Scan to Public Drive

CITY OF

RANCHO PALOS VERDES

MEMORANDUM TO:

HONORABL

AYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS

FROM:

JOEL ROJAS, DIRECTOR

DATE:

OCTOBER 7, 2014

SUBJECT:

ADOPTION OF AN URGENCY ORDINANCE AND INTRODUCTION OF A NON-URGENCY ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH PENALTIES AND OTHER PERMIT RESTRICTIONS ON RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN ONGOING FOR 4 YEARS OR MORE

NITY DEVELOPMENT

REVIEWED:CAROLYNN PETRU, ACTING CITY

MANAGE~

RECOMMENDATION

1) ADOPT URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. _ _ , AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, REGARDING PROLONGED CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS THAT ARE ADVERSELY AFFECTING NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF; and, 2) INTRODUCE ORDINANCE NO._, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, REGARDING PROLONGED CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS THAT ARE ADVERSELY AFFECTING NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. BACKGROUND

In October 2012, a group of neighbors on Sea Ridge Circle, a small cul-de-sac within the Ocean Terrace tract, contacted the City about their frustrations and concerns with prolonged noise, dust and parking inconveniences caused by a residential construction project at 32039 Sea Ridge Circle (property owned by Mr. and Mrs. Anderson) that had been ongoing for several years. In November 2012, Staff and the City Attorney met with the neighbors to discuss their specific concerns. Staff informed the neighbors that at that . time, the City had no authority to stop the construction project or to stop issuing new permits for the project since the project was being constructed in accordance with the approved City permits. However, in an attempt to address the neighbor concerns, Staff notified the Andersons in writing in January 2013, that due to neighbor concerns, Staff would no longer approve any special construction permits that allowed work on holidays and Sundays and future extensions of certain permits would not be issued.

2-1

During 2013, Staff periodically visited the construction site to monitor progress and address any issues related to noise, trash and vehicle parking. In addition, then-Mayor Susan Brooks met with the Andersons and the neighbors to try to resolve the matter. During this time, the Andersons expressed their disappointment with the slow pace of construction but stated that they anticipated completion of the construction project by July 2013. At the end of July 2013, Staff assessed the project and concluded that the construction appeared to be months from completion. This was confirmed when the Andersons applied for and were issued a new permit on August 1, 2013, allowing the Andersons to continue the ongoing construction for an additional 18 months until February 1, 2015. As a result of these circumstances, Staff presented an Urgency Ordinance to the City Council on September 3, 2013, to establish certain permit restrictions on prolonged construction projects that have been under construction for 4 years or more where Staff has received written complaints from the neighbors about the prolonged construction project. Said Urgency Ordinance was ultimately adopted by the City Council on October 1, 2013, and a non-urgency version of the same ordinance was adopted on October 15, 2013. Last month, several residents on Sea Ridge Circle alerted staff and the City Council of several concerns with the continuing construction. Specifically, the residents noted that despite the City's ordinance adopted in October 2013 and assurances made by the Andersons that the project would be completed in early 2014, the construction continues to create noise and dust impacts to the neighbors. As a result, the neighbors requested that more be done by the City to end the construction. Given the situation, staff is presenting a status report on the Andersons' construction project, along with a proposed ordinance that imposes additional penalties and restrictions for extended construction projects. DISCUSSION

Action Taken by the City Council in 2013 When this matter was brought to the City Council in September 2013, the construction project at 32039 Sea Ridge Circle had just been issued their third permit to complete work that was initiated in 2009 (September 3, 2013 Staff Report is attached). In addition, the Andersons had been issued 12 separate permits (6 open permits at that time) over the years for a variety of associated projects on the property unrelated to the main construction project that was initiated in 2009. This occurred because as of that time, the City's Code did not limit the number of consecutive permits that the City can issue for the same construction project, nor did it limit the number of permits that can be issued at the same time. While prolonged construction projects like the Andersons' are extremely rare in the City, the impacts of such projects can be quite adverse to the neighbors. Therefore, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 549 in October 2013 (attached) that places certain restrictions on construction projects that have been ongoing for a period of at least four years and are adversely affecting adjacent properties based on submitted written requests. Specifically, the Ordinance prevents the City's Building Official from issuing new building permits for any new work or extending any existing permits until all work being performed pursuant to any open building permit has been completed and the City has issued a final approval of said permit. This provision does not apply to emergency work; work that is necessary to preserve the integrity of the structure; work that can be completed within the

