CC SR 20250506 01 - 3015 Crest Road Appeal Report
PUBLIC HEARING
Date: May 6, 2025
Subject:
Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision of an incomplete development
application for 3015 Crest Road (Case No. PLHV2018-0003).
Recommendation:
Adopt Resolution No. 2025-__, 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).
1. Report of Notice Given: City Clerk
2. Declare Public Hearing Open: Mayor Bradley
3. Request for Staff Report: Mayor Bradley
4. Staff Report & Recommendation: Brandy Forbes, AICP, Director of Community Development and
Robert Nemeth, Associate Planner
5. Council Questions of Staff (factual and without bias):
6. Testimony from members of the public:
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.
Appellant/Applicant: Dr. Ying Mou and Mr. Chunxiao Zhang
Mayor Bradley invites the Appellant to speak. (10 mins.)
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 Bradley invites brief rebuttals by Appellant/Applicants. (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 Appellant and Applicants (factual and without bias):
9. Declare Hearing Closed/or Continue the Public Hearing to a later date: Mayor Bradley
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 additional
testimony; continue the matter to a later date for a decision.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 05/06/2025
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Public Hearing
AGENDA TITLE:
Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision of an incomplete
development application for 3015 Crest Road (Case No. PLHV2018-0003).
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Adopt Resolution No. 2025-__, 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).
FISCAL IMPACT: The Appellants paid the $3,100 appeal fee to the City. If the City
Council grants the appeal, the entire $3,100 appeal fee will be refunded to the Appellants.
If an appeal results in a modification to the decision, other than changes specifically
requested in the appeal, half of the appeal fee ($1,550) shall be refunded to the
Appellants. If the City Council denies the appeal, the Appellants will not be refunded any
portion of the appeal fee. The Appellants are not entitled to a refund of the Planning
Commission’s determination to uphold the Community Development Director’s
determination. VR
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): 101-300-0000-3218
(General Fund – Revenue – Plan Misc. Fee) VR
ORIGINATED BY: Robert Nemeth, AICP, Associate Planner
REVIEWED BY: Brandy Forbes, AICP, Director of Community Development
APPROVED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS (Provided in Hyper Links):
A. Resolution No. 2025-__ (Page A-1)
B. Appeal letter to the Council
1
C. Planning Commission Approved Resolution No. 2025 -01
D. Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 11, 2025
E. Planning Commission Minutes dated February 11, 2025
F. Appeal letter to the Planning Commission
G. Parcel Map No. 19424
H. Incomplete Letter dated July 11, 2018
I. Construction and Encroachment Agreement
J. Planning Commission Minutes July 14, 2020
K. P.C. Resolution No. 2020-10
L. Planning Commission Minutes dated August 11, 2020
M. Incomplete Letter dated April 11, 2024
N. Incomplete Letter dated June 19, 2024
O. City’s Residential Submittal Checklist
P. August 18, 2024 Revised Application, Site Plans, Letter
Q. Incomplete Letter dated September 18, 2024
R. City Council Policy No. 24
S. Public Correspondence
BACKGROUND:
Dr. Ying Mou and Mr. Chunxiao Zhang (Appellants) reside at 3015 Crest Road (Parcel 2)
as outlined in yellow in Figure No. 1 below. As documented in Parcel Map No. 19424
(Attachment G), a 10-foot-wide and 113-foot-long sanitary sewer easement, which is also
outlined in red in Figure No. 1, traverses their property in an east to west direction. The
legal holder of the easement, Mrs. Sylvia Soong resides at 3027 Crest Road (Parcel 1).
continued on next page
2
Figure No.1- Appellant’s Property & Easement Information
On June 12, 2018, the Appellant, Mr. Zhang, who is also the project architect, submitted
applications to the City’s Community Development Department to construct a new two -
story residence over portions of the 10-foot-wide sewer easement at 3015 Crest Road
(Case No. PLHV2018-0003). Figure No. 2 highlights the siting of the new residence,
(shown in purple outline) over the location of the easement (shown in red outline).
3
Figure No. 2- Site Plan of Appellant’s House Over Easement
On July 11, 2018, 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 new residence over a sewer
easement, an easement holder authorization form would be required to deem the
application complete for further processing as required by Rancho Palos Verdes
Municipal Code (RPVMC) §17.030.F (see Incomplete Letter dated July 11, 2018 Item No.
16, Attachment H). 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 (emphasis added). Such authorization shall be in a form that can be
recorded and shall be reviewed by the city attorney.”
