Loading...
none, , CorrespondenceApril 19, 2010 Ms. Julie Walter 92 Crest Road East Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Ms. Walter: w 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. LI, 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. Since ply lanta Schwartz Planning Director cc: Anton Dahlerbruch, City Manager Elizabeth Calciano, Assistant City Attorney Saturday, April 17, 2010 12:05 PM Subject: RE: our lawyer will be appealing Date: Friday, April 16, 2010 5:24 PM From: Julie Walter <msjuliewalter@cox.net> To: Anton Dahlerbruch_City of Rolling Hills <adahlerbruch@cityofrh.net> Cc: 'Yolanta Schwartz' <ys@cityofrh.net> Tony -Thank You for contacting me- I tried to call you and I know it is your day off. Our lawyer says clearly there is an appeal. I hope you don't try to get our of this -this will just add to the endless travesties of justice to us- and will actually make it easier for us when we must file an action. I am letting you know - I will not accept a denial of our rights. I will not accept it -and I will take action. Yolanta also told me at least a few times we could appeal.) am sorry- but we have been thru hell and back Julie Original Message From: Anton Dahlerbruch [mailto:adahlerbruch@cityofrh.net] Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 1:52 PM To: Julie Walter; Yolanta Schwartz Subject: RE: our lawyer will be appealing Julie, I just want to acknowledge receipt of your email yesterday and today as well as acknowledge your telephone calls about the situation. We will be responding more formally to you on Monday regarding the appeal you have filed that we have received. Thank you, Tony Anton (Tony) Dahlerbruch City Manager City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 310.377.1521 www.rolling-hills.org Page 1 of 6 s This is a transmission from the City of Rolling Hills. The information contained in this email pertains to City business and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient and you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply email and delete the message. Original Message From: Julie Walter [mailto:msjuliewalter@cox.net] Sent: Fri 4/16/2010 11:42 AM To: Yolanta Schwartz Cc: Anton Dahlerbruch Subject: our lawyer will be appealing Tony and Yolanta- Our lawyer will be sending you next week our appeal - since you did not respond to my email on this( he is in court Monday and Tuesday ( and he has read the documents and we have a legal right to appeal). He will be appealing in the name of John Walter.But Yolanta called me yesterday and told me that the plan came thru yesterday. We know The Georges are keeping things "open" in this plan in the back of the barn besides the windows and we are not sure if they have pens too close to our house( in Page 2 of 6 direct violation of the RHCA's real ruling and I put under your door last night). No matter what anyone says- those little pieces of paper is the REAL ruling ( and the lawyer of the RHCA confirmed in one of them how this ruling cannot be appealed as well)- that will stand up in a court of law -no matter what kind of Kangaroo Courts are going on -in the city and in the RHCA. There are facts and reality and they cannot be denied in a court of law. Justice will prevail- it will just take more time. We have been subjected to on going nuisances and we can 100% prove this. The municipal codes even state clearly that a building like this is by definition a nuisance and we have been.subjected to its impact for years ( believe me what ever I tell you exists in the codes - exists there- I have read them).We are being negatively impacted as adjacent neighbors and we have rights. This is going to interfere with our right to sell- I have already spoken to a real estate agent and she confirmed this. Also our lawyer did -noise issues are a thing you must disclose to prospective home owners. We have the animal nuisance ruling and we feel noises will start up again -unless that back is closed. We also Page 3 of 6 1 have many tapes proving this loud music etc. This is just plain wrong. This was all altered without permits. If it had gone thru the proper channels- it would have absolutely had to have a CUP - then we would have had a say in its alteration as adjacent neighbors and our impact. I think a jury would find it odd that our CUP says we expressly did not invade any neighbors privacy- but when our neighbors break the laws and violate the deeds and the municipal codes and violate our privacy- that is ok?? So now that they are making an illegal structure back legal ( possibly) they cannot just retain the worst parts that negatively impact us- and have all our rights denied? Now it is all ok- after the fact? it was altered and then realtered and our rights have been grossly violated in the process?We