2-2

same timeframe as any existing unexpired permit; or work, that in the opinion of the building official, will mitigate impacts to an adjacent property. Current Status of Project at 32039 Sea Ridge Circle Since October 2013, construction at the Andersons' property has continued uninterrupted and additional permit requests have been made by the Andersons during this time. Specifically, on December 2, 2013 and February 19, 2014, the Andersons requested and received approval of permits to install fire sprinklers. These two new permits were granted pursuant to Ordinance No. 549, as the Building Official determined that the permit work could be completed within the time frame of existing permits. Because of Ordinance No. 549, the Anderson's were not granted two separate new permit requests for solar panels and pool re-piping/re-i:>lastering. In addition, an expired permit for completing some interior work was not extended. At the present time, the Andersons have 3 open permits all of which are set to expire on February 15, 2015. A summary of the open permits is attached. The new restrictions imposed by Ordinance No. 549 have had some effect. By not extending a permit associated with interior work (since Staff saw no benefit to the adjacent neighbors of extending said permit}, the exterior work at the Anderson's property progressed and is almost complete. Overall, the Building Official estimates that approximately 80% of the overall work has been completed and should be completed and finaled by the current February 15, 2015 permit expiration deadline. Continued Neighbor Concerns Although much construction progress has been made since October 2013, the neighbors continue to be aggravated by the ongoing construction. Last month, Staff and the City Council received several items of correspondence from Sea Ridge Circle residents expressing their frustration about the continued construction, citing specific examples of noise impacts (see attached correspondence). Based on the submitted correspondence, the residents believe that despite assurances made by the Andersons about the project's completion and the City's Ordinance No. 549, the project continues with no end in sight. Thus, the residents are requesting that the City adopt an additional ordinance that would impose more severe penalties if projects are not completed within certain time frames. Some residents have provided examples to Staff of such ordinances that exist in other cities. The Andersons' Position On September 18, 2014, Staff met with the Andersons at their property and informed them that the subject of prolonged construction and their project was again be~ng placed on the agenda for tonight's City Council meeting. The Andersons communicated that much of the delay was the direct result of their former contractor and his employees and from a continuing water intrusion problem flowing onto their property from their neighbor's property. The Andersons also informed Staff that they have experienced delays in the project because they were denied an extension to complete interior work and because new permits for solar photovoltaic, and pool re-piping I re-plastering were denied. Thus, the Anderson's have expressed their desire and need to obtain additional solar and pool remodel permits. They communicated that if these permits were to be granted, they could complete that work and fill the open trenches by the February expiration date.

2-3

Under Ordinance No. 549, the additional new permits sought by the Anderson's to finish the interior work, install solar photovoltaic panels and re-pipe/re-plaster the pool may only be granted under certain conditions. One of those conditions is whether the work associated with the new permits can be completed within the same timeframe as any existing unexpired permit. Given that the Anderson's have committed to completing said new permit work by the February 15, 2015 deadline, and the Building Official agrees that the nature of said work can be completed by the deadline, the Building Official intends to issue the new permits sought by the Andersons and set the expiration of these new permits to coincide with the February 15, 2015 deadline. This will also benefit the neighbors as it would avoid the Anderson's requesting these permits after completion of the current projects which would prolong construction activity on the property past February 15, 2015. Proposed Ordinance Imposing Penalties and Additional Restrictions for Prolonged Construction Projects (4 years or more) While it is possible that the Andersons' project may be completed soon, given the poor track record and the adverse impacts experienced by the neighbors for the last several years, Staff has conducted research and reviewed Codes and Ordinances adopted by other agencies that impose severe penalties and restrictions on applicants of prolonged construction projects. While prolonged construction projects like the Andersons' project are extremely rare in the City, Staff agrees that the construction impacts of such projects can be quite adverse to the neighbors. Thus, Staff and the City Attorney believe that a stricter City ordinance that is targeted at prolonged projects (4 years or more) would help avoid such projects in the future and not affect most of the residential construction projects that occur regularly throughout the City. As a result, Staff and the City Attorney have drafted a proposed City Ordinance (attached) that would impose financial penalties and other restrictions on applicants of construction projects that continue for more than 4 years. Staff is targeting construction projects that have been ongoing for 4 years or more because that is the threshold agreed upon by the Council for the current permit restrictions imposed by Ordinance No. 549 which was adopted last year. If so desired bythe Council, the threshold forthe new restrictions can be applied to construction projects with shorter or longer durations. Specifically, the proposed ordinance would do the following: 1) Require applicants to establish a construction completion deposit. Before a new building permit is issued for a project that has been under construction for at least 4 years, the applicant must submit a refundable deposit based on the square footage of the work as determined by the City's Building Official. If the project is completed within the permit time limits established by Code, the completion deposit is refunded to the applicant. If the project is not completed within the permit time limit, the deposit will be incrementally forfeited to the City for the period of time the project was not timely completed. 2) Establish penalties for the period of time that a construction project remains incomplete beyond the permit time frame. Unless directed otherwise by the City Council, as currently written, the proposed ordinance imposes no penalty for the first thirty days that a construction project remains in complete. The proposed penalties would be $250 per day for the 31st through 60th day that a

2-4

construction project remains incomplete, $500 per day for the 61 51 through 1201h day, and $2,000 per day for the 121 51 day and beyond. The penalties would be debited from the applicant's construction completion deposit described above. 3) Require an 18-month "Quiet Period" between a prolonged construction project (duration of 4 years or more) and the issuance of any new construction permits. This would provide neighbors with a welcome break in the construction activity. Certain permits could be issued during the "quiet period" provided the City's Building Official determines that the issuance of said permit will not harm or adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood in terms of parking, noise and other environmental impacts. Applicability It is Staff's intent to make the proposed Ordinance applicable to all current and future residential construction projects whereby construction has been performed pursuant to one or more unexpired permits for a period of at least four years. FISCAL IMPACT

There is no fiscal impact as a result of adopting the proposed ordinance. CONCLUSION

Although most residential construction projects are completed within the time frame established by the initial permit, there are rare occasions that residential construction projects may go on for years due to unique circumstances. The construction impacts of such projects can be quite adverse to the neighbors. As a result, Staff and the City Attorney have drafted an ordinance targeted at truly prolonged projects which establishes financial penalties and other permit restrictions on residential properties under continuous construction for 4 years or more which are adversely affecting adjacent properties. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the urgency ordinance and introduce the nonurgency version of said ordinance. Attachments •Urgency Ordinance No. _U •Ordinance No. •September 3, 2013 City Council Staff Report •Ordinance No. 549 •32039 Sea Ridge Circle Chronology •Public Correspondence

