746M, Approval of modification of ZC, Staff Reports• •
&re/ Roffe, gad
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288
Agenda Item No. 4A
Mtg. Date: 8-08-11
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR
THROUGH: ANTON DAHLERBRUCH, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2011-09. A RESOLUTION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING
APPROVAL FOR A MODIFICATION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN
REVIEW FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND VARIANCES FOR
ENCROACHMENT, EXPORT OF SOIL AND TO SET ASIDE AN AREA FOR A
FUTURE STABLE AND CORRAL IN THE FRONT YARD. THE MODIFICATION
ENTAILS ADDITIONAL GRADING IN THE REAR YARD TO RELOCATE THE
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED POOL, IN ZONING CASE NO. 746 MODIFICATION,
AT 3 PACKSADDLE ROAD EAST, (LOT 25-SF), (LIN).
DATE: AUGUST 8, 2011
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this report or provide other
direction to staff.
REQUEST AND PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
1. The applicant, Mr. and Mrs. Lin, request modification to a previously approved
Site Plan Review application for grading and to construct a swimming pool, on a
property where a new single family residence was also approved at 3 Packsaddle Road
East. The house is under construction. The modification entails additional grading in the
rear to raise the rear yard area by 2 feet, changing the shape and orientation of the pool
and locating the pool closer to the residence.
ZC NO. 746 Mod.
3 Packsaddle Rd. E.
•
2. The Planning Commission adopted the attached Resolution by a 4-1 vote, granting
the request. Commissioner Henke voted against the project. Commissioner Henke felt
that the Planning Commission deliberated at length the grading for this project and
approved the grade at a certain height during its 2007-2008 review, and that the current
Commission should not change it. The resolution contains standard findings of facts
and conditions, including the requirement that all of the conditions from the previously
approved resolution for this project be in full force and effect.
When approving this project, the majority of Commissioners found that with the
relocation of the pool closer to the residence, the privacy of adjacent properties will not
be diminished; that the additional grading to even out the rear, rather than have a
couple of tiers in the rear would look more natural and that the overall result would
not be much different than what was previously approved. With the dirt being
available on site, and no need to import additional dirt, they found no objections to the
revisions.
BACKGROUND
3. In January 2008 the City approved a Site Plan Review and Variances in case No.
746 for the construction of a new 6,230 square foot residence, 781 square foot garage,
559 square foot pool with pool equipment area, 900 square feet of porches, 780 square
feet detached trellises, barbeque area and 4,940 square foot basement. A minor variance
was granted to encroach with a portion of the light wells into the side yard setback and
a variance to export dirt and to locate future stable and corral in the front yard area of
the lot. The development standards for structural and total lot coverage are at the
maximum permitted and no new structures would be allowed. The project is under
construction.
4. During the proceedings, as a result of neighbors' concerns and Planning
Commission direction, the applicants modified their project several times. Much
discussion revolved around the back yard and grading and how it would affect the
privacy and drainage. Mr. Shu, on behalf of the property owners at 6 Packsaddle Road
West expressed concerns regarding the proposal to raise and enlarge the rear building
pad area, the amount of fill necessary to fill in the rear pad area, loss of privacy and
noise that would result from the proposed uses in the rear yard on the raised building
pad and geological issues resulting from the grading of the pad. Mr. Shu also addressed
the need to screen the rear of the property to provide for tranquility and privacy.
The final approval was to grade the rear yard and to raise the rear area by four feet. The
old house was demolished. The new house was moved about 47 feet on one side
towards the front of property and about 6 feet on the other side. A maximum of 559
square foot oval swimming pool with a spa was approved. At its longest dimension the
pool was proposed to be 32 feet. The edge of the pool was approved at 100' elevation,
which is about 4'8" feet below the eleva_on of the rear of the residence, and it was to be
ZC No. 746 Mod
3 Packsaddle Rd. E
• •
accessed by two sets of step down concrete raisers (sloped rear yard; 4'8" in 46 feet).
The pool was to be located 15 feet from the 50-foot rear yard setback line and 45 feet
from the rear wall of the residence. A 2:1 descending slope was approved behind the
pool pad area; towards the rear property line. The approval also required screening
along the west and north easement line with shrubs that would be maintained at no less
than 9' and no more than 10' in height.
5. The applicants requested a modification to the approved plans for the pool area.
The proposed pool would be a 475 square foot infinity pool (with spa) oriented east -
west, rather than north -south and would be 32 feet long and 14 feet wide, plus a spa.
The closest side of the pool would be 20 feet from the residence, and the infinity side
would be on the opposite side. The infinity side would have a spill -way wall of 2.5 feet
in height above the finished grade of the pad. The highest point of the surface of the
water would be 4.5 feet (2 feet raised pad and 2.5 ft rear pool spill -way wall) from the
originally approved pool. The project area overall would be raised by about 2 feet. The
overall backyard would have a gentle slope meeting the 2:1 slope to the rear. The pad
area would shrink as the pad is raised, especially at the southwestern corner.
The proposed modification would not alter the previously approved development
standards. The proposed grading would be in the area of the lot previously approved
for grading; therefore the disturbance of the lot would not be greater. With the pool
being slightly smaller, the structural coverage would be slightly less (by 0.1%).
Approximately 681 cubic yards of dirt will be required for this project. The dirt is
available from the basement and grading of the lot. More will be available from the
excavation of the pool. A revised grading plan with drainage will need to be approved
by the Building and Safety Department.
6. The property has been roughly graded and some drainage devices have been
installed. During the grading process Soils and Geological Reports and Reports of
Grading Activities were submitted by the applicant's engineer and reviewed by the
Building Department. County Geotechnical Division approved this project, as built to
date, from a geologic and soils standpoint.
7. During the Planning Commission proceedings 3 neighbors expressed concerns
with the modification. During the field trip, after observing the stakes and silhouette of
the proposed project, one neighbor withdrew his concerns and left the meeting.
8. Mr. Shu, on behalf of the property owners at 6 Packsaddle Road West and Drs.
Rutgers, 5 Packsaddle Rd. E. continued to express concerns regarding loss of privacy,
the drainage and how it would affect their properties, stability of the lot, especially after
it will have fill soil of up to 6 feet from the original grade and in general questioned the
process the project.
ZC No. 746 Mod
3 Packsaddle Rd. E
1
• •
9. Enclosed is the correspondence received by the Planning Commission. The
property owners at 2 Packsaddle W. withdrew their concerns. The neighbors at 5
Packsaddle Road E. visited City Hall and reviewed the plans and attended most of the
meetings. They expressed concern about the proposed additional grading and drainage,
specifically at the southwestern corner of the lot and loss of privacy of their pool area
due to the raised pad.
10. A "No Further Development" without review and approval by the Planning
Commission condition was placed on this case. The proposal does not constitute
additional "structural" development, as the proposed pool will be 475-square feet,
which is smaller than previously approved pool. Staff was willing to review this change
over-the-counter, however given the past interest by neighbors of this case staff
requested that the applicant contact the adjacent neighbor, explain the proposed change
and provide verification to staff that they are in agreement with the change. Doug
McHattie, applicant's representative, contacted Mrs. Shu, the property owner at 6
Packsaddle Road W. Since Mr. Shu, property owners' son, expressed objections to the
modification and has raised many questions staff has determined that the Planning
Commission review this request and that all neighbors have an opportunity to provide
input.
11. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA
17.46.010 Purpose.
The site plan review process is established to provide discretionary review of
certain development projects in the City for the purposes of ensuring that the proposed
project is consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates environmentally and
aesthetically sensitive grading practices; preserves existing mature vegetation; is
compatible and consistent with the scale, massing and development pattern in the
immediate project vicinity; and otherwise preserves and protects the health, safety and
welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills.
17.46.050 Required findings.
A. The Commission shall be required to make findings in acting to approve,
conditionally approve, or deny a site plan review application.
B. No project which requires site plan review approval shall be approved by
the Commission, or by the City Council on appeal, unless the following findings can be
made:
1. The project complies with and is consistent with the goals and policies of the general
plan and all requirements of the zoning ordinance;
2. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by
minimizing building coverage. Lot coverage requirements are regarded as maximums,
ZC No. 746 Mod
3 Packsaddle Rd. E
• •
and the actual amount of lot coverage permitted depends upon the existing buildable
area of the lot;
3. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and
surrounding residences;
4. The project preserves and integrates into the site design, to the greatest extent
possible, existing topographic features of the site, including surrounding native
vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls);
5. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of the site and to minimize the
amount of grading required to create the building area;
6. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect drainage flow,
unless such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course;
7. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature trees and
supplements these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping which is compatible
with and enhances the rural character of the community, and landscaping provides a
buffer or transition area between private and public areas;
8. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and safe movement of
pedestrians and vehicles; and
9. The project conforms to the requirements of CEQA.
SOURCE: City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance
ZC No. 746 Mod
3 Packsaddle Rd. E
•
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
• •
RESOLUTION NO. 2011-09
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A MODIFICATION TO
A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A NEW SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENCE AND VARIANCES FOR ENCROACHMENT,
EXPORT OF SOIL AND TO SET ASIDE AN AREA FOR A FUTURE
STABLE AND CORRAL IN THE FRONT YARD. THE MODIFICATION
ENTAILS ADDITIONAL GRADING IN THE REAR YARD TO
RELOCATE THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED POOL, IN ZONING CASE
NO. 746 MODIFICATION, AT 3 PACKSADDLE ROAD EAST, (LOT 25-
SF), (LIN).
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY
FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. An application was dulyfiled by Mrs. Lin with respect to real
property located at 3 Packsaddle Road East (Lot 25-SF), Rolling Hills, CA requesting a
modification for additional grading of up to 681 cubic yards of dirt in the rear to raise
the pad of the rear yard area by not to exceed 2 feet, changing the shape and orientation
of the pool and constructing a 2.5 foot spillway on three sides of the infinity pool and
locating the pool closer to the residence. The dirt is available on site and will not be
imported.
Section 2. The previous approval, granted by Resolution No. 2008-01
consisted of a Site Plan Review and Variances to permit grading and construction of a
new 6,230 square foot single family residence, to fill the rear of the lot by no more than 4
feet to enlarge the building pad and to fill the front yard by no more than 1 foot -on the
average for better drainage; 781 square foot garage, 559 square foot swimming pool,
pool equipment area, 96 square foot service yard, 900 square feet of covered porches,
800 square feet of detached trellises and a barbecue area and 4,940 square foot
basement; minor Variance to encroach with two of the basement light wells 4-feet into
side yard setbacks, a Variance to set aside an area for a future stable and corral in the
front yard area and a Variance to export 450 cubic yards of the 1,787 cubic yards of dirt.
The new residence will be located 47 feet closer to the front of the lot than the further
most point of the previous house.
Section 3. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings
to consider the application for modification of the previously approved application on
June 21, 2011, July 19 2011 and at a field visit to the property on July 19, 2011.
Section 4. The applicant and neighbors were notified of the above -referenced
hearings in writing by first class mail. Evidence was heard and presented from all
persons interested in affecting said proposal, from all persons protesting the same, and
from members of the City staff at each of the hearings. The applicant's representatives
were in attendance at the hearings.
Section 5. 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 6. Section 17.46.030 requires a development plan to be submitted for
Site Plan Review and approval before any grading requiring a grading permit or any
building or structure may be constructed. In addition this property was previously
conditioned that any further grading and development, from what was previously
approved, shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. With respect
to the Modification of the Site Plan application for additional grading to raise a portion
of the rear area by 2 feet and construct an infinity pool with a 2.5-foot spillway above
the raised grade, the Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact:
A. The proposed grading and relocation of the pool complies with and is consistent
with the intent of the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance because the grading will
not look unnatural and the area will be landscaped.
Reso. 2011-09 Mod.
3 Packsaddle E.
• •
1
B. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot
by minimizing building coverage.
C. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and
surrounding residences because the proposal preserves the natural and undeveloped
state of the lot by minimizing tiers on the property. Significant portions of the lot will
be left undeveloped so as to maintain open space on the property. The project will be
screened from the street and neighbors by shrubs. The nature, condition, and
development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the topography of the lot
have been considered, and the additional grading will not adversely affect or be
materially detrimental to the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the
modified grading would be done away from the surrounding properties and will be
further screened and landscaped with trees and shrubs. The result is a more
aesthetically pleasing look for the property, without compromising the stability of the
lot.
D. The modified grading preserves and integrates into the site design previously
approved topographic features beyond the limits of the proposed grading. The end
result is the creation of same effect, but slightly higher than previously approved.
E. Grading will not modify previously approved drainage channels nor redirect
drainage flow. A revised drainage plan will be submitted to Los Angeles County
Building and Safety for review and approval.
F. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature trees and
supplements these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping. A landscaping plan is
on file with the City, which is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the
community and protects privacy of the adjacent residences.
Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission
hereby approves a modification to Zoning Case No. 746 on subject property, pursuant
to the plan on file dated June 16, 2011 and consisting of additional grading of 681 cubic
yards of dirt to raise by not to exceed 2 feet the rear yard area of the lot; to construct an
infinity pool with a 2.5 foot spillway from the new grade on three sides of the pool and
to relocate the pool closer to the residence.
Section 8. All other conditions of Resolution No. 2008-01 in Zoning Case No.
746 shall be in full force and effect.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 19T" DAY OF JULY, 2011.
JILLX�. SMITH
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
HEIDI LUCE
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
Reso. 2011-09 Mod. 2
3 Packsaddle E.
•
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2011-09 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A MODIFICATION TO
A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A NEW SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENCE AND VARIANCES FOR ENCROACHMENT,
EXPORT OF SOIL AND TO SET ASIDE AN AREA FOR A FUTURE
STABLE AND CORRAL IN THE FRONT YARD. THE MODIFICATION
ENTAILS ADDITIONAL GRADING IN THE REAR YARD TO
RELOCATE THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED POOL, IN ZONING CASE
NO. 746 MODIFICATION, AT 3 PACKSADDLE ROAD EAST, (LOT 25-
SF), (LIN).
