDITION TO THE EXISTING 1,670 FT2 SINGLE-STORY RESIDENCE FOR A NEW TOTAL STRUCTURE SIZE OF 2,851 FT2 (GARAGE INCLUDED); A NEW 45 FT2 BALCONY; AND ANCILLARY SITE IMPROVEMENTS ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 125 SPINDRIFT DRIVE (CASE NO. ZON2017-00489). FISCAL IMPACT: The Appellants paid the $3,000 appeal fee. If the City Council grants the appeal, the entire $3,000 appeal fee will be refunded to the Appellants. If an appeal results in a modification to the project, other than changes specifically requested in the appeal, half of the appeal fee ($1,500) shall be refunded to the Appellants. If the City Council denies the appeal, the Appellants will not be refunded any of the appeal fee. Amount Budgeted: N/A Additional Appropriation: N/A Account Number(s): N/A ORIGINATED BY: Octavio Silva, Interim Director of Community Development REVIEWED BY: Same as below APPROVED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, City Manager ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: A. Resolution No. 2023-__ (page A-1) B. Appeal letter (page B-1) C. P.C. Resolution No. 2023-02 (C-1) D. Project plans (page D-1) E. Public comments (page E-1) 1 Links to previous staff reports and actions taken by the Planning Commission are incorporated into the background discussion below. BACKGROUND: The matter before you is the consideration of an appeal of a Planning Commission approval of Variances, a Coastal Permit, and Site Plan Review with Neighborhood Compatibility for the property located at 125 Spindrift Drive. The proposed project involves the construction of a 1,181 ft2 addition consisting of a new 1,041 ft2 second floor and a 140 ft2 addition to the existing 1,670 ft2 single-story residence, resulting in a new total structure size of 2,851 ft2 (garage included), and a new 45 ft2 balcony and ancillary site improvements. A timely appeal (Attachment B) of the Planning Commission’s decision was filed by a neighboring property owner, 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). The Appeal letter requests that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission’s approval of the requested project applications and deny the proposed project. De Novo Review Although the requested applications for the proposed project were vetted, reviewed, and approved by the Planning Commission, tonight’s hearing on this matter is a de novo hearing, meaning that the City Council shall conduct the hearing as if the action had not been previously heard and as if no decision had been rendered, except that all testimony, evidence and other material from the record of the previous consideration shall be included in the record of the review. Additionally, Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC) § 17.80.070(F) notes that "the City Council appeal hearing is not limited to consideration of the materials presented to the Planning Commission. Any matter or evidence relating to the action on the application, regardless of the specific issue appealed, may be reviewed by the City Council at the appeal hearing." As such, the City Council is not limited to only considering the bases of the appeal but may expand the consideration of the appeal hearing to include the concerns relayed by the public and Planning Commission or any additional concerns raised by the City Council as a result of the public hearing. The City Council has the following options: (1) uphold the appeal and deny the project; (2) deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of the project; or (3) remand the project back to the Planning Commission with direction. A discussion of Staff’s recommended findings supporting the project for approval are presented in the discussion section below. Staff recommends the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of the proposed project. 2 Application Timeline Initial project applications were submitted in 2015 and the timeline below highlights application milestones and supporting documents since that time: • August 28, 2017- the Director of Community Development conditionally approved a Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit (Case No. ZON2015 -00086), pursuant to 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 with ancillary site improvements. • April 26, 2022, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing regarding the proposed project, which at the time included Variances, a Coastal Permit, and Site Plan Review with Neighborhood Compatibility to construct a 1,160 ft2 addition consisting of a new 1,075 ft2 second floor and an 85 ft2 addition to the existing 1,670 ft2 single-story residence for a new total structure size of 2,830 ft 2 (garage included), a 412 ft2 roof deck; and ancillary site improvements. The April 26, 2022 Planning Commission staff report includes, but is not limited to, additional background information, project description, code considerations, and analyses, as well as an assessment of public comments and late correspondence presented at that time. After considering public testimony, the Planning Commission provided direction to the Applicant, Russ Barto (representing property owners Michael and Kathy Labarbera) to address the concerns raised at the public hearing, and continued the public hearing to a date uncertain to allow the Applicant additional time to consider revisions to the project design. • January 23, 2023, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing to consider the revisions to the proposed project. As outlined in the January 24, 2023 Planning Commission staff report, project revisions included, but were not limited to: a reduction in the number of requested setback Variances; a change in the size of the roof deck from 412 ft2 to a 45 ft2 balcony; and an increase to the overall structure size by 21 ft2, and to the building height by 0.82 feet. After consideration of the project revisions and public testimony received, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted P.C Resolution No. 2023-02 (Attachment C), conditionally approving the proposed project. • February 9, 2023, the Planning Division received this timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision by Michael Fabian and Sue Schmidt, the property owners and residents of 124 Spindrift Drive along with 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). • 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. As of the completion of this report, Staff received one comment in response to the public notice. 3 DISCUSSION: The following discussion provides an overview of: 1) the site and project description; 2) summarizes the discussion of code considerations and analysis; and 3) the bases of the appeal. 1) Site and Project Description The project site is a 4,180 ft² down -sloping lot, located at 125 Spindrift Drive. The site is currently improved with a 1,380 ft² single- family residence with an attached 290 ft² one-car garage (1,670 ft² total structure size) and a rear yard deck. The site is non- conforming as the existing improvements on the lot encroach into the minimum required 20-foot front (6.9 foot existing), 5- foot side (2.9-foot west side existing) and 15-foot rear (15.5 foot existing) setbacks and exceed the maximum allowable lot coverage of 40% (54.3% existing). These types of legal non-conforming conditions are typical of development patterns in this area of the Portuguese Bend Beach Club community. Generally, lots in the area are smaller in size than baseline Zoning Code requirements, which often results in reduced setbacks between property lines and exceedence of lot coverage minimums. The site and surrounding neighborhood are located within the Single-Family Residential 2 d.u./ac (RS- 2) zoning district, and Natural Design (OC-1), Social-Cultural (OC-2) and Urban Appearance (OC-3) overlay control districts. The site is also located within the “red” zone of the Landslide Moratorium Area, as well as the Appealable Area of the City’s Coastal Zone. The proposed project includes the following improvements: • 1,181 ft2 addition consisting of a new 1,041 ft2 second floor and a 140 ft2 first floor addition to the existing 1,670 ft2 single-story residence for a new total structure size of 2,851 ft2 (garage included); • 45 ft2 balcony at rear of the residence; and • Ancillary site improvements, including a new entry porch, water fountain, access stairs and AC unit. The height of the proposed addition for down-sloping lot 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 4 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). 2) Code Consideration and Analysis – Staff Recommendation for Approval Pursuant to RPVMC §17.02.030(B)(1)(d)(g), §17.64.010(A), and §17.72.090, the proposed project requires Variances, Coastal Permit and a Site Review with Neighborhood Compatibility, Variance, and Coastal Permit. Due to development patterns, including substandard lot sizes in the Portuguese Bend Beach Club community, the requested Variances to accommodate the proposed project included the following: • Reduction in the required front yard setback from 20 feet to 4.50 feet to accommodate the construction of a new garage. • Exceedance of the 40% maximum lot coverage (51.3% existing and 52.8% proposed) to support proposed additions and ancillary site improvements. • Reduction in the amount of required open space/landscape in the front yard setback back from 50% to 15.6% for proposed hard scape and parking improvements. • Exceedance of the 250 ft2 residential addition limit in the City’s Coastal Setback Zone (931 ft2 addition proposed over limit). In the consideration of requested applications, it is important to highlight the Applicant’s revisions to the initial project design as a result of the feedback received from the April 26, 2022 Planning Commission meeting. This information is important because the revisions resulted in a project design that the Planning Commission unanimously found to be closer in conformance with code requirements, did not result an unreasonable infringement of privacy, and was consistent with Neighborhood Compatibility in the area. Table No. 1 below, compares the initial project submittal to the revised project scope: Table No. 1- Project Revisions Proposed Project Scope Initial Project Submittal Revised Project Garage setback 1-foot from front yard setback Increased to 4.50-feet from front yard setback Additions and access stairs along westerly side yard 2.50-foot reduction of side yard (5-foot required) Proposed improvements removed out of required side yard setback Lot Coverage 57.1% Reduced to 52.8% (51.3% existing) Roof deck 412 ft2 in area Reduced to 45 ft2 balcony 5 Proposed Project Scope Initial Project Submittal Revised Project Combination wall in front yard setback 10.04 feet combination wall in front yard setback to accommodate stairs to front entry of residence Redesigned access stairs to less than 4 feet in height Landscape in front yard setback 3% landscape in front yard setback to accommodate proposed improvements Increased to 15.6% via redesign elements in front yard setback Structure height 21.71 feet 22.53 feet (.82 feet increase) Proposed Addition 1,160 ft2 1,181 ft2 (21 ft2 increase) Table No. 2 below further articulates Staff’s analysis of the Applicant’s requested applications and related permit findings that were deemed acceptable by the Planning Commission in its approval of the project. Table No. 2: Code Consideration and Analysis Code Consideration Staff’s Analysis Site Plan Review with Neighborhood Compatibility 1. Compatible with the immediate neighborhood character in terms of scale, architectural style, and setbacks a) Scale: The proposed project will result in a residence that is above the average structure size (1,565 ft²) in the immediate area and above the largest home in the neighborhood at 101 Spindrift Drive by 83 ft2. The proposed project does not create mass or scale issues when compared to other homes in the immediate area, as the design of the new second-floor includes articulation and varying façade features to break up the scale and massing of the residence. In addition, the down-sloping topography of the project site and the siting of the home provide for a single- story configuration as viewed from the street of access. A Variance is required to exceed the minimum RS-2 lot coverage, however, a majority of the lots within the immediate neighborhood 6 Code Consideration Staff’s Analysis have legal nonconforming lot coverage exceeding 40% due to the substandard size of the properties on which they are built. b) Architectural Style: The proposed residence includes architectural features and materials in both the façade treatment and roof design that are found within the neighborhood including stucco and siding, flat and pitched roofs in various materials and configurations. c) Setbacks: The proposed project includes a Variance request to reduce the front yard setback to 4.50 feet. The project proposes to maintain existing side and rear yard setbacks. 2. No unreasonable infringement of privacy of abutting residences The project will not present an unreasonable privacy infringement to neighboring properties as the new 45 ft2 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. Variance 1. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions exist applicable to the property, or to the intended use Exceptional circumstances exist because the project site was created and improved prior to City incorporation with nonconforming lot size (4,180 ft2) not typical of RS-2 zoning district minimum (20,000ft2); existing development patterns and substandard lot sizes in the immediate area limit opportunities to comply with code requirements; and project site is located entirely within Coastal Setback Zone and would be impossible to build outside of this zone. 2. Necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right Variance requests are necessary because a majority of the neighboring homes have nonconforming setbacks due to substantially substandard sized lots; increase in lot coverage is necessary to provide hardscape for parking and access 7 Code Consideration Staff’s Analysis stairs; allows residence to expand in size consistent to those typically found in RS-2 zoning district; Variance request allows residence to expand in size consistent to those typically found in RS-2 zoning district; and reduction in front yard open space needed to accommodate on-site parking and access stairs to residence. 3. Not materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property and improvements in the area All construction will be required to adhere to the California Building Code and any associated geological requirements and inspections. 4. Not contrary to the objectives of the General Plan or the policies and requirements of the Coastal Specific Plan The project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Policy No. 3 (p. L-7), to “encourage and assist in the maintenance and improvement of all existing residential neighborhoods so as to maintain optimum local standards of housing quality and design.” The project site is consistent with Subregion 6 of the Coastal Specific Plan. Coastal Permit 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the Coastal Specific Plan 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. 2. That the proposed development, when located between the sea and the first public road, is consistent with applicable public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act The development, located between the sea and the first public road, is consistent with the 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. 8 3) Bases of Appeal and Staff Response The appeal seeks to overturn the Planning Commission’s approval of the proposed project on four grounds. The complete appeal contents with its supporting documentation is available in the Appellants’ February 9, 2023 appeal letter (Attachment B). The following is a summary of the key grounds for the appeal (shown in bold below) along with Staff’s responses provided below. 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 ft2 – but where this City has adopted Ordinance No. 407 clarifying its intention was for Additions to be limited to 600 ft2 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.” Staff Response: Appellants are challenging the issuance of a Landslide Moratorium Exception (LME) Permit from 2017 and are time-barred from doing so now. Additionally, Appellants misread the RPVMC and are seeking to apply an earlier development standard that has been repealed and replaced by a later code amendment. The first part of Appellants’ argument challenges the LME Permit issued for the property in 2017. The project site is located in the City’s Landslide Moratorium Area, which requires the approval of an LME Permit prior to construction pursuant to RPVMC § 15.20.040. The relevant exception here is Category H (RPVMC § 15.20.040(H)). The exception generally provides for minor projects including residential additions that do not exceed a cumulative 1,200 ft2 via an LME Permit. The full text of the exception states: Exception Category ‘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 1,200 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 (Landslide Mitigation Measures Required) and does not include any additional plumbing fixtures, unless the lot is served by a sanitary sewer system. The 1,200 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. 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. 9 In the case of the project site, 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. The Appellants further argue that that the Planning Commission unlawfully approved a 1,181 ft2 addition based upon its misinterpretation and misapplication of RPVMC § 15.20.040(H). The Appellants focus on Ordinance No. 407 (2004) and 474 (2008) and assert that up until Ordinance No. 474, the maximum size of the additions for existing residences in the Landslide Moratorium Area was 600 ft2 per parcel, and then an additional 600 ft2 was possible, but only for adding a garage. The Appellants then contend that current Exception Category ‘H’ provisions were introduced by Ordinance No. 474 and that the language clarifies that there is still a 60 0 ft2 limitation for additions, plus 600 ft2 for a new garage for a total of 1,200 ft2. Therefore, the Appellants assert that the Planning Commission did not have the authority to approve a 1,181 ft2 addition (all for an addition) on the project site. The Appellants’ interpretation of the ordinance is inconsistent with the rules of statutory interpretation. The current code provides that the 1,200 ft2 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 the other requirements are met. The language currently in RPVMC § 15.20.040(H) was introduced in Urgency Ordinance No. 459U (2007). The language was intended to loosen prior limitations by making the 1,200 ft2 number cumulative rather than capped at a max of 600 ft2 for additions and 600 ft2 for a new garage. The relevant language introduced in Ordinance No. 459U supersedes code language in Ordinance No. 407 or any other prior ordinance inconsistent with the updated language and has not changed since June 5, 2007. 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.” Staff Response: Appellants contend that the setback should be measured from the edge of a prescriptive easement on the project site property; however, the evidence submitted does not establish the existence of such an easement, and therefore the setback was properly measured from the property line. The Appellants’ second argument focuses on existing setback conditions between the project site and the westerly neighboring property at 124 Spindrift Drive. The project plans (Attachment D) indicate that the design of the proposed addition along the westerly side 10 property line will provide for a 5-foot setback between the addition at the garage and the property line. As outlined in the Project Site Description section of this report, development patterns in the Portuguese Bend Beach Club community include nonconforming lot sizes with reduced setbacks between property lines, and lot coverages that exceed minimum zoning requirements, because of the substandard size of these lots as compared to other RS-2 zoned lots in the City. Based on the development patterns between the project site and the property at 124 Spindrift Drive, the westerly side property line of the project site traverses over portions of the neighboring residence and an access walkway. In other words, existing improvements at 124 Spindrift Drive encroach onto the project site’s westerly side yard. Due to these conditions, it is Staff’s interpretation that the Appellants assert that the project site side yard setback should be measured between structures and not to the property line. 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). More specifically, in this code section, “setback” means the minimum horizontal distance between any property line or private easement boundary used for vehicular and/or pedestrian access and the closest point on any building or structure, below or above ground level, on the property. The Appellants’ letter contends that a prescriptive easement exists between the project site and the property at 124 Spindrift Drive related to existing improvements between the two properties, and therefore the setback should be measured from the easement boundary rather than the property line . (It should be noted that the project plans and or related property survey do not identify any easements between the properties.) 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.1 A use is adverse if it is without the permission of the owner of the burdened land .2 The burdened property owner’s permission to use their land can be express or implied.3 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 onto 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 easement exists, prescriptive or otherwise, and the setback is properly measured from the property line. 3. The “Planning Commission erred in finding the project site to be a Sloping Lot and thus misapplied the height limit/where situated on the property. 1 Civ. Code, § 1007; Code Civ. Proc., § 321; Ditzian v. Unger (2019) 31 Cal. App. 5th 738, 743. 2 Abbott v. Pond (1904) 142 Cal. 393, 398. 3 Richmond Ramblers Motorcycle Club v. Western Title Guaranty Co. (1975) 47 Cal. App. 3d 747, 754. 11 Staff Response: Appellants assert that the Applicant’s residence was constructed on a pad lot with no more than 5% slope. This is inaccurate, as the property is demonstrably built on a slope between 5% and 35%. Appellants contend that the project site is configured as a pad lot and subject to a 16 foot/ 20 foot ‘by-right’ building height envelope and not as a down -sloping lot, which provides for a 16 foot/30 foot ‘by-right’ building height envelope. More specifically, if the project site was identified as a pad lot, the Applicant’s proposal for an addition over 16 feet would have required the consideration of a Height Variation Permit and associated view impairment impacts. Figure No. 1 below, provides a visual representation of pad lot conditions and the associated ‘by-right’ height envelope as outlined in RPVMC § 17.02.040 (B)(1)(c). Figure No. 1- Pad Lot Conditions Figure No. 2 below provides a visual representation of down sloping lot conditions and the 16 foot/30 foot ‘by-right’ building height envelope as outlined is RPVMC § 17.02.040 (B)(1)(b). Figure No. 2- Down Sloping Lot Conditions 12 Staff believes the project site was correctly identified as a down -sloping lot. Specifically, based on the lot configuration in Figure No. 1 above, the project site residence would have to be located over an area of the project site that is less than 5% in slope to be considered a pad lot. Based on a slope analysis prepared by a licensed engineering company, Denn Engineers, the project site re sidence is located over an area of the property that is over 5% but below 35% in slope ; thus, making the project site a down- sloping lot. As a down-sloping lot, improvements are allowed within the ‘by-right’ building height envelope of the project site and does not trigger the City’s View Ordinance. A copy of the slope analysis is attached to the project plans. Figure No. 3 below highlights slope conditions of the project site. Figure No. 3- Project Site Slope Analysis Furthermore, for the project site to be considered to have a building pad, the site would have been graded to form a contiguous level area to accommodate a main building. In the case of the project site, the siting of the project residence is not configured on a contiguous level area, but rather the terraced design of the project residence includes portions of the home that are on different levels and thus not in a contiguous level area . 13 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.” Staff Response: Appellants assert that the Planning Commission did not analyze and make findings related to privacy and Neighborhood Compatibility. This is inaccurate. The Planning Commission considered and made the requisite findings, which is reflected in the staff reports and the adopted resolution The Planning Commission did not consider view impairment as the project is within the ‘by-right’ height envelope for a down-slope lot. Finally, Appellants argue that the Planning Commission improperly failed to consider project impacts related to view, privacy, and neighborhood compatibility. Staff believes this is inaccurate, as the Planning Commission did in fact consider privacy concerns and Neighborhood Compatibility in their approval of the Site Plan Review application. An assessment of potential privacy impacts and the project’s compliance with Neighborhood Compatibility was included in both the April 26, 2022 and January 23, 2023 Planning Commission Staff Reports and concomitant resolutions. In summary, the proposed 45 ft2 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 Appellants’ property at 124 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 its 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. A further explanation of the project site’s ‘by-right’ building height envelope is outlined in outlined in Appeal Ground No. 3. The Planning Commission’s findings are reflected in P.C Resolution No. 2023-02 (Attachment C). ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: City Council Site Visit Although not required, it is recommended that City Council visit the project site and neighboring properties. Staff can provide contact information for the Applicant and Appellant to schedule a site visit. Appeal Hearing Participation Pursuant to City Council Policy, Planning Commission Acting-Chairman David Churra will be invited to participate in the City Council appeal hearing. 14 Zoning Overlay Control Districts The project site is subject to the Natural (OC-1), Social-Cultural (OC-2), and Urban Appearance Overlay Control District (OC-3) overlay control districts, as established pursuant to RPVMC § 17.40.040 and 17.40.050, respectively. An analysis of the project’s compliance with these three overlay control districts are included in the April 26, 2022 Planning Commission staff report. Environmental Assessment Staff reviewed the proposed application for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Categorical Exemptions are projects which have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and have been exempted from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Upon completion of this review, it has been determined that the proposed project is Categori cally Exempt from CEQA, pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines, as the addition to the single-family residence is negligible in size and does not expand the current use. Public Correspondence Following the Public Notice issued on April 13, 2023, Staff received one public comment (Attachment E) from the property owner at 105 Spindrift Drive, Jerry Schwartz, expressing project concerns related to property values and view impairments. With regard to property value concerns, the RPVMC does not include permit findings to assess property value impacts to neighboring properties. In terms of view impairment concerns as observed from 105 Spindrift Drive, Staff determined the proposed project would not result in a significant view impairment, as outlined in the April 26, 2022 Planning Commission Staff Report. From Staff’s photograph below, the project silhouette will partially impair a portion of the view of the shoreline from 105 Spindrift Drive. However, expansive views of other shoreline areas, ocean and Catalina Island are preserved beyond the project silhouette. Furthermore, as the proposed addition will be located within the project site’s 16 foot/30 ‘by-right’ building height envelope, the View Ordinance is not triggered and therefore potential view impacts are not a factor considered in the development applications’ required findings. 15 Foliage Analysis Based on a site visit conducted on April 13, 2021, there is no foliage on the project site that significantly impairs a view from the viewing areas of a neighboring pr operty. CONCLUSION: Based on the Code considerations outlined above along with the analysis of the appeal concerns, Staff believes the project continues to meet the merits of the Planning Commission’s approval. Staff therefore recommends the City Council deny the appeal by adopting the attached resolution denying the appeal thereby upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of Variances, a Coastal Permit and Site Plan Review with Neighborhood Compatibility allowing the construction of a 1,181 ft2 addition, consisting of a new 1,041 ft2 second floor and a 140 ft2 addition to the existing 1,670 ft2 single-story residence for a new total structure size of 2,851 ft2 (garage included); a new 45 ft2 balcony; and ancillary site improvements on the property located at 125 Spindrift Drive (Case No. ZON2017-00489). ALTERNATIVES: In addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternative actions are available for the City Council’s consideration: 1. Grant the appeal, thereby overturning the Planning Commission's decision to approve Variances, Coastal Permit and Site Plan Review with Neighborhood Compatibility for the proposed project, without prejudice; and direct Staff to bring back a Resolution memorializing this decision on May 16, 2023. 2. Hear public testimony this evening, identify any issues of concern with the proposed project, provide Staff and/or the Applicant with direction in modifying the project, and continue the public hearing to a date certain. 3. Take other action as deemed necessary. 16 Resolution No. 2023-__ Page 1 of 13 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 FT2 ADDITION, CONSISTING OF A NEW 1,041 FT2 SECOND FLOOR AND A 140 FT2 ADDITION TO THE EXISTING 1,670 FT2 SINGLE-STORY RESIDENCE FOR A NEW TOTAL STRUCTURE SIZE OF 2,851 FT 2 (GARAGE INCLUDED), A NEW 45 FT2 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 appropriat e 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 A-1 Resolution No. 2023-__ Page 2 of 13 opportunity to consider 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 ft2 addition, consisting of a new 1,041 ft2 second floor and a 140 ft2 first floor addition to the existing 1,670 ft2 single-story residence for a new total structure size of 2,851 ft2 (garage included); and ancillary site improvements. A-2 Resolution No. 2023-__ Page 3 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 ft2 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 consisten cy 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 ft2) that is substantially smaller than the required minimum lot size (20,000 ft2) 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 Costal 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 charac ter 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 ft2 balcony, an entry porch, a A-3 Resolution No. 2023-__ Page 4 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 ma ss resulting from the proposed additions, as the design of the new second-floor includes articulation and varying façade 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 ft2 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 ft2 – but where this City has adopted Ordinance No. 407 clarifying its intention was for Additions to be limited to 600 ft2 and Garages to be limited to 600 ft2 (with a 1,200 ft2 cumulative project size between the 2 components.) The Planning Commission’s Approv al 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 ft 2 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. A-4 Resolution No. 2023-__ Page 5 of 13 The current code provides that 1,200 ft2 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 ft2 for a new garage. The relevant language introduced in Ordinance No. 459U supersedes code language in Ordinance No. 407 or any other prior ordinance inconsistent with the updated language and has not changed since June 5, 2007. 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 A-5 Resolution No. 2023-__ Page 6 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 cons idered 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 ft2 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 . A-6 Resolution No. 2023-__ Page 7 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 ft2 addition, consisting of a new 1,041 ft2 second floor and a 140 ft2 addition to the existing 1,670 ft2 single-story residence for a new total structure size of 2,851 ft2 (garage included); a new 45 ft2 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 17.86.100(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. _________________________________ Barbara Ferraro, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________ Teresa Takaoka, City Clerk A-7 Resolution No. 2023-__ Page 8 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 A-8 Resolution No. 2023-__ Page 9 of 13 and separate environmental review and public notification. 