will not allow them to retain a part that so negatively impacts us and was not done with out permits for permission -now you try to tell us it is rubber stamped over the counter and it is A-ok? People are playing games with our lives and our money and our property -trying to find loop holes? I think people would also find it interesting to note that it is a well known fact that the city Page 4 of 6 has allowed people to abuse the system and skirt the laws with this bogus "over the counter" barns process. I personally think - the city has been violating the sprit of the deeds for years by doing that ( not just the sprit but literally as well). We demand consideration as adjacent neighbors- and we have it codified in the municipal codes.Also you are not to violate the deeds in the municipal codes that is clearly stated and again we have a ruling in our favor from The RHCA that will hold up in a court of law- making that wall totally solid again- again no matter what a "kangaroo court" says. Our rights continue to be tramped on left and right by both entities and we have a tremendous paper trial proving this. What we asked for is reasonable -fair and so little ( we even offered multiple times to 100% pay for it about $5000-is a bid we got). What is happed to us- goes beyond outrageous - unethical and immoral- and jeopardizes every property up here and that they will be treated fairly.I will be letter every single property owner be made aware of this- and that this could happen to them- and look at the abuse they will suffer if it does. There is not one person I have spoken up here who thinks what has happened to us is Page 5 of 6 / right. I hope that you also stamped on the plans- that none of this back area of the barn facing us - was not approved by the RHCA and is pending ( but even that is bogus- it is not really pending in reality). Bill Rogers the architectural committee head asked you to do that. Thank you Julie Page 6 of 6 Friday, April 16, 2010 12:34 PM Subject: our lawyer will be appealing Date: Friday, April 16, 2010 11:42 AM From: Julie Walter <msjuliewalter@cox.net> To: 'Yolanta Schwartz' <ys@cityofrh.net> Cc: Anton Dahlerbruch_City of Rolling Hills <adahlerbruch@cityofrh.net> Tony and Yolanta- Our lawyer will be sending you next week our appeal -since you did not respond to my email on this( he is in court Monday and Tuesday ( and he has read the documents and we have a legal right to appeal). He will be appealing in the name of John Walter.But Yolanta called me yesterday and told me that the plan came thru yesterday. We know The Georges are keeping things "open" in this plan in the back of the barn besides the windows and we are not sure if they have pens too close to our house( in direct violation of the RHCA's real ruling and I put under your door last night). No matter what anyone says- those little pieces of paper is the REAL ruling ( and the lawyer of the RHCA confirmed in one of them how this ruling cannot be appealed as well)- that will stand up in a court of law -no matter what kind of Kangaroo Courts are going on -in the city and in the RHCA. There are facts and reality and they cannot be denied in a court of law., Justice will prevail- it will just take more time. We have been subjected to on going nuisances and we can 100% prove this. The municipal codes even state clearly that a building like this is by definition a nuisance and we have been subjected to its impact for years ( believe me what ever I tell you exists in the codes -exists there- I have read them).We are being negatively impacted as adjacent neighbors and we have rights. This is going to interfere with our right to sell- I have already spoken to a real estate agent and she confirmed this. Also our lawyer did -noise issues are a thing you must disclose to prospective home owners. We have the animal nuisance ruling and we feel noises will start up again -unless that back is closed. We also have many tapes proving this loud music etc. This is just plain wrong. This was all altered without permits. If it had gone thru the proper channels- it would have absolutely had to have a CUP -then we would have had a say in its alteration as adjacent neighbors and our impact. I think a jury would find it odd that our CUP says we expressly did not invade any neighbors privacy- but when our neighbors break the laws and violate the deeds and the municipal codes and violate our privacy- that is ok?? So now that they are making an illegal structure back legal ( possibly) they cannot just retain the worst parts that negatively impact us- and have all our rights denied? Now it is all ok- after the fact? it was altered and then realtered and our rights have been grossly violated in the process?We will not allow them to retain a part that so negatively