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on July
19, 2011 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Chelf, DeRoy, Pieper and Chairperson Smith.
NOES: Commissioner Henke.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices.
HEIDI LUCE
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
Reso. 2011-09 Mod.
3 Packsaddle E.
• •
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
•
Bo ton Engineering Corporation
25834 Narbonne Avenue, Suite 210
Lomita, Ca. 90717
(310) 325-5580
June 16, 2011
#3 Packsaddle, Rolling Hills, California
Lin Residence
This letter is in response to concerns considering the minimal rearyard grading and pool relocation.
Below is a list of the changes being proposed.
1. Eliminate the approved pool, relocate pool closer to the residence by 17.5 linear feet. .
2. Relocation of pool moves edge of pool 26 feet away from proposed top of slope. Approved
pool location was 13 feet away from top of slope.
3. Raise grade 2 feet at the approved pool location.
4. Reduction of hardscape in the rearyard.
5. Reduce site of pad in the rearyard.
RECEV:D
JUN ? 6 201'
City of Roliing
By
Bol on Engineering Corpuration
June 13, 2011
Yolanta Schwartz
Planning Director
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Rd.
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Dear Ms. Schwartz;
DECEIVED
JUN 13 2011
►z.- ,.7 Holling Hills
I herewith respectfully request a planning commission hearing on a minor
modification to the approved development of 3 Packsaddle East.
The modification entails additional grading to raise the rear swimming pool pad
and locating the pool closer to the residence.
Sincerely, ,%
9 'C '5/4/fre
Douglas K. McHattie
25834 Narbonne Ave., Suite 210, Lomita, CA 90717 tel (310) 325-5580 fax (310) 325-5581
• •
6 W. Packsaddle Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
May 28, 2011
Doug McHattie
Bolton Engineering Corp
25834 Narbonne Ave, Suite 210
Lomita, CA 90717
310 325 5580
n 7
()RIltl% ri11RS
City of Rolling Hills Planning Commission and Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director
2 Portuguese Bend Road
City of Rolling Hills, CA 90274
310 377 1521
cc: Mitch Miller
Los Angeles County Department of Building and Safety
900 S. Fremont Ave
Alhambra, CA 91803
626 458 6390
cc: Rolling Hills Community Association
1 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
310 544 6222
Subject: New Residence Under Construction at 3 East Packsaddle Road
Dear Mr. McHattie and Ms Schwartz:
Most of this letter is in response to Mr. McHattie. However the material in italics is directed to Ms Schwartz and the
Planning Commission. .
Mr. McHattie, thank you for your response dated May 5, 2011 (copy enclosed here, together with a copy of my
letters dated April 2, 2011 and January 5, 2008). I appreciate the time you took to write your letter.
I. In your letter you mentioned an attached drawing. There was no drawing enclosed with your letter. Please send
the drawing.
11. At the end of your first paragraph, you said "Also, this design has an additional 2 feet of fill in the rear yard. This
additional fill should increase both the visual privacy and lessen the noise from the pool during use."
That doesn't address my concern. My concern is not just with the pool; my concern is with visual privacy and noise
from the Lin's entire yard.
As stated in my letter of January 5, 2008, Criss Gunderson (the Lins' architect) suggested that perhaps the northern
half of the filled area (which is closest to my mother's driveway) could be permanently reserved for a garden or
other non -human use. As stated in my letter, Mrs. Lin subsequently rejected this idea. It is clear that people may
come right up to the edge of the filled area, closest to my mother's house and yard. Therefore, increasing the height
of the fill will exacerbate the invasion of visual privacy and noise because the Lins and their guests will be looking
down on my mother's house and yard from a higher vantage point.
Unless the Lins and all subsequent owners of 3 E. Packsaddle limit their activities to that part of the raised/flattish
area such that they will not see my mother's house or yard (in other words, limit their activities to that part of the
Lin's backyard closest to their house), increasing the height of the fill will NOT increase visual privacy or lessen the
noise from the Lin's property; the opposite will happen. Clearly this is not a practical idea because Mrs. Lin has
l
• s
already indicated that she does not want any such limitation, and even if she has changed her position, I don't see
how the Lins can limit what subsequent owners do.
As I said in my letter of'January 5, 2008, the Lins had a spectacular view of the ocean and coastline without any fill
at all. To add fill to the height planned in January 2008 would result in very little improvement in the view. Adding
two more feet now does nothing to improve the view. But it does have the very real potential of worsening the noise
and loss of visual privacy problem for my mother. As I said in my letter of January 5, 2008,1 understand that the
Lins want to have a larger flattish area in their back yard. I did not receive a response to that letter, so I'll repeat a
point I made in that letter:
1 believe that the way to lessen the noise and invasion of visual privacy for my mother is to decrease the
height of the fill by grading back into the hill (towards the house) and creating a flattish area LOWER than
the original plan (as of Jan 2008), not to fill to the height in the January 2008 plan. The Lins would still
have their larger flattish area with a spectacular view.
Why is the height of the fill now being increased? I would really like an answer to this question.
III. in paragraph B of your letter you said "The necessity for the shrubs and screening landscaping, now that the
rough grading is computed, is in question." i disagree. As stated above, increasing the height of the fill will make
the problems of loss of visual privacy and noise worse. As I said in my letter of January 5, 2008, I have significant
concerns with the idea that screening landscaping is a good solution. Nonetheless the Planning Commission has
said that screening landscaping of between 9 and 10 feet in height must be maintained at all times. That requirement
should now be increased by at least 2 feet because the person standing on the edge of the filled area will be 2 feet
higher than originally planned in January 2008. Furthermore, because the original height was required by
Resolution 2008-01 to be recorded, I would expect that the new height should also be recorded.
IV. in paragraph C of your letter you said "The proposed change is minor. ... and does not require a new resolution
by the city. I don't see the change as minor because, as stated in my letter of April 2, 2011:
As noted in Section 10 Paragraph A of Resolution No 2008-01, "The applicants originally proposed
balanced cut and fill, which would result in raising the rear of the lot up to 7 feet, which both the Planning
Commission and the neighbors objected to". If the Planning Commission has not yet approved the change
in the amount of fill, I would strongly urge them to reject it. But if the Planning Commission has already
approved the change (to increase the height of the fill to 6 feet — which is a 50% increase in the height in
the original approved plan), was this original objection to 7 feet taken into consideration? Also, if the
Planning Commission has already approved the change, I'm curious as to where they would have drawn the
line. Would a change to increase the fill to 6 feet 6 inches have been rejected? if this change has been
approved, please inform me of the basis for the approval, especially since the substantialincrease in the
height of the fill should have reasonably warranted a serious review by the Planning Commission.
Nonetheless, based on your (Doug McHattie's) comment, apparently the Planning Commission considers the
increase in the height of the fill to be "minor", and so I will direct my question to them:
What is considered to be a minor change in general, i.e. a change which does not require another review by the
Planning Commission?
in this particular situation, what amount of change to the height of the. fill would have been considered large
enough to warrant another resolution by the Planning Commission? If Doug's statement is correct ,that this
increase to 6 feet offill is minor, then it appears to me that in Rolling Hills if / want to do something in my
construction project which the Planning Commission partially disapproves of (in this case, the Planning
Commission approved 4 feet offill instead of 7 feet offrll), i should take what I can get initially and then make one
or more "minor" changes later on, in order to get essentially everything that I originally wanted i'll venture to say
that the Planning Commission does not intend that the process can be "gamed" in such a manner (note: / certainly
do not intend to offend the Planning Commission by wondering if their process is being "gamed"; to the contrary, I
think the Planning Commission is to be applauded for their service to the community!). Nonetheless, if the increase
to 6 feet is considered "minor, then it appears that the process is being "gamed" and I hope the Planning
Commission will take immediate steps to remediate this flaw, starting with the Lins' project.
• •
V. In your paragraph D you said that "The pool design change has been reviewed by the soils engineer Steve Ng.
He has stated that the additional two feet of fill does not cause any stability problems for the rear slope".
I have several questions:
1. Who does Steve Ng work for?
2. What are Steve Ng's credentials, in particular
a. what is his State -issued license number and
b. how much experience has he had working on projects in the Palos Verdes peninsula (my understanding is that
there are geological similarities across the Peninsula as well as some differences, but there are more similarities in
the geological and soil characteristics among different locations on the Peninsula than there are between the
Peninsula and locations in the surrounding Los Angeles area)?
3. When you say "rear slope" I assume you are referring to the rear slope of the Lins' property, not the hillside that
the Lins' property, my mother's property, and that of surrounding neighbors are all part of. If I am incorrect, and the
phrase "rear slope" refers to the entire hillside, not just the Lins' property, what is Steve Ng's statement based on?
As I suggested and asked in my letters of January 5, 2008, and April 2, 2011, has a geological study of the entire
hillside (not just the Li ' property) been done in order to assess the possible impacts of the fill which is part of this
project? If there has bden such as study, can you send it to me, or tell me where I can get a copy?
If "rear slope" refers to the rear slope of the Lins' property, not to the entire hillside that the Lins' property, my
mother's property, and surrounding neighbors share, then Steve Ng' statement does not address my concern. The
Lins' project should not have adverse impact on any neighbors.
4. If such a study (a geological study of the entire hillside) is felt to be unnecessary, whose professional judgment is
that opinion based on?
VI. I gather that your paragraphs E and F are in response to paragraph E in my letter of April 2, 2011:
"Is someone responsible for ensuring that the amount of fill approved by the Planning Commission is the
amount of fill that is actually place by the end of the project? If so, who is that person/party and how do
they ensure that more fill is not added?"
Thank you for that information.
1. Who on the construction project team is responsible for the rough and fine grading and for saying that the
approved amount of fill is in place and therefore rough grading / fill and fine grading portions of the project are
ready for inspection?
2. Can you tell me whether there is documentation that I can get from you or from the City and the Los Angeles
County Department of Building and Safety indicating that the inspectors have signed off that the grading has been
done according to plan, and whether they raised any concerns?
VII. In your paragraph G, you said that "Rolling Hills Planning Dept and L.A. Co Dept of Building and Safety have
reviewed the revision to the swimming pool and do not have any specific objections to the revision. The final
approval for this change has not been made." I have a few questions:
1. I see the change in layout and location of the swimming pool and the increase in the amount of fill as two separate
changes. Are you talking about both the swimming pool and the increase in fill in your statement in your paragraph
G, or are you just talking about the revision to the swimming pool?
2. You said that the "Rolling !fills Planning Dept and L.A. Co Dept of Building and Safety ... do not have any
specific objections to the revision." Do they have any objections or comments of any sort (not just specific
objections)?
• S
3. Is there a date on which you expect approval or disapproval to be made? Based on your comment above that this
is a minor change which does not require another resolution by the City, I'm guessing that there will not be a
hearing where the publiF can make comments, is that correct?
VIII. In your paragraph H you said "Based on your initial concerns about the drainage, we redesigned the drainage
so the drainage outlet was relocated so that all the flow was directed away from your mother's rear yard as much as
practical. As part of this drainage system, a outlet structure was constructed in the southwest corner of the property.
That structure is quite new and appears to be working as intended. The County does not allow drainage to flow
uncontrolled over graded slopes from a developed lot. We believe directing the drainage away from your mother's
house and pool is an improvement to her property."
We are very far from a common understanding on virtually all parts of your statement above. Addressing each part
your paragraph H, one part at a time:
1. "Based on your initial concerns about the drainage, we redesigned the drainage so the drainage outlet was
relocated so that all the flow was directed away from your mother's rear yard as much as practical."
What were my initial concerns about the drainage (which sentences in my previous letters are you referring to?).
How is it that my "initial concerns about the drainage" leads you to the conclusion that all flow should be "directed
away from my mother's rear yard as much as practical"?
As I said in my letter of January 5, 2008,
'As stated in the "Residential Development Highlights" document published by the City of Rolling Hills,
"The Site Plan must minimize grading; preserve terrain and natural drainage courses; be harmonious in
scale and mass with the building pad, the natural terrain, and surrounding residences; preserve native
vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses, and land forms; and must be convenient and safe for the
movement of pedestrians, equestrians and vehicles."' (underlining added)
The natural drainage before the Lins' construction project started was a natural slope with no man-made drainage
system at all. The water simply flowed down hill, and was distributed over the entire width of the Lins' backyard
slope. I don't believe 1 ever said that there was a problem with that.
If you are saying that the original natural drainage was a problem for my mother, can you please explain how you
arrived at that conclusion?
And how is it that concentrating the drainage to one corner of the Lins' property and then allowing that water to
flow onto my mother's property (the portion of the hill just above my mother's pool) will reduce that problem for
my mother? From my layman's point of view, that is quite counterintuitive. And I am wondering: is there increased
risk of my mother having problems with the stability of the earth in the area of her pool in the future as a result of
the Lins' drainage system? There are NO such problems now and the area has been stable for at least 40 years.
From my layman's point of view, as I said in both my letter of January 5 2008 and April 2, 2011, I expected that it
would have been best to minimize the impact on existing landforms (to have stayed with the original landforms that
existed before the Lin's bought the property). In addition, I'll note that my point of view is consistent with the
sentence quoted from the "Residential Development Highlights" above.
Now that extensive changes have been made to the Lins' back yard, what analyses have been done, and what
assurances are there from professionals (geologists, soil engineers, geotechs, hydrologists, etc.) that there will not be
adverse impacts on other homeowners on the hillside shared by the Lins, my mother and others? Who are these
professionals and what are their license numbers and qualifications?
