Loading...
CC RES 2025-025 RESOLUTION NO. 2025-25 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES THEREBY DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO UPHOLD THE DIRECTOR OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT'S DETERMINATION OF AN INCOMPLETE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR PROPOSED REVISIONS TO A PLANNING COMMISSION-APPROVED PROJECT AT 3015 CREST ROAD (CASE NO. PLHV2018-0003). WHEREAS, Dr. Ying Mou and Chunxiao Zhang (herein referred to as the "Appellants"), own 30,15 Crest Road. As documented in Parcel Map No. 19424, a 10-foot- wide sanitary sewer easement traverses their property in an east to west direction; and, WHEREAS, the legal holder of the sewer easement is Mrs. Sylvia Soong who owns 3027 Crest Road; and, WHEREAS, on June 12, 2018, the Appellants submitted applications to construct a new two-story residence over portions of the 10-foot-wide sewer easement at 3015 Crest Road and related site improvements; and, WHEREAS, Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC) §17.49.030.f states the following requirement: "Easements. Setbacks from legal easements, other than street right-of-way easements, shall not be required. In addition to the appropriate review and approval by the city, no construction of any structure or improvement is allowed within a legal easement without written authorization from the legal holder of the easement. Such authorization shall be in a form that can be recorded and shall be reviewed by the city attorney."; and, WHEREAS, on July 11, 2018, City Staff issued an Incomplete Letter to the Appellants informing them of application deficiencies related to their June 12, 2018 application submittal. The letter stated that because the project involved construction of a house over a sewer easement, an easement holder authorization form would be required to deem the application complete for further processing; and, WHEREAS, on February 26, 2020, the Appellants submitted a signed Construction and Encroachment Agreement (herein referred to as the "easement agreement) between themselves and Mrs. Soong to the City's Community Development Department as part of their development application. Section No. 2 on Page No. 2 of the Agreement (Page No. 2) further describes the provisions of the easement by stating the following: "Construction and Encroachment Agreement. Grantor, for themselves and for their successors and assigns, hereby convey and grant to Grantee, its successors and assigns, an encroachment as described in Exhibit C (the "Project Plans") and non-exclusive easement (the "Construction and Encroachment Agreement") over, under, in, along, 01203 0005 2001019 1 Resolution No 2025-25 Page 1 of 6 across and upon the property described on the attached and incorporated Exhibit D (the "Easement Area")..." Therefore, the signed agreement defined the easement area as over, under, in, along, across and upon the 10-foot-wide sewer easement. The easement agreement also included a diagram, as outlined in Figure No. 3, which illustrates with text a minimum 10-foot-high clearance above the 10-foot-wide sewer easement; and, WHEREAS, on August 11, 2020, the Planning Commission considered the merits of the Appellants' project, reviewed the easement agreement and adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2020-10, allowing for the construction of a new two-story residence and related site improvements including 538 yd3 of associated grading on the Appellants' property. The Appellant designed the project residence to accommodate the easement area with an open corridor feature on the ground level of the residence as highlighted on the site plans approved by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission's approval of the project included Condition of Approval No. 33 requiring all improvements within the 10-foot-wide sewer easement be temporary except for two semi-permanent staircases; and, WHEREAS, on August 27, 2021, the City's Building & Safety Division issued permits for the construction of the project residence (Case No. RES2020-00299) and construction of the project subsequently began; and, WHEREAS, on January 25-, 2024, City Staff received a complaint that the Appellants constructed unpermitted improvements over the 10-foot-wide easement, reducing the vertical clearance from 10 feet to 8 feet in height. Upon inspection by City Staff, it was found that the unpermitted improvements included a drop-down ceiling that encloses electrical wiring for the project residence. In response to the unpermitted improvement, City Staff issued a "Stop-Work" notice to the Appellants advising them to either remove the unpermitted improvement or seek permits to legalize the unpermitted construction; and, WHEREAS, on March 12, 2024, the Appellants submitted amended project plans and application materials, proposing to legalize the unpermitted construction within the easement area. The project plans also proposed additional design features within the easement area including the addition of doors to the east and west elevations of the project residence, to enclose the easement corridor and the addition of paving stones within the easement area. The unpermitted drop-down ceiling provides an 8 foot clearance above the sewer easement, which conflicts with the 10 foot clearance above the sewer easement shown on diagrams on the signed easement agreement submitted to City Staff on February 26, 2020 and the site plans approved by the Planning Commission on August 11, 2020; and, WHEREAS, on April 11, 2024 and June 19, 2024, City Staff issued incomplete letters, which deemed the project application incomplete for processing, citing amongst other application deficiencies, that the application required written authorization from the Resolution No 2025-25 Page 2 of 6 easement holder for the unpermitted improvement and proposed improvements within the sewer easement pursuant to RPVMC §17.49.030.F.; and, WHEREAS, on August 18, 2024, the Appellants submitted a revised application, site plan, and letter which included amending the previously-approved Major Grading Permit to legalize grading for an unpermitted cellar and retaining wall outside of the 10- foot-wide easement; and, WHEREAS, on September 18, 2024, City Staff issued an incomplete letter, which continues to deem the project application incomplete for processing, citing among other application deficiencies, that the application requires written authorization from the easement holder; and, WHEREAS, on November 15, 2024, pursuant to RPVMC §17.80.050.B, the Appellants filed an appeal of the