impacts us and was not done with out permits for permission -now you try to tell us it is rubber stamped over the counter and it is A-ok? People are playing Page 1 of 2 games with our lives and our money and our property -trying to find loop holes? I think people would also find it interesting to note that it is a well known fact that the city has allowed people to abuse the system and skirt the laws with this bogus "over the counter" barns process. I personally think - the city has been violating the sprit of the deeds for years by doing that ( not just the sprit but literally as well). We demand consideration as adjacent neighbors- and we have it codified in the municipal codes.Also you are not to violate the deeds in the municipal codes that is clearly stated and again we have a ruling in our favor from The RHCA that will hold up in a court of law- making that wall totally solid again- again no matter what a "kangaroo court" says. Our rights continue to be tramped on left and right by both entities and we have a tremendous paper trial proving this. What we asked for is reasonable -fair and so little ( we even offered multiple times to 100% pay for it about $5000-is a bid we got). What is happed to us- goes beyond outrageous- unethical and immoral- and jeopardizes every property up here and that they will be treated fairly.I will be letter every single property owner be made aware of this- and that this could happen to them- and look at the abuse they will suffer if it does. There is not one person I have spoken up here who thinks what has happened to us is right. I hope that you also stamped on the plans- that none of this back area of the barn facing us - was not approved by the RHCA and is pending ( but even that is bogus- it is not really pending in reality). Bill Rogers the architectural committee head asked you to do that. Thank you Julie Page 2 of 2 ti Thursday, April 15, 2010 4:41 PM Subject: appeal Date: Thursday, April 15, 2010 3:20 PM From: Julie Walter <msjuliewalter@cox.net> To: 'Yolanta Schwartz' <ys@cityofrh.net> Yolanda - Our lawyer asked me to ask you if you have stamped approval yet of this plan of The Georges? We have 10 days to appeal with planning commission- and he wanted to know if there is a form we need to fill out or does he need to write a letter?I will also come in and see it soon. Did you do as Bill Rogers from the RHCA asked and say the windows are not necessarily approved and are pending by RHCA? OUR LAWYER FOUND THE MINUTES FROM THE MEETING OF RHCA PROVING 100% THAT WE WON A NON APPEAL ABLE RULING THAT THIS WHOLE BACK WAS TO BE CLOSED BY THE END OF FEBRUARY. NO MATTER WHAT THE BOARD THINKS IS HAPPENING NOW THAT IS NOT THE LEGAL FACTUAL CASE WHAT EVER THEY DID AT THE RHCA- WAS A "KANGAROO COURT" THAT WE WILL NOT STAND FOR IF IN 45 DAYS THIS IS NOT UPHELD- WE WILL BE "RIPE' FOR OUR LAWSUIT.And as I have told you -in our deeds we have a clause that the RHCA must pay our legal fees for a breech ( not all deeds have that -but ours does). I am going to do what ever it takes- no matter how long- no matter what I have to do in a legal and ethical way to stop this travesty of justice from happening to us. you may at some time in the very new future- find me with a picket sign out side your office handing out flyers. and I am not kidding Julie Page 1 of 1 Our lawyer asked me to ask you if you have stamped approval yet of this plan of The Georges? We have 10 days to appeal with planning commission- and he wanted to know if there is a form we need to fill out or does he need to write a letter?I will also come in and see it soon. Did you do as Bill Rogers from the RHCA asked and say the windows are not necessarily approved and are pending by RHCA? OUR LAWYER FOUND THE MINUTES FROM THE MEETING OF RHCA PROVING 100% THAT WE WON A NON APPEALABLE RULING THAT THIS WHOLE BACK WAS TO BE CLOSED BY THE END OF FEBRUARY. NO MATTER WHAT THE BOARD THINKS IS HAPPENING NOW THAT IS NOT THE LEGAL FACTUAL CASE WHAT EVER THEY DID AT THE RHCA- WAS A "KANGAROO COURT" THAT WE WILL NOT STAND FOR IF IN 45 DAYS THIS IS NOT UPHELD- WE WILL BE "RIPE" FOR OUR LAWSUIT.And as I have told you -in our deeds we have a clause that the RHCA must pay our legal fees for a breech ( not all deeds have that -but ours does). I am going to do what ever it takes- no matter how long- no matter what I have to do in a legal and ethical way to stop this travesty of justice from happening to us. you may at some time in the very new future- find me with a picket signout side your office handing out flyers. and I am not kidding Julie End of Forwarded Message Anton Dahlerbruch City Manager City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 310.377.1521 Page 2 of 3 eerey Roe€449 gad May 28, 2009 Ms. Julie Walter 92 Crest Road East Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear M 0164 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO.2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 This letter is to acknowledge receipt of your "notes" and DVD on May 27, 2009 in regard to the barn at 76 Eastfield Drive that documents your complaints about your neighbor's use of the barn, lighting of the barn, windows in the barn, noise generated in and around the barn, and loose chickens and rabbits. Over the past year, we have had several discussions in regard to the matters noted above and as you may recall, there has also been correspondence on these topics. In reprise of our communications, • The barn at 76 Eastfield was built with City (County) permits; from the City's perspective, it is not an illegal structure. • Barns typically have a "tack room," with glazed windows. A tack room may have lights, furniture and other fixtures. While intended for horse -related purposes, tack rooms can be used for a variety of purposes. • The City does not have a noise ordinance that limits noise emanating from a backyard or a structure. • The City does not require that small animals such as chickens and rabbits be contained within an enclosure during the daytime. . • All issues pertaining to use of easements is under the jurisdiction of the Rolling Hills Community Association, a subject that must be addressed to them directly. In addition, we understand your concern about your neighbor's barn being used for purposes other than for animals, feed and tack. Similarly, it is recognized that barns throughout the City are used by residents for storage, as a workshop or studio, as a recreation room, for band practice, etc. Acknowledging that there is a conflict between Page 1 of 2 Walter May 28, 2009. Page 2 Municipal Code authorized uses of barns and what exists in reality, knowing that there are several barns in the community that do not comply with the Municipal Code, and recognizing that illegal barn conversions are completed without building permits, the Planning Commission will be conducting a hearing to consider acceptable and allowable uses of barns. The policy discussion is currently scheduled for September 22, 2009 at 6:30 pm at City Hall. At this meeting, it would be appropriate for you to express your concerns about the appropriate use for barns in the community. If you have any further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, nton Dahlerbruch City Manager AD:hl 05-27-09 Walter-ltr. doc cc: Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director cRo �in9 Community of eRanefio Jn-aLo1 (Rules 16-oeiation No. 1 PORTUGUESE BEND RD. • ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 544-6222 ROLLING HILLS March 27, 2009 Travers Tree Service Attn: Don Lorenzen 1181 Lomita Boulevard Lomita, CA 90717 CALIFORNIA EINED MAR 2 7 2009 City of Rolling Hills By Via Fax v33‘1' • 3O2V Re: Eucalyptus tree at 92 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills Dear Mr. Lorenzen: (31 ❑) 544-6766 FAX This letter is to confirm that the Association staff has seen the tree that John Walters has hired your firm to remove and has determined that it is not in a roadside easement and is not an "Association Easement Tree" as defined in the RHCA Easement Guidelines, adopted April 2008. The RHCA does not require approval of the Board or other permission from the Association to remove or trim the tree in question. Please feel welcome to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Kristen Raig Manager cc: John Walters, 92 Crest Road East Anton Dahlerbruch, Rolling Hills City Manager KR Corr/Travers-TreeOkToRemove 03-27-09 • • Ctt obelingJJIG November 4, 2008 Ms. Julie Walters 92 Crest Road East Rolling Hi11�;�CA 90274 Dear Ms. 1/ J Thank yok for your most recent email and voice mail concerning the noise and lights generated out of the barn at 76 Eastfield Drive as well as the barking and nuisance complaint with regard to the dog at 76 Eastfield Drive. The City takes each of your calls seriously. In response to your initial call and letter approximately a year ago about your neighbor's barn, you have always received a response or acknowledgement. Moreover, in response to your complaints about the barn, the City has also communicated with your neighbors on several occasions. We have sent them two letters, talked with them and left several messages. We have also visited your house to personally observe the situation and offered to facilitate a meeting between you and your neighbor to discuss the matter. While your neighbor was willing to meet, I know that for a variety of reasons, you were not interested. INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377.7288 The Municipal Code allows barns (stables) to be used for animals and feed. Barns are also permitted