none, Construct new spa inside pool, Correspondence{city opettin, JR/3
JODY MURDOCK
Mayor
B. ALLEN LAY
Mayor Pro Tern
THOMAS F. HEINSHEIMER
Councilmember
FRANK E. HILL
Councilmember
GODFREY PERNELL, D.D.S.
Councilmember
July 23, 2001
Mr. Franz Fischer
P.O. Box 3660
Palos Verdes Peninsula, CA 90274
Re: Your letter of July 6. 2001
Dear Mr. Fischer:
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX: (310) 377-7288
E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com
This responds to your letter of July 6, 2001, in which you request that the City designate
the driveway leading to your home as a fire road.
The roadways over which the City exercises jurisdiction are enumerated in Section
10.04.090 of the Municipal Code; the City does not exercise any jurisdiction over private
driveways. A driveway is defined in Section 10.04.050 as a "way or place within the
City in private ownership and in use for vehicular traffic by the owner thereof and
those having express or implied permission from the owner, but not by other members
of the public." As described in the documents which you provided, your access road
falls squarely within this definition.
Paragraph 5(b)(2) of the Agreement Between Owners of Land which you provided with
your correspondence would appear to give you a private right of action to enjoin your
neighbors from parking on the paved driveway. The City cannot, however, impose or
enforce any parking restrictions unless all of the affected parties were to request, and
the Community Association were to assume jurisdiction over the driveway.
Should you wish to discuss this further, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
raig R. Nealis
City Manger
CRN:mlk
07/16/0lfrscherletter.doc
•:J
Printed on Recycled Pane.
FRANZ E. FISCHER
Craig Nealis, City Manager
City of Rolling Hills
#2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Re: Fire Access Road to 2862 Palos Verdes Dr. North
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Dear Craig:
July 6, 2001
J U L 0 6 2001
CITY OF ROLL''•
gti
I am writing to you with regard to a continuing problem on the fire access road which serves my home
at 2862 Palos Verdes Drive North, Rolling Hills, CA, and which also serves the residences at 2860, 2864 and
2900 Palos Verdes Drive North, Rolling Hills, CA.
The continuing problem is a result of the narrow width of this road. The problem is exacerbated by
the attitude of some of the various owners using the road, which is that the road is theirs alone, and is not for
the mutual use of all owners.
Firstly, to orientate you somewhat, the legal access to 2862 (the Fischer residence) is over a deeded
easement over the flag pole portion of 2864 Palos Verdes Drive North (the Steve and Linda Calhoun
residence), which is owned jointly by Steve and Linda Calhoun and Fred and Jean Calhoun. However, the
current roadway is not located strictly on the flag pole portion of 2864, but also wanders significantly onto
the flag pole portion of 2860, which is owned by, and is the residence of, Fred and Jean Calhoun. The right
to use the access roadway, to the extent it travels over the Fred and Jean Calhouns' property, is through a
document entitled "Agreement between Owners" which was recorded with the Los Angeles County
Recorder's Office on June 19,1980. A copy of that agreement is enclosed for your reference. My right to
use that portion of the roadway which is on the Fred and Jean Calhoun property only extends to the paved
portion of the roadway, not to any use of the flag pole portion of the property which is not paved with the
roadway. Because of this, I also have no right to clear or maintain the area adjacent to the roadway on the
flag pole portion of Fred and Jean Calhouns' property.
The roadway itself is about 12 to 15 feet wide. Thanks to the Rolling Hills Association, it is nicely
paved, but it is, nevertheless, very narrow. Two standard size vehicles cannot pass on this roadway. Thus,
technically, if one of two passing vehicles goes off the roadway onto the unpaved portion of the 2860 flag
pole, it is trespassing on the Fred and Jean Calhoun property. In addition, the owners of 2864 (all the
Calhouns) on the west side, and of 2860 on the east side (Fred and Jean Calhoun) have maintained a
continuous hedge of oleanders and other large brush or trees in close proximity to both sides of the roadway.
This further exacerbates the conditions caused by the narrow width of the roadway.
This roadway is a fire access road, according to Section 902.2.1 of the 1997 Uniform Fire Code (the
UFC) of 1997. I understand these provisions are unchanged in the 1999 version of the UFC, which has been
adopted by Los Angeles County. That section requires a fire access road for any building where the closest
first story wall is located 150 feet, or more, away from fire equipment access (i.e. Palos Verdes Drive North).