On February 26, 2020, the Appellants submitted a signed Construction and
Encroachment Agreement (Attachment I, herein referred to as the “easement
4
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 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, across and upon the property described on the attached and
incorporated Exhibit D (the “Easement Area”)…(Emphasis added)”
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 illustrated with text a minimum 10-
foot-high clearance above the 10-foot-wide sewer easement.
Figure No. 3- Sewer Easement Agreement Diagram
On July 14, 2020, the Planning Commission considered the merits of the Appellants’
project and reviewed the easement agreement for the construction of a new two-story
residence and related site improvements that included 538 yd3 of associated grading on
the Appellants’ property. The Planning Commission continued the public hearing so that
Resolution language concerning sewer easement improvements could be addressed
(see Planning Commission Minutes dated July 14, 2020, Attachment J).
5
On August 11, 2020, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2020-10
(Attachment K), allowing for the construction of the residence to accommodate the
easement area with an open corridor feature on the ground level as highlighted on the
approved site plans as noted in Figure No. 4 on the next page. The corridor was designed
to provide ease of access to the easement area for emergency sewer repairs or
maintenance for Mrs. Soong. The Planning Commission’s approval of the project also
included Condition of Approval No. 33 requiring any unspecified future improvements
within the 10-foot-wide sewer easement be temporary except for two semi-permanent
staircases (see Planning Commission Minutes dated August 11, 2020 , Attachment L).
Figure No. 4- Project Residence over Easement
On August 27, 2021, the City’s Building & Safety Division issued permits for the
construction of the residence (Case No. RES2020-00299) and construction of the project
began thereafter.
On January 25, 2024, 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 Staff, it was found that the
unpermitted improvements, as highlighted in the photograph shown in Figure No. 5 below,
includes a drop-down ceiling that encloses electrical wiring for the project residence. In
response to the unpermitted work, 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.
6
Figure No. 5- Staff Photo of Drop-Down Ceiling at 3015 Crest Road
l
After several meetings with Staff, the Appellants submitted amended project plans and
application materials on March 12, 2024, proposing to legalize the unpermitted drop-down
ceiling 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. Other proposed project revisions
included changing the driveway design and width. As previously noted, the unpermitted
drop-down ceiling is at 8-foot clearance above the sewer easement, which conflicts with
the 10- foot clearance above the sewer easement shown on easement diagram and the
site plans approved by the Planning Commission on August 11, 2020.
In review of the submitted project plans and application materials, Staff deemed the
project application incomplete for processing, citing among other application deficiencies,
that the application requires written authorization from the easement holder for the
unpermitted improvement and proposed improvements within the sewer easement
pursuant to RPVMC §17.49.030.F. Staff issued two Incomplete Letters on April 11, 2024
(Attachment M) and June 19, 2024 (Attachment N) to the Appellants informing them of
the application deficiencies. It should be noted that the City’s Residential Submittal
Checklist (Attachment O) includes a requirement for an applicant to submit written
easement holder authorizations for projects that involve improvements within an
easement area.
On August 18, 2024, the Appellants submitted a revised application, site plan, and letter
(Attachment P), 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. The Appellants’ letter also contested Staff’s determination that easement
holder authorization was needed to legalize unpermitted improvements and to construct
proposed improvements within the easement. Staff issued an Incomplete Letter on
September 18, 2024 (Attachment Q) to the Appellants informing them of the application
deficiencies with the notification that the easement holder’s authorization is an item
Drop-down ceiling over
the10-foot-wide
easement, reducing the
vertical clearance from
10 feet to 8 feet in height.
7
needed to deem the application complete for processing.
On November 15, 2024, the Appellants filed an appeal (Attachment B) of the Director of
Community Development’s determination that the submitted application was incomplete
for processing.
After the appeal was filed, Staff informally held a meeting with the parties to discuss the
concerns central to each party. After a week of discussion, it became clear to City Staff
that both parties were too far apart to reach agreement. Staff’s reading of the Appellants’
position is that they believe that authorization from the legal holder of the easement is not
necessary and not required. To Mrs. Soong, there is a belief that reducing the vertical
height outlined in the easement agreement would hamper the ability to perform
emergency repairs or maintenance to the sewer line to her property, if ever needed.