2-5

ORDINANCE NO. _U AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES REGARDING PROLONGED CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS THAT ARE ADVERSELY AFFECTING NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF RECITALS 1. When permitted construction projects are commenced by property owners, they typically are completed within the periods of time specified in the Municipal Code. It is not unusual, however, for a substantial construction project to require the issuance of a permit extension and the issuance of a subsequent building permit and extension, which means that a project can be under construction for more than two years. 2. There is at least one project in the City that has been ongoing for more than four years, with permits for the same work having been extended and reissued on several occasions. The property owners continue to apply for more permits from the City and still have not completed work that had already commenced. This project has been ongoing for more than four years and has been disrupting the neighbors' ability to enjoy their properties for that time and has become a nuisance. 3. The City Council previously adopted an ordinance to address this situation, but the construction on that project still has not been completed, even though an additional year has passed. 4. It is necessary to adopt another urgency ordinance that will amend the Municipal Code to address these unusual circumstances to impose financial penalties, to require the payment of a deposit to cover the penalties and to impose a hiatus on issuance of subsequent permits at the property so the neighbors' ability to enjoy their properties will not continue to be adversely affected and their ability to enjoy their properties will be restored. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

R6876-0001\l 755236v2.doc

2-6

Section 1. Title 15 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding new chapter 15.46 thereto to read as follows: Chapter 15.46 TIME LIMITS FOR COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION* Sections: 15.46.010 Short title. 15.46.020 Purpose. 15.46.030 Application. 15.46.040 Construction completion. 15.46.050 Time limits for construction completion. 15.46.060 Other time limits. 15.46.070 Effect of failure to comply with time limits for construction completion. 15.46.080 Construction completion deposit. 15.46.090 Appeal of penalties. 15.46.100 Administration and enforcement.

15.46.010 Short title. This chapter shall be known as the "Construction Completion Chapter." 15.46.020 Purpose. It is the intent of this chapter to provide a mechanism to require property owners seeking to improve their properties to complete said construction in a reasonable amount of time as provided in the code. The goal is to ensure neighbors and neighborhoods quality of life is maintained and activities associated with construction such as increased noise, traffic and associated impacts are managed in a way to ensure construction is completed in a timely way. 15.46.030 Application. This chapter shall apply to construction projects, including all additions, alterations, modifications, repairs, and improvements, performed pursuant to one or more unexpired building permits for a period of at least four years and are adversely affecting adjacent

-21755553vl

2-7

properties or the owners or occupants thereof, as documented in written complaints submitted to the building official or director of community development, referred to as "applicable work." The obligations imposed by this chapter to timely complete construction and pay all penalties for construction not timely completed shall run with the land and apply not only to the original building permit property owner applicant but to all subsequent owners of the subject property until all obligations imposed by this chapter are fully satisfied. 15.46.040 Construction completion. For the purposes of this chapter, construction shall be deemed complete upon the satisfactory performance of all construction work, including but limited to compliance with all conditions of application approval and the clearing and cleaning of all construction-related materials and debris from the site, and the final inspection and written approval of the applicable work by the City building official. 15.46.050 Time limits for construction completion. The maximum time for completion of construction shall not exceed the time periods set forth in Section 15.18.050 of this Code 15.46.060 Other time limits. No building permit shall be issued within eighteen months of final inspection or expiration of an antecedent building permit unless the building official determines that the earlier issuance of a building permit will not harm or adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood. In making this determination, the building official shall consider traffic, parking, noise and other environmental impacts on the neighborhood from waiving the eighteen month waiting period and the visual, drainage, safety and other environmental impacts of any uncompleted construction. 15.46.070 Effect of failure to comply with time limits for construction completion. (a) Upon failure of a property owner to complete construction of a project that is subject to the provisions of this chapter, as set forth in Section 15.46.030, by the time limits established in Section 15.18.050, the following penalties shall apply: (1) For the first thirty days that the project remains incomplete the City shall not impose a penalty. (2) For the thirty-first through sixtieth days that the project remains incomplete, the City shall impose a penalty of two hundred fifty dollars ($250) per day. (3) For the sixty-first through the one hundred twentieth days that the project remains incomplete, the City shall impose a penalty of five hundred dollars ($500) per day.

-31755553vl

2-8

(4) For the one hundred twenty-first day, and any additional days thereafter that the project remains incomplete, the City shall impose a penalty of two thousand dollars ($2,000) per day. (b) Penalties, fees, and costs due to the City pursuant to this chapter shall accrue for each day the project exceeds the construction completion deadline. (c) Upon failure of a property owner to complete construction by the time limits established by this chapter, the building permit shall expire, and the building official shall cause all work at the site for such construction to cease and shall require the submission of an additional construction completion deposit in excess of the amount provided by Section 15.46.080 to ensure that all penalties related to the late construction are fully paid to the City. The amount of the additional deposit shall be computed by the building official's estimate of the amount of time that will be required to complete the construction and the amount of the penalties that will accrue during this time period. The building official may impose additional conditions on the building permit to mitigate any adverse impacts on the surrounding area due to the continued construction. Upon the submission of the additional deposit and new permit fees, the building official may reissue the building permit, and the property owner may recommence work under the permit in accordance with its terms. (d) The building official may declare construction abandoned after the building permit expires and construction activities on the subject property cease for a period of more than 180 days. At that time, the building official may impose conditions requiring remedial measures to be implemented by the property owner that clean-up the site, remove any hazardous or unsightly conditions, and restore the property and all improvements on the property to an attractive condition. The building official shall send written notice to the property owner that abandonment has been declared. This notice also shall state the penalties incurred to the date of the notice. Penalties will continue to accrue when construction has been abandoned until all remedial measures required by the building official have been completed to the satisfaction of the building official. (e) It is declared that any violation of the provisions of this chapter shall, in addition to any other remedy, constitute a public nuisance, and such nuisance may be abated as provided by law. 15.46.080 Construction completion deposit. (a) Before a new building permit may be issued, the property owner shall deliver to the building department a refundable deposit based on the estimated square footage of the work as determined by the building official. The deposit shall be as follows: 1) for projects with an estimated square footage of up to 5000 square feet, the deposit shall be ten thousand dollars ($10,000); 2) for projects with an estimated square footage between 5,000 to 10,000 square feet, the deposit shall be twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000); and for projects with an estimated square footage above 10,000 square feet, the deposit shall be fifty thousand dollars ($50,000).