That is clearly the case with the roadway to my house. UFC Section 902.2.2.2.1 REQUIRES that the "fire
P.O. Box 3660, Rolling Hills, CA 90274 (310) 541-2112
s
FRANZ E. FISCHER
apparatus access road SHALL have an unobstructed width of NOT LESS THAN 20 FEET," In discussions
with the local fire captain, Don Beckman, he advised me that the UFC also provides that the 10' to either side
of the 20' fire access road must also be kept clear of all obstructions, including particularly flammable matter
such as the growth which now exists. I do not have the exact reference for that section, but Captain Beckman
assures me it exists, and that the County of Los Angeles insists upon its enforcement. The reason for this is
quite clear. If these plants and brush were to catch fire, the fire access road to (and emergency egress from)
my residence would become a flaming gauntlet which, in the current state of affairs, is less than even the
minimum 20' width required by the UFC. In such a fire the firemen, and all others required to use the road,
would have to travel through this gauntlet, at great risk to their lives and property, including the county's
expensive fire equipment. The mandated 40' clearance simply does not exist on the roadway to my property
because the Calhouns have allowed growth along the edge of both sides of the roadway. This is a severe
safety hazard to myself, my family, the Calhouns themselves, the Carleys, who also reside on property served
by this fire access roadway, the guests of the various residents, service people using the roadway, and the
firemen who may be called upon to use this roadway under the worst of conditions.
This problem has been brought to the Calhouns' attention, but they have not yet done anything to
remedy this situation. I am, therefore, asking for the City of Rolling Hills to take action to remedy this
situation by citing the owners of the land who are violating the UFC and creating the problem. If that is not
effective within a short period oftime, the City itself should take responsibility for clearing the access so that
it will be safe.
The narrow width of the roadway has also caused several other problems. In particular, during and
ever since the construction of their residence at 2864 Palos Verdes Drive North, Steve and Linda Calhoun
have allowed their contractors, guests and invitees to park along both sides ofthe access roadway when they
have either social functions or work being done on the property. This problem got so bad that I filed a civil
lawsuit against the Calhouns, in part to enjoin them from doing this in the future. That lawsuit was filed in
May of 2000. Nevertheless, some six months after that suit was filed, on December 22, 2000 the Calhouns
had a Christmas party. Guests from this party parked on both sides of the access roadway up and down its
entire length. Enclosed please find a picture of what the roadway looked like that evening. As you can see,
there was barely enough room for one standard size vehicle to pass between the parked cars. Had there been
a fire or other emergency that evening, there would have been a true disaster. It would have been impossible
for any fire, or other emergency vehicle, to access my property that evening, or more appropriately, Steve and
Linda Calhouns' property, where there were dozens of visitors.
To cure this problem, in addition to the trimming and removal of the trees and brush as requested
above, I would like this roadway to be designated as a fire access road. and posted as such. Captain Beckman
led me to believe that this must be done by the City. That way, if this happens again, I will be able to have
offending vehicles ticketed, and towed if necessary, to protect my safety and that of my family.
Further, the easterly portion ofthe roadway is, in several places, located on the Fred and Jean Calhoun
property. Except for the actual paved roadway and the Rolling Hills Associations bridal trail easement, this
property is not dedicated for either public or private use, and cannot be used without Fred and Jean Calhoun's
consent. Therefore the roadway itself needs to be relocated substantially to the west so that it is, in fact, on
the flag pole portion of the Steve and Linda Calhoun lot, where the deeded access easement exists. The only
way to avoid such a relocation would be for Fred and Jean Calhoun to dedicate the flag pole portion of their
lot completely for use of the access roadway.
P.O. Box 3660, Rolling Hills, CA 90274 (310) 541-2112
FRANZ E. FISCHER
Lastly, the narrow width of the roadway has caused problems between the owners when passing on
the roadway. In particular, on one prior occasion Steve Calhoun intentionally, in my opinion, forced my wife
off the roadway. Enclosed for your reference is a copy of a letter which I sent to Fred Calhoun regarding that
incident. I feel this was intentional because of my wife's description of the incident, and because of the on-
going litigation between myself and the Calhouns. Unfortunately, another such incident occurred again on
Tuesday, July 3, 2001, in which my wife says that, in her opinion, Mr. Calhoun endangered her by driving
his vehicle, which is much larger than my wife's vehicle, toward her vehicle, refusing to slow his vehicle, and
refusing to maneuver his vehicle off the side of the paved roadway. He does have a legal right to drive off
the roadway on either side, while my wife does not have a legal right to do so. The only way to resolve this
problem will be to have a full 20' wide access roadway (whether partially or fully paved), which is located
entirely on the flag pole portion of the Steve and Linda Calhoun which I and my family have a legal right to
use. Such a road would be wide enough to allow two vehicles to pass and still be within the roadway. At a
minimum, the assistance of the City in citing for removal of the oleanders and other growth on either side of
the roadway, as required by the UFC, would substantially resolve this problem. Relocation of the roadway
and further paving to widen the roadway would also help. However, to the maximum extent possible, I am
asking your assistance, and that ofthe City, in enforcing existing laws and facilitating these changes to alleviate
problems which now exist, and which currently endanger my family, myself and others on a day to day basis.
