Loading...
none, New interior wall, Correspondenceopeeen9.,ue� April 19, 2010 Ms. Julie Walter 92 Crest Road East Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Ms. Walter: INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 The City received your two emails dated, April 15 and April 16, 2010 submitting an appeal to staff's approval of stable update and renovation at 76 Eastfield Drive. Please feel free to provide any additional information regarding your reasons for appealing staff's position and any supporting documentation. In addition, please provide address labels of property owners within 1,000 feet of subject property (76 Eastfield), so that we may notice the neighbors of the hearing on the appeal. We must receive such additional information, including the address labels, by April 28, 2010 for the matter to be presented to the Planning Commission as a public hearing at their regularly scheduled meeting on May 18, 2010. The April 15, 2010 over-the-counter approval is to: • Update and renovate the existing stable structure • Utility lines to be undergrounded • RHCA Architectural Committee review required • All work to be done within the existing footprint • L.A. County building permit required to bring the interior conversion to building code compliance Pursuant to Chapter 17.44 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, administrative approval is granted for projects which are not subject to a Site Plan Review and which do not require other discretionary review, i.e. variance or conditional use permit. The purpose of the zone clearance is to ensure that the project meets the criteria and requirements of Title 17 Zoning and other provisions of the Municipal Code. Chapter 17.46 of the Municipal Code lists projects that are subject to a Site Plan Review. The Rolling Hills Architectural Committee independently reviews projects in the City for architectural features and aesthetics. The City does not and has never addressed the architectural aspects of structures such as location of doors or windows. Pursuant to Sections 17.44.060 any person can file an appeal. An appeal of staff's decision must be filed within ten days of such decision. The City does not have an appeal form, therefore a written request for an appeal suffices. 0 Printed on Recycled Paper Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at 310 377-1521 or by email at vs@citvofrh.net. S; ce 'ly Ianta Schwartz fanning Director cc: Anton Dahlerbruch, City Manager Elizabeth Calciano, Assistant City Attorney f • ctyotokoeeng �rrG April 19, 2010 Dr. Stephanie Culver Mr. Victor George 76 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Dr. Culver and Mr. George: INCORPORATED .)ANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 On April 15, 2010 staff administratively approved a plan for update and renovation of the existing structure previously approved and constructed as a stable on your property. An appeal of staff's approval has been received from the Walters at 92 Crest Road East and is tentatively scheduled to be considered by the Planning Commission at their meeting on May 18, 2010. Staffs approval of your project must therefore be held in abeyance until the matter is resolved and no work can commence on the structure. Pursuant to Sections 17.44.060 any person can file an appeal. An appeal of staff's decision must be filed within ten days of such decision. We have requested additional information and documentation from the Walter's as to the reason for the appeal. A staff report regarding this matter will be mailed to you a few days prior to the Planning Commission meeting and you will be provided the opportunity to address the Commission. Meanwhile, please do not commence any work on your stable structure. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at 310 377-1521 or by email at ys@cityofrh.net. Si •-rely o : nta Schwartz PI - ning Director cc: Anton Dahlerbruch, City Manager Elizabeth Calciano, Assistant City Attorney Julie Walter, 92 Crest Rd. E n, Printed on Recycled Paper • • City o /Polling January 5, 2009 Mr. Victor George Dr. Stephanie Culver -George 76 Eastfield Dirve Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Mr. and Dr. George, INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 3957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 With keeping one or more goats in Rolling Hills, it is required per the City's Municipal Code, that a property owner maintain a minimum distance between the goat(s) and nearby dwellings. One goat may be no closer than 50 feet from a neighbor's dwelling; two goats may