Loading...
521, Construct a new SFR and reloca, CorrespondenceCity e1) leo efin9 December 20, 1995 Mr. and Mrs. Edgar Capifali 4157 Tivoli Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90066 I INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 SUBJECT: TIME EXTENSION APPROVAL FOR ZONING CASE NO. 521 49 SADDLEBACK ROAD (LOT 61-RH) RESOLUTION NOS. 94-26 & 95-24 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Capifali: This letter shall serve as official notification that a one year time extension was APPROVED by the Planning Commission at their regular meeting on December 19, 1995 for the subject case. We have enclosed a copy of RESOLUTION NO. 95-24, specifying the conditions of approval sct forth by the Planning Commission. Note that this approval will expire on December 10, 1996 and unless you acquire permits before then, under Section 17.46.080(B) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code you must refile based upon the same criteria as for the issuance of a new permit. Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. LOLA UNGAR PRINCIPAL PLANNER ®Printed on Recycled Paper • • RESOLUTION NO. 95-24 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 94-26 AND APPROVING AN EXTENSION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A GUEST HOUSE AND A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 521. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. A request has been filed by Mr. and Mrs. Edgar Capifali with respect to real property located at 49 Saddleback Road (Lot 61-RH), Rolling Hills, requesting an extension to a previously approved Conditional Use Permit to construct a guest house and Site Plan Review for the construction of a new single family residence to replace an existing single family residence. Section 2. The Commission considered this item at a meeting on December 19, 1995 at which time information was presented indicating that the extension of time is necessary to assemble the technical aspects of the project that include additional soils and geological studies at the rear of the house. Section 3. Based upon information and evidence submitted, the Planning Commission does hereby amend Paragraph A, Section 8 of Resolution No. 94-26, dated December 10, 1994, to read as follows: "A. The Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review approvals shall expire within two years of the approval of this Resolution." Section 4. Except as herein amended, the provisions of Resolution No. 94- 26 shall continue to be in full force and effect. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 19TH J)A'YDP CEMBER, 1995. ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: MARILYN' KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 95-24 PAGE 1 OF 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) ) §§ ) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 95-24 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 94-26 AND APPROVING AN EXTENSION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A GUEST HOUSE AND A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 521. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on December 19, 1995 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Frost, Hankins, Raine, Witte and Chairman Roberts. NOES: None . ABSENT: None . ABSTAIN: None . and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices .a\r — ^i • 1 DEPUTY CIT'CLK RESOLUTION NO. 95-24 PAGE 2 OF 2 -el1v.1,J rT 3 MPS 9:00 a.m. December 8, 1995 Lola Ungar Principal Planner City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90275 S'dUTH BAY ENGINEERING•COMPAIVY Re: Site Review: 49 Saddleback Road clo'1�}-iU�iel21�,{�21�ij La1 �:�1:iiA�',rAlite EEC OF1, ZP 1995 i-:ILLS Dear Ms. Ungar: On behalf of Mr. and Mrs. E. Capafali I herewith respectfully request a time extension of their site plan approval. It was necessary to do additional soils and geological studies in the rear of the house. One year has not allowed sufficient time to assemble the technical aspects of this project. Douglas K. McHattie Vice President DKM:mb/lunger.ami O 304 TEJON PLACE • PALOS VERDES ESTATES, CA 90274 • (310) 375-2556 IN L.A. (213) 772-1555 • FAX (310) 378-3816 O 822 HAMPSHIRE ROAD, SUITE H • WESTLAKE VILLAGE; CA'91361 • (805) 494-4499 • FAX (805) 494-4211 .LF PA rCE PUBLIC DEF JAN.30. 1996 3:39PM P 1 HONE NO. : 310 5434318 T0: Marilyn City of Rolling Hills Two Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA. 90274 PROM: Oksana Bihun and Edgar Capifali RE: 49 Saddleback Road 11, Rolling Hills, CA. 90274 Zoning Case No. 521 I FPOM : T,4FPANCE PUBLIC DEF IJAN.30.1996 3:40PN P •NE NO. : 310 5434318 October 31, 1995 City of Rolling Hills Two Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA. 90274 RE: Zoning Case No. 521 49 Saddleback Road Rolling Hills, CA. 90274 Dear Peggy: Please be advised that we will no longer be utilizing the services of architect Walter Heim from Add -Ventures. We have now hired Mr. Thomas R. Milostan and Associates located at 777 Silver Spur Road, Suite 118 in�.Rolling Hills Estates. South Bay Engineering Company will be providing the civil engineering needed for the project. I am confident that our project now will soon be completed. Please do not correspond with Mr. Heim regarding our project. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. ery Truly Yours, Oksana Bihun and Edgar apifali •City ofieolliny October 31,1995 • INCOPPOPl1"r—r :I_I^,I%;' .I, NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS. CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 Mr. and Mrs. Edgar Capifali 4157 Tivoli Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90066 SUBJECT: EXPIRATION OF APPROVALS FOR ZONING CASE NO. 521 49 SADDLEBACK ROAD (LOT 61-RH) RESOLUTION NO. 94-26 Dear Mr., and Mrs. Capifali: This letter is to inform you that it has been almost one year since the approval of Zoning Case No. 521. Approvals will expire on December 10, 1995. You can extend approvals for one year only if you apply to the Planning Commission in writing to request an extension prior to the expiration date. The filing fee for the time extension is $200 to be paid to the City of Rolling Hills. Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. LOLA UNGAR PRINCIPAL PLANNER ®'".r 00,1 ort filar]—i7ElvTILER �� gibt us make your home an advent' October 24, 1995 Mrs. Lola Ungar #2 Portuguese Bend Rd. City of Rolling Hills Planning Department Rolling Hills, CA 90274 RE: Capifali Residence 49 Saddleback Road Rolling Hills zoning case no. 521 RESOLUTION NO. 94-26 Lola: OCT 301995 CITY OF RO.L;;:u HILLS By I am writing to give notice that I am no longer the Architect of Record for the above referenced project. As you know, through the efforts of this office, we have obtained Conditional Use Permit #521 and design review approval for the Capifali project. The owners are aware of the conditions attached to this approval and the time constraints involved, as I have informed them and I am sure you have also sent copies of the conditions as well. The owners have selected an undisclosed architect to prepare the final submittal drawings for your review. In as much as I have no further control over the final submittal drawings and calculations nor access or authority to make alterations or verify calculations therein, I hereby relieve myself of any and all liability for this project. The current approved drawings in your files which may bear my signature represent conditional approval documentation which may not be accurately represented in their final submittal. For these reasons, any documentation now in your possession and/or documentation which you may soon receive which was prepared or caused to be prepared by this office may not be relied upon for any reason. The new architect of record shall take full responsibility for the above referenced project in its entirety and it is his/her stamp and signature that shall attest to full compliance of any findings of your governmental entity. It has been a pleasure working with you and I thank you for all of your consideration and support you have offered during my relationship with this project. Please call me if you have any further concerns. Sincerely, Walter J.'Heim, architect ADD —VENTURE 365 B N. Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA. 92663 (714) 645-7089 •�r January 19, 1995 Community Association of Rolling Hills One Portuguese Bend Rolling Hills, CA. 90274 To the Honorable Committee: By "1 9 `' igQS City 01 r? ! g ffi!!s We are the owners of 49 Saddleback Road. In a letter dated January 13, 1995 we were made aware, by our next door neighbor, Laurence Green, of a potential problem concerning two eucalyptus trees on our property (see attachment "A"). This problem was also relayed to the previous owner on August 1, 1994 (see attachment "B"). Unfortunately, the previous owners never relayed to us Mr. Green's concerns and we were appraised of the situation on January 15, 1995 when we received his letter. We are also aware that trees cannot be cut down or severely trimmed without City Hall and the Association's approval. As of January 20, the weather forecast is predicting a storm on Monday, January 24th with the potential of winds and up to four inches of rain. The trees are leaning towards Mr. Green's property. We are re- questing an emergency inspection and/or advise from the committee as to what we should do. We are obviously concerned about potential property damage to Mr. Green's property. Please contact me at your earliest convenience at (310)306-8388. You s truly, Mr.'anjd Mrs. 'Edg r Cap'fal' J cc: City Hall of Rolling Hills One Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA. 90274 EXHIBIT "A" LAURENCE A. GREEN 2919 GARDENA AVENUE SIGNAL HILL. CALIFORNIA 90806 (213) 595-0516 January 13, 1995 Edgar Capifali 49 Saddleback Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Edgar: I'm your next -door neighbor on your west side...residing at #2 Hillside Lane. We met briefly shortly after you became the owner at #49 Saddleback. I wanted to apprise you of a situation that existed prior to your ownership so that we might discuss it at your convenience. The enclosed copy of my August letter to Republic Bank pretty well outlines the problem, which has been rekindled in my mind by the recent haevy rains (I've measured over 13 inches since January 4th). It would be interesting to know if Republic Bank included this matter in their disclosure statement dealing with your purchase; if not, they are clearly responsible for damages should any occur. I'd like to see this potential problem resolved; more than that, though, I sure don't want to come off as a cranky neighbor, so maybe we can discuss the matter at your convenience: Congratulations on your plan approval, and I look forward to knowing you better. Regards, LAG/hy Cuy o/ Ailing Jh/i December 15, 1994 Mr. and Mrs. Edgar Capifali 4157 Tivoli Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90066 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 CERTIFIED MAIL Rec.aved: 12-21 <94 