Please call me at your earliest opportunity to discuss these matters.
Very truly yours,
Frnz Fischer
2862 Palos Verdes Drive North
Rolling Hills
Encl: Agreement Between Owners
1997 Uniform Fire Code Applicable Sections
Photograph
F. Fischer to Fred Calhoun letter of May 2001
C:\MyFiles\Fischer,Residence\PropLineDisputeFischer Nealis Ltr 1.wpd
P.O. Box 3660, Rolling Hills, CA 90274 (310) 541-2112
*111111111Nrill!•
1997
UNIFORM
FIRE
CODETM
VOLUME 1
International
Fire Code Institute
7M
JUN 1 0 17
Palos Verdes Library District
•
First Printing
Publication date: March 1997
ISSN 0896-9736
ISBN 1-884590-83-7 (soft cover edition)
ISBN 1-884590-84-5 (loose leaf edition)
ISBN 1-884590-95-0 (2-vol. set —soft cover)
ISBN 1-884590-96-9 (2-vol. set —loose leaf)
publication by
International Fire Code Institute
5360 Workman Mill Road
Whittier, California 90601-2298
(562) 699-0124
Copyright C 1994, 1995, 1996,1997
copyright held by
International Conference of Buildin_ Officials
5360 Workman Mill Road
Whinier, California 90601-2298
and
Western Fire Chiefs Association
300 N. Main Avenue, Suite 25
Fallbrook, California 92028
Licensed to the International Fire Code Institute
Cover photos courtesy of Factory Mutual Engineering Corporation
and Los Angeles County Department of Public Works.
PRINTED IN THE U.S.A.
1997 UNIFORM FIRE CODE
•
•
901
902.2.2.1
PART III
X
GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR SAFETY
ARTICLE 9 - FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS AND WATER SUPPLY
SECTION 901 — GENERAL
901.1 Scope. Fire department access and water supply shall be
in accordance with Article 9.
For firesafety during construction, alteration or demolition of a
building, see Article 87.
901.2 Permits and Plans. .
901.2.1 Permits. A permit is required to use or operate fire hy-
drants or valves intended for fire -suppression purposes which are
installed on water systems and accessible to public highways,
alleys or private ways open to or generally used by the public. See
Section 105, Permit f.1.
EXCEPTION: A permit is not required for persons employed and
authorized by the water company which supplies the system to use or
operate fire hydrants or valves.
901.2.2 Plans.
901.2.2.1 Fire apparatus access. Plans for fire apparatus access
roads shall be submitted to the fire department for review and ap-
proval prior to construction.
901.2.2.2 Fire hydrant systems. Plans and specifications for
fire hydrant systems shall be submitted to the fire department for
review and approval prior to construction.
901.3 Timing of Installation. When fire protection. including
fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for fire protection,
is required to he installed, such protection shall be installed and
made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction.
EXCEPTION: When alternate methods of protection. as
approved. are provided. the requirements of Section 901.3 may be
modified or waived.
901.4 Required Marking of Fire Apparatus Access Roads,
Addresses and Fire -protection Equipment.
901.4.1 General. Marking of fire apparatus access roads,
addresses and fire -protection equipment shall be in accordance
with Section 901.4.
901.4.2 Fire apparatus access roads. When required by the
chief, approved signs or other approved notices shall be provided
and maintained for fire apparatus access roads to identify such
roads and prohibit the obstruction thereof or both.
901.4,3 Fire -protection equipment and fire hydrants. Fire -
protection equipment and fire hydrants shall be clearly identified
in an approved manner to prevent obstruction by parking and other
obstructions.
When required by the chief, hydrant locations shall be
identified by the installation of reflective markers.
See also Section 1001.7.
901.4,4 Premises identification. Approved numbers or ad-
dresses shall be provided for all new and existing buildings in such
a position as to he plainly visible and legible from the street or road
fronting the property.
901.4.5 Street or road signs. When required by the chief, streets
and roads shall be identified with approved signs.
901.5 Obstruction and Control of Fire Apparatus Access
Roads and Fire -protection Equipment. See Sections 902.2.4
and 1001.7.