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 (see Planning Commission Minutes dated February 11,
2025, Attachment E). The Planning Commission unanimously denied the appeal and
upheld the Director of Community Development determination of an incomplete
application related to RPVMC §17.49.030 based on the rationale described in Section 2
of the HYPERLINK "https://www.rpvca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/23249/PC-Resolution-No-2025-
01"Planning Commission Resolution and the information included in the Staff Report dated
February 11, 2025. The Planning Commission analysis of the appeal request found that
the Appellants’ position was inconsistent with the language of the easement and
inconsistent with the fact the Appellants previously entered into an easement
encroachment agreement with the holder of the easement related to the originally
approved project.(Attachment C) and the information included in the Staff Report dated
February 11, 2025 (Attachment D). The Planning Commission analysis of the appeal
request found that the Appellants’ position was inconsistent with the language of the
easement and inconsistent with the fact the Appellants previously entered into an
easement encroachment agreement with the holder of the easement related to the
originally approved project.
On February 25, 2025, the Appellants filed an Appeal to the City Council (Attachment B)
to the City Council. The Appeal was timely brought pursuant to RPVMC Chapter 17.80.
The grounds upon which Appellant requests the City Council to grant its appeal are
described in further detail in the “Discussion” section of this report as well as Staff’s
responses to the same.
DISCUSSION:
The Appellants are requesting that the City Council grant their appeal and overturn the
Planning Commission’s denial. Staff is recommending that the City Council deny the
appeal, thereby upholding the Planning Commission’s decision, based on the discussion
below.
8
De Novo Review
Notwithstanding the public hearing and determinations of the Planning Commission, the
appeal hearing before the City Council is what is known as a “de novo” hearing, meaning
the City Council will consider the evidence, documents, this Staff report, the testimony
and evidence presented during the City Council public hearing, and other materials from
the record of the previous consideration by the Planning Commission and the Community
Development Director and make its own independent determination as to the merits of
this appeal as required by RPVMC §17.80.070(F) which provides: "the City Council
appeal hearing is not limited to consideration of the materials presented to the Pla nning
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."
In conducting the appeal hearing, the City Council may:
1. Deny the appeal upon the finding that the applicable findings have been correctly
made with a determination of an incomplete development application, or
2. Grant the appeal in whole or partially, upon the finding that the applicable findings
have not been correctly made, with a determination that written authorization from
the legal holder of the easement is not a requirement for application completeness
pursuant to RPVMC §17.49.030(F).
Appellant’s Appeal Arguments
On February 24, 2025, the Appellants filed an Appeal letter (Attachment B) presenting
the following grounds. The Appellants’ grounds are outlined in bold text followed by
Staff’s responses.
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”.
The Planning Commission acted within its discretionary authority when it adopted P.C.
Resolution No. 2025-01. As detailed in the Planning Commission Staff Report dated
February 11, 2025, and Section 2 of P.C. Resolution No. 2025 -01, the rejection of the
Appellants' arguments and the rationale for the Planning Commission's decision are
clearly and concisely articulated.
The Appellants have failed to present evidence or arguments substantiating their claim
that the Planning Commission's decision violates California and Federal law. In this
respect, it could be anticipated that the Appellants' contention rests on a disagreement
between their interpretation of easement law and the Planning Commission ’s decision.
The City Attorney's Office had previously reviewed the Appellants' legal arguments
9
regarding easements before the public hearing. The City Attorney’s Office concluded that
the Planning Commission's review was specifically limited to determining whether the
Director's requirement of 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.
Appellants’ Ground for Appeal No. 2: The Appellants assert that the Planning
Commission’s decision was “erroneous and arbitrary”.
The Planning Commission’s decision was not erroneous and arbitrary. The Planning
Commission Staff Report dated February 11, 2025 (Attachment D) and Section 2 of P.C.
Resolution No. 2025-01 (Attachment C) clearly and concisely explain the rejection of the
Appellants’ argument points and the rationale of the Planning Commission’s decision.
The Appellants have not submitted evidence or provided detailed arguments to support
their claim that the Planning Commission’s decision is considered erroneous and
arbitrary. On the contrary, the Planning Commission’s decision is supported by
substantial evidence in the record where they made specific conclusions based on the
evidence that was presented in the Staff Report, late correspondence, and public
testimony. Furthermore, the Planning Commission 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 (ref. Section 2 of
P.C. Resolution No. 2025-01). In consideration of these documents, including the
language contained in RPVMC §17.49.030.F, the Planning Commission 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 Planning Commission’s decision to deny the appeal
was based on supportive evidence, rational decision making, and the relevant regulation
that pertains to the Appellants’ proposed development project.
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 Appellants fail to explain the reason they feel they were not given a fair opportunity
to be heard by the Planning Commission. Notwithstanding an explanation from the
Appellants as to what a “fair opportunity” means to them, the Appellants and their at torney
were given ample opportunity to provide evidence during the appeal process and were
provided a generous amount of time to provide testimony during the public hearing.