6. The project development on the site shall conform to the specific stan dards 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 A-9 Resolution No. 2023-__ Page 10 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 soone r 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 a reas 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. A-10 Resolution No. 2023-__ Page 11 of 13 Project Specific Conditions: 21. This approval is for the following entitlements: A. 1,181 ft2 addition consisting of a new 1,041 ft2 second floor and a 140 ft2 first floor addition to the existing 1,670 ft2 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 1 4.81 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 A-11 Resolution No. 2023-__ Page 12 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 build ing 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 the ir sanitary sewage lateral, any sanitary A-12 Resolution No. 2023-__ Page 13 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 wi thin 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. A-13 C A L D W E L L L A W G R O U P L A W Y E R S 9701 WILSHIRE BLVD, 10TH FLOOR, BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212 Telephone: (310) 858-7000 SUSAN L. CALDWELL scaldwell@caldwelllawgroup.com February 9, 2023 [AMENDED SUBMISSION -CORRECTED EXHIBITS] City Council City of Rancho Palos Verdes Via Electronic Delivery c/o Mr. Silvo Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes c/o Mr. Octavio Silvo Interim Director of Community Development Rancho Palos Verdes, CA Email:octavioS@rpvca.gov RE: NOTICE OF APPEAL OF CITY PLANNING DECISION Case Number: ZON2017-00489 Date of Decision: January 24, 2023 Property Location: 125 Spindrift Drive Applicant: Russell Barto Landowner: Michael & Kathy Labarbera Appellant: Michael Fabian and Sue Schmidt(& Joining Parties)FN1 Dear Distinguished Members of the City Council: This letter is submitted in Appeal of the City Planning Commission’s Notice of Decision issued January 24, 2023, approving the 3rd addition to a residential home in the Coastal Zone located at 125 Spindrift Drive, and is filed on behalf of Michael Fabian and Sue Schmidt (“Fabian Family”) who reside next door at 124 Spindrift Drive – and numerous joining families in the neighborhood. INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT This Appeal is filed on behalf of the Mike Fabian Family, who have resided at 124 Spindrift Drive for nearly 50 years. Notice of Appeal is submitted to the City Council to the Planning Commission’s Decision Issued on January 24, 2023, approving the 3rd addition to the 125 Spindrift Dr. on the following grounds: 1 This Appeal is joined by most of the neighbors surrounding this project in the Portuguese Bend Club Community, and reflected in the accompanying Joinder or Objection asserted by nearly all of the homes behind the 125 Spindrift Drive Project, including JOSEPH LAY IV, LYNDA LIMA, 102 SPINDRIFT DR, ANN LINEBERGER, 104 SPINDRIFT DR, KEVIN & ALLISON WOLCOTT, 100 SPINDRIFT AND DR. JERRY SCHWARTZ, 105 SPINDRIFT DR. B-1 CALDWELL LAW GROUP Lawyers City Council City Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes Re: Notice of Appeal (Case # ZON2017-00489)–In Re:125 Spindrift Dr February 9, 2023 Page 2 9701 WILSHIRE BLVD., 10TH FLOOR, BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212 Telephone: (310) 858-7000 // Facsimile: (310) 858-7008 Issue Number 1: The Planning Commission unlawfully approved a 1,181ft 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 1,200ft – but where this City has adopted Ordinance 407 clarifying its intention was for Additions to be limited to 600ft and Garages to be limited to 600ft (with a 1,200ft cumulative project size between the 2 components.) The Commission’s Approval directly violates the law as adopted by this City. Issue Number 2: The Planning Commission applied 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. Issue Number 3: The Planning Commission Made Errors in Finding a Sloping Lot – when this is Pad Lot – and Misapplied the height limit/where situated on the property. Issue Number 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. STATEMENT OF ISSUES APPEALED The following are the bases for appeal of the Decision issued January 24, 2023. ISSUE NUMBER 1 – APPLICATION OF INCORRECT LAW IN RE: THE LANDSLIDE MORATORIUM EXCEPTION The January 24, 2023, Notice of Decision Incorrectly Interprets & Applies the Statutory Exception to the Landslide Moratorium Codified at RPVMC §15.20.40(H) as Allowing a Residential Addition up to 1,200 ft2 as its Basis for Approving an 1,141 ft2 Addition to a Residential Home, when – Instead – §15.20.40(H) Limits all Additions to No More than 600ft – and, at a minimum – it is the law of this City that the intention is to permit no more than 600ft for an addition to a home in this zone. The Decision approving the 1,181ft Addition is legally impermissible and in Conflict with RPVMC – and directly in conflict with Ordinance 407 setting forth the intention and limit of 15.20.040(H) for which the Planning Commission (and the 2017 Permit) state as authority for Approval. Ordinance 407 remains the law of this City, and subsequent amendment to the language of 15.20.40(H) did not alter the substance of B-2 CALDWELL LAW GROUP Lawyers City Council City Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes Re: Notice of Appeal (Case # ZON2017-00489)–In Re:125 Spindrift Dr February 9, 2023 Page 3 9701 WILSHIRE BLVD., 10TH FLOOR, BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212 Telephone: (310) 858-7000 // Facsimile: (310) 858-7008 Ordinance 407 – and, most notably, the City did not repeal Ordinance 407 setting forth its intention to limit Additions under this provision to 600ft. The City Council is requested to overrule and deny the January 24, 2023 Order and, even, the underlying 2017 Permit as both are legally incorrect and impermissible. A. Basis for Appeal: The City Planning Commission issued a Decisionfn2 adopting PC- Resolution 2032-02 on January 24, 2023, for a 1141 based on underlying errors of law and fact as set forth below. 2. January 24, 2023 Approval of 1,181ft Addition Per PC-Resolution 2032-02fn3: A. Stepped Development (Lidar Survey): The Portuguese Bend Club neighborhood was a planned step-stagger development – where each home was built stepped above the house to the south (closer to the ocean) to permit each home to have encompassing 180dg views.[FN4] B. Conditional Approval (PC Resolution 2032-02): On Appeal is the Conditional Approval of an 1,141 Addition[FN5] to a Single Family Residence at 125 Spindrift Drive based upon the following listed calculations. C. Size of Addition: 1,670 Current Home Size Plus Proposed 1,041 2nd Floor Addition 140 1st Floor Addition 1,181 Total Size of Addition to Residence (Excluding Garage) Total: 2,851 D. Lot Size: 4,180 (68% of the Lot Allocated to the Proposed Build) 2 See Exhibit 1, Notice of Decision of January 24, 2023 adopting Conditional Approval of PC Resolution 2032 -02. 3 See Exhibit 1-A to Notice of Decision, PC Resolution 2032-02 setting forth the basis for Conditional Approval issued of January 24, 2023. 4 See Exh 2 – Photograph of Lidar Survey (Drone View) – showing the neighborhood homes are all staggered and stepped up the hillside so that no home to the south (toward the Ocean) is above the living floor area of the homes to the north and/or infringing upon the views of their neighbors to each side, as developed. Not one home in this Neighborhood is built above the living area of the homes behind it to the North to this very day –none has been re- built in a manner which blocks views of a side neighbor, either, or built as close as the 125 Project proposes. 5 See Exhibit 1-A to Notice of Decision, PC Resolution 2032-02 basis for Conditional Approval issued of January 24, 2023, at Para. 21. B-3 CALDWELL LAW GROUP Lawyers City Council City Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes Re: Notice of Appeal (Case # ZON2017-00489)–In Re:125 Spindrift Dr February 9, 2023 Page 4 9701 WILSHIRE BLVD., 10TH FLOOR, BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212 Telephone: (310) 858-7000 // Facsimile: (310) 858-7008 2. The January 24, 2023 PC Resolution and its Conditions were Based Upon RPVMP 15.20.04(H) & the Underlying 2017 LME Permit (Also Based upon RPVMP 15.20.040(H)), And the Planning Commission’s Incorrect belief that this Statute Allows 1,200ft Additions in the Landslide Moratorium Red Zone: THE FOUNDATION (AND BASIS) FOR THE COMMISSION’S JANUARY 24, 2023 APPROVAL OF PC RESOLUTION 2032-02 PERMITTING THE 1,181FT ADDITION AT 125 SPINDRIFT DRIVE: On the Commission’s Resolution, at Page 1, Paragraph 1 of PC-Resolution 2032-02 – adopted January 24, 2023 – the City Planning Commission acknowledged that the Conditional Approval for the approval of an 1,181ft Addition to the residential home located at 125 Spindrift Drive was based upon RPVMC 15.02.040(H) – which provides an Exception to the Landslide Moratorium prohibition on building and Coastal Zone limits. Specifically: (a) PC Resolution 2032-02 (Pg 1/Para.1) Reads: “Whereas, on August 28, 2017, the Community Development Director conditionally approved a Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit (Case No. 20N2015-00080, pursuant to Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC) 15.20.040(H) thereby allowing the landowner to proceed with the filing for an addition to the existing residence including…a new second story.” [emphasis added] (b) The 1/23/23 Conditions of Approval (Exh A to Resolution 2032-02) Also Confirmed the Basis Approving the 1,181ft Addition Rests in the RPVMC 15.20 Provisions: The conditions of approval (at Exh. A to the January 24, 2023, PC Resolution 2032-02), further acknowledged that a condition of the Planning Commission’s approval was – in fact – compliance with RPVMC 15.20 – specifically at Para. 33. This was consistent with the Resolution’s acknowledgement that approval was pursuant to the LME of 15.20.040(H). (c) However, the City Planning Commission – at the Public Hearing of January 24, 2023 – Acknowledged they were Uncertain of Size Limits for Additions Under the LME and this City’s Law for Minor Improvements: At hearing, numerous members of the public spoke in objection to the project – including counsel for represented Neighbors. A letter in Opposition to the proposed project had been submitted to the Planning Commission before the Hearing addressing that RPVMC 15.20.040(H) does not allow 1,200ft Additions in this neighborhood and/or under the Moratorium.(FN6) 6 This firm on behalf of the Fabian Family (124 Spindrift Drive) submitted via email a letter objection on the afternoon of January 17, 2023, which was re-sent on January 23, 2023 compressing the size of the attachment due to concerns it had not been received. Subsequently, it was reported by the Interim Director that t he email submission had routed to a “junk folder.” This submission is part of the January 24, 2023, record, however. B-4 CALDWELL LAW GROUP Lawyers City Council City Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes Re: Notice of Appeal (Case # ZON2017-00489)–In Re:125 Spindrift Dr February 9, 2023 Page 5 9701 WILSHIRE BLVD., 10TH FLOOR, BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212 Telephone: (310) 858-7000 // Facsimile: (310) 858-7008 At the hearing, the Commission asked City Counsel for clarity on the square footage limit for Additions in light of arguments raised in the Fabian Report as, too, statements and arguments by interested objectors. When the Planning Commission Chair queried respecting square footage limits (specially, the limitations imposed by RPVMC 15.20.040(H) raised at hearing), City Counsel advised that it would need to research the issue and deferred comment until the City Attorney could do so. However, the Interim Director did communicate to the Planning Commission upon further inquiry by the Planning Commission Chair that a 2017 LME Permit had been issued for the project which stated that it was allowed to approve Additions up to 1,200ft under the RPVMC’s Landslide Moratorium Exception. (The LME statute is 15.20.040(H)) 3. (The Underlying Permit) The August 28, 2017-Issued Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit (which was the Basis for the 1/24/23 PC Resolution Approval) was – Also – Based Upon Authority Conferred by RPVMC 15.20.040(H) – And (Also) Wrongly Misconstrued this Statute to Permit 1,200 ft Additions in the LM Red Zone (like 125 Spindrift Dr.): BASIS FOR THE APPROVAL OF AUGUST 28, 2017 LME PERMIT. The LME Permit(FN7) was issued in 2017 with Conditions for Approval attached as Exhibit A to the LME Permit (FN8) – and which set forth that the authority on which the LME Permit was granted (approving a project in excess of 1,100ft) was the LME provision of RPVMC 15.20.040(H). (a) The LME Permit States that its Approval of the 125 Spindrift Drive Project was Based on RPVMC 15.20.040(H) (Exh. A – Conditions of Approval): Specifically – the August 28, 2018 LME Permit sets forth the basis for approving the over 1,100ft sized Addition proposed for 125 Spindrift based upon the 1,200ft limit for exceptions granted under RPVMC 15.20.040(H) – and acknowledged that otherwise the Addition would be prohibited or limited to 250ft under the Moratorium (and the Coastal Zone limitation). (b) However – BOTH the LME Permit & the Commission’s Approval (Exh A to the LME Permit) are Legally Incorrect and Directly Conflict with and Exceed Statutory Authority Limiting Additions to No More than 600ft: Based upon the Permit misunderstanding/misapplication of law – and the Planning Commission’s reliance thereon – both the 2017 LME Permit and the 2023 Resolution approving an 1,181ft Addition are fatally flawed and 7 See Exh 3 – August 28, 2017 Notice of Decision of Landslide Moratorium Exception (LME) Permit. 8 See Exh 3-A – Conditions of August 28, 2017 Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit. B-5 CALDWELL LAW GROUP Lawyers City Council City Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes Re: Notice of Appeal (Case # ZON2017-00489)–In Re:125 Spindrift Dr February 9, 2023 Page 6 9701 WILSHIRE BLVD., 10TH FLOOR, BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212 Telephone: (310) 858-7000 // Facsimile: (310) 858-7008 legally impermissible per se – because RPVMC 15.20.040(H) – on which authority both rely and depend – prohibits, instead, the square footage of any Addition to 600ft only. (Further discussion in Section B, below.) 4. Even Further – the 2017 LME Permit had Expired – and Could not be a Basis for the Planning Commission’s January 24, 2023 Approval: The LME Permit would have expired by matter of law within 180 days of its issuance –by February 28, 2018 – absent a formal issuance of Extension. No record of extension has been registered with the City to which this objecting party can ascertain. However, good cause cannot be said to exist to extent an LME Permit that is both legally incorrect and based upon 5 year old data related to a different proposed structure. Further, a formal request dated February 8, 2023, has been issued to the Interim Director to issue a revocation based on application of incorrect law which the Director may issue upon notice of an error in a previously issued permit. B. LEGAL DISCUSSION PROVING GRANT OF APPEAL & DENIAL OF THE JANUARY 24, 2023 DECISION (AND EXPIRED PERMIT) IS PROPER On appeal is the January 24, 2023 Decision – of which the City Planning Commission relied on the dated August 28, 2017 LME Permit – and its understanding that LME permitted Additions up to 1,200ft in the zone. The Planning Commission did not have the ability to verify the law when raised by Objecting Neighbors in prior Submissions and Statements at time of hearing, and relied on the LME Permit, understandably. However, RPVMC 15.20.040(H) had been misread, misapplied, and no approval of a project exceeding 600ft is permissible as a matter of law. Foundational Aspects which are Undisputed: The Planning Commission acknowledged that the 125 Spindrift Drive Residence is in the Coastal Zone (located between the ocean and the first parallel public street to the Ocean) as well as the Red Zone of the RPV Landslide Moratorium, in Klondike Canyon – and acknowledged that the Landslide Moratorium limited any addition to a minor improvement, and – too – that the Coastal Zone prohibits building of additions, otherwise, in excess of 250ft, absent an exception issued under the LME to the extent the law provides under this provision. The Exception to the Moratorium (and Coastal Zone 250ft limit) was acknowledged by the Planning Commission – in its Notice of Decision of PC Resolution 2032-02 and Conditions as, too, the underlying 2017 LME Permit (and Conditions) – all of which acknowledged that an exception was permissible and had been issued pursuant to RPVMC 15.20.040(H). With this foundation, the Planning Commission then approved the addition of 1,181 ft2 proposed at 125 Spindrift Drive based upon the (expired) 2017 LME Permit, stating that the exceptions set forth by RPVMC 15.20.040(H) allowed an addition of habitable space up to 1,200ft – which was the basis for the LME Permit and B-6 CALDWELL LAW GROUP Lawyers City Council City Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes Re: Notice of Appeal (Case # ZON2017-00489)–In Re:125 Spindrift Dr February 9, 2023 Page 7 9701 WILSHIRE BLVD., 10TH FLOOR, BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212 Telephone: (310) 858-7000 // Facsimile: (310) 858-7008 the Planning Commission’s Approval. The Law Supporting Denial of the January 24, 2023 Order : The City Planning Commission is quite mistaken on the law, and it has no legal permissible authority to exceed the LME, or to provide an Exception to the Exception that permits an addition of 1,181ft – it does not. 1. The Landslide Moratorium: On September 5, 1978, the City Council enacted an urgency ordinance prohibiting the development of property in the ancient landslide area, subsequently adopted as the City’s Landslide Moratorium. RPVMC 15.20.020 2. The Landslide Moratorium Exception – RPVMC 15.20.040(H): The ordinance and subsequent amendments were adopted over time creating limited and strict categories of exception from the moratorium for “minor projects”. RPVMC 12.20.040. Specific to the location of 125 Spindrift Drive (which the Planning Commission does not dispute to exist in the designated Red Zone), RPVMD 15.40.040(H) sets forth possible exceptions to the moratorium with respect to improvements to current single family residences – by way of Minor Projects that are categorized as an Addition, enclosed deck, garage, or accessory structure (whether detached or not), providing for a maximum size cumulatively. RPVMC 15.20.040(H) reads in pertinent part: “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 1,200 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 (Landslide Mitigation Measures Required) and does not include any additional plumbing fixtures, unless the lot is served by a sanitary sewer system. The 1,200 square foot limitation on cumulative projects that can be app roved 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 ….” [emphasis added] B-7 CALDWELL LAW GROUP Lawyers City Council City Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes Re: Notice of Appeal (Case # ZON2017-00489)–In Re:125 Spindrift Dr February 9, 2023 Page 8 9701 WILSHIRE BLVD., 10TH FLOOR, BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212 Telephone: (310) 858-7000 // Facsimile: (310) 858-7008 The Statute – at all times – has been clear that the 1,200ft limit was for cumulative categories of projects and that, by virtue of this cumulative limit, the size limit for each component – whether an Addition or a Garage – would necessarily be a smaller size than the cumulative project limit total. Historically, in Rancho Pales Verdes, this was not readily understood, as reflected by the legislative history specific to this provision and the City’s adoption of its stated intent in amendments over time. 3. Specifically – for example – A 1995 Amendment of RPVMC 15.20.040(H) by City Ordinance 309 was Adopted by City Council to Clarify the Legislative Intent of this Statute was to Limit Size of Each Component to No More than 600ft: In 1995, the City adopted Ordinance 309 amending 15.20.040(H) in pertinent part to clarify that the 1,200ft cumulative limitation under the LME was – in fact – a “cumulative” limit and intended to limit each project (Additions, Garages, Accessor Units) to no more than 600ft. Ordinance 309 amended 15.20.040(H) by providing clarity of the Legislative Intent of the LME – but also provided that any project greater than 600ft (for an Addition vs Garage vs Accessory Dwelling Unit) required approval by the City Commission. 4. However – 15.20.040(H) was Again Amended in 2004 by Ordinance 407 – where City Council (Again) Clarified that Any Exception to the Moratorium (ie., Addition or Garage) was Limited to a 600ft MAXIMUM for EACH – Whereby Landowners Could NOT “Borrow” Square Footage from the “Cumulative” Total Set Forth in 15.20.040(H) to Exceed the 600ft LIMIT – and Further Removed the Discretionary Mechanism that Permitted City Council to Approve Additions Larger than 600ft: In 2004, the City adopted Ordinance 407[FN9] further amending RPVMC 15.20.040(H) by again clarifying that the intention of 15.20.040(H)’s “cumulative” provision had always been to limit total projects including the garage to 1,200ft – and for each project not to exceed 600ft. City Council Acknowledged Confusion: The City Council acknowledged in 2004 that there had been confusion by some in interpreting RPVMC 15.20.040(H) and the 1,200ft “cumulative” limitation – as, too, the 600ft limit per project because some improperly believed that entitled a landowner to as 9 See Exh. 4, providing Ordinance 407, adopted . B-8 CALDWELL LAW GROUP Lawyers City Council City Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes Re: Notice of Appeal (Case # ZON2017-00489)–In Re:125 Spindrift Dr February 9, 2023 Page 9 9701 WILSHIRE BLVD., 10TH FLOOR, BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212 Telephone: (310) 858-7000 // Facsimile: (310) 858-7008 great as 1,800ft for addition (600ft x 3), and – in fact – historical records show confusion that the 1,200ft “cumulative” requirement could allocate/lump all the square footage to 1 Addition – which was never the permissible intent of the statute. (For example, this same error was seen with the 2017 LME Permit and 2023 City Planning Approvals.) The City Council opened the issue to public hearing and then adopted Ordinance 407 making a finding of legislative intent in adopting RPVMC 15.20.040(H)’s “cumulative” limit of 1,200ft and that it was intended to be 600ft for each category contemplated – an Addition (or an Enclosed Deck, or an Accessory Dwelling Unit) and a garage – each, and the 1,200ft cumulative limit was strictly that – cumulative – with this City amending 15.20.040(H) to clarify its intention was to limit each category (Addition vs Garage) to 600ft. Ordinance 407 Adopted Served to Amend 15.20.040(H): Ordinance 407 was adopted and amended RPVMC 15.20.040(H) – accordingly – as of 2004, notably with it also removing any provision that permits approval of an addition above 600ft – even by this City Council of Ord.309. The removal of this provision that contemplated the ability to approve an Addition above 600ft is deemed intentional for purposes of legal construct – standing in the face of the Land Moratorium and the LME which expressly provided a maximum limitation of 600ft for Addition. 5. The Intention of Ordinance 407 was Stated to Ensure Additions Conformed with the “Minor Project” Requirement of the LMException Statute of 15.20.040: In its Adoption of 407, the City Council acknowledged it was amending 15.20.040(H) in order to: “[C]larify that the maximum cumulative project(s) total square footage for additions to existing structures…is six hundred square feet per parcel for both types of projects, combined, rather than for each type of project individually.” 6. The City Council Acknowledged the Purpose of Ordinance 407 and the Amendment to 15.20.040(H) was – In Fact – to Limit Expansion of Developed Properties: The City further acknowledged at Section 2 that the purpose was to “limit the expansion of developed properties.” This purpose as set forth by the City stood consistent with the City’s prohibition against the expansion of non-conformities – particularly by way of variance – and the limitation for any exception to the building moratorium to be a true “Minor Project” and/or one that was necessary. RPVMC 17.84.10. B-9 CALDWELL LAW GROUP Lawyers City Council City Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes Re: Notice of Appeal (Case # ZON2017-00489)–In Re:125 Spindrift Dr February 9, 2023 Page 10 9701 WILSHIRE BLVD., 10TH FLOOR, BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212 Telephone: (310) 858-7000 // Facsimile: (310) 858-7008 7. In 2008, the City adopted further Amendment to 15.20.040(H) – which Again Included the 1,200ft Cumulative Limitation – But Ord. 407's 600ft Limit was NOT Repealed and the two Ordinances Remain Consistent: In 2008, Ordinance 474[FN10] was then adopted which introduced the zoning aspects for the Moratorium – and also changed the language of 15.20.040(H) to a 1,200ft cumulative limit (including the garage) – but with NO substantive change to the law other than the addition of the zoning. The substance of Ord. 407 (or the prior Amendment) were consistent with the zone-amendment, and the City – notably – did not Repeal Ord. 407 and any of its aspects which set forth the intention of 15.20.040(H) was to limit Additions/Accessory Dwellings to 600ft – only – with Garages also limited to 600ft, only. With Ord. 407, Section H clarified that a Moratorium Exception would be 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 (specifically to Garages). This was consistent with the Original Language of Section (H) and its “1,200ft Cumulative Limit” – with the City clarifying with Ord. 407 that they intended a 600ft limit for Additions/Accessory Dwellings/Covered Patios (cumulatively)– and a separate 600ft limit for Garages – with a 1,200ft limit total. With the Amendment in 2008 with Ord. 474 – the language of 15.20.040(H) changed to accommodate the zoning – but the meaning and limitations for project size did not. Section H as newly amended now added Moratorium Zones and included language providing a limit on cumulative projects at 1,200ft – but, this time, clarifying that the 1,200ft limit included the Garage. Therefore, while its predecessor Ord. 407 had provided 600ft as the cumulative limit for Additions (Enclosed Decks, and Accessory Units) – “EXCLUDING the Garage” (which, separately, had its own 600ft limit at Section L) – the amendment of Section H with Ord. 474 in 2008 provided a 1,200ft limit for Additions (Enclosed Decks, Accessory Units) “INCLUDING the Garage.” These provisions remained substantively identical in regard to the 600ft limit for Additions vs Garages – along with the intention that “cumulative” projects, plural, could not exceed 1,200ft. Nowhere in this 10 See Exh. 5, Ordinance 474, adopted. Ord.474 makes no reference to changing the intention for the LME, and – in fact, the law is substantively identical. The underlying Ord. 407 which clarified the City’s intention was – decidedly – never repealed, either. B-10 CALDWELL LAW GROUP Lawyers City Council City Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes Re: Notice of Appeal (Case # ZON2017-00489)–In Re:125 Spindrift Dr February 9, 2023 Page 11 9701 WILSHIRE BLVD., 10TH FLOOR, BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212 Telephone: (310) 858-7000 // Facsimile: (310) 858-7008 City’s legislative history has this statute ever adopted a 1,200ft limit for a “singular project” – nowhere has it been even contemplated, when – in fact – the City’s intention with 15.20.040(H) has been ratified as intending to limit all residential expansion. Reinterpreting Section H to permit 1,200ft singular project/additions would directly contradict the language and legislative history of the LME. More importantly, Ord. 407 – as adopted – and its express limitation of Additions to 600ft (and 600ft for Garages – with 1,200ft prescribed as “cumulative” project maximum, only) has specifically NEVER been repealed, and thus sets forth the Current law of this City for which this City Council and its Planning Commission must adhere. These provisions are not discretionary, nor were they arbitrary in their adoption – and retention. The intention of the enacting body of this City adopted as matter of law that it would not allow an Addition greater than 600ft in the LME Red Zone – and no greater than 600ft for a Garage – with a 1,200ft “cumulative” limit for multiple projects – with a stated purpose of, in fact, limiting expansion and development. This remains the law of this City, and – thus – an approval of a 1,181ft Addition for a “singular project” directly violates this law, Ordinance 407, and the express intent of 15.20.040(H). 8. Even the City’s Right to Issue a Variance Cannot Disregard or Surpass the 600ft Limitation for an Addition, Here: Even though the City is empowered with the right of variance – none exists to surpass the 600ft limit – and, even if one did, such permission is imposed with conditions requisite and great limitation. Specific to the building of an Addition in the Red Zone as the 125 Spindrift Drive Project seeks to do – this Addition can only be permitted “subject to the provision of this chapter” (RPVMC 17.84.030) – and this provision mandates conformity with the building codes (to which the Landslide Moratorium limitation of 15.20.040(H), amended by Ord. 407 have been enacted.) The 600ft limit of 15.20.040(H) cannot be side-stepped. Because the Building Code –and within it the Landslide Moratorium and Exception of 15.20.040(H) and Ord. 407 – prohibit the building of an Addition in excess of 600ft, no variance is even permissible. Specifically, Section 17.84.040 provides for non-conforming lots where variances may be granted, conditioned upon a showing that “[A]ll applicable building code requirements can be satisfied.” This is a mandatory provision – requiring adherence to yet another mandatory provision of the Building Code that limits the size of the addition (15.20.040(H) and (K), Amd by Ord. 407). B-11 CALDWELL LAW GROUP Lawyers City Council City Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes Re: Notice of Appeal (Case # ZON2017-00489)–In Re:125 Spindrift Dr February 9, 2023 Page 12 9701 WILSHIRE BLVD., 10TH FLOOR, BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212 Telephone: (310) 858-7000 // Facsimile: (310) 858-7008 9. The City Council Must Construe 15.20.040(H) to have Prohibited the Ability to Seek an Exception to this Exception – Based Upon the Express Language of 15.20.040(H) and its Legislative History: Where – as we see with 15.20.040(H) and Ordinance 407 – clear and unequivocal language and clarification that (i) the exception to the Moratorium is to permit 1,200ft for cumulative projects only (ii) with each project limited to 600ft, and (iii) with the purpose and stated intention of reducing expansion of existing developments -- those held to uphold the law must do so, and presume the intention of the legislature is based upon the words used in their plainest of meaning. See, for example, Smith v Sup. Ct. (2004) 39 Cal.4TH 77, 83; Briggs v Eden Council (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1106, 1117. Where 15.20.040(H) has been enacted and amended to provide only 600ft is allowed for an Addition – and with express intention of limiting expansion of development -- any interpretation otherwise stands in direct violation of law and legal construct. Further – where language has been removed from a legislative enactment – as seen with Ordinance 407’s removal of language from prior amendments (and Ordinance 309) that had permitted City Council an option of approving projects in excess of the 15.20.040(H) 600ft limit – that omission must equally be deemed intentional in interpreting the scope and limit of the law as enacted. See, for example, People v. Salazar-Merino (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 590, 596; see, also, People v. Frontier Pacific Ins. Co. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 889, 892. (when interpreting statutory language, courts may neither insert language that has been omitted, and must presume the omission was intentional.) Here, the statutory language is clear and unambiguous – it provides an exception to the Moratorium – allowing “Minor Projects” of a certain kind and size – and which limits the cumulative total for multiple (not singular) projects to 1,200ft – and limits each category likewise to 600ft. The law must be followed as adopted, amended, and intended. Here – specific to the 125 Spindrift Drive Project –no exception to the 600ft limit for an Addition is permissible under the law – nor is it permissible for 1 project – and the Decision Approving the 1,181ft Addition (all for an Addition) was in violation of the authority conferred to the Planning Commission. REQUESTED REMEDY SOUGHT BY THE APPEAL OF THIS ISSUE: Appellant and joining parties submit that the City Council overturn the January 24, 2023 Decision and Issue a Denial as – on its face – the City Council is able to do so, effectively negating need for remand, on grounds that the Decision approving the Addition of 1,181ft is not permissible under the City’s laws or statutory schematic. B-12 CALDWELL LAW GROUP Lawyers City Council City Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes Re: Notice of Appeal (Case # ZON2017-00489)–In Re:125 Spindrift Dr February 9, 2023 Page 13 9701 WILSHIRE BLVD., 10TH FLOOR, BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212 Telephone: (310) 858-7000 // Facsimile: (310) 858-7008 ISSUE NUMBER 2 – THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION IMPROPERLY APPLIED THE LAW OF MINIMUM INTERIOR SETBACKS – AND A FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH MINIMUM MANDATES A. Basis for Appeal: The City Planning Commission misinterpreted and misapplied the minimum interior setbacks between 125 Spindrift Drive and 124 Spindrift Drive to the west. The Portuguese Bend Club Neighborhood (Photographs from Lidar Survey): The 125 Project is east of 124 Spindrift (Fabian Home/west-neighbor) – and the 125 Project seeks to build just a few feet away from the structure that has been located on 124 Spindrift for nearly 50 years – and which Appellant asserts to violate this City’s setback requirements.[FN11] As relevant to the Appeal on the error of law undertaken by the Commission in evaluating setback statutes of this City, the proposed build of the 125 Project is also seeking to eliminate all of the west- neighbor Fabian’s views (approx.. 75% of their view and light and space in the home) – which also violates this City’s setback statutes and open space requirements as adopted.[FN12] Photographic evidence from the Lidar Survey is provided to orient this Council, accordingly. The City’s Stated Setbacks: The City, in its Decision to Adopt the Resolution of January, 2023, acknowledged that the Planning Commission approved the 125 Spindrift Drive project with setbacks being 4.5’ to the north (street), 6.5 to the east, and 2.5’ to the west property (124 Spindrift Dr.) [FN13] The City Calculated Setbacks From Points INSIDE the West-Neighbor’s Property – and Do NOT Factor Structure to Structure Distance – or Easements – and Undertakes a Calculation that is Both Incorrect and in Conflict with the Statutory Purpose for Setbacks: In its approval of the 125 Spindrift Drive project, the City’s calculation of setbacks does not factor in the distance between the structures – or the distance between the proposed build and the private right away/easement after 11 See Exh. 6, Photograph from the Lidar Survey undertaken by Appellant, Drone Image, showing the proximity between 124 Spindrift that the 125 Project – ranging from 4.5” (inches) to 3.5’ – and with no other home in this neighborhood even remotely this close. 12 See Exh. 7, Photograph from the Lidar Survey undertaken by Appellant, Drone Image, showing the entire east- side of the 124 Spindrift property (to the west of the 125 Project) that will be overshadowed by a 6.5’ taller structure at 125 running the entire length of the 124 Spindrift home – just feet away – eliminating all views, space, and light on the 124 Spindrift property. At Exh. 8 is a photograph showing the elimination of view proposed by the Build. 13 At Exh 1-A, Para. 22, Setbacks, to the Conditions of PC Resolution 2032-02’s adoption on January 24, 2023. B-13 CALDWELL LAW GROUP Lawyers City Council City Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes Re: Notice of Appeal (Case # ZON2017-00489)–In Re:125 Spindrift Dr February 9, 2023 Page 14 9701 WILSHIRE BLVD., 10TH FLOOR, BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212 Telephone: (310) 858-7000 // Facsimile: (310) 858-7008 the 1980’s property line adjustment – or the fact that the property line to which the City was measuring was inside another’s home. The Setback is Inches to a Few Feet – And the Commission Incorrectly Approved this Project when it had No Legal Authority to Do So: The City Commission measured the setbacks for this Project as the distance between the 125 Spindrift Drive structure and the property line (inside the west-neighbor’s home) – resulting in a legal absurdity under statute. Even then, the Commission admitted this “setback” is a mere 2.5’ to the west in its Decision – ½ of the 5’ Per House Minimum – and failing to note that this reduced the 124 Spindrift setback to 0.00 – neither of which the Commission had authority to approve. The true distance between 124/125 Spindrift is 4.5” (inches) to 1.5’ for over 20’ to 3.5’ remaining. This distance is less than the minimum per-house setback – much less the minimum required between 2 houses. The Commission has proceeded in error. B. Legal Discussion Proving Grant of Appeal and/or Denial & Remand to the Planning Commission to Apply the Law Correctly is Warranted: Notably, the 125 Project is in violation of all setbacks – front, interior, and rear. None can satisfy the variance criteria – certainly not consistent with this Commission’s precedent. None are compliant – and no credible basis for variance has been stated. Foundational Aspects Relevant to this Appeal: The Decision approved the Resolution – which found setbacks were 2.5’ to 4.5’ with the west-neighbor and equally noncompliance to the north and south. 