901.6 Fire Protection in Recreational Vehicle, Mobile Home
and Manufactured Housing Parks, Sales Lots and Storage
Lots. Recreational vehicle, mobile home and manufactured
housing parks, sales lots and storage lots shall provide and main-
tain fire hydrants and access roads in accordance with Sections
902 and 903.
EXCEPTION: Recreational vehicle parks located in remote areas
shall be provided with protection and access roadways as required by
the chief.
SECTION 902 — FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS
902.1 General. Fire department access roads shall be provided
and maintained in accordance with Sections 901 and 902.
902-2 Fire Apparatus Access Roads.
902.2.1 Required access. Fire apparatus access roads shall be
provided in accordance with Sections 901 and 902.2 for every
facility. building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or
moved into or within the jurisdiction when any portion of the
facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of the
building is located more than 150 feet (45 720 mm) from fire
apparatus access as measured by an approved route around the
exterior of the building or facility. See also Section 902.3 for per-
sonnel access to buildings.
EXCEPTIONS: 1. When buildings are completely protected with
an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. the provisions of Sections
902.2.1 and 9(12.2.2 may be modified by the chief.
2. When access roads cannot he installed due to location on property.
topography. waterways. nonnegotiable grades or other similar condi-
tions. the chief is authorized to require additional fire protection as spe-
cified in Section 1001.9.
3. When there are not more than two Group R. Division 3, or Group
U Occupancies. the requirements of Sections 902.2.1 and 902.2.2 may
he modified by the chief.
More than one fire apparatus road shall be provided when it is
determined by the chief that access by a single road might be im-
paired by vehicle congestion. condition of terrain, climatic condi-
tions or other factors that could limit access.
For high -piled combustible storage, see Section 8102.6.1.
For required access during construction, alteration or demoli-
tion of a building, see Section 8704.2.
902.2.2 Specifications.
902.2.2.1 Dimensions. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an
unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet (6096 mm) and an un-
obstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches (4115
mm).
EXCEPTION: Vertical clearance may be reduced, provided such
reduction does not impair access by fire apparatus and approved signs
arc installed and maintained indicating the established vertical clear-
ance when approved.
1-27
902.2.2.1
• • 603.4.1.2
•
•
1997 UNIFORM FIRE CODE
h
Vertical clearances or widths shall be increased when, in the
opinion of the chief, vertical clearances or widths are not adequate
to provide fire apparatus access.
902.2.2.2 Surface. Fire apparatus access roads shall he designed
and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and
shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all-weather driv-
ing capabilities.
902.2.2.3 Turning radius. The turning radius of a fire apparatus
access road shall be as approved.
902.2.2.4 Dead ends. Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in
excess of 150 feet (45 720 mm) in length shall he provided with
approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus.
902.2.2.5 Bridges. When a bridge is required to be used as part
of a fire apparatus access road, it shall be constructed and
maintained in accordance with nationally recognized standards.
See Article 90. Standard a.1.1. The bridge shall be designed for a
live load sufficient to carry the imposed loads of fire apparatus.
Vehicle load limits shall be posted at both entrances to bridges
when required by the chief.
902.2.2.6 Grade. The gradient for a fire apparatus access road
shall not exceed the maximum approved.
902 7.3 Marking. See Section 901.4.
902.2.4 Obstruction and control of fire apparatus access.
902.2.4.1 General. The required width of a fire apparatus access
road shall not be obstructed in any manner, including parking of
vehicles. Minimum required widths and clearances established
under Section 902.2.2.1 shall be maintained at all times.
Entrances to roads. trails or other accessw•ays which have been
closed with sates and barriers in accordance with Section
902.2.4.2 shall not be obstructed by parked vehicles.
9022.4.2 Closure of accessways. The chief is authorized to re-
quire the installation and maintenance of gates or other approved
barricades across roads. trails or other accessways, not including
public streets, alleys or highways.
When required. gates and barricades shall be secured in an
approved manner. Roads, trails and other accessways which have
been closed and obstructed in the manner prescribed by Section
902.2.4.2 shall not be trespassed upon or used unless authorized
by the owner and the chief.
EXCEPTION: Public officers acting within their scope of duty.
Locks, gates. doors, barricades, chains, enclosures, signs, tags
or seals which have been installed by the fire department or by its
order or under its control shall not be removed, unlocked,
destroyed, tampered with or otherwise molested in any manner.
EXCEPTION: When authorized by the chief or performed by
public officers acting within their scope of duty.
9023 Access to Building Openings.
9023.1 Required access. Exterior doors and openings required
by this code or the Building Code shall be maintained readily
accessible for emergency access by the fire department.