he no closer than 100 feet from a neighbor's dwelling. Additionally, regardless of the number of goats, they may be no closer than 35 feet from the property owner's dwelling. Furthermore, a structure for housing one or more goats on a property may not be within a side or rear setbackwithout an approved Variance. The City has been informed of a possible violation of the Municipal Code with regard to the location of, and housing for, your goat(s) in relation to 92 Crest Road East and the setback, respectively. In turn, it is requested you address this matter and allow the City to conduct an inspection by January 30, 2009 to verify your compliance with the Municipal Code. For the inspection, please call Yolanta Schwartz or me at 310.377.1521. We appreciate your immediate attention to this matter. A failure to comply with the Municipal Code will result in further code enforcement activity inclusive of legal action, if necessary. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincere' 7 Anton Dahlerbruch City Manager AD/ 01-05-09george-ltr. doc cc: Michael Jenkins, City Attorney Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director Printed on Recycled Paper • • Rolling Dills Municipal Code pertaining to goals. 6.08.110 Livestock. "Livestock" includes, but is not limited to, any domestic fowls, rabbits, goats, bees, cattle, sheep, etc. (Ord. 136 § 218, 1976). 6.32.050 Goats --Limitations. It is a nuisance to, and no person shall, keep or maintain any goat within fifty feet of any dwelling house other than that occupied by said person; or more than two goats within one hundred feet of any dwelling house other than that occupied by said person; or more than four goats within three hundred feet of any dwelling house other than that occupied by said person; or more than five goats within one thousand feet of any dwelling house other than that occupied by said person. (Ord. 136 § 805, 1976). 6.48.050 Livestock and wild species keeping requirements. It is unlawful for any person in the City who is the owner of or has control of any ox, steer, bull, cow, horse, colt, jack, mule, calf, sheep, goat or any animal commonly referred to as a wild species to: A. Permit such animal to run at large in the City; B. Tie, stake, pasture, or permit the tying, staking or pasturing of any such animal upon any private property within the limits of the City without the consent of the owner or occupant of such property, or in such a way as to permit any such animal to trespass upon any street, road, land or other public place or upon any such private property; or C. Permit any of said animals to be or remain during the nighttime secured by stake, or secured in any other manner other than by enclosing such animal or by such securely fastening such animal by means of a rope or chain of sufficient size, strength and weight to effectively restrain such animal; or P. Fail to provide the necessary sustenance, drink, shelter or protection from the weather or otherwise. (Ord. 151 § I, 1977: Ord. 136 § 1205,* 1976). LcJLJ _) 1 J JL JV V 1 I I I IUUJ I I'IU Uri 1 l.0 J1L'1 CJJ LD J.d t'. ue THE FOL' ')WING SECTIONS ARE REQUIRE. '.N OF THE _ JSSGEi,ES COUNTY CODE, TITLE I 1. VERMIN (rodents, fleas, cockroaches, mosquitoes, etc.) Section 1 1.30,010 states that no person shall occupy or maintain any building, lot, premises, vehicle or any other place in such a manner that will permit the breeding or harborage of vermin nor permit an accumulation of any material that may serve as a rodent harborage unless such material be elevated not less than 18 inches above the ground or floor 2. ACCUMULATION OF REFUSE AND CAST-OFF MATERIALS 0 Sections 11.16.020, 11.16.050 and 11.16.060 state that no person shall permit refuse and/or cast-off material to he deposited onto the surface of the ground, on any premises, lot, or in a public street. Rubbish without garbage may be stored on your property in adequate containers for not more than 15 days. 3. ACCUMULATION OF' GARBAGE ❑ Section 11.16.030 states garbage and putreseiblc matter, whether mixed with rubbish or not, shall be kept in water -tight containers with tight fitting lids and shall not be kept for more than 7 days. 4. INADEOUATE REFUSE CONTAINERS U Section 11.16,030 and 11.16.060 state the required number of refuse containers is that which will hold all refuse generated from this property so that no refuse storage is permitted on the surface of the ground. When garbage is mixed with rubbish the containers must be water -tight with close fitting lids to prevent fly breeding. 