Director of Community Development's determination that the submitted project application was incomplete for processing; and, WHEREAS, on January 16, 2025, a public notice announcing the Planning Commission's consideration of the appeal on February 11, 2025, was provided to the Appellants, property owners within a 500-foot radius of the project site, interested parties and published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News; and, WHEREAS, on February 11, 2025, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing to consider the appeal, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and. WHEREAS, after considering public testimony and information presented by Staff, the Planning Commission unanimously denied the appeal thereby upholding the Community Development's determination and adopted P.C. Resolution 2025-01; and, WHEREAS, on February 25, 2025, pursuant to RPVMC §17.80.070.A, the Appellants filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission decision, which included an appeal letter and appeal fee; and, WHEREAS, on April 17, 2025, pursuant to RPVMC §17.80.090, a public notice announcing the City, Council's consideration of the appeal on May 6, 2025, was provided to the Appellants, property owners within a 500-foot radius of the project site, interested parties and published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News; and, WHEREAS, on May 6, 2025, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be 111 heard and present evidence. Resolution No 2025-25 Page 3 of 6 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL 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 City Council has considered the following appeal grounds offered by the Appellants and finds that they are without merit for the reasons described below. 1. Appellants' Ground for Appeal No. 1: The Appellants assert that the Planning Commission "abused its discretion" and that the "Planning Commission's decision was not supported by California and Federal law, or by the evidence submitted to the Planning Commission". Council's Response to Ground for Appeal No. 1 The City Council finds that the Appellants have failed to present evidence or arguments substantiating their claim that California and Federal law were violated. In this respect, it could be anticipated that the Appellants' contention rests on their interpretation of easement law. The City Attorney's Office reviewed the Appellants' legal arguments regarding easements before the public hearing and concluded that the Council's review was specifically limited to determining whether written authorization was consistent with RPVMC §17.49.030.F, and did not extend to adjudicating the legal validity of the subject easement under State and/or Federal law. 2. Appellants' Ground for Appeal No. 2: The Appellants assert that the Planning Commission's decision was "erroneous and arbitrary". Council's Response to Ground for Appeal No. 2 The City Council finds substantial evidence in the record where the City Council made specific conclusions based on the evidence that was presented in the Staff Report, late correspondence, and public testimony. Furthermore, the, City Council reached a conclusion that the Appellants' arguments are inconsistent with the language of the easement and the existing easement encroachment agreement with the easement holder. In consideration of these documents, including the language contained in RPVMC §17.49.030.F, the City Council found that the Appellants' current proposal to legalize unpermitted improvements within the easement requires the written authorization from the legal holder of the easement, pursuant to RPVMC §17.49.030.F. As such, the City Council's decision to deny the appeal was based on substantial evidence, rational decision making, and the relevant regulation that pertains to the Appellants' proposed development project. Resolution No 2025-25 Page 4 of 6 3. Appellants Ground for Appeal No. 3: The Appellants assert that they were not given a fair opportunity to be heard on the merits of their appeal to the Planning Commission. The City Council has provided ample opportunity for the Appellants and their attorney to provide evidence during the appeal process and were provided time to provide testimony during the public hearing. Specifically, the Public Notice dated April 17, 2025, explained to the Appellants certain time periods to provide public correspondence and materials for the City Council to consider. In response, the Appellants submitted correspondence after April 29, 2025, which was reported to the City Council as late correspondence. With respect to testimony, the Appellants' attorney was provided time for testimony and rebuttal during the May 6, 2025 public hearing. The Appellants were also provided time for testimony at the public hearing. Section 3: The City Council finds that the Appellants' development application is considered incomplete because the Appellants have not submitted a signed agreement from the legal easement holder authorizing the proposed improvements within the easement, which is a requirement pursuant to RPVMC §17.49.030.F. IIISection 4: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes and evidence presented at the public hearing of the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby adopts Resolution No. 2025-25, denying the subject appeal and upholding the Planning Commission's decision to uphold the Director of the Community Development Department's determination of an incomplete development application for proposed revisions to a Planning Commission-approved project at 3015 Crest Road (Case No. PLHV2018-0003). Section 5: Any challenge for judicial review of this Resolution and the findings set forth therein, must be filed within the 90-day statute of limitations set forth in Code of Civil Procedure §1094.6 and §17.86.100(B) of the RPVMC. Section 6: The City Clerk shall certify the passage, approval, and adoption of this Resolution, and shall cause this Resolution and the City Clerk's certification to be entered in the Book of Resolutions of the City Council. I Resolution No. 2025-25 Page 5 of 6 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED-#his 6th da May 2025. j David L. Bradley, Attest: Teresa-fiakaoka, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )ss CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ) I, Teresa Takaoka, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2025-25, was duly adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting thereof held on May 6, 2025. Tere akaoka, CitiClerk Y Resolution No 2025-25 Page 6 of 6