An approved access walkway leading from fire apparatus
access roads to exterior openings required by this code or the
Building Code shall be provided when required by the chief.
9023.2 Maintenance of exterior doors and openings. Exte-
rior doors or their function shall not be eliminated without prior
approval by the chief. Exterior doors which have been rendered
nonfunctional and which retain a functional door exterior
appearance shall have a sign affixed to the exterior side of such
door stating THIS DOOR BLOCKED. The si°n shall consist of
letters having principal stroke of not less than 3/4 inch (19.1 mm)
wide and at least 6 inches (152.4 mm) high on a contrasting
background. Required fire department access doors shall not be
obstructed or eliminated. See Section 1207 for exit and exit -access
doors.
For access doors for high -piled combustible storage, see
Section 8102.6.2.
902.3.3 Shaftw•ay marking. Exterior windows in buildings
used for manufacturing or for storage purposes which open
directly on shaftways or other vertical means of communication
between two or more floors shall be plainly marked with the word
SHAFTWAY in red letters at least 6 inches (152.4 mm) high on a
white background. Warning signs shall be easily discernible from
the outside of the building. Door and window openings on such
shaftways from the interior of the building shall be similarly
marked with the word SHAFTWAY in a manner which is easily
visible to anyone approaching the shaftway from the interior of the
building, unless the construction of the partition surrounding the
shaftway is of such distinctive nature as to make its purpose
evident at a glance.
902.4 Key Boxes. When access to or within a structure or an area
is unduly difficult because of secured openings or where
immediate access is necessary for life-saving or firefighting
purposes. the chief is authorized to require a key box to be
installed in an accessible location. The key box shall be of an ap-
proved type and shall contain keys to gain necessary access as
required by the chief.
SECTION 903 — WATER SUPPLIES AND FIRE
HYDRANTS
903.1 General. Water supplies and fire hydrants shall be in
accordance with Sections 901 and 903.
903.2 Required Water Supply for Fire Protection. An ap-
proved water supply capable of supplying the required fire flow
for fire protection shall be provided to all premises upon which fa-
cilities, buildings or portions of buildings are hereafter con-
structed or moved into or within the jurisdiction. When any
portion of the facility or building protected is in excess of 150 feet
(45 720 mm) from a water supply on a public street, as measured
by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building,
on -site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required
fire flow shall be provided when required by the chief. See Sec-
tion 903.4.
9033 Type of Water Supply. Water supply is allowed to consist
of reservoirs, pressure tanks, elevated tanks, water mains or other
fixed systems capable of providing the required fire flow. In set-
ting the requirements for fire flow, the chief may be guided by
Appendix III -.A.
903.4 Fire Hydrant Systems.
903.4.1 General.
903.4.1.1 Applicability. Fire hydrant systems and fire hydrants
shall be in accordance with Section 903.4.
903.4.1.2 Testing and maintenance. Fire hydrant systems shall
be subject to such periodic tests as required by the chief. Fire
hydrant systems shall be maintained in an operative condition at
all times and shall be repaired where defective. Additions, repairs,
alterations and servicing shall be in accordance with approved
standards.
• •
FRANZ E. FISCHER
Fred Calhoun
2860 Palos Verdes Drive North
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Dear Fred:
May 242001
I am writing to you because of very disturbing incident which happened between Steve and my wife Peggy
at approximately 2:25 p.m. on the afternoon of May 24, 2001.
At that time Peggy was driving down the driveway on the straight portion just below your and Steve and
Linda's driveways. Steve was driving up the driveway at the same time. Her exact words about this incident
are that "Steve Calhoun was driving up the driveway at a high speed. He was driving in the center of the
driveway, which forced me to pull off the driveway and stop. He made no attempt to stop." Further Peggy
tells me that her car was just below your driveway when Steve came around the blind corner at the bottom
of the driveway, so she was visible to him from that point all the way up the hill. Unfortunately this is not the
first such incident. On two prior occasions Steve has done this to Peggy. However, this was by far the most
serious incident, and in fact left her crying. Neither of the previous incidents left her so shaken that she was
crying. What is even worse is that I am quite sure that Steve had no way to tell whether my children were in
the car when he did this, but apparently he did not care. You have on many occasions said that we should
be more "Neighborly." This conduct by Steve certainly is not "Neighborly."
It is even more ironic that you and Jean and Steve and Linda have put up "Drive Carefully -Children at play.'
signs in the driveway easement. Peggy assures me that had one of Steve's own children been playing in the
driveway, or crossing the driveway at the time of this incident, he would have killed his own child.