-41755553vl

2-9

(b) When construction is completed within the time limits provided herein, the construction completion deposit shall be refunded to the property owner. (c) Upon failure of a property owner to complete construction by the time limits established in this chapter, the deposit shall be incrementally forfeited to the City for the period of time that construction was not timely completed. The Director of Community Development may waive the imposition of penalties if he or she determines that all construction activities were timely completed but the final inspections by City staff were delayed for reasons not due to the fault of the property owner. 15.46.090 Appeal of penalties. (a) A penalty imposed pursuant to this section may be appealed to the City Council on the grounds that the property owners were unable to comply with the construction time limit for reasons beyond the control of themselves and their representatives. (1) For purposes of this section, the grounds for appeal shall include, but not be limited to: labor stoppages; acts of war or terrorism; natural disasters, presence of endangered species and unforeseen discovery of archaeological remains on the building site. (2) For purposes of this section, the grounds for appeal shall not include: delays caused by the winter-rainy season; the use of custom and/or imported materials; the use of highly specialized subcontractors; significant, numerous·, or late design changes; access difficulties associated with the site; failure of materials suppliers to provide such materials in a timely manner; or delays associated with project financing. (b) An appeal of penalties made pursuant to this section shall be filed in writing with the city clerk within ten calendar days from the date of construction completion, the date that a notice of abandonment is sent to the property owner pursuant to Section 15.46.0?0(c), or the date that the building official determines that the required remedial measures have been completed satisfactorily along with payment of an appeal fee as established by a resolution adopted by the City Council. The City Council will hold a hearing on the appeal and shall affirm, modify, or cancel the penalty. (c) When appealing penalties assessed pursuant to this chapter, the appellant shall submit documentary and other evidence sufficient to establish that design decisions, construction drawings and documents, bids and construction contracts, permit applications, and compliance with all required permit conditions were undertaken in a diligent and timely manner. Required documentary and other evidence shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Council that construction delays resulted from circumstances fully out of his or her control and despite diligent and clearly documented efforts to achieve construction completion within those time limits established in this chapter. Penalties made pursuant to this section shall not be modified or cancelled unless the evidence required in this section is submitted at the time of appeal. 15.46.100 Administration and enforcement.

-51755553vl

2-10

(a) The full amount of construction completion penalties due the City under Section 15.46.070 shall be due immediately upon the completion of the construction project or the required remedial measures when abandonment has been declared and the City's subsequent determination of the penalty amount. The City shall notify the property owner by mail of the number of days the project remained unfinished beyond the time limit for completion of construction established by Section 15.46.050 and the resulting penalty amount owed to the City. Any penalty amount in excess of the construction completion deposit shall be paid within 30 days of the date of mailing the letter by first class mail to the property owner. Any penalty amount not paid within 30 days shall be subject to an additional 10% (ten percent) penalty. (b) Any amount in excess of the sum deposited with the City as a construction completion deposit and due to the City by property owner(s) as a result of violation of the provisions of this chapter, including all penalties and interest as provided in subsection (b) above, is not only a personal debt owed to the City by the owner(s) of the subject property but also is an obligation that runs with the land and all subsequent owners of the property pursuant to Section 15.46.030. In addition to all other means of enforcement and collection, any unpaid penalties and interest may be collected through the placement of a lien against the subject real property in the manner provided by law for the collection of costs related to the abatement of a nuisance. (c) The provisions of this chapter shall not be the exclusive remedy for addressing delayed completion of construction. In addition to the remedies provided by this chapter, the City may pursue any other actions and remedies provided by law including but not limited to nuisance abatement proceedings. Section 2. There is at least one construction project in the City that has been ongoing for more than four years, with permits for the same work having been extended and reissued on several occasions. The property owners continue to apply for more permits from the City and still have not completed work that they already had commenced. This project has been ongoing for more than four years and has been disrupting the neighbors' ability to enjoy their properties during that time and has become a nuisance. After this issue was brought to the City Council's attention, the City Council adopted an ordinance to address this situation, but the construction on that project still has not been completed, although an additional year has passed. Thus, it is necessary to adopt an urgency ordinance that will amend the Municipal Code immediately to address these unusual circumstances so that financial penalties will be imposed; to require the payment of a deposit to cover the penalties, and to impose a hiatus on issuance of subsequent permits at the property, so the neighbors' ability to enjoy their properties will not continue to be adversely affected and their ability to enjoy their properties will be restored. Therefore, this ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, safety and welfare and shall take effect immediately upon adoption as an urgency ordinance. Section 3. 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.the provisions of Section 36933 of the Government Code. The City Clerk shall further

-61755553vl

2-11

certify to the adoption and posting of this Ordinance, and shall cause this Ordinance and its certification, together with proof of posting, to be entered in the Book of Ordinances of the Council of this City. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this_ of October 2014.