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 SUBJECT: APPEAL PERIOD AND AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM ZONING CASE NO. 521, 49 SADDLEBACK ROAD (LOT 61-RH) RESOLUTION NO. 94-26 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Capifali: This letter shall serve as official notification that Zoning Case No. 521 was APPROVED by the Planning Commission and the enclosed resolution was approved on December 10, 1994 at an adjourned regular meeting. The Planning Commission's decision will be reported to the City Council at their regular meeting on January 9, 1995. The approval will become effective: (1) Thirty (30) days after adoption of the Planning Commission's resolution if no appeals are filed within that time period (Section 17.54.010(B) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code attached), AND (2) An Affidavit of Acceptance Form and the subject resolution must be filed by you with the County Recorder. We have enclosed a copy of RESOLUTION NO. 94-26, specifying the conditions of approval set forth by the Planning Commission and the approved Exhibit A Development Plan to keep for your files. Once you have reviewed the Resolution, please complete the enclosed AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM, have the signature(s) notarized, and forward the completed form and a copy of the Resolution to: Los Angeles County Registrar -Recorder Real Estate Records Section 12400 East Imperial Highway Norwalk, CA 90650 Include a check in the amount of $7.00 for the first page and $3.00 for each additional page. ®° PAGE 2 The City will notify the Los Angeles County Building & Safety Division to issue permits only when the Affidavit of Acceptance is received by us and any conditions of the Resolution required prior to issuance of building permits are met. Please feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. SINCERELY, ZOLA UNGA PRINCIPAL PF'ANNER ENC: RESOLUTION NO.94-26 EXHIBIT A DEVELOPMENT PLAN AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM APPEAL SECTION OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE. cc: Mr. Walter Heim • • RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND MAIL TO: Recorder's Use CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 Please record this form with the Registrar -Recorder's Office and return to: City of Rolling Hills, 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 (The Registrar -Recorder's Office requires that the form be notarized before recordation). ACCEPTANCE FORM STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss ZONING CASE NO. . 521 SITE PLAN REVIEW X VARIANCE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT X I (We) the undersigned state: I am (We are) the owner(s) of the real property described as follows: 49 Saddleback Road (Lot 61-RH Rolling Hills, CA 90274 This property is the subject of the above numbered cases. I am (We are) aware of, and accept, all the stated conditions in said ZONING CASE NO. 521 SITE PLAN REVIEW VARIANCE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT I (We) certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Print Print Owner Owner • RESOLUTION NO. 94-26 • gy4//2/114 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A REQUEST FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF- A GUEST HOUSE AND APPROVING A REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE TO REPLACE AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 521. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Applications were duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. Edgar Capifali with respect to real property at 49 Saddleback Road, Rolling Hills (Lot 61-RH) requesting a Conditional Use Permit to construct a guest house and requesting Site Plan Review for the construction of a new single family residence to replace an existing single family residence. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the applications on October 18, 1994 and November 22, 1994, and at a field trip visit on November 5, 1994. Section 3. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a Class 1 Exemption (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301(e)) and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 4. Sections 17.16.210(A)(5) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permits approval of a Guest House under certain conditions. The applicants are requesting to construct a 625 square foot guest house at the southwest portion of the lot. With respect to this request for a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a guest house would be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan and will be desirable for the public convenience and welfare because the use is consistent with similar uses in the community, and the area proposed for the guest house would be located in an area on the property where such use will not change the existing configuration of structures on the lot. B. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures have been considered, and the construction of a guest house will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed guest house will be constructed on a portion of the residential building pad and is a sufficient distance from nearby residences so that the guest house will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors. RESOLUTION NO. 94-26 PAGE 1 • • C. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain, and surrounding residences because the guest house will comply with the low profile residential development pattern of the community and is located on a 1.97 acre parcel of property that is adequate in size, shape and topography to accommodate such use. D. The proposed conditional use complies with all applicable development standards of the zone district because the 625 square foot size of the guest house is less than the 800 square foot maximum permitted and the guest house does not encroach into any setback areas. E. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the portions of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities because the project site is not listed on the current State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List. F. The proposed conditional use observes the spirit and intent of Title 17 of the Zoning Code because there is an existing stable structure and corral on the lot. Section 5. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a 625 square foot guest house in accordance with the Development Plan dated December 10, 1994 and marked Exhibit A in Zoning Case No. 521 subject to the conditions contained in Section 9. Section 6. Section 17.46.020 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code requires a development plan to be submitted for site plan review and approval before any building or structure may be constructed or any expansion, addition, alteration or repair to existing buildings may be made which involve changes to grading or an increase to the size of the building or structure by at least 1,000 square feet and has the effect of increasing the size of the building or structure by more than twenty-five percent (25%) in any thirty-six month period. The applicants request Site Plan Review to construct a residence, attached garage, guest house; and swimming pool. With respect to the Site Plan Review application, the Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact: A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses because the proposed structure complies with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. The project conforms to Zoning. Code setback and lot coverage requirements with the Conditional Use Permit for a guest house approved in Section 5 of this Resolution. The lot has a net square foot area of 86,046 square feet. The proposed residence (4,960 sq.ft.), attached garage (704 sq.ft.), guest house (625 sq.ft.), pool (400 sq.ft.), and existing stable (640 sq.ft.) will have 7,329 square feet which constitutes 10.45% of the RESOLUTION NO. 94-26 PAGE 2 • • lot which is within the maximum 20% structural lot coverage requirement. The total lot coverage including paved areas and driveway will be 21,359 square feet which equals 30.46% of the lot, which is within the 35% maximum overall lot coverage requirement. The proposed project is on a relatively large lot with most of the proposed structures located above and away from the road so as to reduce the visual impact of the development. B. The proposed development preserves and integrates into the site design, to the maximum extent feasible, existing natural topographic features of the lot including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses, and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls) because a minimum amount of grading is proposed and will only be done to provide approved drainage that will flow away from the proposed residence and existing neighboring residences. C. The development plan follows natural contours of the site to minimize grading and the natural drainage courses will continue to the canyons at the east side (rear) of this lot. D. The development plan incorporates existing large trees and native vegetation to the maximum extent feasible. Specifically, the development plan preserves several mature trees and shrubs. E. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage because the new structures will not cause the structural and total lot coverage to be exceeded. Further, the proposed project is designed to minimize grading. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped so as to maintain scenic vistas across the northerly portions of the property. F. The proposed development, as conditioned, is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences. As indicated in Paragraph A, the lot coverage maximum will not be exceeded and the proposed project is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood when compared to this irregular -shaped lot. Grading shall be permitted only to restore the natural slope of the property. G. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the proposed project will utilize the same driveway to Saddleback Road for access. H. The project conforms with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and is categorically exempt from environmental review. Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review for construction of a new single family RESOLUTION NO. 94-26 PAGE 3 • • residence, an attached garage, guest house, pool, and stable, as indicated on the Development Plan dated December 10, 1994 and marked Exhibit A, subject to the conditions specified in Section 8. Section 8. The Conditional Use Permit for a guest house approved in Section 5 and the Site Plan Review approved in Section 7 of this Resolution are subject to the following conditions: A. The Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review approvals shall expire within one year from the effective date of approval as defined in Sections 17. 