Contrary to this example I have, on several occasions, met Linda Calhoun on the driveway under similar
circumstances. In every instance I have been courteous, and have stopped my vehicle and offered her the right
of way, which is what I would expect even if people do not like one another, or are involved in litigation with
one another. Also, when coming out of the bottom of my driveway onto the easement I have on many
occasions been required to stop for Linda and Steve's children. I have always come to a full stop and given
them the right of way, especially recently when your grandson has been driving his motor bike from one side
of my driveway to the other.
Unfortunately, I believe that this incident is related to our current boundary line dispute. Yesterday afternoon
my attorney spoke twice with Eric Olson. The first conversation took place in the early afternoon, and the
second in the late afternoon. The subject matter of those discussions was their attempt to finalize a settlement
of my lawsuit against you and Steve. In the first conversation my attorney advised Mr. Olson that their were
two issues in which Steve was asking for concessions that I would not agree to. In the second conversation
Mr. Olson spoke to Mr. Gillon and advised him that he, Mr. Olson, had spoken with Steve about those issues
that afternoon. Subsequently, the very next day Steve ran my wife off the road by driving his automobile at
her's at a high speed. I can come to no other conclusion but that Steve was upset about these negotiations
and let his temper get the best of him, causing risk to both my wife, and had my children been in the car, he
would have caused risk to them as well. As you can imagine, this conduct is not acceptable to me or my
family.
P.O. Box 3660, Rolling Hills, CA 90274 (310) 541-2112
•
FRANZ E. FISCHER
Based upon this history, and this incident, it does not appear that I can either cause Steve to change his
conduct toward me and my family, nor can I presume that the litigation will get resolved if left in his hands.
Based upon these feelings, I have instructed my attorney to stop negotiations with regard to settlement ofthis
case at this time, and to prepare to go to trial.
However, this decision is not permanent. I do, though, need two assurances from you personally. First, and
by far most important, is that you, and to the extent necessary Linda, prevail upon Steve to change his conduct
so as not to constitute a risk to my family.
The other point is that I want youto personally be involved in the settlement discussions. You and I have,
for the most part, been able to work these matters out. But when Steve is involved, things seem to get worse.
not better. Therefore, I do not intend to involve myself or my attorney in any further settlement discussions
unless I am assured that you will be involved. In fact, I see no likelihood of success at all unless you do
become directly involved at this time.
Thank you for your attention to my concerns. I am sure you understand how my concerns for my family have
caused me to worry greatly about Steve and his conduct and have led me to take the steps [ am outlining for
you in this letter.
I would appreciate it if you would call me to let me know whether you think this situation can be resolved and
I will be willing to make myself available this weekend to meet with you personally to finalize the agreement
if you so desire. Please call me at 310 541-2112.
Sinc rrly
cc: Linda Calhoun
P.O. Box 3660, Rolling Rills, CA 90274 (310) 541-2112
•
June 22, 2001
Franz Fisher
2862 Palos Verdes Drive North
Rolling Hills Estates, Ca. 90274
Dear Franz,
M..
NN
.2 1;
PITY OF,F3Q1ING, HILLS
I am informing you of an incident that occurred yesterday, June 21, 2001. As I
was returning from my father's house to my house, I saw a Federal Express truck
parked in the middle of my driveway. I waited for the driver to return. I asked
him if he had a package for me. He said no that he was delivering a package to
the Fisher residence. I asked him why he was parked in my driveway instead of
yours. He said because of the large rocks sitting on the side of your driveway
were position in such a way that he felt he could not squeeze through the 3 or 4
boulders and your retaining wall and he did not want to have to back down the
driveway. I noticed these boulders which were usually much closer to the edge
were positioned differently and are now towards the middle of your driveway.
The driver seemed concerned he was on my property. I understood his concern
and told him it was okay and that if he needed to park in my driveway to delivery
packages to neighboring houses, that I do not have an issue with this as long as
he doesn't block my egress and ingress. Franz, it would be more practical to
keep access to driveways fully open for delivery vehicles and emergency
vehicles. I am informing you for your own benefit and safety.
The driver mentioned that your German Shepherd bite him on the buttocks. I
asked him if he was okay and if he needed assistance. He said: "No, his teeth
did not break the skin — just got a little piece of my shorts". I asked the driver if
he ever before had a problem with your dog. He informed me this was the first
time he delivered to your house. He was delivering on behalf of the regular
driver. He mentioned that you informed him that the regular driver remains in the
vehicle and honks his horn until you come out and receive the package.