5, ACCUMULATION OIL ANIMAL EXCREMENT a Section 11,30,070 states that all fly breeding materials shall be removed from, all premises as often as is necessary to prevent the breeding or harboring of flies. Section 11.16.030 states that animal dropping should be picked up daily and removed from the premises once every 7 days. 6, DISTANCE OFDOMESTICANIMALS t7 Section 11.16.090 requires any animal, fowl or bird other than eats, 15. dogs, canaries and birds of the Psittacine family to be kept at least 35 feet from any restaurant, food establishment, or dwelling and more than 100 feet from any school, hospital or similar institution, 7. INADEQUATE MAINTENANCE AND/OR SANITATION OF DWELLING U (damage interior walls, partitions, floors and ceilings; stairway; porches; doors; ) 16, Sections 11.20.160 and 11.20.170 require that every dwelling, house court and apartment be maintained in good repair and be free from debris, filth, rubbish, garbage, and other offensive matter. Remarks 8. TORN OR MISSING FOUNDATION SCREENS n Section 11.30.050 requires exterior openings of buildings such as foundation vents shall be covered with VI of 1 square inch corrosion resistant wire mesh to prevent the entrance of rodents. 9. WINDOW SCREENS ❑ Sections 11.20.330 requires windows that open to the outside of dwellings shall be provided with approved screening of at least 16 inch mesh in tight -fitting frames. 10, BROKEN OR MISSING WINDOWS a Section 11.20.160 and 11.20.170 state that all habitable dwellings shall be maintained in good repair and should provide protection to the occupants from dampness during inclement weather. 11, EXTERIOR WALLS AND/OR ROOF IN DISREPAIR ❑ Section 11.20.140 and 11.20.170 require that each habitable dwelling must have roof and wall coverings adequate to protect the occupant from the elements and inclement weather. 12. TOILET FACILITIES U Section 11.20.180 and 11.20.190 require that every habitable dwelling unit be supplied with at least one water flush toilet a separate compartment and maintained in good repair. 13. HOT AND COLD RUNNING WATER ❑ Section 11.20.190 and 11,20.260 require that every dwelling unit shall contain a kitchen sink, lavatory and bathtub or shower plumbed with hot and cold running water under pressure. /4. DAMAGE AND OR INSANITARY PLUMBING FIXTURES (kitchen sink, lavatory, bathtub, shower Sections 11.20.160, 11.20.190, and 11.20.260 require that plumbing fixtures and equipment shall be maintained in good repair and free from dirt, filth and corrosion. UNAPPROVED OCCUPANCY ❑ Section 11.20.090 states that a "Habitable Room" fit for human occupancy includes dwelling with approved sleeping, living, cooking, facilities with an approved toilet, bath or shower, kitchen sink and hot and cold running water. Area such as, closets, pantries, toilet rooms, service room, garage, laundries, cellars arc not allowed for human occupancy. OVERCROWDING U Section 11.20.300 and 1 1.20.310 state that every room or place used for sleeping purposes shall be deemed to be overcrowded if' it is occupied by more than (2) persons and contains less than 630 cubic feet of air space. For rooms occupying more than 2 persons an additional 500 cubic feet. Garages, toilet rooms, kitchens, cellars, and hallways cannot be used for sleeping purposes. 17. OTHER ❑ TOTAL P.02 • Ci1y WEeeng wee September 23, 2008 Mr. and Mrs. Victor George 76 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377.7288 Dear Mr. and Mrs. George, Recognizing our unsuccessful attempts to connect on the telephone, I am writing to address the utilization of your barn in response to a continuing complaint received by the City from your neighbor. Your barn is allegedly being used as a playroom and for other uses, generating both noise and furthermore, light that emanates through windows. As you know from our prior conversations, the Municipal Code specifies that barns may only be used for horse -related uses. With this letter, we are asking that you discontinue with non -horse related noise and light within the barn in consideration of your neighbor. Additionally, you may want to consider applying for a Conditional Use Permit for a mixed -use structure. As you know, the Planning Commission is currently in the process of reviewing the definition and uses for barns and within the next several months, will begin a public hearing process for consideration of both a new definition and approval process. The hearings will also address existing, non -conforming uses for barns. While we wait for the rule -making process to commence, the existing provisions of the Municipal Code still apply to barns and we request your compliance. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. We appreciate your cooperation. Sincere y, ntori P a er City Manager AD / 09-23-095<'orge-1f r.doc cc: Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director ePrinted on Recycled Paper • January 25, 2008 76 Eastfield Drive —inspection of a converted barn • Building permit records show that a 1,344 s.f. barn was constructed in 1963 • There are no floor plans on file for the barn to determine the original floor plan • The visit on 1/25 revealed as follows 1. The outside of the barn looks like a barn 2. The original `dutch" doors are still there along the front (west side) of the barn 3. There is an original open doorway at the north-east side of the barn 4. There is no heat in any of the area of the structure 5. There is electricity in all areas of the structure 6. There is no bathroom, sink or kitchen in the structure 7. There is a sink on the outside wall of the structure, near the entrance to the play room. 8. The interior of the structure is divided into 3 rooms. One (southern most, most distant from the adjacent property's garage) is used as a play -room with couches, TV and other play child like activities. The walls, floors and ceilings are finished and painted. Sliding aluminum windows look new. The second room is not painted, looks like it has the original walls, has no windows, except for the dutch door and has a wooden floor. The third partition (room) has the original walls and ceiling and the floor is interlocking brick on dirt. There are no windows in this room, except for the dutch door and open doorway in the rear. It is used as storage, kids outdoor activities stuff, like paints, small tables to sit at and paint. Mr. George indicated that they bought the property as is and have not done anything to this structure. They rooms were divided and as they are now when they bought it. They have no intentions of having horses. He also indicated that Ms. Walters conducts business out of her garage (interior designer) and there are people there at all times. • opettin9 .J4fia 50TH ANNIVERSARY 1957 - 2007 December 13, 2007 Ms. Julie Walter 92 Crest Road East Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Ms INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 This letter is to acknowledge receipt of your letter about the possibility of an illegally converted barn at 76 Eastfield Drive. In recognition of your correspondence, the City will investigate the matter and keep you apprised. Related to this, you may be interested in knowing that an Ad Hoc Committee of the Planning Commission is currently evaluating the permitted uses of barns. With this taking place, resolution to the situation you identify may take some time. Please don't hesitate to call me or Yolanta Schwarz, Planning Director, if you have any questions. Sincerly, nahlerbruch City Manager AD/ 12-13-07wa I ter-1 tr.d oc cc: Yolanta Schwartz Printed on Recycled Paper • December 12, 2007 To The City of Rolling Hills- j)33i DEC 1 2 2007 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS We, The Walters, at 92 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, CA 90274 are writing to report an illegal barn conversion that has been done directly adjacent to our house and property and that violates our privacy, our property rights and our property value. This barn was not allowed to be converted — no permission was sought (or it would have been denied) and no permits have been pulled -it is illegal in every way. The barn is on The George Residence at 76 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills CA 90274. The barn was- until recently- an old unused barn that had a solid wall behind it, butting up to our property. The barn's location itself violates set back and easement rules as well we are pretty sure -but that is not the issue to us now- we would not and would never ask it to be moved. We bring this up just to make the point how close it is to our house (esp. after people see how our property and house are set up). When it was converted they put a bank of large windows- like that would go on a house- which directly looks in to our house. The barn is left with the lights on all the time at night now- and so we have a second "miniature house" parked right next to us -which as we have said above is completely illegal and we feel very invasive to our property. It also causes a sound issue as we can hear music and peoples voices coming from this barn, and the whole general area in this easement area. We have been distressed about this from the beginning but really did not know what to do -and we did not want to create bad blood with the neighbors. We briefly mentioned it to them and they don't seem to understand why it bothers us. Let us further explain that the neighbors here now did not do this conversion —the old neighbors The Mendez did this conversion.