Mayor 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 numbers of the City Council of said City is five; that the foregoing Ordinance No. _was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting thereof held on , 2014 by the following vote:

AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINED: City Clerk

-71755553vl

2-12

ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES REGARDING PROLONGED CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS THAT ARE ADVERSELY AFFECTING NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Title 15 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding new chapter 15.46 thereto to read as follows: Chapter 15.46 TIME LIMITS FOR COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION* Sections: 15.46.010 Short title. 15.46.020 Purpose. 15.46.030 Application. 15.46.040 Construction completion. 15.46.050 Time limits for construction completion. 15.46.060 Other time limits. 15.46.070 Effect of failure to comply with time limits for construction completion. 15.46.080 Construction completion deposit. 15.46.090 Appeal of penalties. 15.46.100 Administration and enforcement.

15.46.010 Short title. This chapter shall be known as the "Construction Completion Chapter." 15.46.020 Purpose. It is the intent of this chapter to provide a mechanism to require property owners seeking to improve their properties to complete said construction in a reasonable amount of time as provided in the code. The goal is to ensure neighbors and

R6876-000l\1755236v2.doc

2-13

neighborhoods quality of life is maintained and activities associated with construction such as increased noise, traffic and associated impacts are managed in a way to ensure construction is completed in a timely way. 15.46.030 Application. This chapter shall apply to construction projects, including all additions, alterations, modifications, repairs, and improvements, performed pursuant to one or more unexpired building permits for a period of at least four years and are adversely affecting adjacent properties or the owners or occupants thereof, as documented in written complaints submitted to the building official or director of community development, referred to as "applicable work." The obligations imposed by this chapter to timely complete construction and pay all penalties for construction not timely completed shall run with the land and apply not only to the original building permit property owner applicant but to all sub~equent owners of the subject property until all obligations imposed by this chapter are fully satisfied. 15.46.040 Construction completion. For the purposes of this chapter, construction shall be deemed complete upon the satisfactory performance of all construction work, including but limited to compliance with all conditions of application approval and the clearing and cleaning of all construction-related materials and debris from the site, and the final inspection and written approval of the applicable work by the City building official. 15.46.050 Time limits for construction completion. The maximum time for completion of construction shall not exceed the time periods set forth in Section 15.18.050 of this Code 15.46.060 Other time limits. No building permit shall be issued within eighteen months of final inspection or expiration of an antecedent building permit unless the building official determines that the earlier issuance of a building permit will not harm or adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood. In making this determination, the building official shall consider traffic, parking, noise and other environmental impacts on the neighborhood from waiving the eighteen month waiting period and the visual, drainage, safety and other environmental impacts of any uncompleted construction. 15.46.070 Effect of failure to comply with time limits for construction completion. (a) Upon failure of a property owner to complete construction of a project that is subject to the provisions of this chapter, as set forth in Section 15.46.030, by the time limits established in Section 15.18.050, the following penalties shall apply: (1) For the first thirty days that the project remains incomplete the City shall not impose a penalty.

-2R6876-000l\l 755236v2.doc

2-14

(2) For the thirty-first through sixtieth days that the project remains incomplete, the City shall impose a penalty of two hundred fifty dollars ($250) per day. (3) For the sixty-first through the one hundred twentieth days that the project remains incomplete, the City shall impose a penalty of five hundred dollars ($500) per day. (4) For the one hundred twenty-first day, and any additional days thereafter that the project remains incomplete, the City shall impose a penalty of two thousand dollars ($2,000) per day. (b) Penalties, fees, and costs due to the City pursuant to this chapter shall accrue for each day the project exceeds the construction completion deadline. (c) Upon failure of a property owner to complete construction by the time limits established by this chapter, the building permit shall expire and the building official shall cause all work at the site for such construction to cease and shall require the submission of an additional construction completion deposit in excess of the amount provided by Section 15.46.080 to ensure that all penalties related to the late construction are fully paid to the City. The amount of the additional deposit shall be computed by the building official's estimate of the amount of time that will be required to complete the construction and the amount of the penalties that will accrue during this time period. The building official may impose additional conditions on the building permit to mitigate any adverse impacts on the surrounding area due to the continued construction. Upon the submission of the additional deposit and new permit fees, the building official may reissue the building permit, and the property owner may recommence work under the permit in accordance with its terms. (d) The building official may declare construction abandoned after the building permit expires and construction activities on the subject property cease for a period of more than 180 days. At that time, the building official may impose conditions requiring remedial measures to be implemented by the property owner that clean-up the site, remove any hazardous or unsightly conditions, and restore the property and all improvements on the property to an attractive condition. The building official shall send written notice to the property owner that abandonment has been declared. This notice also shall state the penalties incurred to the date of the notice. Penalties will continue to accrue when construction has been abandoned until all remedial measures required by the building official have been completed to the satisfaction of the building official. (e) It is declared that any violation of the provisions of this chapter shall, in addition to any other remedy, constitute a public nuisance, and such nuisance may be abated as provided by law. 15.46.080 Construction completion deposit. (a) Before a new building permit may be issued, the property owner shall deliver to the building department a refundable deposit based on the estimated square footage of the work as determined by the building official. The deposit shall be as follows: 1) for