2. "That structure is quite new and appears to be working as intended".
If you are saying that the drainage system is substantially less than 2 years old, then I'm even more concerned. As I
said in my letter of April 2, 2011, over 2 feet of dirt, sediment and debris have built up along the fence on the
property line between the Lins' and my mother's property. That indicates the volume of water is quite substantial
4
• •
and the amount of dirt, sediment and debris will be dumped onto my mother's property is quite substantial. What
will the mid- to long-term impact be on my mother's property and that of 5 E. Packsaddle Rd? When the project has
been completed and the,wire fence has been removed, the debris that is now caught by the fence will flow freely
downhill onto that one portion of my mother's property. While that is not appreciated, there are other bigger
questions: (a) Will there be more erosion and faster erosion of that portion of my mother's property? (b) Will the
land in that portion of my mother's property be less stable in the future (including her pool as mentioned above)
because of all of the water being dumped into that one area?
3. "The County does not allow drainage to flow uncontrolled over graded slopes from a developed lot."
I doubt that the County says that you should concentrate all of the runoff from a graded slope and dump it into just
one small part of a neighbor's property. i expect the County's intent is to require that the grading NOT adversely
impact neighbors at all. The best way to insure the stability of the hillside (including the neighbors' properties, not
just the Lins' property) is to not change the natural geography and contour of the hillside and drainage at all.
However, given the fact that the geography, contour of the hillside, and drainage patterns have been altered by the
Lins' project, I am concerned that the opposite of the County's intent is happening here (that my mother's property
will likely be adversely; impacted).
4. "We believe directing the drainage away from your mother's house and pool is an improvement to her property."
The Lins' project has changed the natural geography and contour of the hillside, and as a result, changed the
drainage pattern as well. From my layman's point of view, this increases the chances of earth slippage or other
problems occurring elsewhere on the hillside (again, I'm talking about the entire hillside shared by the Lins, my
mother and other neighbors). It may take some time for the effects of this change in the drainage to appear, but if
that is what happens, then redirecting the drainage is NOT an improvement to the value of my mother's property.
However, since you are saying that the Lins' drainage system is an improvement for my mother, what is your
reasoning? What is your reasoning based on - have any studies or analyses been done?
5. This next question is directed to the Planning Commission (or appropriate City agent or department). As stated in
my letter of April 2, 2011, paragraph W of Resolution 2008-01says "No drainage device may be located in such a
manner as to contribute to erosion or in any way affect an easement, trail or adjacent properties."
in addition to affecting my mother's property, the Lins' drainage system will clearly affect the easement between the
Lins' property and my mother's. As I mentioned in my April 2 letter over two feet of dirt, sediment and debris has
already built up in the less than 2 years that the drainage system has been in place. / request that the Planning
Commission enforce this requirement that the drainage device not affect the easement and my mother's adjacent
property in any way.
6. Furthermore (again this question is directed to the Planning Commission), Section 11 Paragraph V of Resolution
No 2008-01 says that "During and after construction perimeter easements and trails shall remain free and clear of
encroachments including, but not limited to, ... grading, ... debris, ..., unless otherwise approved by the Rolling
Hills Community Association".
There is currently debris in the easement, and there will be debris in the easement after the project is over because
of the run off Has the RHCA approved?
In conclusion, the Lins' nroiect as a whole (the grading and fill which will result in people being able to look down
on most of my mother's property, the risk of destabilizing the hillside (due to the grading, fill and change to
drainage patterns) and the house itself) is decreasing the value of my mother's property.
Let me explain this last point more fully. Before the Lins built their house, you could not see any portion of the
previous house at 3 E. Packsaddle. Now, as you come up my mother's drive way and as you walk into the front
courtyard of my mother's house, a portion of the Lins' house (the roof of the outdoor porch on the northern side of
the Lins' house, closest to 2 West Packsaddle Road, including the gable and some of the posts holding up the roof)
are very clearly visible. Needless to say, this contributes to a feeling of neighbors living on top of each other. My
mother's house used to have the feeling of being in a rural setting, with no neighbors' houses in view. No more.
5
• •
Thank you for your time and we look forward to responses from both Bolton Engineering and the Planning
Commission.
•
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
ob
• •
6 W. Packsaddle Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
April 2, 2011
City of Rolling Hills Planning Commission and Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director
2 Portuguese Bend Road
City of Rolling Hills, CA 90274
310 377 1521 RECEIVED
cc: Don McHattie
g
Bolton Engineering Corp
25834 Narbonne Ave, Suite 210
Lomita, CA 90717
310 325 5580
cc: Mitch Miller
Los Angeles County Department of Building and Safety
900 S. Fremont Ave
Alhambra, CA 91803
626 458 6390
cc: Rolling Hills Community Association
1 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
310 544 6222
Subject: New Residence Under Construction at 3 East Packsaddle Road
Dear Ms. Schwartz:
APR 0 6 2011
City of Rolling Hills
BV
1 am writing this letter on behalf of my mother, Nan Shu, owner of the property at 6 W. Packsaddle Road.
Rolling Hills, which is downhill from 3 E. Packsaddle Road.
On Tuesday March 22, Doug McHattie of Bolton Engineering stopped by to give my mother a copy of a
revised plot plan for the construction project at 3 E. Packsaddle Road, Rolling Hills. It appears that the
plan is now to add 2 more feet of fill to the backyard, on top of the 4 feet of fill that was previously
approved.
As discussed in my letter of January 5 2008 (copy enclosed), we favored a plan which would have involved
cutting back into the hill instead of adding fill to create a larger flat area with space for a swimming pool.
Such as plan would have resulted in less grading, in that less dirt would have been moved in total, and
instead of adding a substantial amount of dirt to the hillside, some dirt would have been removed from the
hillside (which I believe is less likely to result in problems with stability of the hillside in the future). The
surplus dirt could have been distributed over the front yard, between the house and Packsaddle Road. The
issues we raised at that time were:
1. loss of privacy (both visual privacy and noise)
2. the possibility of the project destabilizing the land in the area
3. the possibility of creating a long term source of friction between neighbors.
Nonetheless, the Planning Commission chose to approve the plan put forward by the representatives for the
owners of 3 E. Packsaddle.
Now, because six feet of fill will be added instead of 4 feet of fill, our concerns are heightened.
1 have a number of questions and comments.
• •
A. Was the change in this project reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Planning Commission, the
Rolling Hills Community Association, and the Los Angeles County Department of Building and Safety
with our original concerns in mind? Did Bolton Engineering, Coast Geotechnical, SWN Soiltech
Consultants and any other parties (soil engineers, geologists, etc) who were originally involved in drawing
up the plans (plot plans, grading and drainage plans, landscape plans, etc), analyze the possible impacts and
render their opinions as to future impacts (all impacts — stability of the hillside, impact on neighbors'
property, property values, privacy, etc) in light of the proposed changes to the plans?
B. The original approval by the Planning Commission required shrubs to be maintained between 9 and 10
feet in height to provide visual screening. If the fill is going up by 2 feet, will it also be required that the
shrubs be 2 feet taller (between I 1 and 12 feet)?
C. The original approval (in 2008) by the Planning Commission required that an Affidavit of Acceptance of
all conditions of the Site Plan Review and Variance approvals be executed and recorded. If the changes to
the Resolution (for example in the height of the shrubs) have been approved, have the changes also been
executed and recorded?
D. As noted in Section 10 Paragraph A of Resolution No 2008-01, "The applicants originally proposed
balanced cut and fill, which would result in raising the rear of the lot up to 7 feet, which both the Planning
Commission and the neighbors objected to". If the Planning Commission has not yet approved the change
in the amount of fill, I would strongly urge them to reject it. But if the Planning Commission has already
approved the change (to increase the height of the fill to 6 feet — which is a 50% increase in the height in
the original approved plan), was this original objection to 7 feet taken into consideration? Also, if the
Planning Commission has already approved the change, I'm curious as to where they would have drawn the
line. Would a change to increase the fill to 6 feet 6 inches have been rejected? If this change has been
approved, please inform me of the basis for the approval, especially since the substantial increase in the
height of the fill should have reasonably warranted a serious review by the Planning Commission.
NOTE: My understanding, based on Section I I Paragraph S of Resolution No 2008-01, is that the Planning
Commission must approve this change.
E. Is someone responsible for ensuring that the amount of fill approved by the Planning Commission is the
amount of fill that is actually place by the end of the project? If so, who is that person/party and how do
they ensure that more fill is not added?
F. I have just become aware of a part of the drainage system at 3 E. Packsaddle. There are three drainage
pipes (of various diamters) coming out of a cement wall built into the fill in the southwest corner of 3 E.
Packsaddle's lot. Water, sediment, and debris (leaves, twigs, etc) from these pipes are directedl more or
less into the corner of the property where 3 E. Packsaddle's, 5 E. Packsaddle's and 6 W. Packsaddle's lot
lines come together. The drainage system can not have been in place for more than 2 years, but in that
short period of time over 2 feet of dirt, sediment and debris (leaves, twigs, etc) have built up against the
wire fence between 3 E. Packsaddle's and 6 W. Packsaddle's property line (there is a temporary wire fence
with openings between the strands of wire of roughly 2" x 4"). See the enclosed picture. The two pens
have been placed vertically, with about 0.5" sticking into the ground. The red pen is at the original ground
level. The yellow pen is just inside the wire fence, near the top of the debris that has built up against the
fence.
In addition, the construction contractors have placed temporary construction soil / sediment control fiber
rolls along the perimeter of 3 E. Packsaddle's property where it adjoins my mother's property. After the
fiber rolls are removed, I am concerned that the sediment, debris and dirt will be carried onto my mother's
property (by water from 3 E. Packsaddle), resulting in an increased chance of soil instability and erosion on
her property.
I have several concerns.
• •
I. Is it a good idea to divert the water which had been flowing downhill across the entire hillside to be
concentrated to one corner of 3 E. Packsaddle's lot? What will happen to the stability of the rest of the
hillside? Have the soil engineer and geologist/geotech for this project reviewed the situation, approved
this design and rendered an opinion that there will not be an adverse impact on neighbors in the long
term (say, 25 or 50 years in the future)?
Note that my neighbor at 5 E. Packsaddle has a driveway that runs across the hillside (more or less
north -south). Will the drainage runoff from 3 E. Packsaddle lead to erosion which will undermine his
driveway?
2. When the fiber rolls and wire fence are removed and a 3 rail white fence is installed (I assume that is
part of the project), the dirt/sediment/debris/runoff will flow onto my mother's property at 6 W.
Packsaddle and possibly onto my neighbor's property at 5 W. Packsaddle (it's probably not easy to
determine exactly where the water will flow unless it is raining). Section I 1 Paragraph V of
Resolution No 2008-01 says that "During and after construction perimeter easements and trails shall
remain free and clear of encroachments including, but not limited to, ... grading, ... debris, ..., unless
otherwise approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association". There is currently debris in the
easement, and there will be debris in the easement after the project is over because of the run off. Has
the RHCA approved?
3. Paragraph W says "No drainage device may be located in such a manner as to contribute to erosion
or in any way affect an easement, trail or adjacent properties." The drainage system is not in
compliance with every part of this requirement. Is the Planning Commission responsible for enforcing
this requirement?
Thank you for your time and we look forward to your response.
g
e •
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
•
6 W. Packsaddle Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
April 2, 2011
City of Rolling Hills Planning Commission and Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director
2 Portuguese Bend Road
City of Rolling Hills, CA 90274
310 377 1521
To the Planning Commission:
My parents bought 6 W. Packsaddle in 1971. Over time we have noticed a gradual change in the character
of Rolling Hills, and not for the better. There has been significant erosion of the rural nature that existed
when they first moved into Rolling Hills and for a number of years afterwards.
The project at 3 E. Packsaddle seems to be a good example of "mansionization" in Rolling Hills. There
may be more egregious projects, but this project includes variances for setback, for the location of the
stable, and for exporting dirt. The project is at the limits for structural lot coverage and net lot coverage. A
lot of dirt has been moved to create a large area for the swimming pool and for entertaining. Instead of
working with the piece of land they bought and minimizing modifications to the land and impacts on the
neighbors, this project is pushing the limits in every way imaginable.
Instead of being an oasis in the middle of the city, Rolling Hills is moving in the direction of being like
other parts of the city. Yes, the lot sizes are generally large, but we are feeling more and more like we are
living on top of each other, elbow -to -elbow, very much aware that we are in a big city.
My family and 1 urge you to resist the pressures of mansionization„ and to support the idea that people
should live within the limits of the property they purchased (approve fewer variances).
NOTE: Given the instability of the hillsides in Rolling Hills (as I said in my letter of Jan 5, 2008, there are.
a number of homes in the area which have experienced problems with slippage of the earth), I feel
particularly strongly that folks should not disturb the original lay of the land (and they should not adversely
impact their existing neighbors). Although there may not be adverse impacts in the near term (5-10 years
from now), will there be the impacts 20, 30, or 50 years down the road? As expert witnesses / geologists /
soil engineers can tell you, hillsides can be quite complex and fragile. The anecdotal evidence points to our
hillside falling into that category.
• •
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
6/14/2011
Dear Rolling Hills Planning Commission:
Regarding Zoning Case No. 746 Modification- We are the neighbors Bob and Hillary Watts
residing at #2 Packsaddle Road West and our backyard shares a common property line with #3
Packsaddle Road East. It is unclear after inspecting the plans at City Hall how this proposed
change will affect us. Our ambience has already been seriously impacted by the residence
structure which now looms above our yard and peers down into our once private pool area and
master bedroom. We are very concerned that raising the pool higher will further detract from
our privacy and the aesthetic above our yard which from our perspective appears contrived due
to the grading that's occurred already. Therefore we are respectfully requesting that the
proposed grade change be staked and clearly marked and that we be allowed to visit so we can
see with our own eyes what the plan is. We will be out of town from June 20th to July 10`h and
so are unable to attend the June 21st Public Hearing but seriously hope that our absence for
that short time will not preclude our ability to inspect the proposed change.