1. The Landowner’s Survey is Incorrect:[Fn15] A survey was conducted by the Landowner of which a subsequent Lidar Survey was able to verify hard errors. The story poles were subsequently moved – without provision of plans to the community – and the height subsequently increased with the distance between the west-structure not factored. Setback, however, requires verification of the distances between structures, easements, as well as the location of property lines to properly in applying this City’s RPVMC. 2. Both Surveys – and the City – Acknowledge the Property Line is inside the West-Neighbor’s Property at 124 Spindrift Drive: Both surveys acknowledge that the property line was moved in the 1980’s to angle a greater degree of arc/property toward the street – with the property line moved about 1 ½ feet 15 See Exh 9, Letter of Surveyor Jeffrey Voorheis, who undertook a Lidar Survey, noting errors in Applicant’s survey, story poles moved and raised after Appellant’s Lidar Survey – and property lines inside the 124 Home. B-14 CALDWELL LAW GROUP Lawyers City Council City Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes Re: Notice of Appeal (Case # ZON2017-00489)–In Re:125 Spindrift Dr February 9, 2023 Page 15 9701 WILSHIRE BLVD., 10TH FLOOR, BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212 Telephone: (310) 858-7000 // Facsimile: (310) 858-7008 into the west-neighboring home (124 Spindrift) at its very southern plane – and into the deck walkway, living room, and back bedroom by the street by over 2 feet as the property line progresses toward the street, Spindrift Drive. 3. The Property Line was Changed in the 1980’s by the Owners of 125 Spindrift Drive – moving it INTO 124 Spindrift (vs 124 Spindrift Building over its Property Line) – and the Change is seen with the Moving of the Property Line (from Time of Purchase) which was Parallel Between Both Properties Before 125 Spindrift Re-Adjusted It Into the Fabian Residence Next Door: At time of purchase, the original structures – 125 and 124 Spindrift were parallel to one another – and parallel to the property line which ran between the properties as reflected by the Parcel Map. [Fn16] 125 Spindrift since has undertaken 2 Additions – a garage and a 600ft addition to the home – but the original structure on the building pad as part of the original development reflects even spacing between structures and property line which existed at original sale. 4. Redistribution of Property Line in 1988: The homes were purchased in 1986 – with the property lines as reflected in Exh. 10, hereto, and original to the subdivision.[FN17] In 1988, however, when the Fabian Family was in New Zealand, the owner of 125 Spindrift unilaterally changed the property line – notably for no consideration (money/things of value) – and readjusted the property line into the Fabian’s home – taking property from the Fabian’s. The change in the property line is reflected in Exh. 10 in Red – and moved the property line into the current structure and walkway of the Fabian’s home. [FN18] Independent of the City’s acts/omission in its unlawful approval of a no-consideration, no-consent change of (someone else’s) property lines (and increase of property to 125 for no exchange of monies) – the Fabian’s 124 Structure and walkway long prior built and used became, at or around this time, no less than a prescriptive easement by law (if the property was not returned) and as a result of the property line being moved into Fabian’s structures and right of entry/easement to the property. Now, with the proposed 3rd Addition by the 125 Owners – they use this non-sensical property 16 See Exh. 10, showing Lidar Survey findings – with Lines Marked in Blue reflecting the parallel structures of 124 and 125 as built in relation to the property line reflected in Green, existing at the time sold/transferred in 1986, and Red showing the unilateral change by the 125 Owner years later. With the City’s permission. the Fabian Family would like to present the Video of the Lidar Survey for the City Counc il Along with Drone Footage Showing the severity of Code violations. 17 See, Exh. 11 showing parcel coordinates at time of purchase in 1986. 18 See, Exh. 12, showing the unilateral change of property lines (taking 124’s property) recorded by the 125 Owner for no consideration. B-15 CALDWELL LAW GROUP Lawyers City Council City Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes Re: Notice of Appeal (Case # ZON2017-00489)–In Re:125 Spindrift Dr February 9, 2023 Page 16 9701 WILSHIRE BLVD., 10TH FLOOR, BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212 Telephone: (310) 858-7000 // Facsimile: (310) 858-7008 line to back into an unlawful claim of setback compliance. Legally, such argument fails as a matter of law. [FN19] As discussed below, the property line now runs in the middle of a Fabian bedroom – as well as through much of the living room – and through the exterior entry walkway (right of entry) – and, thus, cannot be factored in the calculation of the 125 Project’s setback compliance. Doing so would violate this City’s setback statutes – necessarily and intrinsically – as, too, the intention and purpose these statutes as adopted. Even further, this City’s statutes provide controlling guidance for interpretation – and, what is evident, is that the setbacks are determined by the distance between the 124/125 structures (including the easement/right of way) as adopted and as intended – none of which the Commission factored – and None of which they had authority to approve, even had they done so. Law Supporting Denial and Remand on the Issue of Setbacks: The Planning Commission – in deciding that setbacks are measured by the distance from the 125 Spindrift structure to the property line without regard to other intervening structures – intervening easements – the enacted purpose of the setback provision – or the fact the property line was inside the neighboring house to the west – resulted in an incorrect and impermissible application of this City’s setback mandates. 1. The Enacted Purpose of this City’s Setback Provision is to Provide Space Between Each House and a Property Line – and (then) Space between that Property Line and a Neighboring House on the Other Side: The purpose acknowledged by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes in adopting its setback laws and requirements was to provide space, light, and distance between each home and the property line (RPVMC 17.66.10, 17.96.1680, 17.02.040) – but, here, the City Planning Commission carried out the interior setback calculations without regard to the purpose or intention of the law – applying the law literally but to the point of legal absurdity – and to the point where its application defeats the entire purpose of the statute. Even this City’s Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook acknowledges that setbacks are the “open space around a structure, achieved by the required setback, allowing for sunlight and air and providing privacy…” This same Handbook notes “The purpose of a setback is to provide a harmonious strip of open space for light and air between a structure and a property line” [or other structure or easement] – since the purpose is for space for each house(RPVMC17.48.040(F) 19 See, Exh. 13, showing the Homeowner Notes of the 125 multiple additions (in cluding 600ft added to the original structure) over time – with the most recent request being Addition Number 3. B-16 CALDWELL LAW GROUP Lawyers City Council City Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes Re: Notice of Appeal (Case # ZON2017-00489)–In Re:125 Spindrift Dr February 9, 2023 Page 17 9701 WILSHIRE BLVD., 10TH FLOOR, BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212 Telephone: (310) 858-7000 // Facsimile: (310) 858-7008 These statutes have been enacted to carry out that purpose and provide peace, tranquility, privacy to neighbors who share a community. They have been enacted to permit each property to have a surrounding space between the property lines and the structure. To ignore this is to violate the law. 2. Setback Measurement (Structure to Structure or Easement—or Structure to Property Line, Whichever is Closer): As a general principal – and absent conditions that make this impossible – the Side Setback is measured from the Structure (in this case, the125 Project) and the Property Line – so as to fulfill the codified statutory purpose of providing space between each residence and the property line (if property/structures of others). RPVCM 17.66.10 defines setback as the distance between the structure – horizontally – to the property line, or easement, or another structure, whichever is closer. Here, the Fabian Family has an easement for their narrow walkway that has existed at all times to the west – and only became the property of another when the 125 owner unilaterally changed the property lines in 1988. (The City’s error in this approval is significant.) This is a per se prescriptive easement, now, and thus can serve as the outer boundary for measurement of the 125 Project’s setback. (17.08.040(10)). Even further, the walkway is also defined as a “structure” under 17.02.040(12) which also serves as the maximum point the 125 Project can measure its setback, accordingly. Setbacks are defined at 17.96.1680 referring to 17.02.040 (View Preservation Definitions), defining setbacks to include distance between structures and/or a private easement – so the setback must be measured to the structures on the property neighboring the Project if this is closer than the property line: 10. “Setback” means the minimum horizontal distance as prescribed by this code, between any property line or private easement boundary used for vehicular and/or pedestrian access and the closest point on any building or structure, below or above ground level, on the pr operty. In cases where there is no structure on a lot, setback shall mean the minimum horizontal distance between the property line or easement boundary line and a line parallel to the property line or easement boundary line. Please refer to Chapter 17.48 (Lots, Setbacks, Open Space Area and Building Height) for setback regulations. 12. "Structure" means anything constructed or built, any edifice or building of any kind , or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner, which is located on or on top of the ground on a parcel of land utilized for B-17 CALDWELL LAW GROUP Lawyers City Council City Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes Re: Notice of Appeal (Case # ZON2017-00489)–In Re:125 Spindrift Dr February 9, 2023 Page 18 9701 WILSHIRE BLVD., 10TH FLOOR, BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212 Telephone: (310) 858-7000 // Facsimile: (310) 858-7008 residential purposes, excluding antennas, skylights, solar panels and similar structures not involving the construction of habitable area. A structure would thus include the walkway to the west-neighbor home (124 Spindrift) as, too, the house. Here, the structures are currently 4.5” (inches apart)[FN20] at the middle of the structure (a gift of 125’s 2nd Addition) – and only 1.5’ to the south – 2.5’ for about ½ of the walkway – and 4.5’ closer to the North. This is merely the distance between homes – less than per-home 5’ side setback requirement for each house. Certainly, Fire Code parameters that require 5’ of distance surrounding each structure (PRC 4291(a)(1)(A) – adopted by Title 32 Fire Code, Los Angeles County, which was adopted by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes by RPVMC 8.12.010) likewise require a distance between each home and its boundary – but, yet, none of these requisites are satisfied here. 3. The City Misapplied the Law by Calculating Setbacks to a Property Line that Runs INSIDE the West-Neighboring Property of 124 Spindrift Drive: The property line was relocated in the 1980’s unilaterally by the owner of 125 Spindrift Drive – without knowledge, consent, or any consideration paid to the owners of 124 Spindrift Drive – and remarkably was approved by the City. Notably, if the Fabian Family had built onto the 125 Property after the property line had been changed, this could serve as a basis for variance or civil remedy by the 125 Project Applicant. But, no such law or City provision allows them to reclassify the setback without regard to easements, structures, and the fact that the property line is in the middle of the Fabian’s home for over 90 lateral feet of the structure – much less due to a change in property line by 125 Spindrift’s owners much less after 124 was built. The City’s underlying Staff Report of which the Statement of Decision renders its findings, measures the 125 Spindrift Structure to the Property Line – even when, as here, the Property Line is inside the Neighbor’s house. For example, at Page 3 of the underlying Staff Report on Which the January Decision was issued, it acknowledges that the Landowner of 125 Spindrift had removed proposed side stairs to their property to permit another 2.5’ to the setback between a portion of the properties. However – the 2.5’ that was “added” to the setback by the Landowner was accomplished by removing stairs – a structure – because the RPVMC deems any structure (like stairs) to reduce the calculation/measurement of side setback. (RPVMC 17.02.040(10, (12)) Yet – this same City calculation entirely fails to acknowledge or reduce the setback by the west- neighbor’s structures (an elevated east-facing deck –walkway on the west side of the 124 20 See, Exh. 14, showing a photograph of the 4.5” (inches) between the mid-point of the structures currently – a result of the 2nd Addition of the 125 Project that was not permitted at the time of its build. B-18 CALDWELL LAW GROUP Lawyers City Council City Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes Re: Notice of Appeal (Case # ZON2017-00489)–In Re:125 Spindrift Dr February 9, 2023 Page 19 9701 WILSHIRE BLVD., 10TH FLOOR, BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212 Telephone: (310) 858-7000 // Facsimile: (310) 858-7008 home and the entire eastern interior of the home due to the 1980’s property line shift into the 124 home). The Staff Report on which the Decision was based indicates that the setback closest to the street is 4.5’ – however 2’ of this is INSIDE the 124 Spindrift street-side bedroom (NW corner) and another 2’ is 124’s driveway/walkway – leaving not even a matter of few feet at street-level. As addressed in further detail in the Legal Discussion at Section B, RPVMC calculates setback as between structure and property line (when there is no easement or structure intervening). RPVMC 17.02.040(A)(10), (12), (C). In fact, RPVMC expressly disallows consideration of structure in the calculation of setbacks, as – too – private easements (which the 124 Spindrift property has for its driveway and east-facing walkway, despite the 125 neighbor’s unlawful conversion in the 1980’s). 17.02.040(A)(10). The City’s Staff Report (on which the Decision of Approval was issued) reports setbacks that are truly illusory. Landowner/Staff Reports City Accepts? Actual Distance 2.5’ (1/2 of Code Min.) Yes 4.5” to 3.5’ Lending clarity on how the Commission’s “setback” calculations mocked the purpose of the statute itself – a photo is attached showing the current distance between the 124/125 structures as a mere 4.5” (inches) apar, and both surveys – if looking to the distance between structures – align in showing that the properties will only be 4.5” (inches) apart to 3.5’ apart at its greatest, depending on the angle of the revised property line. The setbacks are only “met” if a setback does NOT correlate with the space around a home – or the space around a neighbor’s house – because it is calculated inside the Fabian’s home! [Fn21] This interpretation dilutes all reasoning and the goals enacted. Not only does the 125 Spindrift Drive property grossly fail to conform with minimum setbacks – but the City Planning’s approval would further eliminate 100% of 124’s setback – bringing the Fabian’s setback to 0.0’. This violates the purpose and intent of this City’s setback statutes as adopted – as, too, fire code that requires minimum distances surrounding each home similar to RPVMC’s setback requirements – all of which the Commission failed to factor. 21 Exh. 5 – Showing (1) Distance between the Structures as too (2) loss of privacy and (3) view by the proposed build to 124 Spindrift. B-19 CALDWELL LAW GROUP Lawyers City Council City Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes Re: Notice of Appeal (Case # ZON2017-00489)–In Re:125 Spindrift Dr February 9, 2023 Page 20 9701 WILSHIRE BLVD., 10TH FLOOR, BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212 Telephone: (310) 858-7000 // Facsimile: (310) 858-7008 Even if the City were able to Disregard Structures when Calculating Setbacks – the City Cannot Choose to Calculate Setbacks from a Property Line inside the West-Neighboring Property (124 Spindrift) because doing so Violates the Purpose and Intention of this City’s Enacted Setback Laws: A principle of statutory interpretation is that language of a statute should not be given a literal meaning if doing so would result in absurd consequences which the Legislature did not intend.’ Younger v. Superior Court (1978) 21 Cal.3d 102, 113; see also People v. Davis (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 760, 766 (although reasonable doubts as to ambiguous criminal statute should normally be resolved in favor of defendant, rule does not apply where result is absurd or contrary to the enacted purpose as a matter of statutory interpretation under California law.) Following the “letter of the law” in a manner that “violates the principle and purpose of the law” is never deemed code compliant as a matter of legal construct under both United States and California doctrine. “[A] court may disregard the plain meaning of a statute and resort to its legislative history to aid in interpretation when applying the literal meaning of the statutory language ‘would inevitably (1) produce absurd consequences which the Legislature clearly did not intend or (2) frustrate the manifest purposes which appear from the provisions of the legislation when considered as a whole in light of its legislative history. . ..’(Faria v. San Jacinto Unified School Dist. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1939, 1945, fn. and citations omitted.) But ‘[i]f the legislative history gives rise to conflicting inferences as to the legislation’s purposes or intended consequences, then a departure from the clear language of the statute is unjustified....’ [citation]” Lewis v. County of Sacramento (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 107, 120. to legislative intent.) Thus, ‘[t]he intent prevails over the letter, and the letter will, if possible, be so read as to conform to the spirit of the act.’ Lungren v. Deukmejian (1988) 45 Cal.3d 727, 735. Here – this City’s setback statutes were adopted with a stated purpose and intent of providing space around each house – and space and light between houses – to “set…back” each house from its own property line with a perimeter of space beyond the property line – the dual setback for the neighboring homes – and providing even further distance between 2 neighbors. (See, RPVMC 17.02.040; 17.02.040(A)(10, (A)(13); 17.02.040(C)(1)(a); See, also, General Plan L11] The side setback is a requirement for each house – and each house is subject to a minimum 5’ of space to the property line– with the enacting body of this City intended there to be 10’ between 2 houses (dual setback calculation – not inches. To calculate the setbacks without regard to the distance and space around the homes – and to only factor the property line without regard to its location in the Fabian’s living room – may, literally, conform with the law – but B-20 CALDWELL LAW GROUP Lawyers City Council City Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes Re: Notice of Appeal (Case # ZON2017-00489)–In Re:125 Spindrift Dr February 9, 2023 Page 21 9701 WILSHIRE BLVD., 10TH FLOOR, BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212 Telephone: (310) 858-7000 // Facsimile: (310) 858-7008 technically violates it as enacted. No such legal interpretation is consistent with American jurisprudence in statutory analysis and application. This City’s statutes do not permit a disregard to other structures – or easements – or the location of the property line – when calculating setbacks, which is an area of open space. Legislative interpretation necessarily defeats such a misapplication of law – the setbacks violate the law. Even a Setback Variance – Were One Granted – Cannot be Satisfied Here, Either, as None of the Mandatory Procedural Requirements Can be Satisfied: While the purpose of a variance is not to relieve a party in a manner that permits greater deviation from the law, even – here – if granted, would still not be sufficient to meet the statute. Specifically,, even if a variance to the setback were to be granted, that permissible variance would still be too small for the 125 Project to meet its minimum setback requirement. RPVMC 17.66.020(C), since a variance only permits a 20% deviation (or 1’ in this instance). However, this would require 4’ of setback to the structure/easement (the walkway), which will never exist if the 125 Project adds a 2nd story. The 125 Project will still fall far short of the minimum required setback – and, again, this is just for its setback – ignoring the elimination entirely of the Fabian’s setback – absent this City or the Commission completely disregarding its laws. What has not been addressed –either – by the Applicant or the Commission, is that the Variance sought would be for 2 properties (not 1) and will never be in conformity with minimum Fire Code parameters for each property, requiring 5’ of distance surrounding each structure (PRC 4291(a)(1)(A) – adopted by Title 32 Fire Code, Los Angeles County, which was adopted by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes by RPVMC 8.12.010). The legal and factual errors by the Commission – if not reversed – result in none of this City’s laws intended to provide space and air and fire protection surrounding each residence – despite each/any of these being a per se basis to prohibit the project under RPV’s laws requiring no infringement of these aspects. All are violated, here. None are in conformity with this City’s Coastal General Plan – and its mandatory provisions, either. Unless the City/Commission decides to disregard its own laws – its own mandatory criteria – its own minimum requirements – the 125 Project violates the law and seeks an impermissible build of this Addition which this City and the Commission are obligated to deny. Evaluating Setbacks – Fairly – Reveal NO Other House Has Violated Setbacks Even Remotely Like the 125 Project has Proposed: If the Commission were applying the correct law of this City, it would acknowledge that the 125/124 structures are inches apart – and at the greatest distance will still not comply with the single-home minimum setback requirement – and neither house will meet the setback even with a 20% variance. Factually, there is no house in the Neighborhood like this – the closest homes have been measured with 7’ of distance between the two. The Commission, however, undertook no B-21 CALDWELL LAW GROUP Lawyers City Council City Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes Re: Notice of Appeal (Case # ZON2017-00489)–In Re:125 Spindrift Dr February 9, 2023 Page 22 9701 WILSHIRE BLVD., 10TH FLOOR, BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212 Telephone: (310) 858-7000 // Facsimile: (310) 858-7008 factual analysis about the structure-to-structure distance between 124/125 (due to incorrect application of law) – and did not factor the elimination of 124’s setbacks – entirely – (to 0.0) by the proposed build of 125 Spindrift, and did not factor the lack of ability for 125 or 124 to meet Fire Codes – or to protect the space and privacy these statutes were intended to protect and preserve. The mistake of law is that the Commission has misapplied the law, not applied the General and Specific Plan enactments, and have deemed these criteria discretionary when they are mandatory, and they have improperly approved an Addition that is in direct contravention of the General and Specific Plans and setback laws of this City. REMEDY REQUESTED ON APPEAL: This City Council is requested to Reverse the Decision and Deny the Proposed plan based upon 15.20.40(H) which may deem Issue No. 2 moot. However, specific to issues herein of misapplication of the laws of setback as set forth herein, to the extent not already moot, the City Council is requested to remand the issue in order to permit the legal requisites to be properly factored. ISSUE NUMBER 3: THE PROPERTY IS A PAD LOT AND ITS HEIGHT IS LIMITED TO 16’ FROM THE LOCATION OF THE PAD ON THE LOT ABSENT VARIANCE. The house has been improperly classified as a down sloping lot when – in fact – the Landowner Applicant’s Engineering Report directly disputes this – whereby the City must classify this as a Pad Lot which impacts height and location of build on the parcel. Foundational Basis: The Decision of Approval of January 24, 2022, deemed the 125 Spindrift Project to be a downward sloping lot. The same finding is based upon the Applicant/Landowner’s engineering report and findings. City/Landowner Classify the Project as being a Downward Sloping Lot: The Landowner/Applicant made this conclusory statement premised on the degree of the natural slope of the property (greater than 5% and less than 35%) – but failed to factor in the existence of a pad lot on which the property was built and developed – or the RPVMC which defines a sloping lot as one which does not have a pad on which the original construction was built as a condition requisite. Landowner’s Engineering Report Admits, However, this is a Pad Lot: The City relies on the Landowner’s Engineering report for the findings of permissible geologic conditions for the build – yet omits the portions of this same report that acknowledge the equal distance and height pad on which the 125 Spindrift home B-22 CALDWELL LAW GROUP Lawyers City Council City Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes Re: Notice of Appeal (Case # ZON2017-00489)–In Re:125 Spindrift Dr February 9, 2023 Page 23 9701 WILSHIRE BLVD., 10TH FLOOR, BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212 Telephone: (310) 858-7000 // Facsimile: (310) 858-7008 was built. [Fn22 ] Specifically, however, the 125 Property was built on an “equal pad” – and, thus, is a “Pad Lot” under definition of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code – and cannot meet the definition of a “Downward Sloping Lot” as a matter of law. The height and location (and point of measurement) of this build was and is impermissible. Legal Support for Appeal: The Planning Commission’s assessment that the 125 Spindrift Project is a downward sloping lot misapplies the law and proves fatal for picking/choosing elements from the Engineering Report that acknowledge the equal building pad on which the 125 Project was built. A Downward Sloping Lot Requires the Absence of an Original Building Pad: RPVMC 17.02.040(B)(1)(b) defines a downward sloping lot as one which slopes “downhill from the street of access and for which no building pad exists…” BY CONTRAST, a pad lot is defined at 17.02.040(B)(1)(c) as lots “with a "building pad" at street level or at a different level than the street or lot configurations not previously discussed …” However, as reflected in Landowner’s Engineering Report of which the Planning Commission relied – the property has an “equal pad” on which the 1- story structure originally built exists – which is also seen in the configuration of the original pad lot on the Parcel Map and verified on surveys as being equal (or under 5 degrees) in height variance (and thus less than the 5% grade minimum for a downward sloping lot). This – along with the existence of a building pad – is a legal “pad lot.” 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.” RPVMC 17.96.320. Here, the equal pad was graded as the original p ad lot for the structure – seen on the Parcel Map as, too, on the surveys. 22 See, Exh. 15 – Pertinent portions of the Landowner/Applicant’s Engineering Report which acknowledges an “equal building pad lot” on which the original structure was built in 3 different citations of its Report – the same report that the Commission approved the build and erroneously took the natural grade of land without regard to the Code Provision and the Original Building Pad. Specifically, the engineers note “the subject site consists of a level building pad…” at Pg. 2. On this same page, the engineers then represent, “the level building pad is currently occupied by a one-story residential building.” And, again, in response to City questions, at Response No. 11, referencing the “equal building pad.” The Commission cannot pick/choose from the Engineering Report, and the existence of the Pad Lot negates classification of the 125 Project as a “Downsloping” Lot as a matter of law under RCVMC requisites. B-23 CALDWELL LAW GROUP Lawyers City Council City Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes Re: Notice of Appeal (Case # ZON2017-00489)–In Re:125 Spindrift Dr February 9, 2023 Page 24 9701 WILSHIRE BLVD., 10TH FLOOR, BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212 Telephone: (310) 858-7000 // Facsimile: (310) 858-7008 It is clear from the Applicant’s own Engineer’s Report that the 125 Lot is a Pad Lot by definition – and the Applicant (as, too, this Commission) cannot pick/choose from the Engineering Report what data suits its goals. Due to the existence of a pad lot, the 125 Project is a pad lot – and it cannot be a “Downsloping” Lot as a matter of statutory definition under RCVMC. The size and location of the build (and measurement – which is from the point of the pad) is, thus, also incorrect and unlawful – because the Commission calculated this as a Downsloping lot measuring its height amidst the slope of the property and not from the pad; the Commission applied incorrect height standards correlative to this incorrect classification, as well. Even assuming this City were to ignore the 600ft Addition limit – the height and location of this proposed build violates a host of minimum mandatory requisites that cannot be ignored or discounted. Height of a Structure (and Build Measurement on the Parce l) of a Pad Lot is Measured from the Original Building Pad : Because 125 Spindrift was a pad lot where there (1) exists a "building pad", (2) that is “even” in slope, (3) and the pad is on which the 125 Spindrift property was originally built – the height (of the proposed 600ft addition) will be measured from the pad. Subsequent additions over time do not affect the classification of a pad lot , nor do they impact measurement of the structure. A pad lot instructs the City to thus measure height for the building Addition from the original building pad lot – necessarily impacting position of the build on the parcel (height is only measured where the structure exists) – as, too, the location of measurement. Specifically, 17.02.040(B)(1)(c) provides: “[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 ridgeline or highest point of the structur e (citation omitted).