Specifically, the Public Notice dated January 16, 2025 explained to the Appellants certain
time periods, which were consistent with Planning Commission hearing protocols to
provide public correspondence and materials for the Planning Commission to consider.
In response, the Appellants submitted one item, an engineer’s opinion on sewer pipe
repairs, on February 5, 2025, which was reported to the Planning Commission as late
correspondence.
10
With respect to testimony, the Appellants’ attorney was provided 7 minutes of testimony,
was granted an extended 3 minutes of additional testimony, and was given 3-minute
rebuttal time during the February 11, 2025 public hearing. The Appellant, Dr. Mou and
the Appellants’ son also provided testimony at the public hearing with each being allotted
3 minutes to provide testimony. The Appellant, Mr. Zhang, attended the public hearing,
but declined to provide testimony. Note, the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure
allow the Appellants’ representative 5 minutes for presentation, the Appellants’
representative 3 minutes for rebuttal, and any interested party 3 minutes to speak. In sum,
the Appellants, collectively, were given more than usual time to provide testimony.
Based on the above discussion on the Appellants’ appeal points, Staff recommends the
City Council deny the appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to uphold the
Director of Community Development Department’s determination of an incomplete
application.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Planning Commission’s Attendance
Pursuant to City Council Policy No. 24 (Attachment R), the Chair of the Planning
Commission has been invited to attend the May 6th City Council meeting to provide
additional context related to the February 11, 2025 Planning Commission meeting, if
needed.
City Councilmember Proximity to Project Site
Councilmember Perestam resides within 500 feet of the project site. As such, it is
recommended that Councilmember Perestam recuse himself from the public hearing.
Public Notice
On April 17, 2025, a public notice was issued and published in the Palos Verdes
Peninsula News providing notification of the City Council’s review and consideration of
the appeal hearing.
Public Correspondence
Between March 17-19, 2025, Staff sent multiple emails (Attachment S) to the Appellants’
attorney stating that the grounds described in the appeal letter dated February 24, 2025
merely set forth the legal standard a court can use to evaluate the City Council’s decision
and that the appeal letter failed to provide specific or factual basis supporting the appeal.
Staff recommended written specifics supporting the appeal be submitted as early as
possible so Staff can incorporate the specifics with analysis in the Staff Report for the
benefit of the City Council. In response, the Appellants’ attorney sent multiple emails
(Attachment S) stating that no further written appeal grounds would be provided until after
11
April 29, 2025, which is the date when the Staff Report is posted online to the City’s
website.
On April 11, 2025, Staff received public correspondence (Attachment S) from Mrs. Soong,
the legal holder of the easement, requesting that the City Council deny the appeal and
uphold the Planning Commission’s decision and the Director of the Community
Development Department’s determination of an incomplete application (Attachment C).
She also requested that the Council enforce the RPVMC and render a decision without
delay.
On April 20, 2025, Staff received public correspondence (Attachment S) from Mr. Cullinan
at 3073 Crest Road requesting approval of the appeal because the City has too many
onerous rules that prevent fast completion of construction projects. He also requested
the Council render a decision without delay.
CONCLUSION
Based on the discussion contained herein, it is Staff’s recommendation that the City
Council deny the appeal and thereby upholding the Planning Commission’s determination
of an incomplete development application for proposed revisions to a Planning
Commission-approved project at 3015 Crest Road (Case No. PLHV2018-0003).
ALTERNATIVES
In addition to Staff’s recommendation, the following alternatives are available for the City
Council’s consideration:
1. Grant the appeal, upon the finding that the applicable findings have not been
correctly made, with a determination that written authorization from the legal holder
of the easement is not a requirement for application completeness pursuant to
RPVMC §17.49.030.F.
2. Provide staff with direction
12
01203.0005 2001019.1
Resolution No. 2025-__
Page 1 of 6
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-__
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 3015 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,
A-1
Resolution No. 2025-__
Page 2 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 pa ving 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
A-2
Resolution No. 2025-__
Page 3 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
heard and present evidence.
A-3
Resolution No. 2025-__
Page 4 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.
A-4
Resolution No. 2025-__
Page 5 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.
Section 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-__,
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.
A-5
Resolution No. 2025-__
Page 6 of 6
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of May 2025 by the following
vote:
David L. Bradley, Mayor
Attest:
Teresa Takaoka, 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-__, was duly adopted by the City Council of said City at
a regular meeting thereof held on May 6, 2025.
______________________
Teresa Takaoka, City Clerk
A-6