Sincerely, Bob and Hillary Watts
(kr- °I)3ji°‘
RECVED
JUN 16 201;
City of Rolling
By
I o
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City `eolIn,JJ,IL
June 15, 2011
Mr. Jia Shu
969 Afton Road
San Marino, CA 91108
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377.1521
FAX: (310) 377.7288
Subject: 3 Packsaddle East, proposed modification to the pool
Dear Mr. Shu:
As stated in my letter dated June 9, 2011, this project has been scheduled for
review by the Planning Commission on Tuesday, June 21, 2011 at 6:30 PM. The
Planning Commission's role is to review individual projects for consistency with
the general plan and all other applicable city ordinances and evaluate the general
characteristics of projects such as compatibility, mass, bulk, location, height, and
open space.
Many of the concerns expressed in your letter relate to the process of approval
and construction and City and County staffs responsibilities and procedures for
inspections and assurance that the project is constructed to grading and building
code standards. We would like to answer your questions either in a meeting or
by phone. We will be glad to arrange a meeting between yourself and City and
County staff at your convenience during working hours. Please let me know if
you would like us to schedule such a meeting and your availability, or call me
and we can discuss your concerns by phone.
Of course, you are welcome to come the Planning Commission meeting and
participate.
You can reach me at 310 377-1521 or email at ys@citvofrh.net to discuss this
matter or to schedule a meeting.
S' c ely
Yo 1ta Schwartz
Pla 'ng Director
• •
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
• •
MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS APPROVAL
(2007-20081
• •
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
• •
RESOLUTION NO. 2008-01. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR GRADING
AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH BASEMENT
TO REPLACE AN EXISTING RESIDENCE; GRANTING A MINOR VARIANCE TO
ENCROACH WITH BASEMENT LIGHT WELLS INTO SIDE YARD SETBACKS;
GRANTING A VARIANCE TO LOCATE THE FUTURE STABLE AND CORRAL IN
THE FRONT YARD; AND GRANTING A VARIANCE TO EXPORT SOIL IN ZONING
CASE NO. 746, LOCATED AT 3 PACKSADDLE ROAD EAST, (LOT 25-SF), (LIN).
Planning Director Schwartz reported that at the last meeting of the Commission, staff was
directed to prepare a Resolution of approval for Zoning Case No. 746 for the Commission's
consideration this evening, but continued the public hearing to allow the applicants to address
the Commission's concerns about export of soil, amount of fill in the rear yard, the size of the
project and the location of the stable in the front yard, and to allow Commissioner DeRoy time
to visit the project. She reported that the applicants modified the request for a Variance to
export 450 cubic yards of soil, rather than the previously requested export of 1,477 cubic yards
and that the resolution incorporates this modification. She reviewed the applicants' request
and background regarding the property with Commission. The Planning Director also
provided comments regarding the information related to further concerns expressed by the
neighboring property owner regarding the enlargement of the pad and noise generated by the
use of the proposed swimming pool and rear yard area.
Chairman Sommer opened the public hearing and called for testimony.
Mr. Criss Gunderson, presented cross-section plans which he feels would alleviate some of the
concerns raised by the neighboring property owner, Mr. Shu. He explained each of the
drawings which illustrate the existing conditions, proposed conditions and proposed
conditions with landscaping on the property and explained the view prospective from each.
Mr. Gunderson indicated that he had met with Mr. Shu to review his concerns and stated that
he had hoped that Mr. Shu would be in attendance to see the illustrations. Mr. Gunderson
explained that the proposed landscaping is not located in the easement.
Mr. Gunderson also presented an exhibit depicting the size and mass of other homes in the
area as compared to the proposal submitted by the applicant. He reported that most of the
homes in the area are set back from the roadway.
Comments were offered regarding the plan review process which includes the City stamped
approval on plans prior to submittal to the County for review. It was suggested that a
condition be placed in this resolution and that this condition become a standard condition in
all future resolutions that prior to submittal of final plans to the Building Department for
issuance of building permits, the plans for the project shall be submitted to staff for verification
that the final plans are in compliance with the plans approved by the Planning Commission.
Planning Director Schwartz further explained the condition placed in the resolution relative to
landscaping as well as other conditions. Comments were offered regarding the proposed
future stable location. Conversation ensued regarding the building and inspection process.
Mr. Gunderson explained the inspections that are coo ted by both the RHCA Architectural
Inspector and the County building department.
• •
Comments were offered regarding the applicants' flexibility in addressing the concerns
discussed by the Planning Commission and brought up by the neighboring property owner. It
was noted that noise from swimming pool activity is a common occurrence. Mr. Gunderson
showed on the plan where other swimming pools are located in the neighborhood. Hearing
no further discussion Chairman Sommer closed the public hearing and called for a motion.
Commissioner Witte moved that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2008-01 as
amended to add a condition that prior to submittal of final plans to the Building Department
for issuance of building permits, the plans for the project shall be submitted to staff for
verification that the final plans are in compliance with the plans approved by the Planning
Commission. Commissioner Henke seconded the motion which carried by the following roll
call vote:
AYES: Commissioners DeRoy, Henke, Witte and Chairman Sommer.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Smith.
ABSTAIN: None.
• •
ZONING CASE NO. 746. (REVISED) Mr. and Mrs. Lin, 3 Packsaddle Road
East, (Lot 25-SF). Request for a Site Plan Review to construct a new single
family residence to replace an existing residence; request for a minor
Variance to encroach with the basement light %veils into side yard
setbacks; request for a Variance to locate a future stable and corral in the
front yard; and request for a Variance to export soil.
In addition to Commissioners and staff, present for this meeting were:
Criss Gunderson - Architect; Dr. Rutgers — neighbor; Mr. Shu —neighbor.
Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the revised proposal and pointed
out the revisions to the plan made since the previous meeting. She stated that
applicants eliminated the proposal for the garden room and are proposing to set
aside an area for the future stable and corral in the front yard; that they are
requesting permission to export 1,477 cubic yards of soil from the basement
rather than spread all of the dirt generated from the basement in the rear, which
as a result the rear of the lot is proposed to be raised by no more than 4 feet over
a lesser area than previously proposed. The applicants also revised. their plan
and propose to move the residence further to the east (47 feet from the north
eastern corner of the existing house, whereas previously it was proposed to be
moved 36 feet), redesigned the pool and enlarged the porches in the front. Criss
Gunderson, applicant's architect, explained the development and pointed out
that the lot is very narrow, that several currently existing non -conforming
features will be eliminated with the new house, such as extreme side yard
encroachments, double driveway, and pool in front yard. He stated that the
applicants compromised and addressed Commission's and the neighbors
concerns by eliminating the garden room, relocating the set aside area for a
future stable and corral in the front yard and by proposing to raise the rear at
most 4-feet.
Discussion ensued concerning the location of the stable in the middle of the front
yard and that it may not be desirable to a future property owners, should they
wish to construct a stable, to keep it in the front. Planning Director Schwartz
suggested a condition that for the purpose of this application a Variance be
granted to set aside an area for a stable and corral in the front and that any future
proposal for a stable be reviewed by the Planning Commission, which would
provide the neighbors with an opportunity to comment on the location of the
stable. Commissioners also suggested that the set aside area be tucked in against
the side and front setback lines, and not in the middle of the lot.
Lengthy discussion ensued concerning the proposal to enlarge the building pad
by raising the rear yard by 4 feet from the current elevation, as well as the
location of the existing three -rail fences. The architect explained the grading for
the pad, the height of the pad and that with lesser fill, the top of the slope will
start further away from the rear property line than previously proposed,
allowing for a gentler slope. The architect agreed to relocate the side and rear
three -rail fence to easement lines and keep the easement at the southwestern
portion of the lot clear. Mr. Shu commented that a landscaping screen should be
provided along the rear easement line, so that the project is screened from his
mother's house. Further discussion ensued concerning the drainage in the front
yard and the amount of soil to be exported. The architect stated that he could
reduce the amount of dirt to be exported, if he were to spread some of the dirt in
the front to correct the drainage. Commissioners requested that he provide
accurate information on this aspect of the proposal.
1
PUBLIC I-IEARIN• FENS CONTINUED FROM PREVIO" PING
ZONING CASE NO. 746., (REVISED) MR. AND MRS. LIN, 3 PACKSADDLE ROAD
EAST, (LOT 25-SF). REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR GRADING AND
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH BASEMENT TO
REPLACE AN EXISTING RESIDENCE; REQUEST FOR A MINOR VARIANCE TO
ENCROACH WITH TI-IE BASEMENT LIGHT WELLS INTO SIDE YARD SETBACKS;
REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO LOCATE A FUTURE STABLE AND CORRAL IN
THE FRONT YARD; AND REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO EXPORT DIRT
GENERATED FROM THE BASEMENT.
Planning Director Schwartz presented an overview of the applicants' revised request and
background regarding the property. She highlighted information that was presented to the
Planning Commission at the field review held earlier in the day. Regarding the Variance to
place the future stable in the front yard, she indicated that a condition could be placed on the
property that any proposal for a future stable location must be reviewed by the Planning
Commission.
Mr. Criss Gunderson, applicants' representative, explained that the increase in the amount of
soil proposed to be excavated is due to repositioning the house down one foot and positioning
it further forward on the lot.
Comments were offered regarding the neighboring property owners concerns. Planning
Director Schwartz explained that the letters from Mrs. Nan Shu, 6 Packsaddle Road West and
Drs. Richard and Joanne Rutgers, 5 Packsaddle Road %Vest, were in regard to the previous
proposal presented to the Planning Commission. Vice Chairman Henke opened the public
hearing and called for testimony.
Mr. Jia Shu, representing the property owner at 6 Packsaddle Road West, commented on the
field review held earlier in the day and expressed that he appreciates the applicants' efforts to
reduce the impact of the proposed development on his mother's property. He indicated that
there is still a concern regarding the amount of fill soil and the overall impact of the slopes
giving the effect of looking down onto his mother's property. It was suggested that landscape
screening may reduce the impact of the proposed development on the Shu property as long as
the vegetation did not block anyone's view.
Discussion ensued regarding the concerns expressed by the Shu's. Mr. Gunderson further
explained the repositioning of the house back 10 feet toward the street from where it was
originally proposed. He also explained the location of the proposed swimming pool. Mr.
Gunderson indicated that since discussions have commenced regarding the proposed export
of the soil from the basement that he reduced the grading dramatically. He further stated that
the applicant is committed to reducing the overall impact of the proposed development on the
neighboring properties. Planning Director Schwartz presented an explanation of the proposed
cut and fill and pointed out the areas to be graded on a cross-section of the property.
The impact of the proposed export of the soil required for the basement on the neighborhood
and the RHCA roadways was discussed. Mr. Gunderson explained that approximately 120
truckloads would be generated. He indicated that a neighbor had expressed a need for soil to
repair slopes on his property. Planning Director Schwartz stated that approval would be
necessary if soil were to be exported to a neighboring property. Mrs. Kristen Raig, RHCA
Manager reported that the RHCA charges soil hauling companies per truck entering the gate
to offset the costs of repair to the roadways.
Discussion ensued regarding the size of the proposed residential structure as compared to
others in the neighborhood and concerns were expressed about the bulk of the structure on the
property. Concerns were also expressed regarding drainage from the property and the
locations of the dissipaters and the effect that they would have on the property below. Mr.
Gunderson explained the existing and proposed drainage course on the property and the
experience of the engineering firm designing the drainage. He also explained that the County
would have to review, approve and permit any drainage plan for the property.
Commissioners further discussed the amount of soil excavation for the proposed basement
and its impact on the neighborhood and RI ICA roadways. Comments were offered regarding
whether there would be a positive affect on the drainage if the soil remained on the property.
Mr. Gunderson commented on concerns expressed about the size of the proposed residence.
He explained that many properties in this area have remained unchanged since the homes
were constructed. He noted that there are larger homes on Southfield Drive. Discussion
ensued regarding the size of the proposed basement and the amount of soil excavation.
• •
Discussion ensued regarding the fences located in the easements at the side and rear of the
property. It was noted that it is recommended that the applicant confirm that when the license
agreement was issued by the MICA to plant in the easement that it included the fence and if
the fence was not part of the agreement that the applicant obtain a separate agreement from
the RCHA and that the rear fence be relocated along the easement line.
Mr. Shu commented on the impact of the proposed porches in the rear of the residence.
Planning Director Schwartz explained the location of the proposed porches as compared to the
existing footprint of the residence.
Discussion ensued regarding the size of home the applicant could construct if remodeling
were considered rather than construction of a new home. Planning Director Schwartz
indicated that under the municipal code requirements the applicant could add enough square
footage onto the residence to create a 6,700 sq. ft. home which is slightly more than what the
current application calls for.
Further discussion ensued regarding concerns raised regarding the size of the home and the
concerns raised about the impact on the neighboring property. It was suggested that
landscaping might mitigate the neighbor's concerns as long as the vegetation did not block
views from other properties in the area. Planning Director Schwartz commented that the 2:1
slopes would be required to be landscaped by the County. Mr. Gunderson explained that
landscaping would maintain privacy between the neighbors and that the applicants intend to
plant vegetation to not only provide privacy for the neighbor but for them as well. Following
an explanation by the Assistant City Attorney regarding Planning Commission resolutions
and conditions that may be imposed pertaining to landscaping, Mr. Shu requested to review
any landscape plan submitted by the applicant.
Further discussion ensued regarding concerns regarding export of soil from the basement, size
of the proposed residence as well as the size of the basement and the concerns expressed by
the neighboring property owner. Concerns were also expressed regarding the variance to
permit a stable to be constructed in the front yard.
