CC SR 20240416 G - 29740 Knoll View Fee Waiver
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 04/16/2024
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Consent Calendar
AGENDA TITLE:
Consideration and possible action to waive after-the-fact planning and penalty fees for
unpermitted construction on the property at 29740 Knoll View Drive (PLGR No. 2023-
0052).
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Approve, via Minute Order, waiving only the after-the-fact (ATF) penalty fee portion
of the requested fee waiver in the amount of $3,241 to legalize unpermitted
construction on the property at 29740 Knoll View Drive Review (PLGR No. 2023-
0052).
FISCAL IMPACT: The planning fees include a Director-level review of an ATF Major
Grading Permit ($2,884) and Major Site Plan Review ($357), as well
as associated penalty fees ($3,241), for a total of $6,482 to legalize
the construction of retaining walls and grading activities . If the fee
waiver request is approved, as recommended by Staff, the City will
refund the penalty fee of $3,241 for processing the requested ATF
Major Grading Permit and Major Site Plan Review. The Staff time
involved in processing the permit would be covered by the regular
planning fees.
ORIGINATED BY: Jessica Bobbett, Senior Planner
REVIEWED BY: Brandy Forbes, Director of Community Development
APPROVED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Applicant’s Fee Waiver Request (page A-1)
BACKGROUND:
On March 3, 2022, the City’s Building Inspector issued a Stop Work Notice for unpermitted
grading on the rear yard slope and construction of associated retaining walls on the
subject property which violates the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC). The
property contains extreme slopes (greater than 35%) along the rear yard and the property
1
owner began to regrade the top of the slope with the intention to conduct landscape
improvements without obtaining grading permits as required by Section 17.76.040 of the
RPVMC. Please see the photographs below that highlight the unpermitted rear yard
improvements.
Photograph No. 1
Photograph No. 2
2
On March 14, 2022, a Notice of Violation (CBLD No. 2022-0029) was mailed to the
property owner by the City’s Code Enforcement Division which further identified the
violation and provided options to address the unpermitted construction. The Notice of
Violation also included a compliance deadline of March 25, 2022.
On March 23, 2022, Michael Aghajanian (Applicant) contacted the City’s Planning
Division on behalf of his parents, Anna and Abnoos Aghajanian (property owners),
explaining the current health situation of the property owners and requesting a time
extension for compliance.
The Code Enforcement and Planning Divisions granted a total of six extensions through
2022 in an effort to provide the property owners an opportunity to obtain compliance.
During this time, the Applicant explored various cost-effective design options to address
the violations, including potentially removing the retaining walls and restoring the slope to
its original condition. Staff informed the Applicant that the project would require
geotechnical review to ensure slope stabilization regardless of design choice. As part of
this process, the Applicant also prepared a Best Management Practice (BMP) plan to
mitigate potential erosion issues while continuing to work on remedying the code violation.
After considering different design scenarios, the Applicant decided to legalize the as-built
improvements.
On November 29, 2023, the Applicant submitted development applications (ATF Grading
Permit and Site Plan Review) and associated fees for Planning Division review and
processing of.
On December 18, 2023, the Applicant submitted a request (Attachment A) to waive
application and penalty fees in the total amount of $6,482.
To date, the Applicant has been actively working with Staff to complete the review of the
ATF Major Grading and Major Site Plan Review applications.
DISCUSSION:
Pursuant to Section 17.78.010(C) of the RPVMC, the City Council may grant a request to
waive the fees associated with a development application if it finds that:
1. The applicant or the beneficiary of the use or activity proposed by the applicant is
a nonprofit corporation registered with the State of California; or
2. The use or activity proposed or the activities of the beneficiary of the use or activity
proposed are charitable, educational or otherwise provide a substantial benefit to
the public; or
3. The applicant has demonstrated a financial hardship, as determined by the City
Council, on a case-by-case basis.
Based on Staff’s assessment of the fee waiver request, Staff believes the request
warrants a partial granting based on a financial hardship. More specifically, the
3
Applicant’s Fee Waiver letter describes in detail the property owners’ long term healthcare
issues and associated costs that prohibit them from paying the required penalty fees to
legalize the ATF improvements. These circumstances, along with a language barrier and
minimal experience in a project of this scope as outlined in the fee waiver letter have
contributed to an overall hardship experience for the property owners. However, Staff only
recommends waiving the ATF penalty fee, which is double the original application fee.
The property owners should be required to pay the planning application fee to recover
costs for reviewing their project plans.