-3R6876-000I \l 755236v2.doc

2-15

projects with an estimated square footage of up to 5000 square feet, the deposit shall be ten thousand dollars ($10,000); 2) for projects with an estimated square footage between 5,000 to 10,000 square feet, the deposit shall be twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000); and for projects with an estimated square footage above 10,000 square feet, the deposit shall be fifty thousand dollars ($50,000). (b) When construction is completed within the time limits provided herein, the construction completion deposit shall be refunded to the property owner. (c) Upon failure of a property owner to complete construction by the time limits established in this chapter, the deposit shall be incrementally forfeited to the City for the period of time that construction was not timely completed. The Director of Community Development may waive the imposition of penalties if he or she determines that all construction activities were timely completed but the final inspections by City staff were delayed for reasons not due to the fault of the property owner. 15.46.090 Appeal of penalties. (a) A penalty imposed pursuant to this section may be appealed to the City Council on the grounds that the property owners were unable to comply with the construction time limit for reasons beyond the control of themselves and their representatives. (1) For purposes of this section, the grounds for appeal shall include, but not be limited to: labor stoppages; acts of war or terrorism; natural disasters, presence of endangered species and unforeseen discovery of archaeological remains on the building site. (2) For purposes of this section, the grounds for appeal shall not include: delays caused by the winter-rainy season; the use of custom and/or imported materials; the use of highly specialized subcontractors; significant, numerous, or late design changes; access difficulties associated with the site; failure of materials suppliers to provide such materials in a timely manner; or delays associated with project financing. (b) An appeal of penalties made pursuant to this section shall be filed in writing with the city clerk within ten calendar days from the date of construction completion, the date that a notice of abandonment is sent to the property owner pursuant to Section 15.46.0?0(c), or the date that the building official determines that the required remedial measures have been completed satisfactorily along with payment of an appeal fee as established by a resolution adopted by the City Council. The City Council will hold a hearing on the appeal and shall affirm, modify, or cancel the penalty. (c) When appealing penalties assessed pursuant to this chapter, the appellant shall submit documentary and other evidence sufficient to establish that design decisions, construction drawings and documents, bids and construction contracts, permit applications, and compliance with all required permit conditions were undertaken in a diligent and timely manner. Required documentary and other evidence shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Council that construction delays resulted from circumstances fully out of his or her control and despite diligent and clearly documented

-4R6876-000J \J 755236v2.doc

2-16

efforts to achieve construction completion within those time limits established in this chapter. Penalties made pursuant to this section shall not be modified or cancelled unless the evidence required in this section is submitted at the time of appeal. 15.46.100 Administration and enforcement. (a) The full amount of construction completion penalties due the City under Section 15.46.070 shall be due immediately upon the completion of the construction project or the required remedial measures when abandonment has been declared and the City's subsequent determination of the penalty amount. The City shall notify the property owner by mail of the number of days the project remained unfinished beyond the time limit for completion of construction established by Section 15.46.050 and the resulting penalty amount owed to the City. Any penalty amount in excess of the construction completion deposit shall be paid within 30 days of the date of mailing the letter by first class ma!I to the property owner. Any penalty amount not paid within 30 days shall be subject to an additional 10% (ten percent) penalty. (b) Any amount in excess of the sum deposited with the City as a construction completion deposit and due to the City by property owner(s) as a result of violation of the provisions of this chapter, including all penalties and interest as provided in subsection (b) above, is not only a personal debt owed to the City by the owner(s) of the subject property but also is an obligation that runs with the land and all subsequent owners of the property pursuant to Section 15.46.030. In addition to all other means of enforcement and collection, any unpaid penalties and interest may be collected through the placement of a lien against the subject real property in the manner provided by law for the collection of costs related to the abatement of a nuisance. (c) The provisions of this chapter shall not be the exclusive remedy for addressing delayed completion of construction. In addition to the remedies provided by this chapter, the City may pursue any other actions and remedies provided by law including but not limited to nuisance abatement proceedings.

Section 2. 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 the provisions of 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 its certification, together with proof of posting, to be entered in the Book of Ordinances of the Council of this City. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this

7th

day of October 2014.

Mayor ATTEST:

-5R6876-000J\l 755236v2.doc

2-17

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 numbers of the City Council of said City is five; that the foregoing Ordinance No. _was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting thereof held on , 2014 by the following vote:

AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINED: City Clerk

-6R6876-0001 \1755236v2.doc

2-18

CITY OF MEMORANDUM TO:

HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS

FROM:

JOEL ROJAS, DIRECTOR

CO~N~ DEVELOPMENT

u

v

DATE:

SEPTEMBER 3, 2013

SUBJECT:

ADOPTION OF AN URGENCY ORDINANCE AND INTRODUCTION OF A NON-URGENCY ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH CERTAIN PERMIT RESTRICTIONS ON RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN ONGOING FOR 4 YEARS OR MORE

REVIEWED:CAROLYN LEHR, CITY MANAGER®-Rx- ; dora; Randy; Joel Rojas; Greg Pf0~ t: Ara l\lihranian; CC; wanpingyuyu; Rob Kautz; Danise Holloway; Carol Lynch >

Subject: Continuing Construction by the Andersons on Sea Ridge Circle in Rancho Palos Verdes Dear Council l\kmbers of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, On Sept em her I, 2013, Dr. Joseph Anderson stood before you and said that he would be finished wi'.h construction on his house on Sea Ridge Circle in Rancho Palos Verdes "within a month or t\\'tl

11 •

It :" no\\' a year later and construction continues at full force despite a Resolution passed by the Cty Council stating that no new permits would be issued if the construction on existing pennits wa" not completed on projects that have gone on for more than four years. We are aware that the Ci~y gave a !.JO d

4

2-40

Paul Christman From:

Sent: To:

Cc: Subject:

Paul Christman Tuesday, September 16, 2014 5:16 PM Dora Ngan Carol Lynch ; Joel Rojas; Ara Mihranian; Sandra Ishman; Tom Defazio; Andrew Jensen; Carolynn Petru; Paul Christman RE: Continuing Construction by the Andersons on Sea Ridge Circle in Rancho Palos Verdes

Hi Dora No new permits were issued and you are correct that one did recently expire. They still have 3 older permits that allow work to be done up until February. We will be visiting the: site Thursday morning to take a look. At the meeting I mentioned below, the matter will be discussed and considered. Your input is valuable and very much important. This issue is of significance to us which is why it is on the agenda.