( but this type of thing must be disclosed by law when it is sold, that it is an illegal structure so we know they are aware of it all). It was converted right before The Mendez moved out -but they were never in it, leaving lights on all night long or making any noise there. The Mendez- who converted it- had many properties in this city before this and we are positive they knew this was illegal to do. Partly we think this because they left the front part of the barn -looking like a barn and you could see that part of barn from the street at that point. There are shrubs there now. But The Mendez installed a huge bank of windows in the back of this barn over looking our house/property (but windows could not be seen from the street -only by us) Also, they completely converted this barn to a living type space inside the barn that The Georges regularly use. And we worry could use some day have an au pair come live there for their children, or guests stay in regularly as well. This would further violate our privacy grossly. At night, where it use to be darkness and we had plenty of space between our homes, is now a lit up "miniature house" you can see people walking around in. And also from these windows in barn -people can see out to us every time we come or go on our property to garage. So, if someone like an au pair or cleaner was living there- they can see exactly when we come or go, and are not home. Any person who lives in Rolling Hills would be against this being done adjacent to their house we are pretty sure- and we ask everyone to come by and see it- especially at night when all the lights are on, and then come in our bedroom and see how they can see in to it and our bathroom very easily. But again when we moved here- this was not the case - this was an old barn- not converted at all. Again the barn's back was a solid wood back, no windows and no development was behind it at all. So we had a space and space between two homes as well. This barn is in the 20 foot easement required between properties in this area (we are pretty sure -but not totally) In addition, when The Georges moved in there was a garden put in at that time by them- in this little easement area right on property line (and cages for animals that have since been moved) creating a lot of invasion in an area that is to be an easement, as was empty. We can hear everything in our house -as workers or children or animals are there from time to time. And if workers are in there- they also can see when we come and go —when no one would be home. Where if there was not a garden there- they would not be working there- and additionally we can hear every sound from there in our bedrooms. It is all crammed in behind the barn, right on our property line. The old barn started in easement area- but had a solid wall- so not invasive to us. We just bring this up as to make a point as to why we hear this noise and it bothers us, and why now. In addition, the old neighbors — The Mendez- we saw once if remember correctly- that they had filed a blueprint with city that makes it look like this barn is set back 45 feet fro use. This is a huge piece of property and the neighbors have plenty of room to places -but the barn is not set up like it shows on this blueprint. But again this garden and barn are we would guess (but not sure) directly on and within 10-15 feet of property line, in the easement and again our house happens to be configured very close to all this. So we would like a survey done- not to move anything at all, now or later- but to establish how close this is to our house and the documentation on file. To show where it should be in reality if following the rules of the city in this area. We are doing this and hoping this will help to get these windows removed. That is the main thing to us- these windows invading our privacy that are illegal as well. And if the old owners had followed the legal channels -this would never been allowed or approved -The Georges would never have had this to begin with if done correctly. This would never have happened, and our privacy which has been violated would never have happened. Now we have to live with some form of this invasion, when should never have happened to us at all. And as implied above- we also think someone would not want to buy our house