CONCLUSION:
Staff believes that the Applicant’s ATF fee waiver request is warranted based upon the
required findings under Section 17.78.010(C)(3) of the RPVMC for the penalty portion of
the fee only. Therefore, Staff recommends that the City Council approve the Fee Waiver
request for the penalty fee portion only thereby granting half the requested Fee Waiver in
the amount of $3,241.
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to the Staff’s recommendation, the following alternative actions are available
for the City Council’s consideration:
1. Deny the Fee Waiver for the ATF Major Grading application and Major Site Plan
in the amount of $3,241.
2. Approve the Fee Waiver for the full planning and penalty fees for the ATF Major
Grading application and Major Site Plan in the amount of $6,482 .
3. Grant some other reduction in the application and penalty fees due, in an amount
determined by the City Council.
4. Take other action, as deemed appropriate.
4
Anna & Abnoos Aghajanian
29740 Knoll View Dr
RPV, 90275
RE: #CBLD2022-0029
Hello,
My name is Michael Aghajanian, I am writing on behalf of my parents, Anna & Abnoos
Aghajanian, who are the owners and residents of 29740 Knoll View.
We are requesting a planing fee and penalty waiver based on my parents initial reasoning for
the work as well as their current situation.
In 2022, with COVID still being a serious concern and my mother’s immunocompromised state
as well as my dad’s deteriorating health, like many others, her life was limited to being home
24/7. So she set out to have additional areas for gardening in the backyard as well as a safer
area near the start of the slope. Because of the angle of the slope, it wasn't possible to plant
anything besides ivy or have any safe access to the sloped area. Moreover, my dad was still
able to walk at this time but the slope was so steep, she was worried anytime he was nearing
the edge that he could fall and be injured. My mom also noticed dirt in the concrete ravine and
figured it was a project our gardener can handle since he has landscaping experience.
Before moving forward with the timeline of events, it is important for me to summarize my
parent's household situation: At this time, my dad’s Alzheimer's and dementia had advanced to
a point where he was retired and no longer involved in household decisions. In the past,
anything regarding our home is something he would be very much involved with. My mom was a
homemaker throughout her life but didn't have experience with home projects like this.
Moreover, she is in her late 70s and English is her 2nd language. This is also why I have been
involved in every step since the violation has been issued.
With both my brother and I working full-time jobs, my mom for the first time didn't have anyone
to clarify the scope of the work, the terminology or the potential consequences. For the reasons
mentioned above, she moved forward with the project, unaware of some key issues and without
the benefit of my dad's intervention or experience. Regardless of this, the intention wasn't to
have the cinder block walls we ended up with, the initial plan was 2 or 3 stacked railroad ties to
create flat terraced areas. As work began, the gardener told my mom he needed more
materials. And the scope of the project grew along with the height of the walls.
My mom did not set out to violate any rules or avoid permit fees. Nor did she see it as a safety
concern since it did not involve our actual home’s structure and because the neighbors below us
are over 75 feet away. She never imagined her decisions would lead to this enormous financial
burden. Nor did she think it would lead to my brother and I being involved in this lengthy and
expensive ordeal of resolving these issues.
A-1
We are asking for their growing healthcare costs to be considered as well: My father requires
care 7 days a week to help change him, shower him, feed him ,etc. We have two caretakers for
this, they work 12 hours a day and 7 days a week at $23 per hour, which is over $7,700 a
month. And because of my dad’s worsening condition, he will likely require 24 hour care soon.
We have tried very hard for the city to allow us to return the slope to its previous state, as it has
been for several decades, but that was not an acceptable solution. Thus far, we have completed
a topography survey ($2,200), consulted with engineers ($1,000), a soil report ($7,400) and
structural and civil engineering plans which are likely to be over $10,000. Additionally, we
incurred the cost of installing tarps and sandbags (BMP) to the slope. This is all before any
actual construction begins, all estimates for this project are well over $150,000.
These engineering and construction costs are not something my parents had planned for in their
retirement and unfortunately not something that can be reduced. However, we are asking the
city to please reconsider their penalties and fees due to my parents current situation as well as
the original intent for the project.
We understand building and safety codes must be enforced, but please understand the vast
delta between her intended project and the scope of what is currently being required of us. To
reiterate, slope stabilization was not my mom’s gardening project’s end goal. She was aiming for
a more accessible, safer, cleaner and usable backyard. For these reasons, as well as their
healthcare hardships, we are asking for the planning and penalty fees to please be
reconsidered.
Thank you for your time and understanding.
Michael Aghajanian
A-2