Your dog biting people may be becoming a serious issue. Just the day before
this incident, your dog bite one of my employees who was attempting to deliver a
package to your house with your consent, for which you will be receiving a letter
from our company explaining this unfortunate biting situation. At the very least,
you should have a warning sign to inform unexpected individuals that need to go
to your house for business reasons that you have a dog on the premises that
bites.
I would also suggest that you place your dog under some kind of restraints,
whether tied up or in the house when you are expecting visitors.
Thank you for your consideration in resolving these matters.
Steve Calhoun
Cc: Association of Rolling Hills, City of Rolling Hills, and Humane Society
.4
II` MUSTRIAL DYI`I MILS filte,c°
SYSTEMS
World Headquarters: 3100 Fujita Street • Torrance, California 90505-4007 U.S.A.
Mail To: P.O. Box 2945 • Torrance, California 90509-2945 U.S.A. • Phone: (310) 325-5633 Fax: • (310) 530-1000
Ship To: 3100 Fujita Street • Torrance, California 90505-4007 • Phone: (310) 325-5633
June 26, 2001
Franz Fischer
2862 Palos Verdes Drive North
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Dear Mr. Fischer:
"".6)
ru
J U N 2 7 2 C 1
curl' CSF=ROLI,•%: °
•M'1.LS
Please disregard my previous letter dated June 22, 2001. I am writing this letter to serve
as a formal compliant in regards to your German shepherd biting an employee of
Industrial Dynamics.
On June 19, 2001, I sent Filiberto Sigalo, an Industrial Dynamics employee, to your house
to deliver a package. You where contacted earlier in the day by Tish Levine and she
stated that we would be sending a messenger up to deliver a package within the hour.
You agreed to her request. When my employee approached your house, he was
confronted by your barking dog. Filiberto states that someone came out of your house
and this is when your dog attacked Filiberto and bit him in the upper left leg. When
Filiberto came back to work, he told me what happened. I then sent him to the Care
Station Medical Group in Torrance to have a doctor examine the injury to Filiberto's
upper left leg.
I am sending this letter to the City of Rolling Hills, the Los Angeles County Animal Care
& Control and the Rolling Hills Community Association. You should consider the
possibility of another innocent person or child may be attacked, bitten, and/or killed by
your aggressive dog.
Enclosed is a statement from Filiberto Sigalo on this incident. If you have any questions,
feel free to call me at (310) 257-2390.
Sincerely,
Bruce Hoerning
Director of Facilities
cc: City of Rolling Hills, CA — Mr. Craig Nealis, City Manager
Los Angeles County Animal Care & Control, Gardena, CA — Sgt. Taylor
Rolling Hills Community Association — Peggy Minor
Enclosure
t
• •
FRANZ E. FISCHER
Mr. Bruce Hoerning
Director of Facilities
Industrial Dynamics Company, Ltd.
2927 Lomita Blvd.
Torrance, CA 90505
-,... IT'- -)
j�.si
,,; : ,.
JUN 2e
CITY OF ROLL-^e
Ay
Re: Alleged Dog Bite to Filiberto Sigalo
by "Chance" Fischer
Dear Mr. Hoerning:
June 22, 2001
�inwo � KaL5
714s
This letter is in responsto what I consider to be the incredible false alletzations contained in your.i,ine
22, 2001 letter to Franz Fischer that Mr. SigaIo was bitten by Mr. Fischer's dog Chance. These allegations
are completely false. It is exceedingly unfortunate that your employers have taken out their bitterness
regarding the ongoing property line lawsuit, in which trial started today, through these unfounded allegations.
Immediately upon the filing of this suit, a completely unfounded dog bite allegation was filed by Mrs.
Calhoun, and which was later found to be baseless. When Mr. Fischer arrived home from the first day of a
trial in which Steve Calhoun admitted that the declaration he filed with the City of Rolling Hills on June 7,
1989 "under penalty ofperjury"contained a "mistake," this second "dog bite" allegation was found sitting on
Mr. Fischer's doorstep. The timing of these events is so coincidental to make the claim of Mr. Sigalo's
alleged dog bite completely ridiculous.
Please notify Mr. Sigalo that he is to preserve all evidence of this alleged incident. In particular, he
is notified to preserve the pants he was wearing at the time, as they will definitely have the dog's DNA matter
on them if the bite was sufficient to penetrate the pants and Mr. Sigalo's skin underneath the pants. And, of
course, ifthose alleged ripped pants have no such DNA, or the DNA of another dog, the evidence ofthis false
claim will become immediately clear.
Also, please forward to us the name of the physician who examined Mr. Sigalo and the date of the
examination, together with Mr. Sigalo's medical release authorizing release of these records.