to include a . "tack" room for storage of horse related equipment. As we have discussed, the City is aware of several barns in the community that are not in compliance with these Municipal Code limitations for one reason or another. While some barns or tack rooms may be used for recreational activities, there are others that may be used for storage. All uses that are not animal related are technically illegal. With knowledge of the illegal uses of barns, the City has two options. The City can modify the existing rules to be less restrictive on the use of barns and then, it can enforce the new rules on barns that are still used illegally according to the new rules. Alternatively, the City can maintain the current rules and apply them to all existing barns that are used illegally. Recognizing that there may be many barns in the City that are used for something other than animal related purposes, the City Council directed the Planning Commission to revise the allowable uses for barns. The Commission was charged by the City Council to develop regulations that would: 1. Encourage barns to be used for rural and agricultural purposes, 2. Discourage barns to be used as a secondary residence, 3. Discourage the improper conversion of a barn to a use that would preclude it from being used for rural and agricultural purposes in the future, 4. Expand the definition of barn uses to the extent that it does not violate County or State building or health codes and to narrow the possible violations and, 5. Consider amending the Zoning Code to require that the approval of a barn receive Planning Commission discretionary review and not be approved "over the counter." Printed on Recycled Paper • • Page 2 For many months, commencing with the creation of an Ad Hoc Committee, the Planning Commission has been discussing potential allowable uses of barns and a new approval process. You may recall that you were provided with a copy of the Ad Hoc Committee's initial recommendations in this regard. Now, the Planning Commission is considering, as an alternative, requiring all new barns to obtain a conditional use permit (CUP). The discussion has also included a process for bringing non -conforming barns into conformance. Until the Planning Commission and ultimately, the City Council, approve new regulations for barns, the City is limited in its ability to aggressively enforce the existing provisions of the Municipal Code pertaining to the uses for barns. In other words, the City cannot selectively enforce the Municipal Code on one potential violator, e.g., the owners of the barn at 76 Eastfield, when other violations exist and are known (or made known) to the City throughout the community. Therefore, please be aware that further enforcement of the illegal use of the barn at 76 Eastfield is pending until the Municipal Code is updated at which time the owners will have the opportunity to bring the barn into conformance with the new regulations or face enforcement action. The City, by embarking on a change to the Municipal Code pertaining to the uses of barns, has taken a position to not enforce the existing Municipal Code provisions until the Municipal Code is updated. Due to the complexity of this issue, it is anticipated that the Planning Commission will be addressing this matter for several more months at its open, public meetings before it is presented to the City Council for consideration. Moreover, through the Planning Commission process, the matter will be the subject of formal public hearings at which time all residents will have an opportunity to express their position and perspective on the uses of barns. As a result of this, I estimate that the topic will be presented to the City Council in the May/June 2009 timeframe. Your patience and understanding over this time with the situation next door is appreciated. Moreover, we hope you will participate in the public process to express your views. Currently, in response to your dog complaint, a County Department of Animal Care and Control Officer is evaluating the situation and will be providing the City with a report. This follows the City's receipt of your complaint form that prompted the action. Upon receipt of the County's report, recommendations, if necessary, will be made to correct or address the complaint. You and the residents at 76 Eastfield Drive will receive the report and corresponding recommendations once the City receives them. Thank you for your diligence and communicativeness on the barn and dog of your neighbor. We look forward to resolving both effectively. If you have any further questions, please don't hesitate to call me: Sincerely ton Dahlerbruch City Manager AD/ 11-04-08walter-ltr.doc c: Mayor and City Council Mike Jenkins, City Attorney Yolatna Schwartz, Planning Director