We have and are considering modifying more of our codes in an attempt to address this project, and any others like it that may arise in the future. Thanks, Paul

From: Dora Ngan [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 2:54 PM To: Paul Christman; Ross, Bruce; Susan Brooks; Jerry Duhovic; Anthony Misetich; Jim Knight; Brian campbell CC: Ross, Randy Ellen; [email protected]; dora; Randy; Joel Rojas; Greg Pfost; Ara Mlhranlan; CC; wanpingyuyu; Rob Kautz; Oanise Holloway; Carol Lynch ; carolynn Petru; Ara Mlhranian; Sandra Ishman; Tom DeFazio; Andrew Jensen SUbject: RE: Continuing Construction by the Andersons on Sea Ridge Cirde in Rancho Palos Verdes Hi Paul,

I thought the cor~ wrote: Hi Bruce,

I wanted tr1 let y":: ~~r '.w that Staff has been researching other cities Ordinances, along with some additional informativn that we received related to the length of time allowed and penalties for certain ongoing construction projects.

Staff has rn0t v 1ith the City Manager and the City Attorney, and intends to present recommendations to the City Council at the Tues:!;;iy October 7th City Council Meeting.

1

2-44

You requested to be informed of what additional action is proposed. The Staff report and proposals for consideration by the Council will be made available for all to review by the Thursday (10/2/14) before the meeting.

Thanks, Paul

From: Ross, Bruce [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 3:36 PM To: Susan Brooks; Jerry Duhovic; Anthony Misetich; Jim Knight; Brian Campbell Cc: Paul Christman; Dora Ngan; Ross, Randy Ellen; [email protected]; dora; Randy; Joel Rojas; Greg Pfost; Ara Mihranian; CC; wanpingyuyu; Rob Kautz; Danise Holloway; Carol Lynch Subject: Continuing Construction by the Andersons on Sea Ridge Circle in Rancho Palos Verdes

Dear Council Members of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, On September 1, 2013, Dr. Joseph Anderson stood before you and said that he would be finished with construction on his house on Sea Ridge Circle in Rancho Palos Verdes "within a month or two". It is now a year later and construction continues at full force despite a Resolution passed by the City Council stating that no new permits would be issued if the construction on existing permits was not completed on projects that have gone on for more than four years. We are aware that the City gave a 90 day extension in January of 2014, but that is long passed as well. Those of us who have lived through the more than five years of construction on the Anderson house have been told often that Dr. Anderson was going to be done In a month or two. As has been proven throug!1 the Council's own experience, these statements cannot be relied upon. We bel!cve that now is the time the Council must take additional action. We suggest the following possibilities: First, the Council could pass an ordinance imposing a penalty for every day until the Andersons complete construction of the projects they have undertaken. Second, the Council can seek to put Into place a receiver or other professional to manage the construction to its completion. Leavin: the matters in the discretion of the Andersons and on their timeline has proven to be unacc' .·table. · Please let us know what additional action you propose taking. Since it has been a full year since the matter v.1as taken up before you, It is clear that action at this time is required. Bruce L. Ross 32026

~ea

Ridge Circle

Raner"' Palos Verdes, CA 90275

310-Sl ':8881

2

2-45

Paul Christman From: Sent: To: Cc:

Subject:

Carol W. Lynch Friday, September 05, 2014 6:50 PM 'Rob Kautz' Anthony Misetich; Susan Brooks; Jerry Duhovic; Brian Campbell; Jim Knight Carolynn Petru; Paul Christman; Joel Rojas; Ara Mihranian RE: Continuing Construction by the Andersons on Sea Ridge Circle in Rancho Palos Verdes

Thank you so much for providing these examples. Staff and I will review these examples as well as some of the examples that I found and present options to the City Council.

From: Rob Kautz [mailto:[email protected]]

sent: Friday, September OS, 2014 6:33 PM To: carol W. Lynch Cc: Anthony Misetich; Susan Brooks; Jeny Duhovic; Brian campbell; Jim Knight; carolynn Petru; Paul Christman; Joel Rojas; Ara Mihranian Subject: Re: Continuing Construction by the Andersons on Sea Ridge Circle in Rancho Palos Verdes

Hi Carol, I appreciate that you are researching various municipal codes, and wanted to provide this additional infonnation to further your efforts. Unfortunately, I have not located the name of the individual that I originally mentioned as of yet, but the better half in our household (my wife Danise) already went online and found an excellent example in the San Bruno municipal code here in California. The attachment to this email from the San Bruno code is nice in that it is a stand alone section which addresses nearly all the issues around time limits, and it could be adapted to an existing code relatively easily. It takes a simpler approach to defining and calculating the fines than what I was originally suggesting, and it is fairer in that the maximum construction time is set based on the size of the job, with a range from 12 months for smaller projects up to 36 months for projects exceeding $3 million. The fmes are material and start at $200 per day and increase to $1000 per day after 120 days with a cap of $250,000. In addition, the attachment from Atherton is a nice example of a one page notification that can be done when pennits are pulled to avoid misunderstanding. I also found it interesting that Atherton defines the time limit based on the square footage involved in the project rather than the project cost. The square footage would be more easily detennined by the building department; the project cost may be a more reliable indicator of construction complexity which often drives the timelinc in constmction. I hope these examples will be helpful in detennining the right approach for RPV. My main concern would be to have an cffccti\-c deterrent which I believe requires a material penalty. Regards. Rob

1

2-46

On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Carol W. Lynch wrote: We certainly do ncit v:lsh to impose on your time and can do some global research on line.