… Portions of a structure which extend beyond the "building pad" area of a lot shall not qualify as the highest elevation covered by the structure, for the purposes of determining maximum building height…” Id. Here, the Planning Commission’s Decision incorrectly misclassifies the 125 Spindrift Project and miscalculated its height limits over the entire parcel – and proposed – instead a 22.5’ tall structure which stands over 8.5” beyond its permissible limit (in the absence of a height variance), and stands over 14.5’ at the North street level (close to 6’ above neighbor’s viewing floors to the north) and severely impacting views of over seven houses to the North. The proposed project is over 6’ taller than the west-neighbor (124 Spindrift Drive) for whom this Project seeks to build inches to feet away for the near entirety of the B-24 CALDWELL LAW GROUP Lawyers City Council City Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes Re: Notice of Appeal (Case # ZON2017-00489)–In Re:125 Spindrift Dr February 9, 2023 Page 25 9701 WILSHIRE BLVD., 10TH FLOOR, BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212 Telephone: (310) 858-7000 // Facsimile: (310) 858-7008 structures’ depth – in addition to “tunnelling” the 124 Spindrift property under the towering height and close proximity running the entire length of the 124 Spindrift home – it also serves to obstruct 75% of the views from the home – nearly all light and space – of the west neighbor (124 Spindrift). The Commission, Even Further, Did Not Undertake the Required View Impact Analysis to Approve the 125 Project where it seeks a Height Variance Over 16’ (and the Commission Gave No Regard to the Project being 6.5’ TALLER than the West-Neighbor (at 124) or the Impact of this Towering Wall Running the Entire Length of the West-Neighbor’s Home Just Feet Away: The Planning Commission was required to subject the home to its variance procedure because it seeks to build in excess of 16’. (RPVMP 17.02.040(B)) This procedure would have required view impact analysis and Neighborhood Compatibility (looking to spacing of the homes and setbacks) – and the failure to correctly undertake this review was a mistake of law. Mandatory Variance Procedure is Triggered Once the Height is Over 16’ – and This Requires the Addition Not Significantly Impact Views of Neighbors: By virtue of the height of the 125 Project being over 16’, the Project was mandated to seek a height variance (RPVMC 17.02.010(B)). This height variance required the Commission to (1) examine the height based upon the 16’ calculation from the pad lot – and to not provide the added height or build-location on a parcel of a Downward Sloping Lot. (2) Evaluate the Addition to ensure it is consistent with the City’s Development Plan (which includes View Preservation) looking to Neighborhood Compatibility [scale, style – which includes open spacing and privacy, setback - -which includes distance and spacing] and must establish that it will not cause significant impact to other neighbor’s views. (RPVMC 17.02.40(C)(1)(e)(iv). Yet, this was not undertaken. The Commission’s members acknowledged there was no need to factor view – no consideration was given to the loss of view by the west-neighboring property (Fabian) – to being tunneled behind and below a towering structure just a few feet away that eliminates all of its views (75%) or light. (Further discussion at Issue 4, below.) And, this absence of the required analysis is an error of law. REQUESTED RELIEF: This City Council is requested to Reverse the Decision and Deny the Proposed plan based upon 15.20.40(H). However, specific to issues of misapplication of law as set forth herein, to the extent not already moot, the City Council is requested to remand the issue with instructions. B-25 CALDWELL LAW GROUP Lawyers City Council City Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes Re: Notice of Appeal (Case # ZON2017-00489)–In Re:125 Spindrift Dr February 9, 2023 Page 26 9701 WILSHIRE BLVD., 10TH FLOOR, BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212 Telephone: (310) 858-7000 // Facsimile: (310) 858-7008 ISSUE NUMBER 4: CITY PLANNING WAS REQUIRED TO EVALUATE WHETHER VIEWS WERE IMPACTED (DESPITE STATEMENTS TO THE CONTARY AT HEARING) – AND UNDERTAKE A FAIR NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATABILITY TEST – AS REQUIRED BY THE DEVELOPMENTAL STANDARDS AND GENERAL PLAN Foundational Basis: At time of hearing, Planning Commission members voiced that they were not permitted to evaluate whether the project impacted view of other neighbors – and others believed there was no obligation to protect views of the shoreline/whitewater versus the beach or the ocean – certain members stating that (1) view is not to be considered and (2) views of both ocean and whitewater breaks need not both be protected, or (3) that views that look down – such as to the shoreline – are not protected – all of these statements are incorrect statements of this City’s laws. Commission Improperly Found Views were Not “Permissible” or “Necessary” for their Consideration: The Planning Commission deemed that they were unable to factor in loss of views to the 7 homes effected by this proposed build – or the loss of 75% of all views/light from the west-neighbor (Fabian Family) much less by the height of a 14’ wall built inches to a few feet away, when – in fact – rigid requirements were to factor significant view infringement due to the height being in excess of 16’, due to the General Plan required criteria – and the mandates that the addition be compliance – as, too, the City’s View Preservation Laws. Commission did Not Undertake a Neighborhood Compatibility Evaluation Factoring in the Required Elements of the General & Specific Plans & View Preservation Statutes – Omitting Mandatory Requirements for Approval: The Planning Commission’s Neighborhood Compatibility evaluation stood in stark contrast with this same Commission’s precedential review records historically – where this Commission firmly acknowledged and enforced view preservation. The data provided in the Staff Report was misleading factually misleading. While certainly not intentional, the failure of the Planning Commission to evaluate the factors critically – believing in some degree that this was not required – resulted in an extraordinarily unjust result that deviates drastically from this Commission’s practices and the surrounding neighbors who have all built in a manner that does not infringe other neighbor’s views – to which the 125 Spindrift owners seek special treatment. Factually – a Look at the Impact of the 125 Project is Compelling: Photographs – including those from the Lidar Survey – are revealing of the factors the Commission failed to factor in accordance with statutory requisites. For example: B-26 CALDWELL LAW GROUP Lawyers City Council City Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes Re: Notice of Appeal (Case # ZON2017-00489)–In Re:125 Spindrift Dr February 9, 2023 Page 27 9701 WILSHIRE BLVD., 10TH FLOOR, BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212 Telephone: (310) 858-7000 // Facsimile: (310) 858-7008 West-Neighbor Fabian’s Views are Primarily to the South/East: The Fabian home to the west has primary views to the south/east – with the 125 Project Proposing to remove 75% of the views the home has left. The home’s north and west walls are bearing walls that house parking and a carport/entryway. [FN23] The Commission was required to evaluate whether the 125 Project impacted views – and, due to height, to prohibit building if it had a significant impact on views – and the Commission’s failure to do so (and to apply correct criteria) was an error of law. Fabian’s Views (Compare/Contrast) with a Towering Structure Feet Away: The 125 Owners – after their 2nd addition – were required to build a fire wall to rectify unpermitted building on the north side of their home’s addition – which stood too close to Fabian’s home – and was located near the street. This fire wall partially eliminated views from the Fabian’s back bedroom. Now, the proposed 3rd Addition by the 125 Spindrift Owners seeks to build the entire length of the Fabian’s home – just feet away –and 6.5’ TALLER than the Fabian’s Home – for the entire length of the Fabian’s home. Doing so will undoubtedly (a) eliminate 75% of the Fabian home’s views – and 100% from the east wall, 1 of the 2 sides of their home with a view, and (b) this will shroud the Fabian’s home in darkness, as they are left tunneled by the height and proximity of the 125 Project structure being built next door. [FN24] Attached are photographs provided in non-Lidar format – showing a comparison of the Fabian home views from this same side of the house – compared to the loss of all views after the 125 Project is built. It cannot be emphasized – enough – that not only are all of the Fabian’s views from their living areas being eliminated – but the 125 Project will tower over the windows and living spaces of the Fabian’s Home – creating a barrier wall almost twice as tall as the Fabian’s house (and just a feet away from the Fabian’s home) – blocking critical shoreline (and breakwater) views of 6 additional neighbors to the North – and all east-looking views of the Fabian’s situated to the west. 23 See Exh. 16 – Reflecting 2 Photographs. The first is a photograph of the Lidar Survey of the 124/125 homes side- by-side – so this Council can note the proximity unlike any other in the neighborhood. (In fact, proh ibited even by the City’s laws.) The structure is being proposed to run the entire length of the Fabian’s 124 Spindrift home – and will not only be just feet away – but 6.5’ taller – tunneling the 124 Home under its shadow – eliminating all view and space. A Second Lidar Photograph of the home to the north shows no windows or view points. 24 See Exh. 17 – Reflecting 3 Photographs. The first shows the fire wall required to permit retroactively the 125 home’s 2nd addition built too close to the Fabian home to the west. The second and third Lidar Photographs show the view from the Fabian home from the east – taken from the perspective of waling on the walkway next to the windows – showing a view of shoreline and beach – and the loss entirely of that view. B-27 CALDWELL LAW GROUP Lawyers City Council City Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes Re: Notice of Appeal (Case # ZON2017-00489)–In Re:125 Spindrift Dr February 9, 2023 Page 28 9701 WILSHIRE BLVD., 10TH FLOOR, BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212 Telephone: (310) 858-7000 // Facsimile: (310) 858-7008 Photographs Reflecting Loss of Views/Space to the North: Likewise, the proposed towering barrier wall will eliminate all of the Fabian Family’s views to the north. Photographs reflecting how these structures are INCHES apart at the middle, and otherwise 1.5’ – 3.5’ apart for the better run of the properties is reflected in attached photographs – and the impact on 124 Spindrift’s views and right under law of spacing is catastrophic.[FN25 The Fabian’s home to the west will lose 100% of views to the east – all light – all spacing – and will be just feet away from a structure towering over its living spaces, no different than Urban Living – something that contravenes the law and intent this City – and its voters – who have adopted historic view and space preservation statutes that were all but ignored when the Commission employed its analysis. Doing so was a mistake of law. View and space must be considered and factored by the Commission – for an Addition – independent of variance. But, here, the Commission was not authorized to approve this Project (outside of it also exceeding the 600ft limit) because it was subject to the “significant harm” standard for variances above 16’. The Commission was incorrect to claim it could not factor view – or the significant impact on view this project posed. Unless the Commission were able to find that eliminating 7 neighbors views – 75% of the Fabian’s – was “not significant”, the Commission’s error in applying correct legal standards resulted in an improper and unauthorized Decision of Conditional Approval. The Loss of View & Space – Factors the Commission was Required to Consider: With the close proximity (violation of setbacks) and towering height of the proposed structure over the living space/height of the Fabian’s home – this City’s statutes protecting views and space and light (as seen with the General Plan and Neighborhood Compatibility factors when assessing scale, style, and setback) cannot ignore the darkness that will result from all blocked light inside the Fabian’s home to the east (with a structure running the entire distance and 6.5’ taller just feet away). A comparison photograph proves revealing when evaluating critical protections under this City’s laws – protecting against someone building too close, too big, too high, interfering with views – and which by any reasonable account, significantly impacted the views of the Fabian Family as, too, neighbors to the north who will entirely lose water break/shoreline view components. [FN26] The Commission’s failure to factor these aspects and their approval of the Project when the Project clearly violates these standards, was a mistake in law. 25 See Exh. 18 showing Fabian’s view to the north – and a contrast of that view and sense of space if the 125 Project wee built. Had the Commission applied the correct standard, this Project would never be approved as proposed. 26 See, Exh. 19, illustrating by a Lidar Survey Photograph the loss of light (as reflected in the phot ograph) to Fabian home as, too, all views, will be lost. B-28 CALDWELL LAW GROUP Lawyers City Council City Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes Re: Notice of Appeal (Case # ZON2017-00489)–In Re:125 Spindrift Dr February 9, 2023 Page 29 9701 WILSHIRE BLVD., 10TH FLOOR, BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212 Telephone: (310) 858-7000 // Facsimile: (310) 858-7008 100% Loss of Fabian’s View from Kitchen & Dining Room – and the Home’s Southeast Viewing Position – is More than Significant: The Fabian home has primary views to the southeast – from the living area/dining room/kitchen – and all of these southeast/eastern views will be lost if the 125 Project proceeds based upon its current proposed design and scope. Comparisons of the current view points at the kitchen sink and dining window – near the dining room/living room area – after the 125 Project is built prove telling. The view from the entire length (save 18”) of the Fabian’s home will be lost – with a Building built close to double in height and just a matter of feet away – taking 75% of the Fabian’s views, all of its light, and most of its open space – given in exchange a concrete or stucco wall to stare at feet away, dark, without another sunrise. [FN27] The severity of this loss caused by the 124 Project will never survive legal scrutiny of the conditions requisite enacted (and required by) the General Plan and the Development Code of this City – nor will it survive the “significant impact” standard required for this structure to exceed 16’ – nor will it comply with this City’s View Preservation/Restoration enactment provisions. Yet, none of this was considered by the Commission – certainly not meaningfully – and this was a mistake in law. Loss of Privacy to the Fabian Home will be Devastating: The Fabian home to the west has its common living area at the Kitchen, Dining Room and Living Room that will now be just a matter of feet away from a towering building – or feet away from observation by the 125 Owners/Residents. There is a small outdoor deck to the Fabian home which is backed by a sleeping quarter on the west lanai – and a photograph from the foot of that bed on the lanai – and square in the middle of the Fabian’s only outdoor deck – will be a window of the 125 Owners’ Home – eliminating ALL privacy to the Fabian’s when eating, when outside, or when on the lanai bed – none of which was properly factored by this Commission.[FN28] The Planning Commission had made a prejudicial error of law in failing to properly factor neighbor’s space and privacy (to indoor and outdoor places – applying to “any location with an expectation of privacy, excluding bathrooms and closets”). The Commission was required to do so to approve the Addition under the General Plan and Development Standards. Due to height variance 27 See, Exh. 20, showing Kitchen windows – with views lost – and at Exh. 21 – and the main viewing station southeast – most views lost there as well. 28 See, Exh. 22 – showing a Photograph from the foot of the bed on the lanai – and in the small (and only) outdoor space for this home – all of which is just feet away from the 125 Project’s home and window, utterly destroying privacy in the Fabian’s home. B-29 CALDWELL LAW GROUP Lawyers City Council City Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes Re: Notice of Appeal (Case # ZON2017-00489)–In Re:125 Spindrift Dr February 9, 2023 Page 30 9701 WILSHIRE BLVD., 10TH FLOOR, BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212 Telephone: (310) 858-7000 // Facsimile: (310) 858-7008 mandatory requisites, as well, the Commission was required to deny the build until it was designed in a manner that would not pose a negative (or significant) impact on the view or privacy of other Neighbors – and none of these statutes were properly applied. • We thus ask the Council to look at Exh. 22 – a Photograph from the Foot of a Bed – and the 1 Small Outdoor Space the Fabian Home Has. Picture Yourself Awaking in Bed in the very spot this Photograph is taken – or Having a Quiet Cup of Coffee on this small Outdoor Corner – and Staring at Your Neighbors – or their Guests – just feet away. • Or – them looking at you. • We ask – is this what the City’s Voters imagined with Adoption of the View Preservation Statutes? We ask – is this what the City’s Council intended with Adoption of the General Plan and Development Standards and Setback Standards – all of which factor in Space and Privacy? We ask – is this what the City intended with Adoption of the required Neighborhood Compatibility Standards? • The Answer is a Clear “No” – because this fine City also adopted its intentions, which were not to allow building in the Coastal Zone but for minor projects – and to only allow very small additions as a measured Exception – and, even then, to weigh the interests of the Neighbor’s space and views above the proposed builder – because the City will not subordinate the rights of Neighborhoods that have existed for decades to the interests of expansion by a lone owner – and the City has made clear – there is no interest in expansion. This City’s intentions have been adopted – and value privacy – value views – value space of neighbors above the interests of an expanded builder -- always. To this end, the Commission has made grave errors of law. Legal Basis For Appeal: While the Planning Commission Chair did voice at the close of hearing that – in fact – the Residents of Ranchos Palos Verdes had adopted a view preservation ordinance; no further consideration was given. In fact, the Chair was most correct – with Rancho Pales Verde having one of the strongest view preservation (and restoration) laws in the State of California. As addressed below, the Planning Commission as a whole, however, erred when refusing to evaluate view when it is required for a (1) any height variance over 16’ (RPVMC 17.02.040(B), with (2) Mandatory Factors set forth by the General Plan for the Coastal Zone -- all of which were omitted, and (3) Where Each View – of Shoreline, Breaking Water, Ocean, Beach – is protected under this City’s View Preservation Laws. In fact, the View Preservation and Restoration Laws provide ability to reduce foliage in a way – that if this City Council B-30 CALDWELL LAW GROUP Lawyers City Council City Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes Re: Notice of Appeal (Case # ZON2017-00489)–In Re:125 Spindrift Dr February 9, 2023 Page 31 9701 WILSHIRE BLVD., 10TH FLOOR, BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212 Telephone: (310) 858-7000 // Facsimile: (310) 858-7008 Approves the underlying Resolution of the Planning Commission – would gut the entirety of the provision, permitting building of structures in a way that the voters of this City expressly voted to prohibit, if even by nature. 1st - The Commission was Required to Consider whether the Build would Create a Significant Impact on Neighbor’s Views – Independent of a Variance: The building of this addition – regardless of the need for a variance – must, as a condition requisite for approval, be in compliance with this City’s Development Standards and General Plan. (RPVMC 17.01.10). The Development Standards require – again, without even a variance – the City to evaluate any addition that is increasing the property by 50% in size (RPVMC 17.02.030(B(i)(c)) – or that is adding more than 750ft (RPVMC 17.02.030(B(i)(d) – or that exceeding the minimum lot coverage (RPVMC 17.02.030(B)(i)(f), among other factors, to comply with “Neighborhood Community Standards.” “Neighborhood Community Standards” are defined as evaluating the (a) scale of the proposed home compared to others, (b) the “style” of the home in comparison to the neighborhood, and (c) the “Setbacks”. (RPVMC 17.02.040). “Setbacks” are defined under the Chapter Titled “View Preservation and Restoration” at RPVMC 17.02.040(A)(10) – while “style” is defined as factoring in the “height and open spaces between homes” as, too, its mass, These factors required to satisfy “Neighborhood Compatibility Standards” further mandates that any addition preserves views (RPVMC 17.02.040(A)(14) – complies with other Codes, which includes the General Plan (and its view and neighborhood compatibility standards), as too the 600ft limit (RPVMC 17.02.040(C)(1)(e)(vii) – is compatible with immediate neighborhood homes (RPVMC 17.02.040(C)(1)(e)(viii) – does not result in infringement of privacy of neighbors (RPVMC 17.02.040(C)(1)(e)(ix) – and, where over 16’ in height, it cannot significantly impact view of a neighbor (RPVMC 17.02.040(C)(1)€(iv). Here – the Planning Commission did not factor view, and certainly not in accordance with the numerous statutory provisions that require a rather rigid analysis. The General Plan (L8-L11) disallows the approval of the building of an Addition – itself – as a mandatory requirement of compliance before approval can be issued. Here, the Planning Commission never factored in the General Plan mandates. Even the Land Use Element General Plan sets forth factors that are mandatory for consideration before this Project can be built (RPVMC 17.02.010) – and while raised in the April, 2022 Hearing, these same conditions requisite for the Commission to approve remained omitted in the findings of January 24, 2023, as – too – from their consideration, but this omission is an error of law as the Commission cannot disregard the mandatory provisions which restrict approval of additions/improvements to: B-31 CALDWELL LAW GROUP Lawyers City Council City Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes Re: Notice of Appeal (Case # ZON2017-00489)–In Re:125 Spindrift Dr February 9, 2023 Page 32 9701 WILSHIRE BLVD., 10TH FLOOR, BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212 Telephone: (310) 858-7000 // Facsimile: (310) 858-7008 L8) Prohibit encroachment on existing scenic views reasonably expected by neighboring residents; L9) Enforcement height limits to reasonably minimize view obstructions; L10) Encourage all developments to preserve neighboring privacy; L11) Require all new housing and significant improvements to existing housing to consider neighborhood compatibility. Compliance with the General Plan requirements as a condition requisite for approval of an Addition as proposed with the 125 Project is mandatory. (RPVMC 17.02.010) And, while the lack of compliance was acknowledged by the Chair of the Planning Commission at its April, 2022 Meeting – these factors all but disappeared from the analysis when the Project was represented in January of 2023. Specific to this Appeal, the Planning Commission made multiple errors of law in finding views, light, and indoor privacy did not need to be factored and/or in failing to factor them significantly or correctly under this City’s provisions. For example, this Commission’s claimed the West-Neighboring House (124 Spindrift) has no right to light or space or views or privacy indoors – subordinating the Fabian Family’s rights to the multiple-variance requests of the 125 Applicant – many of which can only be approved but for a complete disregard for the law. This City – and its Planning Commission – should not avail itself of the philosophy of never enforcing the law – “We approve everything regardless of the law” – is not the standard to which this City’s residents have voted and/or the rights they are due and owed by this Council or its Commission. Looking to these factors and this Commission’s history of evaluating additions to ensure they wee not effecting views of current neighbors – that homes were not built above neighbors to the north (in this staggered community) – that homes were not built to wall-in a house (like it does 124 Spindrift) – with 75% of their windows and views (which are only to the east and south with the 124 Spindrift home having no windows on the north/west bearing walls and car port) – as well as sizing. The Planning Commission on January 24, 2023, did not apply the same legal standards – and it was voiced by more than one that views could not be considered – with the lack of spacing between 124/125 giving little weight – the fact a barrier wall 6’ taller and running the length of the 124 home was not contemplated – and privacy inside the home or from the bed on the lanai on which the residents of 124 sleep were now in a B-32 CALDWELL LAW GROUP Lawyers City Council City Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes Re: Notice of Appeal (Case # ZON2017-00489)–In Re:125 Spindrift Dr February 9, 2023 Page 33 9701 WILSHIRE BLVD., 10TH FLOOR, BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212 Telephone: (310) 858-7000 // Facsimile: (310) 858-7008 proverbial fishbowl at all times. These factors for consideration were mandatory under this City’s laws – not discretionary – and the approval of the project depended upon findings that this addition (even if permissible over 600ft) was not significantly impacting space and light between homes (RPVMC 17.02.040(A)(10); (A)(13); 17.02.030(B)); Privacy (General Plan L10; RPVMC 17.02.040(C)(1)(e)(ix), Neighborhood compatibility (General Plan L11; RPVMC 17.02.040(C)(1)(e)(viii) – and view preservation (General Plan L8 and L9, RPVMC 17.02.040(A)(14); (C)(1)(a)). These laws were not applied – or applied correctly – and this legislative schematic serves to uphold the rights of the neighborhood and does not subordinate the neighbors’ interests to that of a building landowner in a Coastal Zone where this City has directly enacted that its goal is to limit if not prohibit this type of expansion. 2nd -- Multiple Views are Protected – And Exclusion of Any View Component – or Elimination of 75% of a Homes’s View as it Does for 124 Spindrift (or 100% of All of 124’s Views from 1 of the 2 Walls with Windows/Views in the Entire Home – All looking to the Mountains – and All Looking East) are Examples of a Prohibited Addition which “Significantly Impacts” the Views of Others: Rancho Palos Verdes has some of the strongest and most expansive view protections in the State of California – and some argue the United States – enacted by this City’s Votes. Yet – the Planning Commission did not undertake a proper evaluation on January 24, 2023 in issuing their decision. [FN29] As with the Prominent Landmark and View Restoration and Reservation Permit Guidelines and Procedures – the Commission must give (6)(C) greater weight to prominent landmarks and features – like the shoreline – and was obligated to protect all – or multiple – views (6)(B). And, specifically, where 1 element of a view (ie. Shoreline water breaks) has been lost – the interference is defined statutorily as a “significant impact” to the view which warrants denial of a project so as to protect those views. (RPVMC 17.02.040(B)(5), (B)(6); see, also, Conservation & Open Space Land Use Element Policies – General Plan). Here, where Neighbors are losing a shoreline view – it is protected – and it is not dismissed because there is still a view of something else remaining. The Commission had to factor in the effected Neighbors – many of whom spoke in April of 2022, and again in January of 2023. Notably, of the homes surrounding the 125 Project – only 3 within 500’ (or the neighborhood) support the build – and nearly 29 Notably, the Planning Commission’s Chair did acknowledge that the View Protections were voted in by the residents of the City; however, others voiced that view could not be considered – or could not be considered of the shoreline – and the lack of further analysis revealed that this incorrect assumption of law predominated the Commission’s decision. B-33 CALDWELL LAW GROUP Lawyers City Council City Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes Re: Notice of Appeal (Case # ZON2017-00489)–In Re:125 Spindrift Dr February 9, 2023 Page 34 9701 WILSHIRE BLVD., 10TH FLOOR, BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212 Telephone: (310) 858-7000 // Facsimile: (310) 858-7008 all of the homes to the North oppose it. [FN30] It is CRITICAL not to lose sight – too – that in this staggered-step development (See Exh. 3) NONE of the homes in this community are built above (but for possibly a few inches) the living floor spaces of the homes to the north – consistent with the design of this community which was to embrace 180degree views as built – and for all homes to have shoreline, sand, and ocean views. All homes have views from at least 2 sides of their home – but the 125 Project disregards this and seeks to be the first to build above the neighbors to her west and north – without regard to the community or their interests. Again – we ask – look at Exh. 3 – there is no house built in front of another home’s living space in this staggered-stepped development. None. There is no house built as close as this Project proposes to build to the Fabian’s, either. None. All variances provided by this City to this Community have always protected the views and space as this City’s laws so require. The 125 Project does not deserve special treatment – they are not above the law. 3rd – The City Must Properly Evaluate Neighborhood Compatibility – Impact on View and Privacy – Comparison of Size and Height – and this Analysis was Not Properly Undertaken because General Plan Requisites were Omitted and Views/Setbacks Ignored The Planning Commission was obligated to evaluate whether privacy, views, light, and compatibility were not impacted as a condition requisite to approve this project. • Neighborhood Compatibility: Neighborhood Compatibility had to be evaluated independent of a variance for this Addition. (RPVMC 17.02.030(B); 17.02.010; General Plan L11; and 17.02.040) By virtue of the height variance above 16’, this also Mandated the Commission to Undertake a Neighborhood Compatibility Analysis to ensure the height did not significantly impact the views of other neighbors. (RPVMC 17.02.030(C)(1)(e)(iv)) The evaluation of the 125 Project – and its approval – thus required under this City’s laws for the Commission to permit a fair evaluation of home scale, view impact of neighboring homes – and whether it eliminated any aspect of their view – and by much, and to evaluate the spacing of the homes to permit space, light, and privacy – and if impacted – for the Commission to deny the project until the neighbors were not impacted. The Commission erroneously failed to factor in the law fully and/or to apply the accurate standards of law: 30 See Exh. 24, Parcel Map showing that of residents with an opinion who live withing 250ft of the 125 Project -- Blue in Opposition, Yellow in Support. Nearly all behind (and to the north) object to the Project because it deprives them of their view. Only 3 supported the project – and NONE are impacted (or reside to the north) even remotely. By contrast, the submissions of support by the 125 Applicant are overwhelmingly non-neighbors – many do not even live in the community. B-34 CALDWELL LAW GROUP Lawyers City Council City Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes Re: Notice of Appeal (Case # ZON2017-00489)–In Re:125 Spindrift Dr February 9, 2023 Page 35 9701 WILSHIRE BLVD., 10TH FLOOR, BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212 Telephone: (310) 858-7000 // Facsimile: (310) 858-7008 1) Evaluating Scale of the Home Fairly: The 125 Spindrift Project seeks to be close to 2x (and at least 1000ft) compared to the homes in its immediate vicinity – and all within 250’ – disproportionate to the houses near and by Project. Not only is this large addition impermissible because it exceeds 600ft – but it is the 3rd Addition to this Home – making it over 1000ft larger than every home within 250ft. The City Staff Report incorrectly. Properties surrounding the home are well under 1,000ft smaller in size (close to 50%) – and this is the only home being built above and into view lines pre-existing. ▪ The Lidar Survey overlay with video drone footage proves quite revealing on this issue, and Appellant requests the ability to submit this for the City Council’s further consideration if size - -alone – is not sufficiently compelling to reveal that the 125 Project is grossly out of scale with the neighboring homes surrounding it. 2) Evaluating Setbacks (and Space): While this issue has been addressed above, for which arguments are incorporated by reference herein, simply stated: The setback provisions were enacted to provide: E) Open Spaces Between Structures “The Open space around a structure, achieved by required setback, allows for sunlight, air, and provides privacy”(RPV Handbook on Neighborhood Compatibility, citing 17.02.030/040 This City’s setback requirements notably provide that “an open space area shall be provided on each lot with a residential building.” (RPVM 17.48.030) With Minimum setbacks of 20’ to the Front, 5’ to the side per each house (10’ between 2 houses), and 15’ to the Rear – the Commission must examine the “open space” when evaluating the setbacks this enactment contemplated. The compliance of these provisions is critical as a condition requisite of approving the 125 Spindrift Addition – yet – none have been satisfied, and with the side setbacks, they are not even legally within the variance parameters to deem this build lawful. 3) Views Should have been Examined – All and Each of Them – And Elimination of Any Topographic or Landscape View Feature (ie, Shoreline, Water breaks, Beach, Mountains, or Substantial Portions of the View and Light) Violates this City’s View Preservation Statutes B-35 CALDWELL LAW GROUP Lawyers City Council City Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes Re: Notice of Appeal (Case # ZON2017-00489)–In Re:125 Spindrift Dr February 9, 2023 Page 36 9701 WILSHIRE BLVD., 10TH FLOOR, BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212 Telephone: (310) 858-7000 // Facsimile: (310) 858-7008 and the Criteria for Neighborhood Compatibility(RPVMC 17.02.040(B)(1)(b); (B)(1)(c); (A)(6); (B)(3)): Notably, all views are protected – including shoreline views – in this City. (RPVMC 17.02.040) The Coastal Specific Plan – which the Commission was required to adhere – mandates that approval of any addition – or home over 16’ – to not impact Neighborhood Compatibility (RPVMC 17.02.040(B)(5), (B)(6)), and it should not impact or create a significant loss or infringement of privacy. (RPVMC 17.02.030(C)(1)(e)(ix); see, also General Plan L8- L11; and RPVMC 17.02.10) Privacy means “reasonable protection from intrusive observations. they are protected by the City in all spaces one would reasonably expect privacy.” (General Plan; 17.02.040(A). As seen from Photographs submitted (Exh.5-2/5-3] reflect that the Project will leave the Fabian Family with no private space – even where they sleep on the lanai – and the only outdoor deck place will be feet away from observation. The one deck space that is shared by the lanai – is equally subject to intrusion with windows just feet away directed at the location. At hearing in April, 2022, the Planning Commission’s postured that the Fabian Family (1) had no protection from privacy indoors – which is not consistent with the law of this City, and (2) that the Fabian Family can simply close their blinds – on the ONE LAST window view facing east and south to avoid being observed by the intrusive 125 Spindrift Property. This is inconsistent with the laws of the City – and the General Plan, which does not require Older Homes to Favor Expansion – or to subordinate their rights to greedy expansion of a neighbor next door in a zone that does not permit expansion as its statutory principle. This was an error of law by the Commission to disregard the privacy of the 124 Spindrift home (Fabian Family) – while sleeping, eating, or sitting outdoors – all areas would lose privacy – and there is a fair expectation to privacy in these spaces. The Commission incorrectly understood and thus misapplied the law -- finding the Fabian’s had no significant right to privacy in the name B-36 CALDWELL LAW GROUP Lawyers City Council City Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes Re: Notice of Appeal (Case # ZON2017-00489)–In Re:125 Spindrift Dr February 9, 2023 Page 37 9701 WILSHIRE BLVD., 10TH FLOOR, BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212 Telephone: (310) 858-7000 // Facsimile: (310) 858-7008 of continued expansion – when this City does not support expansion but does support privacy in one’s home. Factually, there were errors in the Underlying Staff Report & Analysis of which the January 24, 2023 Decision was based. These are addressed briefly, below, to the extent not addressed in relation to other specific issues, above. 