Regarding the export of soil, it was suggested that the applicant might wish to spread some of
the soil from the basement on the front yard area to alleviate some concerns regarding
drainage. Mr. Gunderson indicated that this may be a solution, however, due to the
topography of the property and the revisions made to the plan, most of the soil would still
need to be exported. He stated that if the Commission desired, it would be possible to spread
all of the soil from the basement on the property but that the property would then be raised.
He explained that the plan had been revised so that the residential structure sat lower on the
pad and further toward the roadway so that it would have less of an impact on the property
below. Further discussion ensued regarding whether or not the export of soil is necessary for
this project. The Commission concluded that the applicants' representative should consider
spreading some dirt in the front so that the amount of soil needed to be exported would be
less.
Commissioner DeRoy indicated that she was unable to attend the field trip earlier in the day
and would like the opportunity to view the site in the field before she could make a decision
on the vr000sal.
• •
Commissioner Witte moved that the Planning Commission direct staff to prepare a resolution
approving the request for a site plan review for grading and construction of a new single
family residence with basement to replace an existing residence; request for a minor variance
to encroach with the basement light wells into side yard setbacks; request for a variance to
locate a future stable and corral in the front yard; and request for a variance to export dirt
generated from the basement with the standard findings of fact and the standard conditions of
approval including conditions that any further development including the future stable on the
property must be reviewed by the Planning Commission, that the project be screened from
adjacent properties and that a landscaping plan be submitted to staff, that the rear three -rail
fence be relocated out of the easement with RHCA review and approval, that the fence on the
southern easement be relocated to location approved by the RI-ICA and that the applicant
work with the RHCA to keep the easement open for equestrian activities. Commissioner
Smith seconded the motion which carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Henke, Smith and Witte.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Chairman Sommer.
ABSTAIN: Commissioner DeRoy.
Vice Chairman l--lenke announced that the public hearing would remain open to allow for
Commissioner DeRoy to visit the site and for further comments regarding the project to be
offered at the next meeting including calculations for export of soil.
• •
IA°
PUBLIC HEARINGS ON ITEMS CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS MEETING
ZONING CASE NO. 746. MR. AND MRS. LIN, 3 PACKSADDLE ROAD EAST, (LOT
25-SF). REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENCE TO REPLACE AN EXISTING RESIDENCE; REQUEST FOR A
MINOR VARIANCE TO ENCROACH WITH THE BASEMENT LIGHT WELLS INTO
SIDE YARD SETBACKS; REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO LOCATE A GARDEN
ROOM IN THE FRONT YARD; AND REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TO CONSTRUCT A GARDEN ROOM.
Planning Director Schwartz presented the staff report outlining applicant's revised request
and providing background regarding the property, she indicated that the lot has been
previously graded and that at this time no additional disturbance is proposed, other than re -
disturbing the existing lot. She also provided copies of correspondence from Drs. Richard and
Joanne Rutgers (5 Packsaddle East). She stated that the correspondence was received after the
agenda materials were prepared. Planning Director Schwartz also indicated that the
Commissioners visited the site this morning.
Following discussion about the position and design of the proposed garden room and the
impression that the development seems very crowded in the rear, Chairman Sommer called
for testimony.
Mr. Criss Gunderson, Architect, explained that he would agree to re -locate the garden room.
He also indicated that the applicants propose to demolish the existing residence and construct
a new house that would comply with all City regulations, except that small areas of two light
wells would encroach four feet. into the side yard. The new house will be one foot higher in
elevation than the existing house. He also explained that currently the front of the property
doesn't have good natural drainage because it is flat. In response to Commissioner Smith, Mr.
Gunderson confirmed that the level of the proposed house and the pool would be the same,
and that the existing trees in front yard would be removed. There will be new, dwarf type
species planted instead, so nobody's view be impaired.
Commissioners discussed possible modifications to the size of the basement and reducing the
size and height of the pad in the back. Chairman Sommer indicated that the proposed house is
very large for the neighborhood and that reducing the basement maybe a solution for a
smaller house. Commissioner DeRoy also supported modification to the size of the basement
and expressed concern about the steep slope that will be created at the end of the pad and the
amount of fill necessary for the enlarged pad. Commissioners discussed the location of the
stable and agreed that its location may be undesirable and obtrusive to adjacent properties.
Mr. Criss Gunderson requested continuance of this case to the next Planning Commission
meeting for the purpose of revising the plan to address the Commissioners concerns.
Following further discussion, the Commission indicated that the applicant should revisit the
project and another field trip to the property was scheduled.
Hearing no further discussion the public hearing was c t;-wed to a field review to be held on
Tuesday, December 18, 2007 at 8:00 a.m.
• •
c •
1. FIELD TRIP TO THE FOLLOWING SITE
A. ZONING CASE NO. 746. Mr. and Mrs. Lin, 3 Packsaddle Road
East, (Lot 25-SF). Request for a Site Plan Review to construct a new single
family residence to replace an existing residence; request for a minor
Variance to encroach with the basement light wells into side yard
setbacks; request for a Variance to locate a garden room in the front yard;
and request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a garden room.
Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the proposal and pointed out the proposed
garden room, stable in the rear of property and the light wells that encroach into
the side setbacks. Criss Gunderson, applicant's architect, explained the
development and pointed out that the lot is very narrow, that several currently
existing non -conforming features will be eliminated with the new house, such as
extreme side yard encroachments, double driveway, and pool in front yard. He
stated that the garden room will not have solid walls, except for the fire place
wall, will not have a bathroom or a kitchen and is desirable in that location by
the applicant. He further stated that the garden room is quite a distance away
from the road and is screened with trees and other vegetation.
Dr. Rutgers stated that the garden room does not fit with Rolling Hills'
architecture and that it would set a precedence for other applicants to request
living/sitting quarters in the front yard.
Lengthy discussion ensued concerning the location of the stable and the proposal
to raise the rear yard 6-7 feet from the current elevation to create a larger
building pad to accommodate the pool and future stable and the resulting slope.
Commissioners commented that there seem to not be adequate room in
relationship to the rear property line to lengthen the building pad and provide
for acceptable slopes between the top of the pad and the easement line.
Commissioners also commented on the fact that the pool was not staked, so that
it was difficult to visualize the top of slope.
Mr. Watts stated that he is concerned with loss of privacy with both the raised
pad for the new residence and the location of the stable.
Further discussion ensued concerning moving the new house further to the front
(east), reorienting the pool, locating the garden room in the rear or attaching it to
the residence and reduce the size of the residence and the basement. Mrs. Lin
stated that she is willing to plant more trees to allow for privacy and remove
those trees that block neighbors view. She reiterated the importance of the
garden room to her, where she can relax and enjoy nature.
69
NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS
ZONiNG CASE NO. 746. MR. AND MRS. LIN, 3 PACKSADDLE ROAD EAST, (LOT
25-SF). REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SiNGLE
FAMILY RESIDENCE TO REPLACE AN EXISTING RESIDENCE; REQUEST FOR A
MiNOR VARIANCE TO ENCROACH WITH THE BASEMENT LIGHT WELLS INTO
SIDE YARD SETBACKS; REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO LOCATE A GARDEN
ROOM iN THE FRONT YARD; AND REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TO CONSTRUCT A GARDEN ROOM.
Planning Director Schwartz presented the staff report outlining the applicants' request and
providing background regarding the property. Discussion ensued regarding the proposed
garden room that is proposed to be placed in the front yard and the location of the proposed
future stable. Chairman Sommer opened the public hearing and called for testimony.
Mr. Criss Gunderson, applicant's architectural representative, explained the architectural
features and other characteristics of the existing and proposed residence and drew the
Commission's attention to the photographs of the property from various positions that were
included in the staff report. He further explained the ranch -like characteristics of the new
design which includes porches and trellises. He also explained the proposed grading that is
required for the project. Mr. Gunderson also explained the orientation of the proposed new
residence to capture the view.
Discussion ensued regarding the proximity of the proposed swimming pool to the future
stable and corral location. Commissioners discussed other locations on .the property that
could accommodate a future stable. Mr. Gunderson explained that the applicant does not plan
on constructing a stable and explained other alternative locations on the property for a future
stable should future property owners wish to construct one.
Discussion ensued regarding the proposed garden room that is proposed to be in the front
yard. Mr. Gunderson explained the architectural features and the intended use of the garden
room. He indicated that if the garden room were to be placed in the rear yard that it would
block the view from the main portions of the residence.
Discussion ensued regarding the size of the proposed basement and the amount of soil
proposed to be excavated to create it. Mr. Gunderson explained that the applicant intends to
use the space in the basement and that it is not being created to generate soil for use on other
portions of the property. He further explained the topography of the property and the grading
required for the proposed development. The Commissioners also discussed the encroachment
of the basement light Ivells into the side yard setbacks. Planning Director Schwartz pointed
out the locations of the light wells on the plan.
Discussion ensued regarding the grading and whether the allowance of the export of soil
would affect the project. Mr. Gunderson explained that the soil being generated from the
basement would create a natural more flat and ranch -style property but if it were allowed they
would not object to the export of soil. Commissioners also discussed the pad coverage
calculations.
Dr. Richard Rutgers, 5 Packsaddle Road East, commented on the location of the proposed
garden room and expressed concerns that it is visible from the roadway. Mr. Gunderson
explained that the proposed location of the garden room was selected so as not to block a view
from the residence in the rear and that this would be apparent when the project is viewed in
the field. Commissioners requested that Mr. Gunderson provide a drawing of the garden
room and that all aspects of the proposed development be staked for viewing at the field trip.
Hearing no further discussion the public hearing was Itinued to a field review to be held on
Tuesday, November 20, 2007 beginning at 7:30 a.m.
A
•
eity „fiellin, _Atto
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377.1521
FAX: (310) 377.7288
DATE: JULY 19, 2011 (SITE VISIT)
TO: HONORABLE CHAIRPERSON AND MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR
APPLICATION NO.
SITE LOCATION:
ZONING AND SIZE:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PUBLISHED:
ZONING CASE NO. 746 Modification
3 PACKSADDLE ROAD EAST (LOT 25-SF)
RAS-1, 1.28 ACRES (GROSS)
MR. KUANG LIN & MRS. IVY WANG
DOUG MCHATTIE, BOLTON ENGINEERING
JUNE 9, 2011
REQUEST AND RECOMMENDATION
Request for modification to a previously approved Site Plan Review application
to construct a swimming pool, on a property where a new single family residence
was also approved at 3 Packsaddle Road East. The modification entails additional
grading in the rear to raise the rear yard area, changing the shape and orientation
of the pool and locating the pool closer to the residence.
It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the staff report, view the
site, take public testimony and provide direction to staff.
BACKGROUND
1. The Planning Commission at their meeting of June 21, 2011 scheduled a
field trip to the site on July 19, 2011. Commissioner Henke requested that
information regarding previous approval for this project be provided to the
Commission. Enclosed are the minutes from the meetings held in 2007 and 2008.
2. In January 2008 the City approved a Site Plan Review and Variances in case
No. 746 for the construction of a new 6,230 square foot residence, 781 square foot
garage, 559 square foot pool with pool equipment area, 900 square feet of porches,
780 square feet detached trellises, barbeque area and 4,940 square foot basement. A
minor variance was granted to encroach with a portion of the light wells into the
side yard setback and a variance to export dirt and to locate future stable and
corral in the front yard area of the lot. The development standards for structural
and total lot coverage are at the maximum permitted and no new structures would
be allowed. The project is under construction.
ZC NO. 746 MOD.
Printed on Recycled Paper
A
• •
3. During the proceedings, as a result of neighbors' concerns and Planning
Commission direction, the applicants modified their project several times. Much
discussion revolved around the back yard and grading and how it would affect the
privacy and drainage. Mr. Shu, on behalf of the property owners at 6 Packsaddle
Road West expressed concerns regarding the proposal to raise and enlarge the rear
building pad area, the amount of fill necessary to fill in the rear pad area, loss of
privacy and noise that would result from the proposed uses in the rear yard on the
raised building pad and geological issues resulting from the grading of the pad.
Mr. Shu also addressed the need to screen the rear of the property to provide for
tranquility and privacy.
The final approval was to grade the rear yard and to raise the rear area by
four feet. A maximum of 559 square foot oval swimming pool with a spa was
approved. At its longest dimension the pool was proposed to be 32 feet. The edge
of the pool was approved at 100' elevation, which is about 4'8" feet below the rear
of the residence, and it was to be accessed by two sets of step down concrete
raisers (gently sloped rear yard; 4.6 feet in 46 feet). The pool was to be located 15
feet from the 50-foot rear yard setback line and 45 feet from the rear wall of the
residence. A 2:1 descending slope was approved west of the pool; towards the rear
property line. The approval also required screening along the west and north
easement line with shrubs that would be maintained at no less than 9' and no more
than 10' in height.
4. The applicants request a modification to the approved plans for the pool
area. Enclosed is a written request for the proposed modification. The proposed
pool would be a 475 square foot infinity pool (with spa) oriented east -west, rather
than north -south and would be 32 feet long and 14 feet wide, plus a spa. The
closest side of the pool would be 20 feet from the residence, and the infinity side
would be on the opposite side. The infinity side would have a spill —way wall of
2.5 feet in height. The highest point of the surface of the water would be 4.5 feet (2
feet raised pad and 2.5 ft rear pool spill -way wall) from the originally approved
pool. The project area overall would be raised by about 2 feet. In order to keep the
maximum permitted 2:1 slope and to raise the rear yard, the overall backyard flat
area would shrink, especially at the southwestern corner. The area beyond and on
sides of the proposed pool would gently slope towards the rear to meet the
elongated 2:1 slope.