because of this development as well, there are plenty of other properties up here now with more privacy in this area- why choose this? The city put in the newsletter to report these illegal barn conversions- so we are. We greatly appreciate the help and trying to help us reestablish the rural character of this property and what we bought we when we came here. Thank You, The Walters B. ALLEN LAY Mayor DR. JAMES BLACK Mayor Pro Tern THOMAS F. HEINSHEIMER Councilmember FRANK E. HILL Councilmember GODFREY PERNELL, D.D.S. Councilmember April 25, 2006 Dr. Stephanie Culver 76 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Dr. Culver: • 1 ©'/ )t/fl ..J4fLS INCORPORATED J)- NUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310)377-1521 FAX: (310) 377.7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com At regular meeting of the Rolling Hills City Council held Monday, April 24, 2006, the City Council approved the Traffic Commission's recommendation regarding your proposal to relocate your driveway at 76 Eastfield Drive. This recommendation is subject to the following conditions: • that the hedge uphill of the driveway be trimmed to improve sight distance, • that the driveway apron area be scored for equestrian use, • that no planting occur in the equestrian right-of-way, • that the 20 foot escape area for cars entering or leaving the property be constructed per the plan, and • that the entry flare of the driveway be a minimum 16 feet wide. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to let us know. Thank you for your cooperation and support. Sincerely, Craig R. Nealis City Manager CRN:mlk 04-25-06culver-ltr.doc cc: City Council Traffic Commission Julie Heinsheimer, Blue Door Gardens Roger Vink, RHCA Architectural Inspector @Poole t tin Pernynlr:d I'.nO.a CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY 2632 W. 237TH STREET • TORRANCE, CA 90505-5272 1310) 257-1400 • FAX 1310) 3254605 April 8, 2003 Mr. John Mendez 76 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Re: Shallow groundwater on property @ 76 Eastfield Drive Dear Mr. Mendez: RANCHO DOMINOUIZ DISTRICT California Water Service Company (Cal Water) has completed the investigation of the shallow groundwater that has been surfacing on your property Iocated across from our reservoir site on Crest Road. During the course of our investigation, we have excavated and uncovered sections of our water main piping, performed a leak detection survey using state of the art audio detection equipment, and arranged for an inspection by a qualified diver to inspect the interior of our water tanks. We also hired a geotechnical firm (GSiMWater) to investigate the potential source of this groundwater. The second phase of their investigation is complete and we have reviewed their findings. The second phase of the investigation by GSi/Water continues to indicate that the source of the groundwater is not from any of Cal Water's facilities. There is no indication from any of the other investigations that Cal Water performed that lead us to believe that our facilities are the source of the groundwater. This concludes our investigation and we'd like to thank you for your cooperation while we performed our work. The second phase of the °Si/Water report is available for your review. Please contact me if you would like a copy of the report. Sincerely, Terry'S. Tamble District Manager Cc: John Tootle John Foth Mike Rossi DISTRICT O@ICU• ANTILOP! VALLEY • SAKERSNELD • SAYSHOIE • SEAR GULCH • CHICO • DIXON • EAST LOS ANGELES • KERN RIVER VALLEY • ONO CRY • LIVERMORE • LOS ALTOS • MARYSVILtS • OROVIII! • RANCHO DOAUNGUEZ • REDWOOD VALLEY • SAUNAS • SELMA • STOCKTON • VISALA • WESTLAKE • WILLOWS • • CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY 2632 W. 237TH STREET • TORRANCE, CA 90505.5272 (310( 257.1400 • FAX (310( 325-4605 May 14, 2003 Mr. John Mendez 76 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Re: Shallow groundwater on property © 76 Eastfield Drive Dear Mr, Mendez, RANCHO DOMINOUIZ DISTRICT We are enclosing a copy of the second phase investigation by GSi/Water on the shallow groundwater at 76 Eastfield Drive per your iequest. Please contact John Foth at (310) 257-1475 if you have any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, erry S. mb e District Manager Cc: John Foth DISTRICT OFFICES' ANTELOPE VALLEY • BAKERSFIELD • EAYSHOR! • BEAR GULCH • CHICO • DIXON • EAST LOS ANGELES • KERN RIVER VALLEY • KING CITY • UVERMORE • LOS ALTOS • MARYSVILLE • OROVILLE • RANCHO DOMINGUEZ • REDWOOD VALLEY • SAUNAS • SELMA • STOCKTON • VISALIA • WESTLAKE • WILLOWS