1st – No Prior Variances have been Issued Like This Project Seeks in The Surrounding Neighborhood of Portuguese Bend Club (and Cited Examples in the Staff Report are Quite Distinguishable –and Incorrect) The City Planning Commission has reviewed variances of homes in this community in the past – but NONE have involved deviation from City/State laws (or the General Plan) in this degree (both quantity of variances requested and severity – or quality). In fact, the City Planning Commission’s public records are quite revealing – and there has not been 1 variance granted where the Planning Commission did not heavily weight the view impairment of a newly proposed construction. • No Similar Variance as to Size have been Issued – and Certainly None within 250ft: The Staff Report had indicated variances throughout the neighborhood that were misleading if not incorrect. These Factual Errors should be addressed. For example, none of the homes within 500ft have been provided additions anywhere remotely in size – with neighbors across the street adding less than 600ft. The Staffing Report indicates that other variances were given – such as to 101 Spindrift (which blocked no views and had too small of a lot to relocate) or 114 Spindrift (which built down into a slope – and still is a small one story from the street so as to not impair neighbor’s views) or 120 (which was forced to lower the house, so views of neighbors were not impaired). In fact, the City made a point of not impairing views in these circumstances – so this would be a CHANGE from this Commission’s precedent. Likewise, the Staff Report acknowledges variances given to size of homes at 102 Spindrift – but misstates the project. This was not a 2800 ft project as reflected in the Report, but – rather – was the addition of approximately 500ft. A wall fell down while building, requiring a variance to rebuild the destroyed portion – but 102 Spindrift reflects a less than 600ft addition to a prior home (meeting this City’s Code) – and allowed a variance closer to the property line since the lot was so small, there were less options, and doing so impaired no views because the home abuts a hillside to its rear. Even approvals of 104 B-37 CALDWELL LAW GROUP Lawyers City Council City Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes Re: Notice of Appeal (Case # ZON2017-00489)–In Re:125 Spindrift Dr February 9, 2023 Page 38 9701 WILSHIRE BLVD., 10TH FLOOR, BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212 Telephone: (310) 858-7000 // Facsimile: (310) 858-7008 Spindrift next door had this City Planning Commission weighing a few inches of impairment to a view by a deck – and permitted it only due to the fact the house still satisfied setbacks, noting that the couple inches did not significantly impair or impact other neighbors’ views (and acknowledged that their views had some overlap previously already – thus, making the change of a few more inches “insignificant.”) These same public records note that the purpose of this community was not to give “special treatment” to someone seeking to build in a manner that ignores the views of the neighborhood which were contemplated at the time the homes were built. • No Similar 2 Story Homes have been Approved – None in this Community Exist that Block ALL The Entirety of another Home’s Views from One Side (124 is Losing All Light and Views to the East – 1 of its 2 Walls with Windows) – and None have been Approved where the Height Towers Above the Neighbors (125 Proposes to be 6’ taller than 124 – while Running the Entire Length of the Property Just Feet Awa) or that are 5-6’ Above Houses to the North (as 125 Proposes) –and None Blocking Views (7 houses’ Views are Blocked) – This has Never been Approved by Variance in this Community: This is a community that was developed as a staggered home community – with no home impacting the views of another. Each home is a low-height 1- story home with none built above a matter of inches above the floor level of homes to the North – with 2 Story Homes Built (Subterranean – or Down Slope so the Street view Remains 1-Story) – or the 2-Story backed Up Against A Hillside so that Absolutely No Views Behind the Structure are Blocked. • Absolutely No Variances have been Granted in this Community Permitting a Home to be Built Inches to Feet Away – or to Eliminate ALL Views from the 1 of the 2 ONLY Walls of the Homes with Windows or Views (or 75% of a Homes’ Views): This City’s Planning Commission records show diligent attention to even “inches” of infringed views – and whether those views had previously been obstructed partially – or not – yet this Commission provided no regard, possibly due to the failure to Apply the Mandatory General Plan Factors – or the View Preservation Statutes – or Failure to Apply View Consideration for a Structure over 16’ – or Failure to Apply a View and Space and Privacy Analysis as required for any addition over 750ft. These mistakes of law created a very divergent result in this Community – and approved a project that this City’s statutory structure prohibits. • No Home Addition has been Approved that Wholly Eliminates Another Home’s Views of the Shoreline – or of the Breaking Water – As this Project B-38 CALDWELL LAW GROUP Lawyers City Council City Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes Re: Notice of Appeal (Case # ZON2017-00489)–In Re:125 Spindrift Dr February 9, 2023 Page 39 9701 WILSHIRE BLVD., 10TH FLOOR, BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212 Telephone: (310) 858-7000 // Facsimile: (310) 858-7008 Proposes to do with 7 Other Properties: This City’s laws prohibit the elimination of any significant viewpoint as a “significant impact” which causes this Commission – if applying the law – to automatically deny the project. (RPVMC 17.02.040(C)(1)(e)(iv) – or 17.02.03(B)(i)(C). The Commission did not value these infringements or believe they were required to apply these facts to the laws – which has caused the divergence in this Commission’s January 24, 2023 Decision. • The 125 Applicant’s Neighborhood Support Do Not Live in the Neighborhood – or within 250ft – While 7 Neighbors in 250ft Object to this Project Due to Loss of Views: Underlying the Commission’s Decision was the submission by the 125 Applicant of supporting neighbors – nearly half who do not even live in this community – and nearly none, if none, who live within 250ft. By contrast – 7 homes within 250ft objected due to the severity of view impact. 2nd – The Commission’s Precedent Shows Review of the General Plan Standards, View Interference, and 17.02.30(b) Standards Which were Omitted from the January 24, 2023 Evaluation – and its Decision: Here, in a fact raised to the Commission – but wholly ignored as having no legal consequence (when it does) – was the fact that the Fabian Family to the west (124 Spindrift) has NO views to the north or west – its bearing walls, entrances, and carport area. The home’s only view is southeast from their living room/dining room/kitchen[FN31] – and 75% of this will vanish with a wall 3’ away and 5’ taller for 90’ of its structure. However, this Commission has traditionally rigorously applied these laws and standards in this Community – with 1 Consistent Guideline: IF the Addition impacts current views of neighbors – encroaches too closely – or impacts privacy – the Projects were not approved. IF the home could be built in a manner based upon its location that did not impact other Nighbor’s Views and Spacing – it was Generally Approved within the confines of the law. The January 24, 2023 Error is that the Commission deviated from the View Ordinance, Setback Ordinance, and General Plan Mandatory Requirements which factor in the Impact to Other Neighbor’s Space and View. It, thus, is Not a uestion of whether there is another 2 story home in the community that is taller (or larger) – the Question Under this City’s Multiple Statutory Schemes, rater, Requires the Commission to Ask What is Next to and Behind that Previously Built Project 31 See Exh 5-3 Photo of viewing area from the interior home – and the exterior photos revealing windows/views are to the south and eastern wall – of which 75% of the exterior walls with views will be blocked by a towering “tunnel” of the 125 Structure built inches to feet away for the entire distance of the 124 Home. B-39 CALDWELL LAW GROUP Lawyers City Council City Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes Re: Notice of Appeal (Case # ZON2017-00489)–In Re:125 Spindrift Dr February 9, 2023 Page 40 9701 WILSHIRE BLVD., 10TH FLOOR, BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212 Telephone: (310) 858-7000 // Facsimile: (310) 858-7008 – and did the Build CHANGE the Views of Others? This is the analysis required by this City’s laws of this Commission – and this Council – and it is in this failure that the law was violated to which this appeal is grounded. 3rd – While the Planning Commission did factor incorrect data in its Staffing Report as the basis for its Decision of January 24, 2023 – the Gravity of the Decision’s Failure Rests Primarily on the Application of Bad Law (or Failure to Apply Mandatory Statutes) which would have Presumably Allowed the Commission to Correct Itself: In addition to applying the required legal statutes and criteria, even the criteria of RPCMC 17.02.30(C)(1)(e) – which had to be factored for any proposed addition over 16’ – were not satisfied or thoroughly queried under the strict standards of this City’s laws. 1) Not Satisfied: The 125 Project did not comply with the consultation for these plans – we have yet to see them. 2) Not Applicable 3) Not Applicable 4) Not Satisfied: The project is designed and placed in a way that is obstructive. 125 is a large lot – but the Applicant wants to preserve its outdoor spaces and to add parking down the low – and has elected to, instead, invade the views of its neighbors. The City Planning Commission evaluating “inches” into another neighbor’s view of 104’s deck stands in such extraordinary contrast to the seeming ambivalence the Staff Report gives to 75% of Fabian Home’s Light and views to the east. 5) No: There is significant cumulative impact. 6) Not Satisfied: The structure significantly impairs many parcel’s views. 7) Not Satisfied: The proposed structure does NOT comply with Code requirements. 8) Not Satisfied : The proposed structure is not compatible with the immediate neighborhood character. It is close to 2x the size (and at least 1000 ft larger) than the neighboring house. 9) Not Satisfied: This structure is not a reasonable infringement of the privacy of others. “Privacy” is not limited to exterior decks – but certainly would include standing by one’s bed on a lanai – and in the viewing area of the dining/kitchen. 10) Not Satisfied: The Project significantly impairs views of many homes. Photographs showing the loss of privacy from the only exterior deck of the Fabian Family’s, from their bed on the lanai, from their kitchen and dining area – B-40 CALDWELL LAW GROUP Lawyers City Council City Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes Re: Notice of Appeal (Case # ZON2017-00489)–In Re:125 Spindrift Dr February 9, 2023 Page 41 9701 WILSHIRE BLVD., 10TH FLOOR, BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212 Telephone: (310) 858-7000 // Facsimile: (310) 858-7008 notably the ONLY windows in their home – are astounding. (Exhs. 5-1 and 5-2). These factors are required to be thoroughly vetted under this City’s laws – and City Planning Commission has historically honored these criteria – honored view protection and neighbor compatibility – space and size and setback requisites – and has historically honored the restrictions imposed by this City and State to which the January 24, 2023 Decision notably deviates. Equally, NONE of these proposals for multipole variances and deviations from Neighborhood Compatibility Standards – and which infringe upon the rights of other neighbors can satisfy RPVMC 17.72.040 mandatory requisites, either: 1) The Project is not warranted by practical difficulties. The 125 Landowners seek a 3rd Addition – and can likewise follow the law – conform to the neighborhood it resides – respect its neighbors’ views and light and spacing – but chose not to. They should be held to the laws, nonetheless. 2) The Project is not warranted by Unnecessary hardship: No such hardship exists to warrant this Project – much less despite the laws of this City. 3) The Project will CREATE inconsistencies with the General Intent of the regulations adopted. If this Project proceeds – a precedent will be established that acknowledges that this City and its Planning Commission are not invested in the laws and requirements of the laws of this City – that they are discretionary at the whim of a newly voted Commission or Council – none of which these Residents deserve – none of which stands in conformity with the law. REQUESTED RELIEF: This City Council is requested to Reverse the Decision and Deny the Proposed plan based upon 15.20.40(H) – which disallows an Addition of this Size per se. However, specific to issues of misapplication of law as set forth herein, to the extent not already moot, the City Council is requested to remand the issue in order to permit the legal requisites to be properly factored. Very truly yours, CALDWELL LAW GROUP /s/ Susan L. Caldwell SUSAN L. CALDWELL cc: Michael Fabian B-41 EXHIBIT 1 B-42 January 25, 2023 NOTICE OF DECISION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has approved, with conditions, Variances, a Coastal Permit and Site Plan Review with Neighborhood Compatibility to construct a 1,181 ft2 addition, consisting of a new 1,041 ft2 second floor and a 140 ft2 addition to the existing 1,670 ft2 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 (Case No. ZON2017-00489). LOCATION: APPLICANT: LANDOWNER: 125 SPINDRIFT DRIVE RUSSELL BARTO MICHAEL & KA THY LABARBERA Said decision is subject to the Conditions of Approval set forth in the attached Exhibit "A". This decision may be appealed, in writing, to the City Council. The appeal shall set forth the grounds for appeal and any specific action being requested by the appellant. Any appeal letter must be filed within fifteen (15) calendar days of the approval date, or by 5:30 PM on Thursday, February 9, 2023. A $3,100.00 appeal fee must accompany any appeal letter. If no appeal is filed timely, the Planning Commission decision will be final at 5:30 PM on Thursday, February 9, 2023. If you have any questions regarding this application, please contact Octavio Silva, Interim Director of Community DevelopmenUPlanning Manager at (310) 544-5234 or via email at octavios@rpvca .gov. Interim Director of Community Development Cc: Applicant/Landowner B-43 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2023-02 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING, WITH CONDITIONS, VARIANCES, A 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 FT2 SINGLE-STORY RESIDENCE FOR A NEW TOTAL STRUCTURE SIZE OF 2,851 FT 2 (GARAGE INCLUDED); AND ANCILLARY SITE IMPROVEMENTS 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; and WHEREAS, on October 26, 2017, Russ Barto ("Applicant"), representing property owners Michael and Kathy Labarbera, submitted the subject applications to the Community Development Department; and WHEREAS, on November 21, 2017, staff completed the initial review of the applications, at which time the applications were deemed incomplete for processing; and 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; and WHEREAS, on March 25, 2022, based on a review of the revised plans, staff deemed the application complete for processing; and 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; and 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 opportunity to consider project revisions; and 01203_0005/851152.2 P.C. Resolution No . 2023-02 Page 1 of 11 B-44 WHEREAS, on October 10, 2022, the Applicant submitted revised project plans, which included modifications to the project design; and 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, 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; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 24 , 2023 , at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence . NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference. Section 2 : The project involves the construction of a 1,181 ft2 addition, consisting of a new 1,041 ft2 second floor and an 140 ft2 first floor addition to the existing 1,670 ft2 single -story residence for a new total structure size of 2,851 ft 2 (garage included); and ancillary site improvements. Section 3: The Site Plan Review is approved for the proposed 1,181 ft2 of additions and ancillary site improvements, which include a 45 ft2 balcony, an entry porch, a 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 . 01203.0005/851152 .2 P .C. Resolution No. 2023-02 Page 2 of 11 B-45 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 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 ft 2 , 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 consistent with the City's General Plan and Costal Specific Plan. 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 Costal 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 south side 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: Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or by any portion of this decision may appeal to the City Council. The appeal shall set forth in writing , the grounds for appeal and any specific action being requested by the appellant. Any appeal 01203.0005/851152 .2 P .C . Resolution No. 2023-02 Page 3 of 11 B-46 letter must be filed within 15 calendar days of the date of this decision, or by 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, February 9, 2023. A $3,100.00 appeal fee must accompany any appeal letter. If no appeal is filed timely, the Planning Commission's decision will be final at 5:30 p.m. on February 9, 2023. Section 7: 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 17.86.100(8) of the RPVMC . Section 8: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes, and other records of proceedings, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby adopts P.C. Resolution No. 2023- 02; A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING, WITH CONDITIONS, VARIANCES, A 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 FT2 ADDITION TO THE EXISTING 1,670 FT 2 SINGLE-STORY RESIDENCE FOR A NEW TOTAL STRUCTURE SIZE OF 2,851 FT2 (GARAGE INCLUDED); AND ANCILLARY SITE IMPROVEMENTS AT 125 SPINDRIFT DRIVE (CASE NO. ZON2017-00489). 01203.0005/851152.2 P.C. Resolution No. 2023-02 Page 4 of 11 B-47 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of January 2023, by the following vote: A YES: COMMISSIONERS NELSON, NULMAN, PERES TAM, SAADATNEJADI, SANTAROSA AND VICE-CHAIR CHURA NOES : ABSTENTIONS: RECUSALS: ABSENT: Octavio Silva, Interim Director of Community Development Secretary of the Planning Commission 01203 .0005/851152.2 David Chur Vice Chair P.C . Resolution No. 2023-02 Page 5 of 11 B-48 EXHIBIT 1-A B-49 EXHIBIT 'A' CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PLANNING CASE NO. ZON2017-00489 (SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY, VARIANCE AND COASTAL PERMIT) 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 01203_0005/851152-2 P.C. Resolution No. 2023-02 Page 6 of 11 B-50 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 01203.0005/851152 .2 P .C. Resolution No . 2023-02 Page 7 of 11 B-51 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. 01203.0005/851152.2 P .C. Resolution No. 2023-02 Page 8 of 11 B-52 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 ft2 first floor addition to the existing 1,670 ft2 single-story residence for a new total structure size of 2,851 ft 2 (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, 2.75-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 01203.0005/851152 .2 P.C. Resolution No. 2023-02 Page 9 of 11 B-53 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 Con d itions 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 PERM IT 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 BU ILD ING 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 01203 .0005/851152 .2 P.C . Resolution No . 2023-02 Page 10 of 11 B-54 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. 01203 .0005/851152.2 P .C. Resolution No . 2023-02 Page 11 of 11 B-55 EXHIBIT 2 B-56 B-57 EXHIBIT 3 B-58 CITYOF August 28, 2017 Michael and Kathy Labarbera 125 Spindrift Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 RANCHO PALOS VERDES COMMU NITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: LANDSLIDE MORATORIUM EXCEPTION PERMIT CASE NO. ZON2017-00077 125 SPINDRIFT DRIVE Dear Michael & Kathy Labarbera: On August 28, 2017, the Director of Community Development conditionally approved a Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit to submit the appropriate development applications to the Planning Division for consideration to demolish 27% of the existing interior and exterior walls, construct 1,067ft2 of two-story additions (50ft2 to the first floor and a new 1,017ft2 second floor), demolish and reconstruct the existing 290ft2 one-car garage, construct a new 431ft2 roof deck and a 66ft2 balcony at the rear fa9ade, and install 8 new plumbing fixtures (Case No. ZON2016-00398). Enclosed is a copy of the Notice of Decision and Staff Report with Exhibit 'A' Conditions of Approval for your files. Additionally, I have enclosed the Certification of Acceptance of Project Conditions of Approval. This certification shall be signed and returned to the Planning Department. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (310) 544-5225. ,Aa- lrving ; naya {I Assistant Planner cc: Russell Barto, 3 Malaga Cove Plaza #202, Palos Verdes Estates, CA 9027 4 Project File 30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD / RANCHO PALOS VER DES , CA 90275-5391 PLANN ING & CODE ENFOR CE MENT DIV ISIO N (310) 544-5228 / BUILDIN G & SAFETY DIVIS ION (310) 265-7800 / DEPT FAX (310) 544-5293 E-MAIL: PLANN IN G@RPVCA C.1OV / WWWRPVCA GOV B-59 CITYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CO MM UNIT Y DEVE LOP MENT DE PA RTM ENT August 28, 2017 NOTICE OF DECISION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Director of Community Development of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has approved, with conditions, a request for a Landslide Moratorium Exception (LME) Permit to allow the applicant to submit the appropriate development applications to the Planning Division for consideration to demolish 27% of the existing interior and exterior walls, construct 1,067ft2 of two-story additions (50ft2 to the first floor and a new 1,017ft2 second floor), demolish and reconstruct the existing 290ft2 one-car garage, construct a new 431ft2 roof deck and a 66ft2 balcony at the rear fa9ade, and install 8 new plumbing fixtures (Case No. ZON2017-00077). LOCATION: APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: 125 Spindrift Drive Russell Barto Michael and Kathy Labarbera Said decision is subject to the Conditions of Approval set forth in the attached Exhibit 'A.' This decision may be appealed, in writing, to the City Council. The appeal shall set forth the grounds for appeal and any specific action being requested by the appellant. Any appeal letter must be filed within fifteen (15) calendar days of the approval date, or by 5:30 PM on Tuesday, September 12, 2017. A $2,275.00 appeal fee must accompany any appeal letter. If no appeal is filed in a timely manner, the Director's decision will be final at 5:30 PM on Tuesday, September 12, 2017. If you would like the opportunity to review approved plans, they are on file in the Community Development Department at 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes, and are available for review from 7:30 AM to 5 :30 PM Monday through Thursday, and from 7:30 AM to 4:30 PM Friday. If you have any questions regarding this application, please contact Irving Anaya, Assistant Planner at 44-o r via e-mail at ianaya@rpvca .g ov for further information . Director of Community Development Enclosure: Exhibit A-Conditions of Approval Cc : Russell Barto, 3 Malaga Cove Plaza #202, Palos Verdes Estates, CA 9027 4 Michael & Kathy Labarbera, 125 Spindrift Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca 90275 Project File 30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD / RANC HO PALOS VERDES , CA 90275-5391 PLANNINC.1 & COD E ENFORC EMENT DIV ISION (3 10) 544·5228 / BUI LDING & SAF ETY DIVIS ION (3 10) 265 ·7800 / DEPT. FAX (310 ) 544 -5293 E-MA IL PLANN ING@RPVCA GOV/ WWWRPVCA GOV ,, B-60 CITYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES Certification of Acceptance of Project Conditions of Approval Project: Project Location: Approval Date: Case No. ZON2017-00077 125 Spindrift Drive August 28, 2017 I, ______________ , the property owner and applicants for the above-mentioned project hereby certify that I have read, understand, and accept all conditions of approval applicable to this project. Signature of Property Owner/Applicant Date Signature of Property Owner/Applicant Date (Note: This certification shall be signed and returned to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department (Attn: Irving Anaya) at 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 by November 24, 2017.) B-61 CITYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES MEMORANDUM TO: ARA MIHRANIAN, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FROM: IRVING ANAYA, ASSISTANT PLANNER DATE: AUGUST 28, 2017 SUBJECT: LANDSLIDE MORATORIUM EXCEPTION PERMIT (CASE NO. ZON2017-00077) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 125 SPINDRIFT DRIVE (APPLICANT: RUSSELL BARTO; OWNER: MICHAEL AND KATHY LABARBERA) RECOMMENDATION Approve, with conditions, the Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit for property located at 125 Spindrift (Case No. ZON2017-00077). BACKGROUND On February 24, 2017, the Applicant submitted a Landslide Moratorium Exception (LME) Permit to the Community Development Department, requesting approval to submit planning applications to consider the construction of two-story additions with ancillary site improvements to an existing single story residence within the City's designated Landslide Moratorium Area. On March 24, 2017, after reviewing the application package, it was deemed incomplete due to missing information. The Applicant submitted additional information and the application was deemed incomplete again on April 10, 2017 due to the City Geologist's pending review of the Applicant's geotechnical report. On May 30, 2017, the City Geologist granted an in-concept approval of the proposed project and Staff deemed the application complete for further processing on June 29, 2017. The action deadline is August 28, 2017 pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act. SITE DESCRIPTION The subject property is a 4, 164ft2 down-sloping lot, located at 125 Spindrift Drive. The site is currently improved with a 1,380ft2 single-family residence with an attached 290ft2 one-car garage (1,670ft2 total structure size) and a rear yard deck. The site is non- conforming as the existing improvements on the lot encroach into the minimum required 20' front (6.9' existing), 5' side (2.9' west side existing) and 15' rear (15.5' existing) setbacks, and exceed the maximum allowable lot coverage of 40% (54.3% existing). B-62 LANDSLIDE MORATORIUM EXCEPTION PERMIT CASE NO. ZON2017-00077 The site is located within the Single-Family Residential 2 d.u./ac (RS-2) zoning district, and Natural Design (OC-1) and Urban Design (OC-3) overlay control districts. The site is also located within the "red" zone of the Landslide Moratorium Area, as well as the Appealable Area of the City's Coastal Zone. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed LME application requests the City's approval to allow the submittal of the required planning applications for the following improvements located in the Landslide Moratorium Area: • Demolish 27% of existing residence's interior and exterior walls; • Construct 1,067ft2 of two-story additions (50ft 2 to the first floor and a 1,017ft2 new second floor) resulting in a total structure size of 2,737ft2; • Demolish and reconstruct the existing 290ft2 one-car garage; • Construct a 431ft2 roof deck and a 66ft2 balcony at the rear fac;ade; and, • Install 8 additional plumbing fixtures. The existing non-conforming lot coverage is proposed to increase from 54.3% to 55.7% as a result of the proposed project. Additionally, while the existing front, west side and rear setbacks are non-conforming, the proposed additions will meet the minimum required setbacks (20' front, 5' interior side, and 15' rear). CODE CONSIDERATIONS AND ANALYSIS Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit The City established moratorium prohibits the filing, processing, and approval of building, grading and other land use permits within the designated Landslide Moratorium Area. However, Municipal Code Section 15.20.040 establishes exceptions to the Landslide Moratorium provided that sufficient evidence demonstrates that proposed improvements on developed properties will not aggravate the landslide and a Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit ("LME") is approved. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 15.20.040(H), the moratorium shall not apply to a minor project involving 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 1,200 square feet, provided that: • A LME is approved by the Director; • The project complies with the criteria set forth in Section 15.20.050; and, PAGE2 B-63 LANDSLIDE MORATORIUM EXCEPTION PERMIT CASE NO. ZON2017-00077 • The project does not include additional plumbing fixtures unless the lot is served by a sanitary sewer system. The proposed project involves 1,564ft2 of improvements (1,067ft2 of additions, a 431ft2 roof deck, and a 66ft2 balcony). Mitigation measures set forth in Section 15.20.050 have been added as Conditions of Approval to Exhibit "A". While the Applicant is proposing to increase the number of plumbing fixtures, the lot is served by a private sanitary sewer system. The Applicant's geotechnical report demonstrates, to the City Geologist's satisfaction, that the proposed project will not cause an adverse impact on the stability of the landslide or adjacent structures. The City Geologist's recommended conditions have been added to Exhibit "A". Therefore, Staff recommends that the Director conditionally approve the LME . Approval of the LME would not constitute approval of the proposed improvements, but simply allows the Applicant to proceed with the next step and submit the appropriate development applications to the Planning Division for consideration. Based on the current proposal, the applicant would need to submit a Height Variation, Site Plan Review, Coastal Permit, and a Variance application for review. Should the Applicant choose to reduce the overall height, a Height Variation application may not be required. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Staff has determined that the proposed project is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), under Article 19, Section 15301 (Class 1 Exemption-Existing Facilities) of the California Guidelines for Implementation of the CEQA. Specifically, the project includes a negligible expansion of the existing residence. CONCLUSION Based on the above discussion, Staff believes that the proposed project meets the requirements of a Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit. As such, Staff recommends that the Director of Community Development approve the Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit to allow the applicant to submit Height Variation, Site Plan Review, Coastal Permit and Variance applications for the proposed project, subject to the Conditions of Approval contained in the attached Exhibit "A" (ZON2017-00077). ALTERNATIVES The following alternatives to Staff's recommendation are available for the Director to consider: PAGE3 B-64 LANDSLIDE MORATORIUM EXCEPTION PERMIT CASE NO. ZON2017-00077 1. Identify any issues or concerns with the proposed project, and provide the applicant with direction in modifying the project (Case No. ZON2017-00077); or 2. Deny, without prejudice, the Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit application (Case No. ZON2017-00077). Accepted : c:GJ±~.-A-IC-;-""' ---Dated: €,-z.€, · \1 Director of Community Development ATTACHMENTS • Exhibit "A" o Conditions of Approval • In-concept Approval by the City Geologist PAGE4 B-65 EXHIBIT 3-A B-66 LANDSLIDE MORATORIUM EXCEPTION PERMIT CASE NO. ZON2017-00077 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LANDSLIDE MORATORIUM EXCEPTION PERMIT (CASE NO. ZON2012-00369) General Conditions 1. The applicant and the property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have read, understand and agree to all conditions of approval listed below. Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days following the date of this approval or prior to development application submittal to the Planning Division 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. Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws and regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code shall apply. 4 . Pursuant to Section 17.78.040, the Director of Community Development is authorized to make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the Conditions of Approval if such modifications will achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with the approved plans and conditions. Substantial changes to the project shall be considered a revision and require approval by the final body that approved the original project, which may require new and separate environmental review and public notification. 5. Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be cause to revoke the approval of the project pursuant to the revocation procedures contained in Section 17.86.060 of the City's Municipal Code or administrative citations as described in Section 1.16 of the City's Municipal Code. PAGE5 B-67 LANDSLIDE MORATORIUM EXCEPTION PERMIT CASE NO. ZON2017-00077 6. If the applicant has not submitted development applications with the Planning Division for the approved Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit within 180 days of the final effective date of this Notice of Decision, said approval 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. 7 . If lot drainage deficiencies are identified by the Director of Public Works, all such deficiencies shall be corrected by the applicant. 8 . 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. 9 . If required by the City's Geologist, the Applicant shall submit a soils report, and/or a geotechnical report, for the review and approval of the City Geotechnical Engineer prior to any building or grading permit issuance. 10. 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. 11 . 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 this chapter. Such covenant shall be submitted to the Director for recordation prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit. 12 . 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. 13. 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 any building or grading permit for the project that is being approved pursuant to the issuance of this Landslide Moratorium Exception permit. 14. All other necessary permits and approvals required pursuant to this Code or any other applicable statute, law or ordinance shall be obtained. PAGES B-68 Category4 PN 97082-2657 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES GEOTECHNICAL REPORT RESPONSE CHECKLIST Date Received: Date of Response: Consultant: Signed By: Previous Report: Applicant Name: Site Address: Lotrrract No.: May 22, 2017 May6,2017 TIN Engineering Company Tony S.C. Lee HankH.L. Jong April 17, 2017 March 16, 2016 Labarbera 125 Spindrift Rancho Palos Verdes, CA Date Completed: Geo#: Their Job No.: License/Expiration Date: Prior Review: Legend: A.P.N.: May30,2017 Gl7-00013 162178 PE 44045 Exp 6/30/17 CEG 1646 Exp 11/30/18 April 27, 2017 March 16,2017 N =No Y =Yes Proposed Project: New garage and new second story addition across entire existing residence • Geotechnical Response: ~ IN Responsive to checklist comments Y~ Grading/foundation plans changed as a result of response • Recommended Actions: Planning Department: __!_ In Concept Approval for Planning Pwposes Buildina: and Safety: _ Report Approved _x._ Conditional Approval (See Below) Items requiring response/further evaluation: 1. None Additional comments/Conditions of Approval (no response required): Additional Input Required 2. Note to City Staff: Staff should confirm that the Consultants (R.C.E./G.E. and C.E.G.) have signed the final dated grading/foundation plans, thereby verifying the plans' geotechnical conformance with the Consultant's original report and associated addenda. 