The re -grading would affect 7,000 square feet of the rear yard.
Approximately 681 cubic yards of dirt will be required for this project. The dirt is
available from the basement and grading of the lot, as well as from the excavation
of the pool.
If approved, it will be required that the drainage be re-evaluated and
revised, if necessary. At the June 21 meting, the LA County Building and Safety
grading and drainage engineer stated that the drainage will not be affected by this
change and that the existing drainage design is adequate.
5. The property has been roughly graded to the previously approved plans
and drainage devices have been installed. During the grading process Soils and
ZC NO. 746 MOD.
• •
Geological Reports and Reports of Grading Activities were submitted by the
applicant's engineer and reviewed by the Building Department. County
Geotechnical Division approved this project, as built to date, from a geologic and
soils standpoint.
6. Enclosed for your reference is correspondence from Mr. Shu, on behalf of
the property owners at 6 Packsaddle Road West. In his correspondence Mr. Shu is
questioning the approval process in general, the qualifications of the persons
involved in preparing and reviewing the plans and reports, and the reasons for the
requested change and is objecting to the proposal on the basis that it will affect his
parent's privacy and that the construction may negatively affect drainage, cause
erosion and instability of the lot. Mr. Shu is also concerned with the "as built"
drainage and grading.
Also enclosed is a letter from the City to Mr. Shu as well as a letter from
property owners at 2 Packsaddle Rd. W. who have requested that the project area
be staked. The neighbors at 5 Packsaddle Road E. visited City Hall and reviewed
the plans. They expressed concern about the proposed additional grading and
drainage, specifically at the southwestern corner of the lot.
7. A "No Further Development" without review and approval by the Planning
Commission condition was placed on this case. The proposal does not constitute
additional "structural" development, as the proposed pool will be 475-square feet,
which is smaller than previously approved pool. Staff was willing to review this
change over-the-counter, however given the past history of this case staff
requested that the applicant contact the adjacent neighbor, explain the proposed
change and provide verification to staff that they have agreed. Doug McHattie,
applicant's representative, contacted Mrs. Shu, the property owner at 6 Packsaddle
Road W. Since Mr. Shu, property owners' son, expressed objections to the
modification and has raised many questions staff has determined that the Planning
Commission review this request and that all neighbors have an opportunity to
provide input.
8. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA
17.46.010 Purpose.
The site plan review process is established to provide discretionary review of
certain development projects in the City for the purposes of ensuring that the proposed
project is consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates environmentally and
aesthetically sensitive grading practices; preserves existing mature vegetation; is
compatible and consistent with the scale, massing and development pattern in the
immediate project vicinity; and otherwise preserves and protects the health, safety and
welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills.
ZC NO. 746 MOD.
17.46.050 Required findings.
A. The Commission shall be required to make findings in acting to approve,
conditionally approve, or deny a site plan review application.
B. No project which requires site plan review approval shall be approved by
the Commission, or by the City Council on appeal, unless the following findings can be
made:
1. The project complies with and is consistent with the goals and policies of the general
plan and all requirements of the zoning ordinance;
2. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by
minimizing building coverage. Lot coverage requirements are regarded as maximums,
and the actual amount of lot coverage permitted depends upon the existing buildable area
of the lot;
3. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and
surrounding residences;
4. The project preserves and integrates into the site design, to the greatest extent
possible, existing topographic features of the site, including surrounding native
vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls);
5. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of the site and to minimize the
amount of grading required to create the building area;
6. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect drainage flow, unless
such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course;
7. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature trees and supplements
these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping which is compatible with and enhances
the rural character of the community, and landscaping provides a buffer or transition area
between private and public areas;
8. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and safe movement of
pedestrians and vehicles; and
9. The project conforms to the requirements of CEQA.
SOURCE: City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance
ZC NO. 746 MOD.
U
• I
Bolton Engineering Corporation
25834 Narbonne Avenue, Suite 210
Lomita, Ca. 90717
(310) 325-5580
June 16, 2011
#3 Packsaddle, Rolling Hills, California
Lin Residence
This letter is in response to concerns considering the minimal rearyard grading and pool relocation.
Below is a list of the changes being proposed.
1. Eliminate the approved pool, relocate pool closer to the residence by 17.5 linear feet.
2. Relocation of pool moves edge of pool 26 feet away from proposed top of slope. Approved
pool location was 13 feet away from top of slope.
3. Raise grade 2 feet at the approved pool location.
4. Reduction of hardscape in the rearyard.
5. Reduce size of pad in the rearyard.
PA) r: t If
i 1 :)
By
410
Bolton Engineering Corporation
June 13, 2011
Yolanta Schwartz
Planning Director
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Rd.
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Dear Ms. Schwartz;
ro woz D
„\ , te
.4 i..fiii:›
I herewith respectfully request a planning commission hearing on a minor
modification to the approved development of 3 Packsaddle East.
The modification entails additional grading to raise the rear swimming pool pad
and locating the pool closer to the residence.
Sincerely,
i
c
Douglas K. McHattie
25834 Narbonne Ave., Suite 210, Lomita, C 717 tel (310) 325-5580 fax (310) 325-5581
6
• •
6 W. Packsaddle Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
May 28, 2011
Doug McHattie
Bolton Engineering Corp
25834 Narbonne Ave, Suite 210
Lomita, CA 90717
310 325 5580
. •Y
•' tt 4;
t .I,+
City of Rolling Hills Planning Commission and Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director
2 Portuguese Bend Road
City of Rolling Hills, CA 90274
310 377 1521
cc: Mitch Miller
Los Angeles County Department of Building and Safety
900 S. Fremont Ave
Alhambra, CA 91803
626 458 6390
cc: Rolling Hills Community Association
1 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
310 544 6222
Subject: New Residence Under Construction at 3 East Packsaddle Road
Dear Mr. McHattie and Ms Schwartz:
Most of this letter is in response to Mr. McHattie. However the material in italics is directed to Ms Schwartz and the
Planning Commission. .
Mr. McHattie, thank you for your response dated May 5, 2011 (copy enclosed here, together with a copy of my
letters dated April 2, 2011 and January 5, 2008). I appreciate the time you took to write your letter.
I. In your letter you mentioned an attached drawing. There was no drawing enclosed with your letter. Please send
the drawing.
II. At the end of your rust paragraph, you said "Also, this design has an additional 2 feet of fill in the rear yard. This
additional fill should increase both the visual privacy and lessen the noise from the pool during use."
That doesn't address my concern. My concern is not just with the pool; my concern is with visual privacy and noise
from the Lin's entire yard.
As stated in my letter of January 5, 2008, Criss Gunderson (the Lins' architect) suggested that perhaps the northern
half of the filled area (which is closest to my mother's driveway) could be permanently reserved for a garden or
other non -human use. As stated in my letter, Mrs. Lin subsequently rejected this idea. it is clear that people may
come right up to the edge of the filled area, closest to my mother's house and yard. Therefore, increasing the height
of the fill will exacerbate the invasion of visual privacy and noise because the Lins and their guests will be looking
down on my mother's house and yard from a higher vantage point.
Unless the Lins and all subsequent owners of 3 E. Packsaddle limit their activities to that part of the raised/flattish
area such that they will not see my mother's house or yard (in other words, limit their activities to that part of the
Lin's backyard closest to their house), increasing the height of the fill will NOT increase visual privacy or lessen the
noise from the Lin's property; the opposite will happen. Clearly this is not a practical idea because Mrs. Lin has
1
•
already indicated that she does not want any such limitation, and even if she has changed her position, I don't see
how the Lins can limit what subsequent owners do.
As I said in my letter of'January 5, 2008, the Lins had a spectacular view of the ocean and coastline without any fill
at all. To add fill to the height planned in January 2008 would result in very little improvement in the view. Adding
two more feet now does nothing to improve the view. But it does have the very real potential of worsening the noise
and loss of visual privacy problem for my mother. As I said in my letter of January 5, 2008,1 understand that the
Lins want to have a larger flattish area in their back yard. I did not receive a response to that letter, so I'll repeat a
point I made in that letter:
I believe that the way to lessen the noise and invasion of visual privacy for my mother is to decrease the
height of the fill by grading back into the hill (towards the house) and creating a flattish area LOWER than
the original plan (as of Jan 2008), not to fill to the height in the January 2008 plan. The Lins would still
have their larger flattish area with a spectacular view.
Why is the height of the fill now being increased? I would really like an answer to this question.
III. In paragraph B of your letter you said "The necessity for the shrubs and screening landscaping, now that the
rough grading is compl9ted, is in question." I disagree. As stated above, increasing the height of the fill will make
the problems of loss of visual privacy and noise worse. As I said in my letter of January 5, 2008, I have significant
concerns with the idea that screening landscaping is a good solution. Nonetheless the Planning Commission has
said that screening landscaping of between 9 and 10 feet in height must be maintained at all times. That requirement
should now be increased by at least 2 feet because the person standing on the edge of the filled area will be 2 feet
higher than originally planned in January 2008. Furthermore, because the original height was required by
Resolution 2008-01 to be recorded, I would expect that the new height should also be recorded.
IV. In paragraph C of your letter you said "The proposed change is minor. ... and does not require a new resolution
by the city. I don't see the change as minor because, as stated in my letter of April 2, 2011:
As noted in Section 10 Paragraph A of Resolution No 2008-01, "The applicants originally proposed
balanced cut and fill, which would result in raising the rear of the lot up to 7 feet, which both the Planning
Commission and the neighbors objected to". If the Planning Commission has not yet approved the change
in the amount of fill, I would strongly urge them to reject it. But if the Planning Commission has already
approved the change (to increase the height of the fill to 6 feet — which is a 50% increase in the height in
the original approved plan), was this original objection to 7 feet taken into consideration? Also, if the
Planning Commission has already approved the change, I'm curious as to where they would have drawn the
line. Would a change to increase the fill to 6 feet 6 inches have been rejected? if this change has been
approved, please inform me of the basis for the approval, especially since the substantial increase in the
height of the fill should have reasonably warranted a serious review by the Planning Commission.
Nonetheless, based on your (Doug McHattie's) comment, apparently the Planning Commission considers the
increase in the height of the fill to be "minor", and so I will direct my question to them:
What is considered to be a minor change in general, i.e. a change which does not require another review by the
Planning Commission?
In this particular situation, what amount of change to the height of theft!! would have been considered large
enough to warrant another resolution by the Planning Commission? If Doug's statement is correct ,that this
increase to 6 feet offill is minor, then it appears to me that in Rolling Hills if / want to do something in my
construction project which the Planning Commission partially disapproves of (in this case, the Planning
Commission approved 4 feet offill instead of 7 feet offrll), / should take what I can get initially and then make one
or more "minor" changes later on, in order to get essentially everything that I originally wanted. I'll venture to say
that the Planning Commission does not intend that the process can be "gamed" in such a manner (note: / certainly
do not intend to offend the Planning Commission by wondering if their process is being "gamed"; to the contrary, I
think the Planning Commission is to be applauded for their service to the community!). Nonetheless, if the increase
to 6 feet is considered "minor, then it appears that the process is being "gamed" and l hope the Planning
Commission will take immediate steps to remediate this flaw, starting with the Lins' project.
•
V. In your paragraph D you said that "The pool design change has been reviewed by the soils engineer Steve Ng.
He has stated that the additional two feet of fill does not cause any stability problems for the rear slope".
I have several questions.
1. Who does Steve Ng work for?
2. What are Steve Ng's credentials, in particular
a. what is his State -issued license number and
b. how much experience has he had working on projects in the Palos Verdes peninsula (my understanding is that
there are geological similarities across the Peninsula as well as some differences, but there are more similarities in
the geological and soil characteristics among different locations on the Peninsula than there are between the
Peninsula and locations in the surrounding Los Angeles area)?
3. When you say "rear slope" I assume you are referring to the rear slope of the Lins' property, not the hillside that
the Lins' property, my mother's property, and that of surrounding neighbors are all part of. If I am incorrect, and the
phrase "rear slope" refers to the entire hillside, not just the Lins' property. what is Steve Ng's statement based on?
As I suggested and asked in my letters of January 5, 2008, and April 2, 2011, has a geological study of the entire
hillside (not just the Limp' property) been done in order to assess the possible impacts of the fill which is part of this
project? If there has bden such as study, can you send it to me, or tell me where I can get a copy?
If "rear slope" refers to the rear slope of the Lins' property, not to the entire hillside that the Lins' property, my
mother's property, and surrounding neighbors share, then Steve Ng' statement does not address my concern. The
Lins' project should not have adverse impact on any neighbors.
4. If such a study (a geological study of the entire hillside) is felt to be unnecessary, whose professional judgment is
that opinion based on?
VI. I gather that your paragraphs E and F are in response to paragraph E in my letter of April 2, 2011:
"Is someone responsible for ensuring that the amount of fill approved by the Planning Commission is the
amount of fill that is actually place by the end of the project? If so, who is that person/party and how do
they ensure that more fill is not added?"
Thank you for that information.
1. Who on the construction project team is responsible for the rough and fine grading and for saying that the
approved amount of fill is in place and therefore rough grading / fill and fine grading portions of the project are
ready for inspection?
2. Can you tell me whether there is documentation that I can get from you or from the City and the Los Angeles
County Department of Building and Safety indicating that the inspectors have signed off that the grading has been
done according to plan, and whether they raised any concerns?
VII. In your paragraph G, you said that "Rolling Hills Planning Dept and L.A. Co Dept of Building and Safety have
reviewed the revision to the swimming pool and do not have any specific objections to the revision. The final
approval for this change has not been made." I have a few questions:
1. 1 see the change in layout and location of the swimming pool and the increase in the amount of fill as two separate
changes. Are you talking about both the swimming pool and the increase in fill in your statement in your paragraph
G, or are you just talking about the revision to the swimming pool?