From: Rob K [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 2:27 PM To: carol W. Lynch Cc: Anthony Misetich; Susan Brooks; Jerry Duhovic; Brian campbell; Jim Knight; carolynn Petru; Paul Christman; Joel Rojas; Ara Mlhranian

Subject: Re: Continuing Construction by the Andersons on Sea Ridge Circle in Rancho Palos Verdes

Carol,

Thank you for your interest.

I do not know the name off hand, but I may be able to find out. It was a few years ago in a town back east, and I will have to sec if I can reconnect with th,em and then get back to you.

In tem1s of how this might apply to the Andersons, I would suggest looking at including a remediation provision to address unreasonable construction existing at the time the rules are enacted.

Regards,

Rob

On Sep 5, 2014, at 12:34 PM, 11 Carol W. Lynch" wrote: 2

2-47

Hello Mr. Kautz:

Please let me introduce myself. My name is Carol Lynch, and l am the City Attorney for Rancho Palos Verdes.

We had hoped, based on representations from the Andersons and the ordinance that the Council approved previously, that this project would have been completed by now. Obviously, this is not the case.

I thought your discussion of the content of the ordinance that your co-worker mentioned was very interestjng. Do you happen to know the municipality to which your co-worker was referring? I imagine that I would be able to obtain a copy of that ordinance so we could evaluate its effectiveness to the Anderson sit u;Jtion, as well as to other similar situations that may arise in the future, and present options for consideration by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council.

Regards,

Carol Lynch

From: Rob K [mailto:[email protected]]

sent: Friday, September OS, 201412:05 PM To: Anthony Misetich; Susan Brooks; Jerry Duhovic; Brian campbell; Jim Knight Cc: Ross, Bruce; Paul Christman; Dora Ngan; Ross, Randy Ellen; [email protected]; dora; Randy; Joel Rojas; Greg Pfost; Ara Mihranlan; CC; wanplngyuyu; Danise Holloway; carol w. Lynch Subje'"'':~ Re: Continuing Construction by the Andersons on Sea Ridge Orcle in Rancho Palos Verdes

Dear Counci [ Members:

My wi r\? and I moved into our home at 32072 Pacifica Drive a little over three years ago. We are dircc: ~_'across the ravine from the southeast side of the Andersons' home and appreciate the effo11s made to date to bring this construction saga to a close.

3

2-48

I would like to provide some additional insight into the situation and a specific example from my experience for potential city council action that would prevent this type of situation from developing in the future.

For three years we have been looking at debris and construction materials scattered across the rear slope of the Andersons' yard and piled on the rear patio. Starting approximately eighteen months ago, we started hearing the sound of sawing stone using what appear to be a table saw on the rear patio. This is a plainly audible screeching sound which causes us to close all the windows and refrain from using our back porch occurring 3-4 days each week, including most Saturdays, for over a year. It has become a joke with people who do work around our house as to whether it will be a peaceful or annoying day depending on whether the stone fabrication will be undenvay at the Anderson's that day. This is also an annoyance for everyone who walks the McBride Trail which passes directly behind our home and the Anderson's home.

I would like to share with you the experience of a co-worker of mine who's municipality had an ordinance that addressed these issues and put the onus on the person causing the problem. Although I do not have legal training and may misstate some details, they had an effective "unreasonable construction" ordinance which based on my conversations at the time was very interesting in the way it built self-enforcement into the process through these basic outlines:

*A limitation on issuance of building permits such that after a period of three years during which a pcnn it was issued or outstanding, a quiet period of eighteen months would be required prior to issuing an additional permit for the property.

* A significant fine for construction extending for more than three years after a permit had been issued, assessed per-day-per-linear foot of external wall under construction and per-day-persquare foot of external space occupied by construction materials, debris, or equipment, including workers' cars not parked in the resident's driveway.

*A commercially persuasive fine for the outdoor fabrication of building materials (or other building activity that should be conducted in an area zoned for manufacturing) assessed per day after four weeks of consistent fabrication.

*Relief from fines to be given in a maximum of three month increments only if either city council pro\'idcs a general relief period for all residents following a natural disaster, or if a resident makes un in-person appearance at a city council meeting explaining compelling localized c\'cnts that are causing the continuation of unreasonable construction (such as a hill slide or other disaster) and that justify partially resetting the three year time clock. 4

2-49

*A requirement that notice be given in the permit application that no further notification is required for the fines associated with "unreasonable construction" to be assessed and collected in arrears.

*Fines to be collected prior to clearing any outstanding permits; fines and interest collectible via a lien on the prope11y that automatically springs to life once the building department determines unreasonable construction fines are delinquent.

*An escalation in the per-day fine after each successive month period; substantial interest assessed quarterly on unpaid fines; fines and interest due as incurred.

My co~workcr's experience in their neighborhood was that the threat of the significant fmes and substantial interest was enough to cause almost every project to be wrapped up externally with focus well nhcnd or the three yer limit, especially because projects can be organized to have ongoing interior design and interior remodeling work beyond the three year point if necessary. The story I heard was about a resident who had turned up at a city council meeting to request relief for ninety days due to a water main break that had flooded their basement near the end of their new home's construction. They were granted relief after showing also that construction had not stmted until nine months after the issuance of their initial permit.

This approai:h seems to me to put the onus on citizens to plan ahead and get the work done while also allowinµ substantial property improvement to progress. This approach also avoids neighbors ha\'ing to get involved and the community :friction that can ensue. Lastly, since these fines are colkdiblc ultimately in the sale of the property, it creates a real incentive but avoids the city having to take direct collection activity and nullifies pleas ofan inability to pay the fines.

I am writing bcl'ausc adopting this type of ordinance can prevent problems in the future, whereas the C