3. Note to City Staff: Staff should verify that the proposed scope of work is allowable under the current Municipal Code. 4. An as built geotechnical report should be prepared by the project geotechnical consultant following grading/construction of the subject site improvements. The report should include the results of all field density testing, depth of reprocessing and recompaction, as well as a map depicting the limits of grading, locations of all density testing, and conditions exposed during grading/excavation. Limitations: Our review is intended to determine if the submitted report(s) comply with City of Rancho Palos Verdes Codes and generally accepted geotechnical practices within the local area. The scope of our services for this third party review has been limited to a brief site visit and a review of the above referenced report and associated documents, as supplied by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Re-analysis of reported data and/or calculations and preparation of amended construction or design recommendations are specifically not included within our scope of services. Our review should not be considered as a certification, approval or acceptance of the consultant's work, nor is it meant as an acceptance of liability for final design or construction recommendations made by the geotechnical consultant of record or the project designers or engineers. BY: ft;:,, Dante P. Domingo, R.C, 57939 Expires 6/30/18 KLING CONSULTING GROUP, INC. S:\projects\1997\97082\97082-2657 3rd Review 125 Spindrift S-17doc B-69 EXHIBIT 4 B-70 ORDINANCE NO. 407 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 15.20 (MORATORIUM ON LAND USE PERMITS) OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE, AND RESCINDING URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 406U. WHEREAS, on September 17, 2002, the City Council directed Staff to formulate revisions to the Municipal Code in order to clarify the City's landslide moratorium exception regulations as they apply to additions to existing structures and to accessory structures and uses; and, WHEREAS, on November 5, 2002, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 382U, thereby re-establishing a maximum cumulative area of six hundred square feet per parcel for additions to existing structures and for construction of permanent detached accessory structures; and, WHEREAS, between November 5, 2002 and February 18, 2004, the City received only one application for a landslide moratorium exception permit involving new permanent detached accessory structures, and no such applications involving both additions to existing structures and construction of new permanent detached accessory structures were submitted during this period; and, WHEREAS, on February 19, 2004, the City received an application for a landslide moratorium exception involving both additions to existing structures and construction of new detached accessory structures that, considered individually, did not exceed six hundred square feet each, but when combined, exceeded a cumulative total of six hundred square feet for the project; and, WHEREAS, this application called into question Staff's interpretation of the City Council's intent in adopting Ordinance 382U and, therefore, Staff has proposed revisions to Chapter 15.20 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code to clarify what it believes to be the City Council's intent; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), the City determined that only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to the Negative Declaration for Code Amendment No. 45/Environmental Assessment No. 714, which made miscellaneous amendments to Chapter 15.20 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, on June 6, 2000. The ordinance amendment proposed herein clarifies existing controls on granting certain exceptions to the Landslide Moratorium consistent with Code Amendment No. 45, with the goal of limiting the size and correlative impact of certain additional development on previously developed properties undertaken in the Landslide Moratorium Area. B-71 Therefore, under CEQA Guidelines §15164 and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines §VI. B., preparation of an addendum to the Negative Declaration adopted for Code Amendment No. 45 is deemed proper. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The City Council has reviewed and considered the amendments to Sections 15.20.040 H. and L. of Chapter 15.20 of Title 15 of the Municipal Code. Section 2: The City Council finds that the amendments to Sections 15.20.040 H. and L. of Chapter 15.20 of Title 15 of the Municipal Code are consistent with the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan in that they uphold, and do not hinder, the goals and policies of those plans, in particular to balance the rights of owners of developed properties within the Landslide Moratorium Area to make limited, reasonable improvements while limiting the potential impacts resulting from these improvements upon landslide movement, soil stability and public safety within and adjacent to the Landslide Moratorium Area. Section 3: The City Council further finds that the amendments to Sections 15.20.040 H. and L. of Chapter 15.20 of Title 15 of the Municipal Code clarify and are consistent with the City Council's intent in adopting Ordinance 382U on November 5, 2002, in that the cumulative maximum square footage of additions to existing structures and construction of permanent detached accessory structures, when combined together, would not exceed six hundred square feet per parcel. Section 4: The City Council further finds that there is no substantial evidence that the amendments to Sections 15.20.040 H. and L. of Chapter 15.20 of Title 15 of the Municipal Code would result in significant environmental effects, or a substantial increase in the severity of such effects, because the minor clarifications to the Municipal Code will provide for limited, reasonable improvement of existing, developed properties without weakening the current landslide moratorium or increasing the potential for environmental impacts of future development in the City. The City Council considered the Negative Declaration adopted for Code Amendment No. 45/Environmental Assessment No. 714, and Addendum No. 2, which is attached hereto as Exhibit 'A', prior to making its decision regarding the code amendments contemplated herein. Section 5: The City Council further finds that the amendments to Sections 15.20.040 H. and L. of Chapter 15.20 of Title 15 of the Municipal Code are necessary to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare in the area. Section 6: Based on the foregoing, Sections 15.20.040 (Exceptions) H. and L. of Chapter 15.20 of Title 15 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code are amended to read as follows: 15.20.040 H. Minor projects on a lot that currently is developed with a residential structure or other lawfully existing non-residential structure and involves an addition to an existing structure, enclosed patio, conversion of an Ordinance No. 407 Page 2 of 4 B-72 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 six 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 of this chapter and does not include any additional plumbing fixtures, unless the lot is served by a sanitary sewer system. The six hundred square foot limitation on cumulative projects that can be approved on a lot pursuant to this Paragraph H does not include the construction of a new garage, which can be approved pursuant to Paragraph L of this Section. 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, which 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 to 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. 15.20.040 L. Construction of one attached or detached garage per parcel, which does not exceed an area of six hundred square feet, without windows or any plumbing fixtures, on a lot that currently is developed with a residential structure or other lawfully existing non-residential structure; 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 of this chapter. If the lot is served by a sanitary sewer system, the permit may allow the installation of windows and plumbing fixtures in the garage. The approval of a landslide moratorium exception permit for such a project shall be conditioned to require that a use restriction covenant in a form acceptable to the city, which prevents the garage from being used for any purpose other than parking of vehicles and storage of personal property, is recorded with the Los Angeles County registrar- recorder. Such covenant shall be submitted to the director prior to the issuance of a building permit. Prior to the approval of a landslide moratorium exception permit for such garage, 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 7: After the effective date of this Ordinance, it shall apply to all landslide moratorium exception permits and any subsequent development applications Ordinance No. 407 Page 3 of 4 B-73 that had not been deemed complete by the City as of the effective date of this Ordinance. Section 8: Urgency Ordinance No. 406U as adopted by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council on April 20, 2004, is hereby rescinded as of the effective date of this Ordinance. Section 9: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted in the manner prescribed by law. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 1sT DAY OF JUNE 2004. Attest: STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ) I, JO PURCELL, 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; the foregoing Ordinance No. 407 passed first reading on May 18, 2004, was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting thereof held on June 1, 2004, and that the same was passed and adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Clark, Long, Stern, Wolowicz, and Mayor Gardiner None None None Ordinance No. 407 Page 4 of 4 B-74 EXHIBIT 'A' -ORDINANCE NO. 407 ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION (EA/ND) NO. 714 JUNE 1, 2004 On June 6, 2000, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2000-35, thereby adopting a Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 714 and Code Amendment No. 45, amending Chapter 15.20 (Moratorium on Land Use Permits) of the City's Municipal Code. The amendments were intended to allow for limited, reasonable use of developed properties within the Landslide Moratorium Area by expanding the variety of development projects that could be excepted from the moratorium without jeopardizing the public health, safety and general welfare. The amendments also included a requirement for the connection of existing developed properties to new sanitary sewer systems, with the intent of reducing the infiltration of wastewater into the active and inactive landslides, and improving gross soil stability within the entire Landslide Moratorium Area. Prior to its adoption, the Negative Declaration was circulated for public comment from April 19, 2002 through May 18, 2002 and no substantive comments were received from any persons or responsible agencies. In adopting the Negative Declaration, the City Council found: 1) that there would be no significant adverse environmental impacts resulting from the adoption of the amendments; and 2) that, although the adoption of the code amendment would serve only to effectuate changes to the language of the existing Municipal Code, the City Council recognized that separate environmental review would be performed for any projects to which Chapter 15.20 applied, prior to receiving any approvals from the City. The City Council is currently considering the adoption of an Ordinance that would further amend Chapter 15.20 by clarifying that the maximum cumulative project(s) total square footage for additions to existing structures and construction of permanent detached accessory structures is six hundred square feet per parcel for both types of project(s) combined, rather than for each type of project(s) individually. The proposed amendment would maintain the current Code provisions to allow the construction of a new garage up to six hundred square feet in area on a developed parcel. The effect of these revisions would be to limit the expansion of developed properties within the Landslide Moratorium Area-except for those properties located within the Landslide Moratorium Area "outlined in blue" (i.e., subject to the exception under Section 15.20.040 (K) of the Municipal Code)-to one thousand two hundred square feet per parcel, consisting of: • Six hundred square feet (600 SF) of additions to main structures, patio enclosures, conversion of existing garages to habitable space, and construction of and additions to permanent attached and detached accessory structures; and, • Six hundred square feet (600 SF) for a new attached or detached garage. Ordinance No. 407 -Exhibit A Page 1 of 2 B-75 Without the adoption of this Ordinance, the current language of Sections 15.20 040 (H) and (L) could be interpreted to allow up to one thousand eight hundred square feet of expansion to developed properties because the totals for additions to existing structures and for new permanent detached accessory structures would not be combined for the purposes of determining the cumulative project(s) square footage. As such, the City Council has determined that the proposed amendment would not result in new significant environmental effects, but would actually serve to reduce potential adverse impacts upon the environment by clarifying the limitations on the scope of future expansions to developed properties within the Landslide Moratorium Area. Furthermore, the City Council believes that the amendment is within the scope of EA/ND No. 714 that was prepared and adopted in conjunction with Code Amendment No. 45's amendments to Chapter 15.20 that were adopted on June 6, 2000. As a result, no further environmental review of this code amendment is necessary. Ordinance No. 407 -Exhibit A Page 2 of 2 B-76 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 June 3, 2004, she caused to be posted the following document entitled: Ordinance No. 407 -AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 15.20 (MORATORIUM ON LAND USE PERMITS) OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE, AND RESCINDING URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 406U, a copy of which is attached hereto, in the following locations: City Hall 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes Ryan Park 30359 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes Ladera Linda Community Center 32201 Forrestal Drive Rancho Palos Verdes Hesse Park 29301 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is a true and correct affidavit of posting. B-77 EXHIBIT 5 B-78 ORDINANCE NO. 474 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING CHAPTER 17.11 (AFFORDABLE HOUSING), CHAPTER 17.96 (DEFINITIONS) AND CHAPTER 15.20 (MORATORIUM ON LAND USE PERMITS) OF THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE TO CONFORM TO STATE DENSITY BONUS LAWS, TO IMPLEMENT CITY COUNCIL POLICY PERTAINING TO THE LOCATION OF FUTURE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS, TO MAKE CHANGES TO THE SECTION PERTAINING TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS, AND TO PERMIT SECOND DWELLING UNITS IN THE PORTION OF THE LANDSLIDE MORATORIUM AREA THAT IS SERVED BY SANITARY SEWERS. WHEREAS, Chapter 17.11 of Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (the "Municipal Code") sets forth various procedures and regulations regarding provision of affordable housing within the City; and WHEREAS, certain provisions of Government Code Section 65915 have been revised by the state legislature that pertain to density bonuses, incentives, and concessions provided to developers for the production of affordable housing; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65915(a) stipulates that "All cities ... shall adopt an ordinance that specifies how compliance with [state density bonus requirements] will be implemented;" and WHEREAS, it is necessary to amend the City of Rancho Palos Verdes' existing density bonus provisions set forth in Chapter 17 .11 of Title 17 of the Municipal Code and certain definitions as set forth in Chapter 17.96 of Title 17 of the Municipal Code to bring those provisions into conformity with state law; and WHEREAS, at their July 17, 2007 meeting, the Council provided policy direction to Staff pertaining to the location of future affordable housing units, and directed Staff to make changes to Chapter 17 .11 to implement said policy; and WHEREAS, on February 28, 2008, notice of a public hearing on the proposed amendments to Chapters 17 .11 and 17 .96 of Title 17 of the Municipal Code was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News; and WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the provisions of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on April 8, 2008, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence regarding said amendments to Title 17 as set forth in the Planning Commission Staff Report of that date; and B-79 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the proposed code amendments to Title 17 and adopted P.C . Resolution Nos. 2008-14 and 2008-15 forwarding its recommendations to the City Council for its consideration; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulation, 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 City of Rancho Palos Verdes prepared an Initial Study and determined that there is no substantial evidence that the approval of ZON2008- 00161 would result in a significant adverse effect upon the environment and, therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared and notice of same was given in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Initial Study was prepared on February 22, 2008 and distributed for circulation and review from February 25, 2008 through March 28, 2008; and WHEREAS, copies of the draft Negative Declaration were distributed to the City Council, and prior to taking action on the proposed Municipal Code Amendments, the City Council independently reviewed and considered the information and findings contained in the Negative Declaration and determined that the document was prepared in compliance with the requirements of CEQA and local guidelines, with respect thereto; and WHEREAS, on May 31, 2008, a notice of a public hearing on this code amendment was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News; and WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on June 17, 2008, 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 ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The City Council has reviewed and considered the amendments to Chapter 17.11, Chapter 17.96 and Chapter 15.20 of the Municipal Code. Section 2: The City Council finds that there will be no significant land use or planning impacts associated with this project. Section 3: The City Council finds that there will be no significant exposure to geological risks, nor any significant impacts to water resources, air quality, transportation/circulation, biological resources, energy and mineral resources, no significant hazardous conditions created, no significant noise impacts, no significant impacts to public services, no significant impacts to utilities and service systems, no 1063280-1 Ordinance No. 474 Page 2 of 21 B-80 significant aesthetic impacts, and no significant impacts to cultural and recreational resources, as a result of the proposed project. Section 4: The City Council finds that the amendments to Title 17 and Title 15 of the Municipal Code are necessary to preserve the public health, safety, and general welfare in the area. Section 5: Section 17 .11.020 (Applicability) of Chapter 17 .11 of Title 17 of the Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 17.11.020 Applicability. The requirements of this chapter shall apply to all applications which will result in the creation of five or more dwelling units or residential lots, including but not limited to, applications for a tentative tract map, parcel map, conditional use permit, coastal permit, building permit or other development entitlement. Where an initial project consists of four or fewer units, and application is made within three years of the initial project approval to further subdivide or expand the initial project such that the total number of dwelling units or residential lots is equal to five or more, this chapter shall apply. The requirements of this chapter shall also apply to all applications for demolition or conversion of three or more dwelling units in the coastal specific plan district described in Chapter 17.72 (Coastal Permits), as specified in Section 17.11.130 of this chapter. Where an initial project consists of two or fewer units, and application is made within three years of the initial project approval to further subdivide or expand the initial project such that the total number of dwelling units or residential lots is equal to three or more, this chapter shall apply. The requirements of this chapter shall also apply to any development project that has been approved prior to adoption of this chapter, which contains a condition requiring the provision of affordable housing. This chapter shall further apply to conversion of existing residential rental projects to condominium or stock cooperative ownership at any location in the city. No residents may be evicted for the purpose of avoiding the requirements of this section. Where residents have been evicted in the twelve months prior to filing an application listed in this section, a presumption of avoidance shall be made, unless evidence to the contrary is submitted to, and approved by, the city. Section 6: Section 17.11.040 (Affordable Housing Requirements) of Chapter 17.11 of Title 17 of the Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 17.11.040 Affordable housing requirement. A. Number of Affordable Units Required. Except as provided for in Section 17 .11 .030 of this chapter, new residential development of five or more dwelling units shall be required to dedicate up to five percent of all units as affordable to very low income households or dedicate up to ten percent of all units as affordable to low income households. Where a mixture of affordability levels is provided, each very low-income affordable unit shall be weighted such that it is equivalent to two low-income affordable units, resulting in a total weighted count equal to ten percent of total units. The units provided pursuant this dedication requirement shall be rented or sold only to households whose income is at a level that does not exceed the required affordability level of the unit. Except where it has been demonstrated not to be feasible, the affordable units shall be similar in exterior appearance, configuration and basic amenities (such as storage space and outdoor living areas) to the market rate units in the proposed project. 1063280-1 Ordinance No. 4 7 4 Page 3 of 21 B-81 Prior to the time the affordable units become available for sale or rent, certificates of occupancy shall not be issued for more than fifty percent of the units in the project nor shall more than fifty percent of the individual lots be sold in cases where a tract map is involved. For phased developments, the provision of the affordable units shall also be phased, proportionate to the size of each development phase. B. Location of Affordable Housing Units. 1063280-1 1. On-site Location. The affordable units shall be provided on-site as part of the new residential development, unless the project applicant that is required to provide said units proves to the City Council that providing said units on site shall render the project infeasible. 2. Off-site Location. If, as stated above in Section 17.11.040(B)(1 ), the project applicant files a request supported by a feasibility study conforming to the requirements set forth in Section 17.11.080, and the City Council makes a finding pursuant to Section 17.11.080(0)(5) that on-site units would render the project infeasible, the project applicant may then provide said units off-site provided that: a. The off-site unit would not cause the existing development wherein the off-site unit is to be located to exceed the minimum number of affordable housing units required pursuant to Section 17 .11.040(A) if the development were considered a new development. For the purposes of this section, "existing development" shall mean a Tract of residential homes (either condominium, townhome, single-family detached or single-family attached) or an existing residential apartment development; and b. The off-site unit is not within an existing development of less than 5 residential units; and c. The off-site unit is a newly constructed unit, unless the following occurs: 1) the project applicant files a request supported by a feasibility study conforming to the requirements set forth in Section 17 .11.080, and the City Council makes a finding pursuant to Section 17.11.080(0)(3) that said off-site unit provided as a "new" construction unit would render the project infeasible and thus "conversion units" may be provided. "Conversion unit" shall mean an existing developed market-rate unit that has been converted to an affordable housing unit and meets all applicable requirements of Chapter 17.11; and 2) the City Council determines that in meeting its affordable housing construction needs per the Regional Housing Needs Assessment as described in the City's current General Plan Housing Element, there are per the requirements of State Law a sufficient number of "conversion units" available to allow the project applicant to utilize one of the limited number of "conversion units" available to the City in meeting its affordable housing construction need. In determining whether there is a sufficient number of "conversion units" available, the City Council shall first consider the City's own needs and/or plans to utilize any available "conversion units", then secondly, shall consider any existing agreements/approvals from the City to allow other applicants the ability to utilize a "conversion unit". If after considering these two priority positions, there are still available "conversion units", then the City Council may grant the project applicant the use of any remaining "conversion units" available. Ordinance No. 474 Page 4 of 21 B-82 C. Timing of providing Affordable Housing Units. Prior to the time the affordable units become available for sale or rent, certificates of occupancy shall not be issued for more than fifty percent of the units in the project nor shall be more than fifty percent of the individual lots sold in cases where a tract map is involved. For phased developments, the provision of the affordable units shall also be phased, proportionate to the size of each development phase. Section 7: Section 17.11.060 (Affordable Housing Incentives) of Chapter 17 .11 of Title 17 of the Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 17.11.060 Affordable housing incentives. A. Density Bonus. 1063280-1 1. A density bonus, as defined in Section 17 .96.550 of the Municipal Code, shall be provided by the city when a developer of a housing development consisting of five or more dwelling units agrees to construct that housing development to contain at least any one of the following: a. Ten percent of the total units of a housing development for lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code. b. Five percent of the total units of a housing development for very low-income households, as defined in Section 50105 of the Health and Safety Code. c. A senior citizen housing development as defined in Sections 51.3 of the Civil Code, or mobilehome park that limits residency based on age requirements for housing for older persons pursuant to Section 798.76 or 799.5 of the Civil Code. d. Ten percent of the total dwelling units in a common interest development as defined in Section 1351 of the Civil Code for persons and families of moderate income as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, provided that all units in the development are offered to the public for purchase. 2 . In calculating the percentage of units for either a density bonus or an increase in a density bonus, the following shall apply: a. The units resulting from the density bonus shall be excluded from the calculation when determining the number of affordable housing units for each income level. b. The units set aside as affordable for very low income households or low income households, or both, that are required pursuant to Section 17 .11.040 of this chapter, shall be counted as part of the total units or total dwelling units in the housing development, however, those Section 17 .11.040 units shall not be counted as units reserved for very low income households or lower income households, or both, for purposes of calculating whether a developer qualifies for a density bonus or an increase in a density bonus . c. The residential units do not have to be based upon individual subdivision maps or parcels. 3. The amount of density bonus to which the developer is entitled shall vary according to the amount by which the percentage of affordable housing units exceeds the percentage established in subparagraph (a), (b), (c), or (d) of Section 17.11.060(A)(1 ). The applicant may elect to accept a lesser percentage of density bonus. The density bonus shall be permitted in geographic areas of the housing development other than the areas where the units for the lower income households are located. The density bonus shall be calculated as follows: Ordinance No. 474 Page 5 of 21 B-83 a. For housing developments meeting the criteria of Section 17.11.060(A)(1 )(a), the density bonus shall be twenty percent (20%). For each one percent (1 %) increase in the number of affordable units above the initial ten percent (10%) threshold of units affordable to lower income households, the density bonus shall be increased by one and one-half percent (1.5%) up to a maximum of thirty-five percent (35%). b. For housing developments meeting the criteria of Section 17 .11.060(A)(1 )(b), the density bonus shall be twenty percent (20%). For each one percent (1 %) increase in the number of affordable units above the initial five percent (5%) threshold of units affordable to lower income households, the density bonus shall be increased by two and one-half percent (2.5%) up to a maximum of thirty-five percent (35%). c. For housing developments meeting the crite ria of Section 17.11.060(A)(1 )(c), the density bonus shall be 20 percent (20%). d. For housing developments meeting the criteria of Section 17.11.060(A)(1 )(d), the density bonus shall be twenty percent (20%). For each one percent (1%) increase in the number of affordable units above the initial ten percent (10%) threshold of units affordable to persons and families of moderate income, the density bonus shall be increased by one percent (1 %) up to a maximum of thirty-five percent (35%). e. A housing development may meet the criteria for more than one density bonus , and those density bonuses may be combined, but in no event shall the total density bonus for a housing development exceed thirty-five percent (35%). f. For housing developments that will contain a mixture of units restricted by income level, but which will not meet the specified criteria to qualify for a density bonus in each income category, if the development qualifies under one category pursuant to subparagraph (a), (b), or (d) of Section 17 .11.060(A)(1) (the "qualifying category"), the developer may elect to add the percentages of qualifying and nonqualifying affordable housing units together and apply that percentage to the formula for the highest income units that will be built in order to calcu late the density bonus. g. All density calculations resulting in fractional units shall be rounded up to the next whole number. 4. The affordable housing units shall be rented or sold only to households whose income is at a level that does not exceed the required affordability level of the unit. 5. The affordable housing units shall be similar in exterior appearance, configuration and basic amenities (such as storage space and outdoor living areas) to the market rate units in the proposed project. 6. The granting of a density bonus shall not be interpreted, in and of itself, to require a general plan amendment, local coastal plan amendment, zoning change, or other discretionary approval. B. Condominium Conversion. In lieu of Section 17.11.060(A) of this chapter, an applicant may elect, at the time of the application, to have the density bonus governed by this subsection (B) if the housing development is eligible for a density bonus pursuant to this subsection. 1063280-1 1. Where an applicant for a conversion of an apartment project to a condominium project, as defined in subdivision (f) of Section 1351 of the Civil Code, agrees to provide at least thirty-three percent of the total proposed condominium units to persons and families of low and moderate income as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, or at least fifteen percent of the total units of the proposed Ordinance No. 474 Page 6 of 21 B-84 condominium project to lower income households as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, and agrees to pay reasonably necessary administrative costs incurred by the city, the city shall either grant a density bonus, or provide other incentives of equivalent financial value pursuant to Section 17.11.060(E). The city shall determine whether a density bonus or an incentive is provided, and at the city's sole discretion, may provide both a density bonus and an incentive. 2. For the purpose of this subsection (B), a. "density bonus" means an increase in units of 25 percent over the number of apartments, to be provided within the existing structure or structures to be converted~; and, b. "other incentives of equivalent financial value" shall not be construed to require the city to provide cash transfer payments or other monetary compensation but may include the reduction or waiver of requirements that the city might otherwise apply as conditions of conversion approval. 3. The units shall be sold only to households whose income is at a level that does not exceed the required affordability level of the unit. Except where it has been demonstrated not to be feasible, the affordable housing units shall be similar in appearance, configuration and amenities to the market rate units in the proposed project. 4. An applicant for approval to convert apartments to a condominium project may submit a preliminary proposal pursuant to this subsection (B) prior to the submittal of any formal requests for subdivision map approvals pursuant to the requirements of Title 16 of this Code. The city shall, within 90 days of receipt of a written proposal, notify the applicant in writing of the manner in which it will comply with this subsection. 5. An apartment project originally developed with a density bonus or other incentive pursuant to Section 17.11.060(A)(1) or Section 17 .11.060(E) of this chapter, shall not be eligible for a further density bonus or incentive under this subsection. 6. Nothing in this Section shall be construed to require the city to approve a proposal to convert apartments to condominiums. C. Land Donation. 1063280-1 1. When an applicant for a tentative subdivision map, parcel map, or other residential developme~t approval donates land to the city, the applicant shall be entitled to a density bonus pursuant to Section 17 .11.060(C)(2), if all of the following conditions are met: a. The applicant donates and transfers the land no later than the date of approval of the final subdivision map, parcel map, or residential development application. b. The developable acreage and zoning classification of the land being transferred are sufficient to permit construction of units affordable to very low income households as defined in Section 50105 of the Health and Safety Code in an amount not less than ten percent (10%) of the number of residential units of the proposed development. c. The transferred land is at least one acre in size or of sufficient size to permit development of at least 40 units, has the appropriate general plan designation, is Ordinance No. 474 Page 7 of 21 B-85 appropriately zoned for development as affordable housing, and is or will be served by adequate public facilities and infrastructure. The land shall have appropriate zoning and development standards to make the development of the affordable housing units feasible. No later than the date of approval of the final subdivision map, parcel map, or of the residential development, the transferred land shall have all of the permits and approvals, other than building permits, necessary for the development of the very low income housing units on the transferred land, except that the city may subject the proposed development to subsequent design review to the extent authorized by subdivision (i) of Section 65583.2 of the Government Code if the design is not reviewed by the city prior to the time of transfer. d. The transferred land and the affordable housing units shall be subject to a deed restriction ensuring continued affordability of the units consistent with Section 17 .11.070(A), which shall be recorded on the property at the time of dedication. e. The land is transferred to the city or to a housing developer approved by the city. The city may require the applicant to identify and transfer the land to the developer. f. The transferred land shall be within the boundary of the proposed development or, if the city agrees, within one-quarter mile of the boundary of the proposed development. 