42.070 and 17.46.080. B. It is declared and made a condition of the Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review approvals, that if any conditions thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted thereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicant has been given written notice to cease such violation and has failed to do so for a period of thirty (30) days. C. All requirements of the Buildings and Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with unless otherwise set forth in the Permit, or shown otherwise on an approved plan. D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A, except as otherwise provided in these conditions. E. No kitchen or other cooking facilities shall be provided within the guest house. F. No vehicular access or paved parking area shall be developed within 50 feet of the guest house. G. Occupancy of the guest house shall be limited to persons employed on the premises and their immediate family or by the temporary guest of the occupants of the main residence. No guest may remain in occupancy for more than 30 days in any six month period. H. Renting of the guest house is prohibited. I. All retaining walls incorporated into the project shall not be greater than 5 feet in height at any one point. J. Residential building pad coverage shall not exceed 32.9%. RESOLUTION NO. 94-26 PAGE 4 • • K. Landscaping shall incorporate and preserve, to the maximum extent feasible, the existing mature trees and shrubs and the natural landscape screening surrounding the proposed building pad. L. Two copies of a landscape plan must be submitted for review by the Planning Department and include native drought -resistant vegetation that will not disrupt the impact of the views of neighboring properties prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit. The landscaping plan submitted must comply with the purpose and intent of the Site Plan Review Ordinance, shall incorporate existing mature trees and native vegetation, and shall utilize to the maximum extent feasible, plants that are native to the area and/or consistent with the rural character of the community. A bond in the amount of the cost estimate of the implementation of the landscaping plan plus 15% shall be required to be posted prior to issuance of a grading and building permit and shall be retained with the City for not less than two years after landscape installation. The retained bond will be released by the City Manager after the City Manager determines that the landscaping was installed pursuant to the landscaping plan as approved, and that such landscaping is properly established and in good condition. M. Prior to the submittal of an applicable final grading plan to the County of Los Angeles for plan check, a detailedgrading and drainage plan with related geology, soils and hydrology reports that conform to the development plan as approved by the Planning Commission must be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their review. Cut and fill slopes shall not exceed a steepness of a 2 to 1 slope ratio. N. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit. O. Notwithstanding Section 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, any modifications to the project which would constitute additional development shall require the filing of a new application for Site Plan Review approval by the Planning Commission. P. The applicants shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review, pursuant to Section 17.42.060, or the approval shall not be effective. Q. All conditions of these Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review approvals must be complied with prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit from the County of Los Angeles. RESOLUTION NO. 94-26 PAGE 5 • • PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 1994. ATTEST: MARILYN ERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) SS ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN I certify that the foregoing Resolution No.94-26 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A REQUEST FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A GUEST HOUSE AND APPROVING A REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE TO REPLACE AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 521. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on December 10, 1994 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Frost, Hankins, Witte and Chairman Roberts NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Raine (Commissioner Raine also abstained from voting on this project at the Planning Commission meeting). ABSTAIN: None and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices MARILYN KERN,]DEPUTY CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 94-26 PAGE 6 1734.010 17.54 APPEALS 17.54.010 Time for Filing Appeals A. All actions of the Planning Commission authorized by this Title may be appealed to the City Council. All appeals shall be filed in writing with the City Clerk. B. All appeals must be filed on or before the 30th calendar day after adoption of the Planning Commission's resolution on the project or application. Application fees shaII be paid as required by Section 17.30.030 of this Title. C. Within 30 days after the Planning Commission adopts a resolution which approves or denies a development application, the City Clerk shall place the resolution as a report item on the City Council's agenda. The City Council may, by an affirmative vote of three members, take jurisdiction over the application. In the event the City Council takes jurisdiction over the application, the Planning Commission's decision will be stayed until the City Council completes its proceedings in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter. 17.54.020 Persons Authorized to File an Appeal Any person, including the City Manager, may appeal a decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council, in accordance with the terms of this Chapter. 