Also, since it appears that this was a work related incident as far as your employee was concerned,
please forward to me immediately the worker's compensation claim forms. Since he reported the incident
to you, your notes as to this alleged worker's compensation injury will be required, as of course will he your
testimony. Therefore, you are instructed to preserve these notes, and to provide copies of them to us and to
the authorities to whom you have reported this incident. You might also want to inform Mr. Sigalo of the
serious consequences of filing a false worker's compensation claim.
The facts of the incident as related in Mr. Sigalo's enclosed statement are completely unbelievable.
In particular, after being bit, Mr. Sigalo says that he waited for someone to come out, told the person that
came out that he had a package for Mr. Fischer, that person then told him Mr. Fischer was not available but
that he could sign for the package, that person then signed the receipt, and Mr. Sigalo then left. He states "1
left He never asked me and I didn't say to him that the dog bit me." It is absolutely incredibly unbelievable
that after allegedly being bit, Mr. Sigalo waited for someone to come out, had a conversation with that person,
P.O. Box 3660, Rolling Hills, CA 90274 (310) 541-2112
i •
FRANZ E. FISCHER
got them to sign a receipt, then walked back down the driveway from whence he came, without any
appearance of injury at all, all without ever thinking to mention that this dog had just bit him severely enough
both to break the skin, and also presumably hard enough to rip his pants. I was the person who took that
package. Mr. Fischer was in his office observing Mr. Sigalo, and was not more the three or four feet away
from him. No such ripped pants were visible to either of us when Mr. Sigalo left Mr. Fischer's premises. In
fact, neither I nor Mr. Fischer observed Mr. Sigalo being bit, evidencing any symptoms of being bit, having
any ripped clothing, or having any limp when he walked back down the driveway some distance to wherever
he was parked.
Next, is the matter of "the messenger." You are right that Ms. Levine did say that "a messenger'
would be sent to deliver documents. She did not inform Mr. Fischer that this "messenger" would be one of
the Calhoun's employees. Had Mr. Fischer been so informed, he would not have consented to have one of
Mr. Calhoun's employees come on his property. Please be informed that neither the Calhouns, nor you, have
any authority to send employees of your company onto the Fischer property, they are not authorized to be
on the Fischer property, nor are the Calhouns themselves authorized to be on the Fischer property. Mr.
Fischer has a clearly visible "No trespassing" sign on the property at its entrance. If you, any employee of
your company, or the Calhouns themselves, again come on Mr. Fischer's property, a police report will be
called in immediately, and the trespasser will be prosecuted.
Finally, let me close by saying that you and your company itself apparently did not believe this dog
had bit Mr. Sigalo, as the letter regarding the incident to which I am responding was delivered by hand to the
doorstep of the Fischer residence. If your company was so concerned about Mr. Sigalo's injuries, why did
it wait three days after the incident to report it? Mr. Fischer is of the opinion that you knew this claim to be
false, and wanted sufficient time for destruction of evidence before the filing of the claim. And, if you
believed this claim to be true, you then deliberately sent another messenger into the Lion's den, so to speak,
to hand deliver the complaint letter. That, 1 believe, is the action of someone who is either not to smart, or
who does not believe that the dog constituted a risk. Based upon his previous dealings with you, Mr. Fischer
is of the opinion that you are both smart and a liar. This, of course, is the same opinion he has of Steve
Calhoun. His opinion of Steve Calhoun is clearly demonstrated by the false declaration of -June 7, 1989, and
the second explanation, that is that Chance did not bite Mr. Sigalo, and is not risk to anyone, is the explanation
that applies to the fact that you felt that it was safe to hand deliver the complaint letter.
ifMr. Sigalo refuses these requests, it will only constitute further evidence that no such incident took
place, and it will certainly leave the authorities to whom you have reported this alleged incident unable to
render an informed decision as to whether the incident even took place. Therefore, if Mr. Fischer's opinion
of you is, for some unforseen reason, wrong, it would seem that you and Mr. Sigalo would readily comply
with these requests to clear this matter up.
P.O. Box 3660, Rolling Hills, CA 90274 (310) 541-2112
s •
FRANZ E. FISCHER
Again, it is incredibly unfortunate that your employers would let the bad feelings between themselves
and Mr. Fischer over a civil matter degenerate to "picking on a poor defenseless dog." But Mr. Fischer is of
the opinion that they are doing this with this complaint.
Robert Gillon
Attorney for Franz Fischer
P.O. Box 3660, Rolling Hills, CA 90274 (310) 541-2112