2. You said that the "Rolling Hills Planning Dept and L.A. Co Dept of Building and Safety ... do not have any
specific objections to the revision." Do they have any objections or comments of any sort (not just specific
objections)?
•
•
3. Is there a date on which you expect approval or disapproval to be made? Based on your comment above that this
is a minor change which does not require another resolution by the City, I'm guessing that there will not be a
hearing where the publif can make comments, is that correct?
VIII. In your paragraph H you said "Based on your initial concerns about the drainage, we redesigned the drainage
so the drainage outlet was relocated so that all the flow was directed away from your mother's rear yard as much as
practical. As part of this drainage system, a outlet structure was constructed in the southwest corner of the property.
That structure is quite new and appears to be working as intended. The County does not allow drainage to flow
uncontrolled over graded slopes from a developed lot. We believe directing the drainage away from your mother's
house and pool is an improvement to her property."
We are very far from a common understanding on virtually all parts of your statement above. Addressing each part
your paragraph H, one part at a time:
1. "Based on your initial concerns about the drainage, we redesigned the drainage so the drainage outlet was
relocated so that all the flow was directed away from your mother's rear yard as much as practical."
What were my initial cctcems about the drainage (which sentences in my previous letters are you referring to?).
How is it that my "initial concerns about the drainage" leads you to the conclusion that all flow should be "directed
away from my mother's rear yard as much as practical"?
As I said in my letter of January 5, 2008,
'As stated in the "Residential Development Highlights" document published by the City of Rolling Hills,
"The Site Plan must minimize grading; preserve terrain and natural drainage courses; be harmonious in
scale and mass with the building pad, the natural terrain, and surrounding residences; preserve native
vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses, and land forms; and must be convenient and safe for the
movement of pedestrians, equestrians and vehicles"' (underlining added)
The natural drainage before the Lins' construction project started was a natural slope with no man-made drainage
system at all. The water simply flowed down hill, and was distributed over the entire width of the Lins' backyard
slope. I don't believe I ever said that there was a problem with that.
If you are saying that the original natural drainage was a problem for my mother, can you please explain how you
arrived at that conclusion?
And how is it that concentrating the drainage to one corner of the Lins' property and then allowing that water to
flow onto my mother's property (the portion of the hill just above my mother's pool) will reduce that problem for
my mother? From my layman's point of view, that is quite counterintuitive. And I am wondering: is there increased
risk of my mother having problems with the stability of the earth in the area of her pool in the future as a result of
the Lins' drainage system? There are NO such problems now and the area has been stable for at least 40 years.
From my layman's point of view, as I said in both my letter of January 5 2008 and April 2, 2011, I expected that it
would have been best to minimize the impact on existing landforms (to have stayed with the original landforms that
existed before the Lin's bought the property). In addition, I'll note that my point of view is consistent with the
sentence quoted from the "Residential Development Highlights" above.
Now that extensive changes have been made to the Lins' back yard, what analyses have been done, and what
assurances are there from professionals (geologists, soil engineers, geotechs, hydrologists, etc.) that there will not be
adverse impacts on other homeowners on the hillside shared by the Lins, my mother and others? Who are these
professionals and what are their license numbers and qualifications?
2. "That structure is quite new and appears to be working as intended".
If you are saying that the drainage system is substantially less than 2 years old, then I'm even more concerned. As I
said in my letter of April 2, 2011, over 2 feet of dirt, sediment and debris have built up along the fence on the
property line between the Lins' and my mother's property. That indicates the volume of water is quite substantial
and the amount of dirt, sediment and debris will be dumped onto my mother's property is quite substantial. What
will the mid- to long-term impact be on my mother's property and that of 5 E. Packsaddle Rd? When the project has
been completed and the,wire fence has been removed, the debris that is now caught by the fence will flow freely
downhill onto that one portion of my mother's property. While that is not appreciated, there are other bigger
questions: (a) Will there be more erosion and faster erosion of that portion of my mother's property? (b) Will the
land in that portion of my mother's property be less stable in the future (including her pool as mentioned above)
because of all of the water being dumped into that one area?
3. "The County does not allow drainage to flow uncontrolled over graded slopes from a developed lot."
I doubt that the County says that you should concentrate all of the runoff from a graded slope and dump it into just
one small part of a neighbor's property. I expect the County's intent is to require that the grading NOT adversely
impact neighbors at all. The best way to insure the stability of the hillside (including the neighbors' properties, not
just the Lins' property) is to not change the natural geography and contour of the hillside and drainage at all.
However, given the fact that the geography, contour of the hillside, and drainage patterns have been altered by the
Lins' project, I am concerned that the opposite of the County's intent is happening here (that my mother's property
will likely be adversely impacted).
4. "We believe directing the drainage away from your mother's house and pool is an improvement to her property."
The Lins' project has changed the natural geography and contour of the hillside, and as a result, changed the
drainage pattern as well. From my layman's point of view, this increases the chances of earth slippage or other
problems occurring elsewhere on the hillside (again, I'm talking about the entire hillside shared by the Lins, my
mother and other neighbors). It may take some time for the effects of this change in the drainage to appear, but if
that is what happens, then redirecting the drainage is NOT an improvement to the value of my mother's property.
However, since you are saying that the Lins' drainage system is an improvement for my mother, what is your
reasoning? What is your reasoning based on - have any studies or analyses been done?
5. This next question is directed to the Planning Commission (or appropriate City agent or department). As stated in
my letter of April 2, 2011, paragraph W of Resolution 2008-01 says "No drainage device may be located in such a
manner as to contribute to erosion or in any way affect an easement, trail or adjacent properties."
In addition to affecting my mother's property, the Lins' drainage system will clearly affect the easement between the
Lins' property and my mother's. As I mentioned in my April 2 letter over two feet of dirt, sediment and debris has
already built up in the less than 2 years that the drainage system has been in place. I request that the Planning
Commission enforce this requirement that the drainage device not affect the easement and my mother's adjacent
property in any way.
6. Furthermore (again this question is directed to the Planning Commission), Section 11 Paragraph V of Resolution
No 2008-01 says that "During and after construction perimeter easements and trails shall remain free and clear of
encroachments including, but not limited to, ... grading, ... debris, ..., unless otherwise approved by the Rolling
Hills Community Association".
There is currently debris in the easement, and there will be debris in the easement after the project is over because
of the run off Has the RHCA approved?
In conclusion, the Lins' project as a whole (the grading and fill which will result in people being able to look down
on most of my mother's property, the risk of destabilizing the hillside (due to the grading, fill and change to
drainage patterns) and the house itself) is decreasins the value of my mother's property.
Let me explain this last point more fully. Before the Lins built their house, you could not see any portion of the
previous house at 3 E. Packsaddle. Now, as you come up my mother's drive way and as you walk into the front
courtyard of my mother's house, a portion of the Lins' house (the roof of the outdoor porch on the northern side of
the Lins' house, closest to 2 West Packsaddle Road, including the gable and some of the posts holding up the roof)
are very clearly visible. Needless to say, this contributes to a feeling of neighbors living on top of each other. My
mother's house used to have the feeling of being in a rural setting, with no neighbors' houses in view. No more.
5
• •
Thank you for your time and we look forward to responses from both Bolton Engineering and the Planning
Commission.
6 IZ
6 W. Packsaddle Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
April 2, 2011
City of Rolling Hills Planning Commission and Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director
2 Portuguese Bend Road
City of Rolling Hills, CA 90274
310 377 1521
cc: Doug McHattie
Bolton Engineering Corp
25834 Narbonne Ave, Suite 210
Lomita, CA 90717
310 325 5580
cc: Mitch Miller
Los Angeles County Department of Building and Safety
900 S. Fremont Ave
Alhambra, CA 91803
626 458 6390
cc: Rolling Hills Community Association
1 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
310 544 6222
RECEIVED
APR 0 6 2011
City of Fulling Hills
By
Subject: New Residence Under Construction at 3 East Packsaddle Road
Dear Ms. Schwartz:
1 am writing this letter on behalf of my mother, Nan Shu, owner of the property at 6 W. Packsaddle Road,
Rolling Hills, which is downhill from 3 E. Packsaddle Road.
On Tuesday March 22, Doug McHattie of Bolton Engineering stopped by to give my mother a copy of a
revised plot plan for the construction project at 3 E. Packsaddle Road, Rolling Hills. It appears that the
plan is now to add 2 more feet of fill to the backyard, on top of the 4 feet of fill that was previously
approved.
As discussed in my letter of January 5 2008 (copy enclosed), we favored a plan which would have involved
cutting back into the hill instead of adding fill to create a larger flat area with space for a swimming pool.
Such as plan would have resulted in less grading, in that less dirt would have been moved in total, and
instead of adding a substantial amount of dirt to the hillside, some dirt would have been removed from the
hillside (which I believe is less likely to result in problems with stability of the hillside in the future). The
surplus dirt could have been distributed over the front yard, between the house and Packsaddle Road. The
issues we raised at that time were:
1. loss of privacy (both visual privacy and noise)
2. the possibility of the project destabilizing the land in the area
3. the possibility of creating a long term source of friction between neighbors.
Nonetheless, the Planning Commission chose to approve the plan put forward by the representatives for the
owners of 3 E. Packsaddle.
Now, because six feet of fill will be added instead of 4 feet of fill, our concerns are heightened.
I have a number of questions and comments.
• •
A. Was the change in this project reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Planning Commission, the
Rolling Hills Community Association, and the Los Angeles County Department of Building and Safety
with our original concerns in mind? Did Bolton Engineering, Coast Geotechnical, SWN Soiltech
Consultants and any other parties (soil engineers, geologists, etc) who were originally involved in drawing
up the plans (plot plans, grading and drainage plans, landscape plans, etc), analyze the possible impacts and
render their opinions as to future impacts (all impacts — stability of the hillside, impact on neighbors'
property, property values, privacy, etc) in light of the proposed changes to the plans?
B. The original approval by the Planning Commission required shrubs to be maintained between 9 and 10
feet in height to provide visual screening. If the fill is going up by 2 feet, will it also be required that the
shrubs be 2 feet taller (between 11 and 12 feet)?
C. The original approval (in 2008) by the Planning Commission required that an Affidavit of Acceptance of
all conditions of the Site Plan Review and Variance approvals be executed and recorded. If the changes to
the Resolution (for example in the height of the shrubs) have been approved, have the changes also been
executed and recorded?
D. As noted in Section 10 Paragraph A of Resolution No 2008-01, "The applicants originally proposed
balanced cut and fill, which would result in raising the rear of the lot up to 7 feet, which both the Planning
Commission and the neighbors objected to". If the Planning Commission has not yet approved the change
in the amount of fill, I would strongly urge them to reject it. But if the Planning Commission has already
approved the change (to increase the height of the fill to 6 feet — which is a 50% increase in the height in
the original approved plan), was this original objection to 7 feet taken into consideration? Also, if the
Planning Commission has already approved the change, I'm curious as to where they would have drawn the
line. Would a change to increase the fill to 6 feet 6 inches have been rejected? If this change has been
approved, please inform me of the basis for the approval, especially since the substantial increase in the
height of the fill should have reasonably warranted a serious review by the Planning Commission.
NOTE: My understanding, based on Section I I Paragraph S of Resolution No 2008-01, is that the Planning
Commission must approve this change.
E. Is someone responsible for ensuring that the amount of fill approved by the Planning Commission is the
amount of fill that is actually place by the end of the project? If so, who is that person/party and how do
they ensure that more fill is not added?
F. I have just become aware of a part of the drainage system at 3 E. Packsaddle. There are three drainage
pipes (of various diamters) coming out of a cement wall built into the fill in the southwest corner of 3 E.
Packsaddle's lot. Water, sediment, and debris (leaves, twigs, etc) from these pipes are directed) more or
less into the corner of the property where 3 E. Packsaddle's, 5 E. Packsaddle's and 6 W. Packsaddle's lot
lines come together. The drainage system can not have been in place for more than 2 years, but in that
short period of time over 2 feet of dirt, sediment and debris (leaves, twigs, etc) have built up against the
wire fence between 3 E. Packsaddle's and 6 W. Packsaddle's property line (there is a temporary wire fence
with openings between the strands of wire of roughly 2" x 4"). See the enclosed picture. The two pens
have been placed vertically, with about 0.5" sticking into the ground. The red pen is at the original ground
level. The yellow pen is just inside the wire fence, near the top of the debris that has built up against the
fence.
In addition, the construction contractors have placed temporary construction soil / sediment control fiber
rolls along the perimeter of 3 E. Packsaddle's property where it adjoins my mother's property. After the
fiber rolls are removed, I am concerned that the sediment, debris and dirt will be carried onto my mother's
property (by water from 3 E. Packsaddle), resulting in an increased chance of soil instability and erosion on
her property.
I have several concerns.
• •
1. Is it a good idea to divert the water which had been flowing downhill across the entire hillside to be
concentrated to one corner of 3 E. Packsaddle's lot? What will happen to the stability of the rest of the
hillside? Have the soil engineer and geologist/geotech for this project reviewed the situation, approved
this design and rendered an opinion that there will not be an adverse impact on neighbors in the long
term (say, 25 or 50 years in the future)?
Note that my neighbor at 5 E. Packsaddle has a driveway that runs across the hillside (more or less
north -south). Will the drainage runoff from 3 E. Packsaddle lead to erosion which will undermine his
driveway?
2. When the fiber rolls and wire fence are removed and a 3 rail white fence is installed (I assume that is
part of the project), the dirt/sediment/debris/runoff will flow onto my mother's property at 6 W.