17.54.030 Form, Content, and Deficiencies in an Appeal Application A. All appeals shall be filed in writing with the City Clerk on a form or forms provided by the City Clerk. No appeal shall be considered filed until the required appeal fee has been received by the City Clerk. B. The appeal application shall state, at a minimum, the name and address of the appellant, the project and action being appealed, and the reasons why the appellant believes that the Planning Commission erred or abused its discretion, or why the Planning Commission's decision is not support by evidence in the record. 76 ROLLING HILLS ZONING MAY 24, 1993 17.54.030 C. If the appeal application is found to be deficient, the City Clerk shall deliver or mail (by certified mail), to the appellant a notice specifying the reasons why the appeal is deficient. The appellant shall correct the deficiency with an amendment to the appeal form within seven calendar days of receiving the deficiency notice. Otherwise, the appeal application will be deemed withdrawn, and the appeal fee will be returned to the applicant. 17.54.040 Request for Information Upon receipt of a written and complete appeal application and fee, the City Clerk shall direct the Planning Commission Secretary to transmit to the City Council the complete record of the entire proceeding before the Planning Commission. 17.54.050 Scheduling of Appeal Hearing Upon receiving an appeal, the City Clerk shall set the appeal for a hearing before the City Council to occur within 20 days of the filing of the appeal. In the event that more than one appeal is filed for the same project, the Clerk shall schedule all appeals to be heard at the same time. 17.54.060 Proceedings A. Noticing The hearing shall be noticed as required by Section 1730.030 of this Title. In addition, the following parties shall be noticed: 1. The applicant of the proposal being appealed; 2. The appellant; and 3. Any person who provided oral testimony or written comments to the Planning Commission during or as part of the public hearing on the project. B. Hearing The City Council shall conduct a public hearing pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 1734 of this Title. The Council shall consider all information in the record, as well as additional information presented at the appeal hearing, before taking action on the appeal. 77 ROLUNG HILLS ZONING MAY 24, 1993 4. 17.54.050 C. Action The Council may act to uphold, overturn, or otherwise modify the Planning Commission's original action on the proposal, or the Council may remand the application back to the Planning Commission for further review and direction. The Council shall make findings to support its decision. D. Finality of Decision The action of the City Council to approve, conditionally approve, or deny an application shall be final and conclusive. E. Record of Proceedings The decision of the City Council shall be set forth in full in a resolution or ordinance. A copy of the decision shall be sent to the applicant or the appellant. 17.54.070 Statute of Limitations Any action challenging a final administrative order or decision by the City made as a result of a proceeding in which by law a hearing is required to be given, evidence is required to be taken, and discretion regarding a final and non -appealable determination of facts is vested in the City of Rolling Hills, the City Council, or in any of its Commissions, officers, or employees, must be filed within the time limits set forth in the California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6 78 ROLLING HILLS ZONING MAY 2A, 1993 Cuy o/ Ailing JUL November 28, 1994 Mr. and Mrs. Edgar Capifali 49 Saddleback Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 521, a request for a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a guest house and request for Site Plan Review for the construction of a new single family residence to replace an existing single family residence for property at 49 Saddleback Road (Lot 61-RH). Dear Mr. and Mrs. Capifali: This letter shall serve as official notification that Zoning Case No. 521 was APPROVED by the Planning Commission at their regular meeting on November 22, 1994. • The final Resolution and conditions of APPROVAL will be forwarded to you after they are signed by the Planning Commission Chairman and City Clerk. The Planning Commission's decision will be reported to the City Council at their regular meeting on January 9, 1994. You should also be aware that the decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed within thirty (301 days after adoption of the Planning Commission's Resolution (Section 17.54.010(B) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code). Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincere LOLA M. UNGAR PRINCIPAL PLANN cc: Mr. Walter Heim ® Prin.rct !..