2. For land donations meeting the criteria of Section 17.11.060(C)(1 ), the applicant shall be entitled to a fifteen-percent (15%) increase above the otherwise maximum allowable residential density under the applicable zoning ordinance and land use element of the general plan for the entire development. For each one percent (1 %) increase in the number of affordable units above the initial ten percent (10%) threshold of units affordable to very low income households, the density bonus shall be calculated by adding five percent (5%) to the percentage of units affordable to very low income households, up to a maximum of thirty five percent (35%). 3. This increase shall be in addition to any increase in density mandated by Section 17.11.060(A), up to a maximum combined mandated density increase of 35 percent if an applicant seeks both the increase required pursuant to this subsection (C), and Section 17.11.060(A). All density calculations resulting in fractional units shall be rounded up to the next whole number. D. Child Care Facility. 1063280-1 1 . When an applicant proposes to construct a housing development that conforms to the requirements of Section 17.11.060(A)(1) and includes a child care facility that will be located on the premises of, as part of, or adjacent to, the project, the city shall grant the applicant one of the following: a. An additional density bonus that is an amount of square feet of residential space that is equal to or greater than the amount of square feet in the childcare facility. b. An additional concession or incentive as set forth in Section 17.11.060(E) that contributes significantly to the economic feasibility of the construction of the childcare facility. The city is not required to grant the requested additional concession or incentive if written findings are made pursuant to Section 17.11.080(0)(2). Ordinance No. 474 Page 8 of 21 B-86 2. The following conditions shall be imposed prior to approving the housing development: a. The child care facility shall remain in operation for a period of time that is as long as or longer than the period of time during which the density bonus units are required to remain affordable pursuant to Section 17.11.070 of this chapter. b. Of the children who attend the child care facility, the children of very low income households, lower income households, or families of moderate income shall equal a percentage that is equal to or greater than the percentage of dwelling units that are required pursuant to Section 17 .11.060(A) for very low income households, lower income households, or families of moderate income. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of this subsection (D), the city shall not be required to provide a density bonus or concession for a child care facility if it finds, based upon substantial evidence, that the community has adequate child care facilities. E. Incentives or Concessions. 1063280-1 1. The applicant for a density bonus shall receive the following number of incentives or concessions, in addition to the density bonus provided pursuant to Section 17 .11.060(A), unless the city makes written findings pursuant to Section 17.11.080(0)(2) of this chapter: a. One incentive or concession for projects that include at least ten percent (10%) of the total units for lower income households, at least five percent (5%) for very low income households, or at least ten percent (10%) for persons and families of moderate income in a common interest development. b. Two incentives or concessions for projects that include at least twenty percent (20%) of the total units for lower income households, at least ten percent (10%) for very low income households, or at least twenty percent (20%) for persons and families of moderate income in a common interest development. c. Three incentives or concessions for projects that include at least thirty percent (30%) of the total units for lower income households, at least fifteen percent ( 15%) for very low income households, or at least thirty percent (30%) for persons and families of moderate income in a common interest development. 2. Affordable housing incentives or concessions include, but are not limited to: a. A reduction in site development standards or a modification of zoning code requirements or architectural design requirements that exceed the minimum building standards approved by the California Building Standards Commission as provided in Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 18901) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code, including, but not limited to, a reduction in setback and square footage requirements and in the ratio of vehicular parking spaces that would otherwise be required that results in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions. b. Approval of mixed use zoning in conjunction with the housing project if commercial, office, industrial, or other land uses will reduce the cost of the housing development and if the commercial, office, industrial, or other land uses are compatible with the housing project and the existing or planned development in the area where the proposed housing project will be located. Ordinance No. 474 Page 9 of 21 B-87 c. Other regulatory incentives or concessions proposed by the developer or the city that result in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions. 3. An applicant may request incentives in addition to the mandatory incentives or concessions provided pursuant to this Section 17.11.060, or incentives in-lieu of a density bonus. The city may grant, at its sole discretion, such additional or in-lieu incentives. 4. This subsection (E) does not limit or require the provision of direct financial incentives for the housing development by the city, including the provision of publicly owned land, or the waiver of fees or dedication requirements. 5. If any incentive or concession is granted pursuant to another provIsIon of the Municipal Code other than Section 17 .11.060, or prior to applying for a density bonus, each such incentive or concession shall be counted as one of the incentives or concessions required pursuant to Section 17.11.060. F. Parking Ratio. 1. In the event an applicant requests a reduced vehicular parking ratio pursuant to this subsection (F), the city shall grant the following vehicular parking ratio, inclusive of handicapped and guest parking, if the development qualifies for a density bonus pursuant to Section 17 .11.060(A)( 1 ): a. Zero to one bedroom: one onsite parking space. b. Two to three bedrooms: two onsite parking spaces. c. Four and more bedrooms: two and one-half parking spaces . 2. If the total number of parking spaces required for a development is other than a whole number, the number shall be rounded up to the next whole number. For purposes of this subsection (F), a development may provide "onsite parking" through tandem parking or uncovered parking, but not through on-street parking. 3. An applicant may request additional parking incentives or concessions as provided in Section 17 .11.060(E). G. Application. Applicants for density bonuses shall file an application for a density bonus with the director at the time when the initial application for the project is filed. The application shall specify the following information for the proposed housing development: the total number of dwelling units, the number of units for lower income households, the number of units for very low income, households, the number of qualifying senior units, the number of common interest development units for persons and families of moderate income, the rent or price of the units, the location of the units, and the means of administering the units. The application shall also specify such other information as may be required by the director. The applicant shall designate whether the density bonus is requested on the basis of subparagraphs (a), (b), (c), or (d), of Section 17.11.060(A)(1 ). If an additional incentive is requested, beyond that required pursuant to Section 17.11.060, or if an in-lieu incentive is requested, the feasibility study requirements of Section 17.11.080 of this chapter shall also apply. The application shall be accompanied by a fee, to be established by resolution of the city council, to cover the city' s cost of reviewing and administering the proposed density bonus project. Any request for a density bonus or additional affordable housing incentive or concession, which is submitted after the time when the initial project application is submitted, shall be considered to be a major revision to the project and shall be treated as a new application. H. If a housing development is eligible for any density bonus, incentive, concession, waiver or reduced parking ratio pursuant to this Section 17.11.060 (a "bonus"), when Sections 17 .11.070, 1063280-1 Ordinance No. 4 7 4 Page 10 of 21 B-88 17.11.080, 17 .11.110, and 17 .11.120 of this chapter are applied to that housing development for any purpose related to a bonus, or for any purpose related to the affordable housing units that make the housing development eligible for a bonus, the definitions of the terms "low income," "moderate income," and "very low income," as defined in Sections 17.96.960, 17.96.970, and 17.96.980, shall not apply, and the phrases "low income households," "very low income households," "persons and families of low or moderate income," and "persons and families of moderate income" shall have the meaning assigned to those phrases by this Section 17 .11.060. Section 8: Section 17.11.070 (Period of Affordability) of Chapter 17.11 of Title 17 of the Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 17.11.070 Period of affordability. A. Units required at specified affordability levels shall remain available and affordable for the longest feasible period of time, as determined by the city. However, where a density bonus, or incentives or concessions of equivalent financial value based upon the land cost per dwelling unit, are provided, units of a housing development for lower income households, very low income households, or persons and families of low and moderate income, shall remain available and affordable for a period of at least thirty years, or a longer period of time if required by the construction or mortgage financing assistance program, mortgage insurance program, or rental subsidy program. In no event may a housing development be converted to a common interest development as defined in Section 1351 of the Civil Code for a period of thirty years from first occupancy if the housing development includes affordable housing units for rent. 1. Rents for the units for lower income households or very low-income households shall be set at an affordable rent as defined in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code. 2. Owner-occupied units shall be available at an affordable housing cost as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code. B. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 17.11.070(A), the following shall apply to Section 17.11.060(A)(1 )(d) units: 1063280-1 1. The initial occupant of the moderate-income units that are directly related to the receipt of the density bonus in the common interest development, as defined in Section 1351 of the Civil Code, shall be persons and families of moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, and the units shall be offered at an affordable housing cost, as that cost is defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code. An equity-sharing agreement shall be entered into for each unit, unless such an agreement is in conflict with the requirements of another public funding source or law. 2. The following shall apply to the equity-sharing agreement: a. Upon resale, the seller of the unit shall retain the value of any improvements, the down payment, and the seller's proportionate share of appreciation. The city shall recapture any initial subsidy and its proportionate share of appreciation, which shall then be used within three years for any of the purposes described in subdivision (e) of Section 33334.2 of the Health and Safety Code that promote homeownership. b. For purposes of this subsection (8), the city's initial subsidy shall be equal to the fair market value of the home at the time of initial sale minus the initial sale price to the moderate-income household, plus the amount of any down payment assistance or mortgage assistance. If upon resale the market value is lower than Ordinance No. 474 Page 11 of 21 B-89 the initial market value, then the value at the time of the resale shall be used as the initial market value. c. For purposes of this subsection (B), the city's proportionate share of appreciation shall be equal to the ratio of the initial subsidy to the fair market value of the home at the time of initial sale. 3. In lieu of the provisions of Section 17.11.070(B)(1 ), where there is a direct financial contribution to a housing development through the city's participation in cost of infrastructure, write-down of land costs, or subsidizing the cost of construction, low- and moderate-income units shall remain available and affordable for thirty years, and the equity sharing agreement shall specify the mechanisms and procedures necessary to carry that out. C. A senior citizen housing development as defined in Sections 51.3 of the Civil Code, or mobilehome park that limits residency based on age requirements for housing for older persons pursuant to Section 798. 76 or 799.5 of the Civil Code, shall remain available to qualifying senior residents for a period of at least fifteen years. Section 9: Paragraphs A, B, C and D of Section 17.11.080 (Feasibility) of Chapter 17 .11 of Title 17 of the Municipal Code are hereby amended to read as follows: 17.11.080 Feasibility A. Applicability. A feasibility study shall be required when: 1. Provision of units affordable to low and very low-income households in accordance with Section 17.11.040 of this chapter is not contemplated; 2. An existing development in the coastal specific plan district meets the criteria of Section 17.11.130 of this chapter and the provision of replacement units affordable to low and moderate income households is not contemplated; 3. A developer has requested one or more incentives or concessions in addition to the density bonus, pursuant to Section 17.11.060 of this chapter; or 4. A developer has requested to pay a fee in lieu of providing affordable housing units pursuant to Section 17 .11.050; or 5. A developer has requested to provide required affordable housing units per Section 17.11.040 as off-site units; or 6. A developer has requested that proposed off-site units be "conversion units" as opposed to newly constructed units; or 7. A developer has requested one or more waivers or reductions of development standards pursuant to Section 17 .11.080(F). B. Application. 1. Submission of a feasibility study per subsections (A)(1) through (A)(3) of this section shall be as follows: The applicant shall deposit with the city a fee adequate to compensate for the cost of the study in addition to an administrative fee at a level to be established by resolution of the city council. The applicant shall provide a project proforma, data regarding existing rents and existing tenant income for existing residential projects to be converted or demolished, and any other information deemed necessary by the director. The application package shall not be deemed complete until the feasibility study is completed to the satisfaction of the director. 1063280-1 Ordinance No. 4 7 4 Page 12 of 21 B-90 2. Submission of a feasibility study pursuant to subsection (A)(4) shall be as follows: The applicant shall submit a letter requesting to pay a fee in lieu of providing one or more affordable units and shall deposit with the city a fee to cover the costs of reviewing and processing such request at a level to be established by resolution of the city council. The letter shall include the reason(s) why the request is being made, address all of the items noted in subsection (C)(2), and describe how the request satisfies the finding set forth in subsection (0)(3). Additionally, the applicant shall provide a project proforma, and/or any other information deemed necessary by the director. 3. Submission of a feasibility study pursuant to subsection {A)(5) of this section shall be as follows: The applicant shall submit a letter requesting to provide required affordable housing units as off-site units instead of on-site units and shall deposit with the city a fee to cover the costs of reviewing and processing such request at a level to be established by resolution of the city council. The letter shall include the reason(s) why the request is being made, address all of the items noted in subsection (C)(3), and describe how the request satisfies the finding set forth in subsection (0)(5). Additionally, the applicant shall provide a project proforma, and/or any other information deemed necessary by the director. 4. Submission of a feasibility study pursuant to subsection {A}{6} of this section shall be as follows: The applicant shall submit a letter requesting to provide required affordable housing units off-site as "converted units" instead of newly constructed units and shall deposit with the city a fee to cover the costs of reviewing and processing such request at a level to be established by resolution of the city council. The letter shall include the reason(s) why the request is being made, address all of the items noted in subsection (C)(4), and describe how the request satisfies the finding set forth in subsection (0)(5). Additionally, the applicant shall provide a project proforma, and/or any other information deemed necessary by the director. C. Study Contents. The study shall examine the feasibility of providing affordable units in accordance with Sections 17.11.040 and 17 .11.130 of this chapter, as applicable. Additionally: 1. If an application has been filed for an affordable housing incentive or concession in addition to a density bonus, the study shall examine the feasibility of providing the affordable housing without the additional affordable housing incentive. If this is demonstrated not to be feasible, the study shall examine other affordability scenarios at the discretion of the director. These may include the feasibility of providing fewer units affordable to low and very low-income households and units affordable to progressively higher income households, as approved by the director; 2. If an application has been filed requesting to pay a fee in lieu of providing affordable housing units, then the feasibility study shall evaluate: 1063280-1 a. The specific economic, environmental or technical factors that may render infeasible the provision of any or all new affordable units required pursuant to Section 17 .11.040 of this chapter; b. The impacts to the development project if the city council denies the applicant's request to pay a fee in lieu of providing affordable housing as part of the development; c. The project's profit margin if the applicant is required to provide affordable units compared to the profit margin if the applicant is allowed to pay the in-lieu fees; and d. The feasibility of providing some, but not all, of the required affordable housing units, with payment of in-lieu fees paid for the units not provided. Ordinance No. 4 7 4 Page 13 of 21 B-91 3. If an application has been filed requesting to provide affordable housing units off-site as opposed to providing them on-site as part of the project development, then the feasibility study shall evaluate: a. The specific economic, environmental or technical factors that may render infeasible the provision of affordable units on-site as part of the project development; b. The impacts to the development project if the city council denies the applicant's request to provide units off-site as opposed to on-site; c. The project's profit margin if the applicant is allowed to provide the units off- site compared to the profit margin if the applicant is required to provide the units on-site; d. The feasibility of providing some, but not all, of the required affordable housing units on-site. 4. If an application has been filed requesting that a required affordable housing unit that is to be provided off-site be a "conversion unit" as opposed to a newly constructed unit, then the feasibility study shall evaluate: a. The specific economic, environmental or technical factors that may render infeasible the provision of a newly constructed unit as opposed to a "conversion unit"; b. The impacts to the development project if the city council denies the applicant's request to provide a "conversion unit" as opposed to a newly constructed unit; c. The project's profit margin if the applicant is required to provide a newly constructed unit compared to the profit margin if the applicant is permitted to provide a "conversion unit"; d. The feasibility of providing some, but not all, of the required affordable housing units as newly constructed units. D. Written Findings Required. 1 . Approval of a lesser amount of housing affordable to the specified income groups than would otherwise be required under the provisions of Sections 17.11.040 and 17.11.130 of this chapter may be approved by the city council upon adoption of the following findings: a. That specific economic, environmental or technical factors render infeasible the provision of new dwelling units affordable to low and/or very low income households, pursuant to the requirements of Section 17.11.040 of this chapter, or of replacement units affordable to low and/or moderate income households pursuant to the requirements of Section 17 .11.130 of this chapter; b. That these factors are documented in a feasibility study which has been prepared for the proposed project, which study has been reviewed and approved by the city and is part of the public record for the project. 2. Approval of an applicant's requested concession or incentive required pursuant to Section 17.11.060, or a waiver or modification of development standards in addition to a density bonus or both shall be approved by the city council unless, based on substantial evidence including a feasibility study that has been reviewed and approved by the city and is part of the public record for the project, one or both of the following written findings is made: 1063280-1 a. That the concession or incentive is not required in order to provide for affordable housing costs, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Ordinance No. 474 Page 14 of 21 B-92 or for rents for the targeted units to be set as specified in subdivision (c) of Section 65915 of the Government Code; or b. That the concession or incentive would have a specific adverse impact, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5 of the Government Code, upon the public health and safety or the physical environment or on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low-and moderate-income households. 3. Approval of an applicant's request to pay a fee in lieu of providing affordable housing units shall be approved by the city council provided the following finding is made: a. Specific economic, environmental or technical factors render infeasible the provision of any or all of the new affordable units required pursuant to Section 17.11.040 of this chapter. 4. Approval of an applicant's request pursuant to Section 17.11.060 E.3. for one or more concessions or incentives that are in addition to mandatory concessions required pursuant to Section 17.11.060 E.1. may be granted if the findings of paragraph D.2. of this Section 17.11.080 are made. However, the fact that these findings can be made shall not be construed to require approval of the additional requested concessions or incentives. 5. Approval of an applicant's request to provide affordable housing units off-site of the project site, and/or to provide any off-site affordable housing units as "conversion units" as opposed to newly constructed units shall be approved by the city council provided the following finding is made: a. Specific economic, environmental or technical factors render infeasible the provision of any or all of the new affordable housing units required p,ursuant to Section 17 .11.040 of this chapter as being constructed on-site and therefore warrants the provision of said required units off-site; and/or b. Specific economic, environmental or technical factors render infeasible the provision of any or all of the new off-site affordable housing units required pursuant to Section 17.11.040 of this chapter as being newly construction units, and therefore warrant the provision of "conversion units". Section 10: Section 17.11.090 (Agreement) of Chapter 17.11 of Title 17 of the Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 17 .11 .090 Agreement. The applicant shall sign an agreement binding the property owner and his/her successors in interest to provide the agreed upon number of units as affordable units or affordable housing units for the time prescribed, and agreeing to other conditions governing the affordable units or affordable housing units as may be required by ordinance or by the planning commission or city council. These conditions may address unit configuration and size, reporting requirements, city processing fees for unit monitoring or such other matters that may be deemed appropriate by the city council. The agreement shall be recorded against the property subject to the affordability requirement prior to the recordation of a tract or parcel map or issuance of any certificate of occupancy for the project subject to the original application. Should the applicant or his/her successors in interest fail to abide by the terms of the agreement, the city shall have the authority to revoke certificates of occupancy and/or place liens against the properties involved, in addition to any other remedy allowed by law. 1063280-1 Ordinance No. 474 Page 15 of21 B-93 Section 11: Section 17 .11 .110 (Reporting) of Chapter 17 .11 of Title 17 of the Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 17.11.11 O Reporting. Where the units are provided as rental units, the applicant or his/her successor in interest shall provide an annual report to the city documenting that rents and tenant incomes are in accord with the agreement. Where the units are provided as for-sale units, the purchaser of the unit who qualified as a lower income household, very low income household, person and family of low and moderate income, or persons and families of moderate income, shall annually certify that he/she continues to own the unit and document that the unit is owner occupied or rented to tenants whose incomes are in accordance with the agreement. The seller shall notify the director by certified mail of any change in property title, prior to completion of escrow. Section 12: Section 17.11.120 (Resale) of Chapter 17.11 of Title 17 of the Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 17 .11.120 Resale. When the for-sale units for lower income households, very low income households, persons and families of low and moderate income, or persons and families of moderate income are sold, the units shall be sold for no more than the affordability level specified in the agreement. All sales commissions, escrow fees and other property transfer costs shall be the responsibility of the seller and/or buyer. The units shall be sold to households whose income does not exceed the affordability level specified in the agreement, subject to the review and approval of the director. The new buyer of the unit shall provide documentation of income level to the director prior to entering escrow. Section 13: Section 17.11.140 is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 17 .11.140 Affordable housing requirements for nonresidential projects. A. Applicability. The requirements of this section shall apply to all applications for construction, expansion or intensification of nonresidential uses, includingi but not limited toi applications for commercial projects, golf courses, private clubs and institutional developments. Applications to which this section applies include, but are not limited to, applications for a tentative tract map, parcel map, conditional use permit, coastal permit, building permit or other development entitlement whereby more than thirty new full-time and/or part-time jobs are created in the city; or more than ten thousand square feet of space will be created or converted. This requirement shall apply to any jobs or space created or converted within any twelve :month period. B. Exemptions. The following developments shall be exempt: 1. Mixed use developments containing at least one low or very low-income affordable housing unit for every ten low or moderate income employees anticipated to be generated, or for every five thousand square feet of nonresidential space. The residential units shall be available for occupancy within one year of occupancy of the first nonresidential space within the project; 2. Projects where the applicant has agreed to provide at least one low or very low income affordable housing unit for every ten low or moderate income employees anticipated to be generated, or for every five thousand square feet of nonresidential space either on the site, if residential uses are allowed or conditionally allowed on the site, or at another location in the city. The residential units shall be available for occupancy within one year of occupancy of the first nonresidential space within the project; 1063280-1 Ordinance No. 474 Page 16 of21 B-94 3. Projects where the applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the city that less than ten employment opportunities for persons of low or very low income would be created; 4. Projects where the city finds the provision of affordable units to be infeasible pursuant to Section 17.11.080 of this chapter; 5. The reconstruction of any structure that has been destroyed by fire, flood, earthquake or other act of God or nature. C. Fee Required. With the exception of development exempted pursuant to Section 17.11.140(8) of this chapter, and except where it has been demonstrated not to be feasible pursuant to Section 17 .11.080 of this chapter, developers of nonresidential development shall pay a residential impact fee to be set by resolution of the city council. The fee shall be adequate to provide one low or very low-income affordable housing unit for each ten employees to be generated by the project. The fee per affordable unit to be provided shall be equal to the difference between the median value of market rate housing and the price affordable to low or very low-income households. The fee shall be paid prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. D. Number of Employees Determination. For the purpose of determining the anticipated number of new employees to be generated by a new development, typical employee generation rates for other, similar businesses shall be submitted by the applicant to the city. Where a new development replaces a previously existing nonresidential use, and replacement is commenced within twelve months, credit shall be given for the number of employees employed by the previously existing use . E. Rebate of Fees. If, within one year after the nonresidential project is fully occupied, evidence is submitted to the director that fewer employees have been generated, or that the employees are in higher income groups than had been anticipated, a portion of the residential impact fees may be rebated. Evidence to be submitted may include, but is not limited to, W-2 forms for all employees working within the project. F. Administration. Nonresidential projects shall comply with the provision of Sections 17.11.080 (Feasibility); 17 .11.090 (Agreement); 17 .11 .100 (TenanVowner qualification); 17 .11.110 (Reporting); and Section 17.11.120 (Resale) of this chapter. Section 14: Chapter 17.96 of Title 17 of the Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding new Section 17 .96.365 (Child Care Facility) thereto to read as follows: 17 .96.365 Child care facility. "Child care facility," means a child day care facility other than a family day care home, including, but not limited to, infant centers, preschools, extended day care facilities, and school age child care centers. Section 15: Section 17.96.550 (Density Bonus) of Chapter 17.96 of Title 17 of the Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 17.96.550 Density bonus. "Density bonus" means a density increase over the otherwise maximum allowable residential density under the applicable zoning ordinance and land use element of the general plan as of the date of application by the applicant to the City. 1063280-1 Ordinance No. 474 Page 17 of 21 B-95 Section 16: Chapter 17 .96 of Title 17 of the Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding new Section 17.96.555 (Density, Maximum Allowable Residential) thereto to read as follows: 17.96.555 Density, maximum allowable residential. "Maximum allowable residential density" means the density allowed under the zoning ordinance, or if a range of density is permitted, means the maximum allowable density for the specific zoning range applicable to the project. Section 17: Chapter 17 .96 of Title 17 of the Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding new Section 17.96.575 (Development, Housing) thereto to read as follows: 17 .96.575 Development, housing. "Housing development" means one or more groups of projects for residential units constructed in the planned development of the city. For the purposes of chapter 17 .11, "housing development" also includes a subdivision or common interest development, as defined in Section 1351 of the Civil Code, approved by the city, and consists of residential units or unimproved residential lots and either a project to substantially rehabilitate and convert an existing commercial building to residential use or the substantial rehabilitation of an existing multifamily dwelling, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 65863.4 of the Government Code, where the result of the rehabilitation would be a net increase in available residential units. Section 18: Chapter 17 .96 of Title 17 of the Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding new Section 17.96.585 (Development Standard) thereto to read as follows: 17.96.585 Development standard. "Development standard" includes site or construction conditions that apply to a residential development pursuant to any ordinance, general plan element, specific plan, charter amendment, or other local condition, law, policy, resolution, or regulation. Section 19: Section 17 .96.1660 (Senior Resident, Qualifying) of Chapter 17 .96 of Title 17 of the Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 17 .96.1660 Senior resident, qualifying. "Qualifying senior resident" means a resident meeting the definition of Section 51.3of the California State Civil Code, specifically, an individual at least sixty-two years of age or an individual at least fifty-five years of age residing in a senior citizen housing development of at least thirty-five dwelling units. Section 20: Chapter 17.96 of Title 17 of the Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding new Section 17 .96.2125 (Units, Affordable Housing) thereto to read as follows: 17 .96.2125 Units, affordable housing. "Affordable housing units" means units in a housing development that are subject to occupancy restrictions based upon the income of the occupants or owner, or both. 1063280-1 Ordinance No. 474 Page 18 of 21 B-96 Section 21: Section 17.96.2140 (Unit, Low Income) of Chapter 17.96 of Title 17 of the Municipal Code is hereby revoked. Section 22: Section 17.96.2170 (Unit, Very Low Income) of Chapter 17.96 of Title 17 of the Municipal Code is hereby revoked. Section 23: Paragraphs H and K of Section 15.20.040 (Exceptions) of Chapter 15.20 of Title 15 of the Municipal Code are hereby amended to read as follows: Section 15.20.040 Exceptions 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. Minor projects involving the construction of an enclosed permanent detached accessory structure, which are located in an area that is not served by a sanitary sewer system, 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 shall be 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; 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 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. Minor projects involving the construction of an enclosed permanent detached accessory structure, which are located in an area that is not served by a sanitary sewer system, 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 shall be 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 1063280-1 Ordinance No. 474 Page 19 of 21 B-97 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 24: The rights given by any approval granted under the terms of Titles 15 or 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code prior to the effective date of this ordinance shall not be affected by the amendments to Titles 15 or 17 by this ordinance and shall continue in effect until. and unless they are modified, revoked, expired or are otherwise terminated according to the terms of the approval or the terms of Titles 15 and 17, as they existed prior to the effective date of this ordinance. Section 25: The amendments to Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code as identified herein shall apply to all development applications submitted after the effective date of the adoption of said ordinance and to all development applications that have not been deemed complete prior to the effective date of the adoption of said ordinance. The amendments to Title 15 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code as identified herein shall apply to all development applications received by the City, whether they are submitted prior to or after the effective date of the adoption of said ordinance. Section 26: Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase in this Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or invalid or ineffective by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional, or invalid, or ineffective. Section 27: Posting. The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in three (3) public places in the City within fifteen (15) days after its passage, in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code. The City Clerk shall further certify to the adoption and posting of this Ordinance and shall cause this Ordinance and the City Clerk's certification, together, to be entered in the Book of Ordinances of the Council of this City. Section 28: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect at 12:01 a.m. on the thirty-first (31st) day after its passage. 