(, F',,, r • Ciiy o/ RO/A Jh//J November 7, 1994 Mr. and Mrs. Edgar Capifali 49 Saddleback Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: ADJOURNED MEETING Dear Mr. and Mrs. Capifali: INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377.7288 This letter is to inform you that due to lack of a quorum, the regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Rolling Hills scheduled for Tuesday, November 15, 1994, at 7:30 PM will be adjourned for one week to: Tuesday, November 22, 1994 at 7:30 PM Rolling Hills City Hall 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 We are sorry if this postponement causes you any inconvenience. Your cooperation is appreciated. Sincer LOLA UNGA PRINCIPAL • NNER cc: Mr. Walter Heim ®Printed on Recycled Paper. • I Cz1If O/ Roiling -Wilt INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 FIELD TRIP NOTIFICATION October 19,•1994 Mr. and Mrs. Edgar Capifali 49 Saddleback Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 521, a request for a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a guest house and request for Site Plan Review for the construction of a new single family residence to replace an existing single family residence for property at 49 Saddleback Road (Lot 61-RH). Dear Mr. and Mrs. Capifali: We have arranged for the Planning Commission to conduct a field inspection of your property to view a silhouette of the proposed project on Saturday, November 5, 1994. The Planning Commission will meet at 7:30 AM at 5 Sagebrush Lane and then proceed to your project site. Do not expect the Planning Commission at 7:30 AM but, be assured that the field trip will take place before 9:00 AM. The site must be prepared with a full-size silhouette of ALL STRUCTURES of the project showing the roof ridges and bearing walls and in accordance with the enclosed Silhouette Construction Guidelines. The owner and / or representative should be present to answer any questions regarding the proposal. Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Sincere (ked LOLA M. UNGAR PRINCIPAL PLANNER Enclosure: Silhouette Construction Guidelines cc: Mr. Walter Heim ®Panted on Recycled Pape. Ciiy 0/ RO/A wee, STATUS OF APPLICATION September 30, 1994 Mr. and Mrs. Edgar Capifali 49 Saddleback Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 521, a request for a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a guest house and request for Site Plan Review for the construction of a new single family residence to replace an existing single family residence for property at 49 Saddleback Road (Lot 61-RH). Dear Mr. and Mrs. Capifali: Pursuant to state law the City's staff has completed a preliminary review of the application noted above and finds that the information submitted is: X Sufficiently complete as of the date indicated above to allow the application to be processed. Please note that the City may require further information in order to clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise supplement the application. If the City requires such additional information, it is strongly suggested that you supply that information promptly to avoid any delay in the processing of the application. Your application for Zoning Case No. 521 has been set for public hearing consideration by the Planning Commission at their meeting on Tuesday, October 18, 1994. The meeting will begin at 7:30 PM in the Council Chambers, Rolling Hills City Hall Administration Building, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills. You or your designated representative must attend to present your project and to answer questions. The staff report for this project will be available at the City Hall after 3:00 PM on Friday, October 14, 1994. Please arrange to pick up the staff report to preview it prior to the hearing. ®Pr,nred on Recycled Poper 10 • PAGE 2 Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. LOLA M. UNGAR PRINCIPAL PLANNER cc: Mr. Walter Heim EXHIBIT "B" • • LAURENCE A. GREEN 2919 GARDENA AVENUE SIGNAL HILL. CALIFORNIA 90806 (213) 595-0516 August 1, 1994 Republic Bank REO Department 23133 Hawthorne Blvd. Torrance, CA 90509 RE: Lot # 61, City of Rolling Hills 49 Saddleback Road Attention: Ed Bender Dear Sir: I am the owner of a residence located at #2 Hillside Lane in the city of Rolling Hills. My property abuts a common easement on its eastern. boundary to property previously owned by Don Miller. It is my understanding that this property is presently under the ownership of your firm. Sometime during the winter of '92-'93 I had a telephone conversation with Mrs. Miller in which I explained that two eucalyptus trees located in the southwest corner of their property posed what I considered to be a very real threat to a guest house structure located at the southeast corner of my property. I suggested that they might want to consider having those trees seriously topped to prevent the possibility of damage to life or property. It's clear that their financial problems prevented their follow- ing up on what I considered to be agreement with my suggestion. Early this last Spring I brought this matter to the attention of Southern California Edison, which maintains powerline through the easement. This resulted in a very minor trimming of the tree wich constitutes the greatest threat, so that the potential for damage still exists. Inasmuch as eucalyptus trees are supported by a very shallow root system, any combination of prolonged rain and wind can bring them down; at least one of these trees is aimed directly at my guest house. I am writing to you now to advise you of this situation, in the hope that this threat to life and property can be eliminated. In the event that damage does occur, I will have no other option but to hold the owner of the property responsible. Very truly yours, LAG/hy