1063280-1 Ordinance No. 4 7 4 Page 20 of 21 B-98 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED lhi~of ,.Ju_l,--i..iu 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; the foregoing Ordinance No. 4 7 4, was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting thereof held on July 15, 2008, and that the same was passed and adopted by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain: 1063280-1 Clark, Gardiner, Long, Wolowicz, and Mayor Stern None None None City Clerk Ordinance No . 4 7 4 Page 21 of 21 B-99 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 August 5, 2008, she caused to be posted the following document entitled: City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Ordinance No. 474, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING CHAPTER 17.11 (AFFORDABLE HOUSING), CHAPTER 17.96 (DEFINITIONS) AND CHAPTER 15.20 (MORATORIUM ON LAND USE PERMITS) OF THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE TO CONFORM TO STATE DENSITY BONUS LAWS, TO IMPLEMENT CITY COUNCIL POLICY PERTAINING TO THE LOCATION OF FUTURE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS, TO MAKE CHANGES TO THE SECTION PERTAINING TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS, AND TO PERMIT SECOND DWELLING UNITS IN THE PORTION OF THE LANDSLIDE MORATORIUM AREA THAT IS SERVED BY SANITARY SEWERS,, 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. City Clerk W:\FORMS\Form 150-Affidavit of Posting Ordinance No. 474.doc B-100 EXHIBIT 6 B-101 B-102 EXHIBIT 7 B-103 B-104 EXHIBIT 8 B-105 B-106 EXHIBIT 9 B-107 VOORHEIS & VOORHEIS, INC~ PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS SINCE 1 974 SUMMARY OF SURVEYOR'S FINDINGS January 17, 2023 Ms. Susan L. Caldwell Caldwell Law Group 9701 Wilshire Blvd, 10th Floor Beverly Hills, CA 90212 RE: LiDAR survey of 124 and 125 Spindrift Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Ms. Caldwell, As you know, we were recently retained to conduct a topographic survey of the above-referenced properties using advanced LiDAR technology and perform a study and assessment of our initial findings. Below is a summary of initial observations, issues or concerns: 1) We conducted a highly detailed LiDAR scan of the subject property and adjacent structures. However, we were not permitted direct access to the 125 property so the details were limited to only what we could observe from adjacent properties. Further investigation may necessitate that we are permitted to access the 125 Spindrift property. 2) The 2015 boundary survey which is filed in the public record as Record of Survey 275-48, is incorrect. It appears that the applicants of 125 Spindrift may have relied on an incorrect boundary establishment. 3) Part of the purpose of our survey was to measure the existing story poles that were erected on 125 Spindrift to "silhouette" the proposed structure. I was recently notified that the story poles we scanned have been altered and, in-fact, raised to a higher elevation, which will necessitate an update to the field survey and revision to our survey map. 4) A review of recorded deeds shows that a Lot Line Adjustment occurred circa 1987 wherein the common boundary line between 124 and 125 Spindrift Dr. was "adjusted" to run through the building situated on 124 Spindrift. This fact is particularly concerning because setbacks are measured from boundary lines. It is frankly unfathomable how any public agency would permit a boundary line to be approved to run through an existing structure and create an encroachment. Typically , Lot Line Adjustments are performed to alleviate adverse conditions , rather than to create them. For now, these are the concerns that caught our immediate attention. Other concerns or issues may arise as we investigate further and dig deeper into the matter. Call me if you have any questions or wish to discuss these issues in more detail. Respectfully You s , ~-==:::::::. 7570 17049 Sunburst Street, Northridge, CA 91325 • (818) 993-5611 • mail@iSurveyLA.com B-108 EXHIBIT 10 B-109 Al.Ir ~MIHAG At l'fKHRtY L~ PR{1IJ IROOUCED R[I I_Rf}ICE.!J RI R] RJ R4 IACAfMPf«J d4,AM I 11/ld CCHIIIICMF. OI CCllf, IANa Rf<X>RDEO 1113/IORI A'I INST NO HI -WIJ/ CfRT/rlCA1f. Of CC#'UNICE RECORVfD 111:VIIIB1 AS INM NO. 6'l ~ RECORD OF SUR~ Z15-4I L OA( Of.lJCJ.IIPT. FfA<TXWllfurJl'74 '1!,,IIIJOI IICA fiNi ltO dOM f 1'M (IJtJJ f W taall'1/0N II R1I LOT 124-LA, R2 7 ,u.la.,,. RNICHOPILOS',Sl&--- CAltll1S "1t '111Ul1U14 ~ 01,( CAR CMN;E B-110 EXHIBIT 11 B-111 1150 Soutn u11v~ ~tree~ •~/~j Los Angeles, California Attention: Donald E. Ury Your No.s PORWGUESE BEND Our No.s 232767-3 Dated as of March 5, 1986, 1986 at 7:30 a.m. In response to the above referenced application for a policy of title insurance, WORLD TITLE COHPANY hereby reports t.hat it is prepared to issue, or cause to be issued, as of the date hereof, a Policy or Policies of Title Insurance describing the land and the estate or interest therein hereinafter set forth, insurin£ against loss which may be sustained by reason of any defect, lien or encumbrance not shown or referred to as an Exception in Schedule B or not excluded from coverage pursuant to the printed Schedules, Condi- tions and Stipulations of said Policy forms. The printed Exceptions and Exclusions from the coverage of said Policy or Policies are set forth in the attached list. Copies of the Policy forms should be read. They , are available from the off ice which issued this report. THIS REPORT (AUD AlJY SUPPLEMENTS OR A,_'l{ENDMENTS HERETO) IS ISSUED SOLELY FOR TIIE ,- PURPOSE OF FACILITATING THE ISSUANCE OF A POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE AND NO LIABILITY IS ASSUMED HEREBY. IF IT IS DESIRED TH.AT LIABILITY BE ASSUMED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE . OF A POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE, A BINDER OR CO~ll-UTifENT SHOULD BE REQUESTED. The fore of policy of title insurance contemplated by this report is: 1. California Land Title Association Standard Coverage Policy 2. American Land Title Association Owner's Policy Form B 3. American Land Title Assoc 1a t ion Rel:lidenti.al Title Insurance Policy 4. American Land Title As soc 1a t ion Loan Policy J Tide Officer I I I I n I I B-112 I Our No. 232767-J EXHIBIT "A" -CONTINUED Page 7 PARCEL 22: Lol 121 of LAC A Ma A 1 • • • • P No. 64, in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, County of Los nge es, S t ate of California, a 6 per map filed in Book 1 Pages 12 through 16 inclusive, of Assessor's Mapa 1 th f • d h 1 f • n e o flee of the County Recorder of said County an tat port on° Lot E as shown on aaid map described as follows, BEGimai~G at the mon Southerly corner of said Lot 121; thence North 34• 13' 49" West 65 •48 feet to a point in the Southwesterly prolonaat1on of the Northwesterly line of said Lot 121, said point being South 57• 30' OO" 'west 3.00 feet, measured along said prolongation of the Northwesterly line from the ~st Westerly corner of said Lot 121; thence along Hid prolongation tlo;th sr JO' OO" East 3.00 feet to aaid Weaterly corner; thence Southeasterly along the Southwesterly line of said Lot 121 to the POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 23: Lot 122 and thAt portion of Lot 123 of L.A.C.A. Map No, 64, in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per map filed in Book 1, Pages 12 through 16 inclusive, of Assessor's Haps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County, lyin~ Southw~sterly of the following described line: BEGIN1HNG at a point in the Northwesterly line of said Lot 123, said point being in a line which is parallel with, and 21.00 feet, measured at right angles, Northeasterly from the Southvesterly line of said Lot 123; thence along said parallel line, South 31 • 36' lS" East to the Southeasterly line of aaid Lot 123. / PARCEL 24: Lot 124 of L.A.C,A, Map No, 64, in the City of Rancho Paloa Verdes, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per map filed in Book 1, Pages 12 through 16 inclusive, of Assessor'• Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County, and that portion of Lot 123 of said map lying Northwesterly of the Southwesterly prolongation of the Southeasterly line of said Lot 124 and Northeasterly of the Southwesterly 21 •00 f~et of said Lot 123. E.~CEPI TUEREFROH: that portion of said Lot 124 deacribed as follows: v/4 INNIN" at the most Southerly corner of said Lot 124; thence North 55• \ 46, 17" East ~~C 34 f~;t to a point in th£ Southwesterly line of Spindrift Drive (Pvt·. St~), 20 • d shown on said msp; thence Southe~sterly along sa1d Southwesterly line feet wi e, t a~sterly corner of said Lot q4; t _hence Southwesterly along the Southeasterly to the mosid L t ll4 to the POltIT OF Bf.GINNING. line of sa O • PARCEL 25z 4 125 acd 126 of L.A.C,A. '°'.ap tlo. 64, in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Lots 12 • Angeles State of California, as per map filed in Book l Pages 12 County of 6 L~s elusive • of Assessor's Haps, in· the office of the County Recorder of through 1 n d tha~ portion of Lot 123 of said ciap lying Southeasterly of the aid County, an f h S h 1 1 8 1 rolongation o t e out easter Y ine of aaid Lot 124 and Northeasterly Southwester Y Pt rly 21.00 feet of aald Lot 123. of the Southwes e ,r Issu ing Agent for: r Transamerica Title Insurance Com pan y B-113 Our Ho. 232767-3 EXHIBIT "A" -CO NIIHUED Page 8 E..XCEPT THEREFROi{ that portion of aaid Lot 124 f h f 11 i described linei lying Northwesterly o t e o ow ng BEGINNING at the mo st Southerly corner o{ aaid Lot 124; thence North 55° 46' 1711 1:..,st 73 •34 feet to• point in the Southwe&terly line of Spindrift Drive (Pvt. St.), 20 feet wide, as shown on said map. ALSO EXCEPT THEREFROM that portion of 1aid Lots 125 and 126 lyin3 Southeasterly of the following described lin~: BEGlNNING at the oost Southerly corner of said Lot 125; thence North 61° 02' 07" East 36.22 feet; thence North 43° 10' OS" East 35.03 feet to the Southwesterly line of Spindrift Drive (Pvt. St.), 20 feet wide, as ahown on said map. PAtlCEL 26: Lots 125 and 126 of L.A.C.A. Hap Ho. 64, in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per map filed in Book 1, Pages 12 through 16 inclusive, of Assessor'& Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of aaid County, and that portion of Lot 127 of said m.1p lying Uorthwest of the following described line: BEGINNING at a point in the Southwesterly line of said Lot 127, distant thereon South 49• 26' OS" East 10.38 feet from the most Westerly corner thereof; thence North 42° 31' 3411 East SO.OS feet to a point 1n the. Northeasterly line of said Lot 127, said point also being in the Southwesterly line of Spindrift Drive (Pvt. St.), 20 feet wide, as shown on •aid map, said point ig Southerly 10.38 feet, measured along said Southwesterly line of Spindrift Drive, fr()[!l the most Northerly corner of said Lot 126. EXCEPT THEREPROH that portion of said Lots 12S and 126 lying Northwesterly of the following described line: BEGIH:-lING at the most Southerly corner of said Lot 125; thence North 61 • 02' 07" East 36 •22 "feet; thence North 43• 10' 05" East 35.03 feet to the Southwesterly line of Spindrift Drive (Pvt. St.), 20 feet wide, as shown on said !!\BP ■ PARCEL 27: Lot 128 and that portion of Lot 127 of L.A.C.A. Map No. 64, in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, County of Los An g eles, State,of California, as per map filed in Book 1, Pa es 12 through 16 inclusive, of Assessor s Maps, in the office of the County Recorder g id C nty lyin~ Southeast of the following described line· of sa ou , o • BEGimaHG at a point in the Southwesterly line of Lot 127 • distant thereon South 49• 26' OS" East 10.38 feet from the most ~esterly corner thereof; thence North 42• 31' 34" East 80.05 feet to a point .in the: Northeasterly line of aaid Lot 127, said point also be1n~ the Southwesterly line of Spindrift Drive (Pvt. St.), 20 feet wide, as aid map said point is Sou th erly 10.38 feet, measured along said Southwesterly shown on 6 ' ) f h f S indrift Drive (Pvt. St. • rom t e most Northerly corner of said Lot 126 line o P • ,r I ssu i n g Age n t f or: r Transamerica Title Insuranc e Comp any B-114 , --=--- -·--·- ... ' .. ·., .. -' . ... ' .. . . -~ · .• t: ; . · .. : : • .. ·: .; : : ---~:,/;:/ [.· .. ~:_; _ _.-: ___ ..;;....J _·;:-·,~;,··,.\ •i .• -..------~...:;;i~it'.?{ .. ;' _, .............. ·, \;\{. :•~ ,~·.:: I ., -··•· I . . d ~ . .,.. ~. --Ci-- . ~j,. .,,,,,,-. ~ ~ er--(9 . '-,» \ : \, .. ·-.. \ ~ ,-- ~" J. B-115 EXHIBIT 12 B-116 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 88 -31 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 200 AND COASTAL PERMIT NO. 50 FOR AN EXISTING ADDITION VHICH ENCROACHES INTO THE REQUIRED FRONT, SIDE AND REAR SET- BACKS AND IS OVER 250 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE, LOCATED WITHIN THE COASTAL DISTRICT AT 125 SPINDRIFT DRIVE. WHEREAS, Hr. Richard B. Collins has requested a Variance and Coastal Per ■it for an existing addition at 125 Spindrift, which was granted a Moratorium Exemption by the City Council in 1983; and WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the provision of the Rancho Palos Verdes Develop ■ent Code, a public hearing was held on April 26, 1988 at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; NOV, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the sa ■e zoning district, in that the lot size and diaensions are substandard and do not aeet the require ■ents of the RS-2 zoning district. Section!= That the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the landowner, since the original configuration of the residence would not allow reasonable additions to be ■ade without conflicting with Code open space and setback requirements. Section 3: That the granting of the Variance will not be materially-detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, since the improvements made to the property do not adversely iapair the privacy or pri ■ary views of surrounding properties. Section i= That the proposed development is in conformance with the Coastal Specific Plan since the subject property is not located in an Open Space Hazard zone, where expansion ofex'isting uses is prohibited. Section i: That the existing development, which is located between the sea and the first public road, is in B-117 I / I confor ■ance with applicable public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act, in that there are no public trails or access points on or adjacent to the subject property. Section!: For the foregoing reasons, the Planning Coa ■ission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby approves Variance No. 200, and Coastal Per ■it No. 50 subject to the conditions of approval in Exhibit "A". PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 10th day of May, 1988. J ctor of Environ ■ental Services and Secretary to the Co■■ission Chair P.c. Resolution No. 88 -31 B-118 Variance No. 200 125 Spindrift Drive Conditions of Approval 1. The landowner shall sub ■ it an updated geology report to the City Geologist for review and approval. 2. The landowner shall submit a notarized Liability Vaiver. 3. The landowner shall obtain all necessary building per ■its for the alterations that have been ■ade to the subject property within 90 days of the effective date of approval. P.C. Resolution No. 88 -31 B-119 EXHIBIT 13 B-120 1on11e, 1:ae PM The Fabi an #124, La Barb era #125 & Vin cent#126 Homes, Oct. 2019, ( A) Th e LaBa rbe ra's (center) ha s had Three add it ion s previously. Egregious Lot Lin es, t aken f rom utility rit e-of-way, surround th e La Barbera Home for the allowance of the numerous previo us additions.. s Id- Add ition #1 move d int o Vinc eints~ lin e, Ad d ition #1.. remove d all ocean view from Fabian's downstai rs roo m s, Add ition# 3 re m oved t he Carport an d Off-St reet -Par king, enjoyed by all. .Aproxma lity 400 square feet of ou r property just gone? (Tall Greenery on Street) This happened post t he Survey _on our deed (B)I Lotl 25 was original ly, a single story built on a lower lot summer house. The La Barbra's wish to elevate to street level will impact views of a Dozen Neighbor Holmes an d ours most-of-all. The hight adjustment for the proposed 1,255 squrare ft. addition shall impact ,fabian's view of East beach tide pools, San Pedro Channel, Catalina Island beyon d lstmas, includ ing the cliffs of the beach and community pull off an-look -ou t, on Yacht Harbor Drive. This street level addition proposes a egregious view lmpedement to our nei9h borhood. Mike Fabian 124 SPINDRIFT LANE PORTUGUESE BEND CLUB E.S.T. 1956 Imagery C 2019 Google, Map data ©2019 . Map data ©2019 ■ B-121 EXHIBIT 14 B-122 B-123 EXHIBIT 15 B-124 Ms. Kathy Labarbera 125 Spindrift Drive &11-(U)l1J T.I.N. ENGINEERING COMPANY Geotechnical tll Structurai • Environmental 17834 Bailey Drive o Torrance, CA 90504 Te l: (3 10) 371-7045 Fax: (310) 371-5856 tinsoilsheep@gmail.com File No.: 162178 f'h March 14, 20:6 7l=C EIVED ·x 1 ) ~FEB 242017 (j' Building & ~arety City of Rancho Palos Verdes Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275 SUBJECT : Limited Combined So il and Geologic Engineering Investigation and Report for Proposed Second-Story House Additions and New Garage at 125 Sp indrift Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, California RE FE RENCES: 1. Moore and T aber, Supplemental Geologic and Geotechnical Study, Easterly Portion of Parcel 15 , Portuguese Bend Club, Rancho Palos Verdes, California, dated September 9, 1988. 2. State of California, Seismic Hazard Zones, Redondo Beach Quadrangle, dated March 25 , 1999. 3. Thomas W. Dibblee, Ir., Geologic Map of the Palos Verdes Peninsula and Vicinity , Redondo Beach, Torrance, and San Pedro Quadrangles , Los Angeles County, California, 1999. Dear Ms. Labarbera: In accordance with your authorization , we have completed the subject investigation for the proposed second-story additions and new garage at the subject site. The work was performed within the terms of your authorization using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances by geot echnical engineer and engineering geologist practic ing in this locality, and in accordance wi t h generally accepted foundat ion engineering proc edures. The inves t igation included review of available soil and geologic files and reports maintained bi the Ci ty of Rancho Palos Verdes, excavation of one test borehole , specific field soi l and bedrock logging and sampling, laboratory soil samp le tests, and engineering analyses summarized herein. In the opinion of the undersigned, the accompanying report has been substantiated by th e available field and laboratory data, and presents the design information you requested. Intr oduction This investigation was made for the purpose of obtaining information on the subsurface soil condition in the areas of the proposed house additions and new garage on which to base conclusions and recommendations for suitable fo undation designs for the proposed house B-125 Ms . Kathy Labarbera . -2 -March 14, 2016 additions and new garage at the subject property. It is our understanding that the proposed structure is to consist of a two-story , light wood frame, residential building construction. The proposed second-story house additions are to be constructed over the entire existing one- story residential building. The new garage is to be located on the northeast side of the subject site. Major house remodeling is proposed as well. The vicinity map of the subject site is shown on Plate 1. The existing site plan is shown on Plate 2.1. The proposed site development plan is shown on Plate 2.2. The regional topographic map was reproduced from Regional Geologic Map by Moore and Taber in 1977 as shown on Plate 2.3. This report is not intended as bidding document, and any contractors reviewing this report should draw their own conclusions regarding required construction quantities and procedures. Field and Laboratory Investigation On February 9, 2016, one test borehole was excavated at the location shown in the attached Plate 2 .1. Geologic Cross Section A-A' was drawn through the subject site as shown on Plate 3. The earth materials e ncountered were logged by us as shown in the Borehole Logs presented in Plate 4. ·. Representative samples of the eaiih materials encountered were obtained as appropriate. Intact samples were obtained by carefully driving a hand-sampler loaded with thin walled tubes by hand into the borehole bottom. Bulk samples were obtained from the borehole castings. Samples were returned to our laboratory for determination of their in-situ moisture content and density, classification, direct shear, expansion index, sulfate content, and other appropriate testing. The results of the in-situ moisture and density tests are summarized in the attached Plate 5. Plots of direct shear test data are presented in the attached Plate 6. The results of the expansion index tests are presented in the attached Plate 7. The results of the sulfate content tests are presented in the attached Pl a te 8. See the attached Appendix A for specific information on testing methods . Locatnon and Site Conditions The subject site is located on the westerly side of Spindrift Drive, approximately one mile northwesterly from the intersection of Palos Verdes Drives East and South within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes of the Los Angeles County. The subject site is located within the boundaries of an ancient presently inactive, pre-historic landslide complex. This ancient landslide is locally known as "The Beach Club Landslide." The subject site is located within the City's landslide moritorium zone. The subject site consists of a level building pad and an approximately 2 ½: 1 descending slope to the west. The level building pad is currently occupied by a one-story residential T.1.N. ENGINEERING COMPANY GEOTECHNICAL ~ STRUCTURAL 0 ENVIRONMENTAL B-126 Ms. Kathy Labarbera -3 -March 14, 2016 building. The subject site is surrounded by a similarly developed residential property to the west, south and north. Drainage is chiefly by sheet flow to the rear slope area. Previous Regional Soil and Geologi~ Studies The subject site is located within Portuguese Bend C lub. The soil and geologic studies in the area of Portuguese Bend Club were performed by Moore and Taber between 1977 and 1988 , Reference l . A po1tion of the geologic map prepared by Moore and Taber is reproduced by us as shown in Appendix C. A total of 45 borings was drilled in that area. Boring Nos. 10 and 17 were located approximately 70 feet northwesterly and southeasterly of the subject site, respectively. Boring No. 10 and 17 were located on the down-slope and up-slope sides of the subject site, respectively. The depth to the bedrock is approximately 7 and 11 feet below the existing grade at the boreholes B-10 and B-17, respectively . The boring logs of Boring Nos. 10 and 17 and the regional geologic map by Moore and Taber are attached in Appendix C of this report. Earth Materials The earth materials, encountered in the exploratory borehole and in the boring Nos. 10 and 17 by Moore and Taber, were assumed to be representative of those throughout the area of proposed development. Variations in depth, thickness of strata, and the type of earth materials expected may occur. The design and construction procedures should take this into account. Modification of plans may be required during project construction. Fm, Disturbed Terrace Deposits(Qt) and Bedrock{Tma) Fill, approximately 4.5 feet thick, was encountered in the test borehole. The encountered fill consisted of a light chocolate brown, slightly moist to moist, moderately loose, silty clay with bedrock fragments. Below the fill, disturbed terrace deposits were encountered. The disturbed terrace deposits, encountered at the depth of approximately 4.5 to 6.5 feet , consisted of a light brown, moist, moderately stiff to stiff, silty clay with bedrock fragments . Below the disturbed terrace deposits, bedrock was encountered. The encountered bedrock consisted of a light bwwn, gray, and yellowish brown, fim1, bedded, hard, Altamira shale with some gypsum and yellow coating filled between beddings. The observed bedrook bedding was striking North 57 degree to West and dipping approximately 30 degrees to South. It appears that a daylighted bedding condition was encountered in the rear slope area. Groundwater No groundwater was encountered, nor were any springs or seeps encountered in the borehol e during the course of t his observation. However, it should be noted that fluctuations in the T.i.N. ENGINEERING COMPANY GEOTECHNICAL •STRUCTURAL~ ENVIRONMENTAL B-127 Ms. Kathy Labarbera -13 -March 14,2016 T hank you for this opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions regard in g this report, p lease contact t!ie undersigned at the letterhead location. Very truly yours, T.I.N. ENGINEERING COMPANY Tony . , .E. Hank Jong CEG #1646 Project Engi ne er TSCL:ir Enclosures: Vicinity Map ............................................... Plate 1 Ex isting Site Plan ......................................... Plate 2.1 Proposed Site Development Plan ....................... P late 2.2 Regional Top og rap hic Map ............................. Plate 2.3 Geologic Cross Sections A-A' ......................... Plate 3 Test Borehole Logs ....................................... Plate 4 Moisture Density Test Results ........................... Plate 5 Direct Shear Test Results ................................. Plate 6 Expansion Index Test Results ........................... Plate 7 Sulfate Content Test Results ............................. Plate 8 Exp loration and Labo ratory Testing .................... Ap pendix A General Grading ........................................... Appendix B Reg io n~l Geologic Map and Borehole Logs of B-10 and B-17 by Moore & Taber. ........... Append ix C Distribution : Cl ie nt (3) T.I.N. ENGINEE RING COMPANY GEOTECHNICAL • STRUCTURAL Q ENVIRONMENTAL B-128 ,-t , ..... -------·--·•"·-····--·--·------------t') ---·---~----~--N j ... .J r f'-.; ' \- <O v i.n lf) z LO» 125 -----~--='._,· _ _,, ;j_1, : ...-cor,... I ~:::-·-~--------~ t.()" "-"<>----~ ---::::::.:::-~~ N ,. I.{) co1~~::--,./ l.{) ~~~~--------------~-~ ;,,- -----~---- .,,.,,,--- ------,,-,/ r'\ -~=~ ~-----.,_ .. __.,.------t-···--.... MS.KATHY LABARBERA '!25 SPINDRIFT DRIVE RANCHO PALOS VERDES , CALIFORNIA DATE: MARCH 14, 2016 0 30 LEGEND -~ EXPLORATORY BOREHOLE B-1 B-1 S 30 BEDDING ATTITUDE N57W Qt/Tma TERRACE DEPosns ovER SHALE BEDROCK EXISTING SITE PLAN SCALE 1" = 20' Ip LATE 2.1 JOB NO.: 162178 · T.I.N. ENGINEERING COMPANY B-129 [ -] [I[] M s . Ka th y Labarb e ra 125 S pindrift Drive T.I .N. ENGINEERING COMPANY Geotechnical • Structural • Environmental 17834 Bail ey Drive• Torrance. CA 90504 Tel /Fax: (310) 3 7 1-7045, tinsoilsheep @g mail.com File No.: 162178 RECEIVED April 17 , 20167 z!J:~~";~:~~~ -rD City of Rancho Palos Verdes Rancho Palos Verdes , California 90275 SUBJECT: Addendum Letter No. 1-Response to City Geotechnical Comments, dated March 16 , 2016, for Proposed Second-Story House Additions and New Garage at 125 S pindrift Drive , Rancho Palo :, Verdes , California REFERENCES: I. T.l.N. Engineering Company, Limited Combined Soil and Geologic Engineering Investigation and Report for Proposed Second-Story House Additions and New Garage at 125 Spindrift Drive , Rancho Palos Verdes, California, dated March 14, 2016. 2. City of Rancho Palos Verdes , Geotechnical Investigation Report Review Checklist, PN 97082--2657 , dated March 16, 2017. Dear Ms. Labarbera: ln accordance with the request by you and your project architect, we have completed this addendum letter in order to respond to the City Geotechnical comments dated March 16 , 2017 , Reference 2 , for the proposed house additions and new garage at the subject site . We offer the . following responses, item by item: Response to Comment No. 1 Th e s ubj ect s ite is locate d within Z one 4 . Response to Comment No. 2 House distress was not observed during the soil investigation. Res pon se to Co mment No. 3 The new foundations of the proposed house additions and new garage are to be founded into bedrock a nd below the Beach landslide in order to provide foundations support of the proposed house additions and new garage. No massive excavations are proposed for the construction of the proposed structures. The volume of the potential removed soil and bedrock · materials from th e foundations excavations 'Nill be little comparing the mass of B-130 B-131 B-132 EXHIBIT 16 B-133 B-134 B-135 EXHIBIT 17 B-136 B-137 B-138 B-139 EXHIBIT 18 B-140 B-141 B-142 B-143 B-144 EXHIBIT 19 B-145 B-146 B-147 B-148 EXHIBIT 20 B-149 B-150 B-151 EXHIBIT 21 B-152 B-153 B-154 EXHIBIT 22 B-155 B-156 B-157 EXHIBIT 23 B-158 B-159 EXHIBIT 24 B-160 B-161 C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 C-5 C-6 C-7 C-8 C-9 C-10 C-11 D-1 D-2 D-3 D-4 D-5 D-6 D-7 D-8 From:Jerry Schwartz To:Octavio Silva Subject:Fwd: 125 Spindrift Drive Date:Wednesday, April 19, 2023 7:47:37 AM EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open any attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe!!!. Hello Octavio, I am re-sending 2 emails for the upcoming neighborhood appeal of this project. Thank you, Jerry Schwartz 3107075939 -----Original Message----- From: Jerry Schwartz <jbschw@aol.com> To: OctavioS@rpvca.gov <OctavioS@rpvca.gov> Sent: Tue, Apr 5, 2022 5:47 pm Subject: 125 Spindrift Drive Hello Octavio, My name is Jerry Schwartz. I live at (own) 105 Spindrift Drive across the street from the proposed project. The proposed project will significantly block my view of the beach, whitewater and ocean/cove from every area of my house and yard, significantly impact my joy of living here and decrease my property value. As you know, the proposed project will decimate the view and property values of many of my neighbors. Thank you for your offer to take pictures of my view obstruction from my residence. The LaBarbera's should not be allowed to cause extraordinary harm to our views and property values. By doing so they will improve their already magnificent view at the expense of at least 7 neighbors. In fact, the rules and regulations of the PBC HOA and Architectural Committee state that no homeowner will be allowed to do construction that will cause significant obstruction of our views. All of us bought our homes with our existing views and relied upon the PBC R&Rs that our views will be protected by rule. In addition, it's my understanding that their project includes exceptional variances that no longer will keep them within their "envelope" for allowable construction per RPV. I wrote the following to the PBC HOA on 03/25/19: Thousands of people in Palos Verdes have ocean views. I chose to buy my house at PBC because it is a special oasis ON the beach with a view OF the beach. The proposed LaBarbera project blocks 100% of my actual view of the beach, palapas/fire pits, etc. from every area of my house. Every day I find peace, serenity, solace and beauty in large part because of my existing view. I have always been able to see what makes living at PBC so special (and the reason I chose to purchase THIS house): the beach itself, seeing families and friends celebrating life with parties and BBQs, children playing, the waves/whitewater, ETC. If this project is approved I will lose ALL of that. All of it!! I implore the Board to uphold our rights as homeowners to maintain our existing special views. This project, if approved with an elevated 2nd story, will decimate what makes my house special (the view), considerably detract from my joy of living in our little oasis, decrease the value of my house...as it will for other homes (some to an even greater degree) as well. The LaBarbera proposal has already created a hostile microcosm at PBC, negatively impacts the special joy of living here for many households, negatively effects our property values and should not be allowed. They are not doing “just this and just that,” they are severely hurting many of us. If they want a larger 2 story house they could build down their hill and not block our views. Thank you for your consideration, Jerry Schwartz, MD E-1 105 Spindrift Drive I am working tomorrow (Wednesday) but can probably be home by late afternoon on Thursday if you are available to take pictures. i am also home on Friday. Thank you for your time and consideration, Jerry Schwartz 310-707-5939 E-2