Packsaddle and possibly onto my neighbor's property at 5 W. Packsaddle (it's probably not easy to
determine exactly where the water will flow unless it is raining). Section I 1 Paragraph V of
Resolution No 2008-01 says that "During and after construction perimeter easements and trails shall
remain free and clear of encroachments including, but not limited to, ... grading, ... debris, ..., unless
otherwise approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association". There is currently debris in the
easement, and there will be debris in the easement after the project is over because of the run off. Has
the RHCA approved?
3. Paragraph W says "No drainage device may be located in such a manner as to contribute to erosion
or in any way affect an easement, trail or adjacent properties." The drainage system is not in
compliance with every part of this requirement. Is the Planning Commission responsible for enforcing
this requirement?
Thank you for your time and we look forward to your response.
• •
6 W. Packsaddle Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
April 2, 2011
City of Rolling Hills Planning Commission and Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director
2 Portuguese Bend Road
City of Rolling Hills, CA 90274
310 377 1521
To the Planning Commission:
My parents bought 6 W. Packsaddle in 1971. Over time we have noticed a gradual change in the character
of Rolling Hills, and not for the better. There has been significant erosion of the rural nature that existed
when they first moved into Rolling Hills and for a number of years afterwards.
The project at 3 E. Packsaddle seems to be a good example of "mansionization" in Rolling Hills. There
may be more egregious projects, but this project includes variances for setback, for the location of the
stable, and for exporting dirt. The project is at the limits for structural lot coverage and net lot coverage. A
lot of dirt has been moved to create a large area for the swimming pool and for entertaining. Instead of
working with the piece of land they bought and minimizing modifications to the land and impacts on the
neighbors, this project is pushing the limits in every way imaginable.
Instead of being an oasis in the middle of the city, Rolling Hills is moving in the direction of being like
other parts of the city. Yes, the lot sizes are generally large, but we are feeling more and more like we are
living on top of each other, elbow -to -elbow, very much aware that we are in a big city.
My family and I urge you to resist the pressures of mansionization„ and to support the idea that people
should live within the limits of the property they purchased (approve fewer variances).
NOTE: Given the instability of the hillsides in Rolling Hills (as 1 said in my letter of Jan 5, 2008, there are
a number of homes in the area which have experienced problems with slippage of the earth), 1 feel
particularly strongly that folks should not disturb the original lay of the land (and they should not adversely
impact their existing neighbors). Although there may not be adverse impacts in the near term (5-10 years
from now), will there be the impacts 20, 30, or 50 years down the road? As expert witnesses / geologists /
soil engineers can tell you, hillsides can be quite complex and fragile. The anecdotal evidence points to our
hillside falling into that category.
04-
• •
6/14/2011
Dear Rolling Hills Planning Commission:
Regarding Zoning Case No. 746 Modification- We are the neighbors Bob and Hillary Watts
residing at #2 Packsaddle Road West and our backyard shares a common property line with #3
Packsaddle Road East. It is unclear after inspecting the plans at City Hall how this proposed
change will affect us. Our ambience has already been seriously impacted by the residence
structure which now looms above our yard and peers down into our once private pool area and
master bedroom. We are very concerned that raising the pool higher will further detract from
our privacy and the aesthetic above our yard which from our perspective appears contrived due
to the grading that's occurred already. Therefore we are respectfully requesting that the
proposed grade change be staked and clearly marked and that we be allowed to visit so we can
see with our own eyes what the plan is. We will be out of town from June 20th to July 10th and
so are unable to attend the June 21st Public Hearing but seriously hope that our absence for
that short time will not preclude our ability to inspect the proposed change.
Sincerely, Bob and Hillary Watts
tkr- °i)1n°°d'-
RECEVED
JUN 16 201;
City of Rolling Hi+t3
By
• •
City 0 Rolling iiid INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377.1521
FAX: (310) 377.7288
June 15, 2011
Mr. Jia Shu
969 Afton Road
San Marino, CA 91108
Subject: 3 Packsaddle East, proposed modification to the pool
Dear Mr. Shu:
As stated in my letter dated June 9, 2011, this project has been scheduled for
review by the Planning Commission on Tuesday, June 21, 2011 at 6:30 PM. The
Planning Commission's role is to review individual projects for consistency with
the general plan and all other applicable city ordinances and evaluate the general
characteristics of projects such as compatibility, mass, bulk, location, height, and
open space.
Many of the concerns expressed in your letter relate to the process of approval
and construction and City and County staffs responsibilities and procedures for
inspections and assurance that the project is constructed to grading and building
code standards. We would like to answer your questions either in a meeting or
by phone. We will be glad to arrange a meeting between yourself and City and
County staff at your convenience during working hours. Please let me know if
you would like us to schedule such a meeting and your availability, or call me
and we can discuss your concerns by phone.
Of course, you are welcome to come the Planning Commission meeting and
participate.
You can reach me at 310 377-1521 or email at vs@citvofrh.net to discuss this
matter or to schedule a meeting.
S' c ely
.`
Yo to Schwartz
Pla 'ng Director
621 Prinrpd nn Rorvrfd Armor
• •
MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS APPROVAL
f2007-20081
• •
RESOLUTION NO. 2008-01. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR GRADING
AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH BASEMENT
TO REPLACE AN EXISTING RESIDENCE; GRANTING A MINOR VARIANCE TO
ENCROACH WITH BASEMENT LIGHT WELLS INTO SIDE YARD SETBACKS;
GRANTING A VARIANCE TO LOCATE THE FUTURE STABLE AND CORRAL IN
THE FRONT YARD; AND GRANTING A VARIANCE TO EXPORT SOIL IN ZONING
CASE NO. 746, LOCATED AT 3 PACKSADDLE ROAD EAST, (LOT 25-SF), (LIN).
Planning Director Schwartz reported that at the last meeting of the Commission, staff was
directed to prepare a Resolution of approval for Zoning Case No. 746 for the Commission's
consideration this evening, but continued the public hearing to allow the applicants to address
the Commission's concerns about export of soil, amount of fill in the rear yard, the size of the
project and the location of the stable in the front yard, and to allow Commissioner DeRoy time
to visit the project. She reported that the applicants modified the request for a Variance to
export 450 cubic yards of soil, rather than the previously requested export of 1,477 cubic yards
and that the resolution incorporates this modification. She reviewed the applicants' request
and background regarding the property with Commission. The Planning Director also
provided comments regarding the information related to further concerns expressed by the
neighboring property owner regarding the enlargement of the pad and noise generated by the
use of the proposed swimming pool and rear yard area.
Chairman Sommer opened the public hearing and called for testimony.
Mr. Criss Gunderson, presented cross-section plans which he feels would alleviate some of the
concerns raised by the neighboring property owner, Mr. Shu. He explained each of the
drawings which illustrate the existing conditions, proposed conditions and proposed
conditions with landscaping on the property and explained the view prospective from each.
Mr. Gunderson indicated that he had met with Mr. Shu to review his concerns and stated that
he had hoped that Mr. Shu would be in attendance to see the illustrations. Mr. Gunderson
explained that the proposed landscaping is not located in the easement.
Mr. Gunderson also presented an exhibit depicting the size and mass of other homes in the
area as compared to the proposal submitted by the applicant. He reported that most of the
homes in the area are set back from the roadway.
Comments were offered regarding the plan review process which includes the City stamped
approval on plans prior to submittal to the County for review. It was suggested that a
condition be placed in this resolution and that this condition become a standard condition in
all future resolutions that prior to submittal of final plans to the Building Department for
issuance of building permits, the plans for the project shall be submitted to staff for verification
that the final plans are in compliance with the plans approved by the Planning Commission.
Planning Director Schwartz further explained the condition placed in the resolution relative to
landscaping as well as other conditions. Comments were offered regarding the proposed
future stable location. Conversation ensued regarding the building and inspection process.
Mr. Gunderson explained the inspections that are conducted by both the RHCA Architectural
Inspector and the County building department.
Comments were offered regarding the applicants' flexibility in addressing the concerns
discussed by the Planning Commission and brought up by the neighboring property owner. It
was noted that noise from swimming pool activity is a common occurrence. Mr. Gunderson
showed on the plan where other swimming pools are located in the neighborhood. Hearing
no further discussion Chairman Sommer closed the public hearing and called for a motion.
Commissioner Witte moved that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2008-01 as
amended to add a condition that 'prior to submittal of final plans to the Building Department
for issuance of building permits, the plans for the project shall be submitted to staff for
verification that the final plans are in compliance with the plans approved by the Planning
Commission. Commissioner Henke seconded the motion which carried by the following roll
call vote:
AYES: Commissioners DeRoy, Henke, Witte and Chairman Sommer.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Smith.
ABSTAIN: None.
• •
[3. ZONING CASE NO. 746. (REVISED) Mr. and Mrs. Lin, 3 Packsaddle Road
East, (Lot 25-SF). Request for a Site Plan Review to construct a new single
family residence to replace an existing residence; request for a minor
Variance to encroach with the basement light Ivells into side yard
setbacks; request for a Variance to locate a future stable and corral in the
101 front yard; and request for a Variance to export soil.
Mk"' I
In addition to Commissioners and staff, present for this meeting were:
Criss Gunderson - Architect; Dr. Rutgers — neighbor; Mr. Slut —neighbor.
Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the revised proposal and pointed
out the revisions to the plan made since the previous meeting. She stated that
applicants eliminated the proposal for the garden room and are proposing to set
aside an area for the future stable and corral in the front yard; that they are
requesting permission to export 1,477 cubic yards of soil from the basement
rather than spread all of the dirt generated from the basement in the rear, which
as a result the rear of the lot is proposed to be raised by no more than 4 feet over
a lesser area than previously proposed. The applicants also revised their plan
and propose to move the residence further to the east (47 feet from the north
eastern corner of the existing house, whereas previously it was proposed to be
moved 36 feet), redesigned the pool and enlarged the porches in the front. Criss.
Gunderson, applicant's architect, explained the development and pointed out
that the lot is very narrow, that several currently existing non -conforming
features will be eliminated with the new house, such as extreme side yard
encroachments, double driveway, and pool in front yard. He stated that the
applicants compromised and addressed Commission's and the neighbors
concerns by eliminating the garden room, relocating the set aside area for a
future stable and corral in the front yard and by proposing to raise the rear at
most 4-feet.
Discussion ensued concerning the location of the stable in the middle of the front
yard and that it may not be desirable to a future property owners, should they
wish to construct a stable, to keep it in the front. Planning Director Schwartz
suggested a condition that for the purpose of this application a Variance be
granted to set aside an area for a stable and corral in the front and that any future
proposal for a stable be reviewed by the Planning Commission, which would
provide the neighbors with an opportunity to comment on the location of the
stable. Commissioners also suggested that the set aside area be tucked in against
the side and front setback lines, and not in the middle of the lot.
Lengthy discussion ensued concerning the proposal to enlarge the building pad
by raising the rear yard by 4 feet from the current elevation, as well as the
location of the existing three -rail fences. The architect explained the grading for
the pad, the height of the pad and that with lesser fill, the top of the slope will
start further away from the rear property line than previously proposed,
allowing for a gentler slope. The architect agreed to relocate the side and rear
three -rail fence to easement lines and keep the easement at the southwestern
portion of the lot clear. Mr. Shu commented that a landscaping screen should be
provided along the rear easement line, so that the project is screened from his
mother's house. Further discussion ensued concerning the drainage in the front
yard and the amount of soil to be exported. The architect slated that he could
reduce the amount of dirt to be exported, if he were to spread some of the dirt in
the front to correct the drainage. Commissioners requested that he provide
accurate information on this aspect of the proposal.
PUBLIC HEARINGS FENS CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS f1NG
ZONING CASE NO. 746. (REVISED) MR. AND MRS. LIN, 3 PACKSADDLE ROAD
EAST, (LOT 25-SF). REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR GRADING AND
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH BASEMENT TO
REPLACE AN EXISTING RESIDENCE; REQUEST FOR A MINOR VARIANCE TO
ENCROACH WITH THE BASEMENT LIGHT WELLS INTO SIDE YARD SETBACKS;
REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO LOCATE A FUTURE STABLE AND CORRAL IN
THE FRONT YARD; AND REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO EXPORT DIRT
GENERATED FROM THE BASEMENT.
Planning Director Schwartz presented an overview of the applicants' revised request and
background regarding the property. She highlighted information that was presented to the
Planning Commission at the field review held earlier in the day. Regarding the Variance to
place the future stable in the front yard, she indicated that a condition could be placed on the
property that any proposal for a future stable location must be reviewed by the Planning
Commission.
Mr. Criss Gunderson, applicants' representative, explained that the increase in the amount of
soil proposed to be excavated is due to repositioning the house down one foot and positioning
it further forward on the lot.
Comments were offered regarding the neighboring property owners concerns. Planning
Director Schwartz explained that the letters from Mrs. Nan Shu, 6 Packsaddle Road West and
Drs. Richard and Joanne Rutgers, 5 Packsaddle Road West, were in regard to the previous
proposal presented to the Planning Commission. Vice Chairman Henke opened the public
hearing and called for testimony.
Mr. Jia Shu, representing the property owner at 6 Packsaddle Road West, commented on the
field review held earlier in the day and expressed that he appreciates the applicants' efforts to
reduce the impact of the proposed development on his mother's property. He indicated that
there is still a concern regarding the amount of fill soil and the overall impact of the slopes
giving the effect of looking down onto his mother's property. It was suggested that landscape
screening may reduce the impact of the proposed development on the Shu property as long as
the vegetation did not block anyone's view.
Discussion ensued regarding the concerns expressed by the Shu's. Mr. Gunderson further
explained the repositioning of the house back 10 feet toward the street from where it was
originally proposed. He also explained the location of the proposed swimming pool. Mr.
Gunderson indicated that since discussions have commenced regarding the proposed export
of the soil from the basement that he reduced the grading dramatically. He further stated that
the applicant is committed to reducing the overall impact of the proposed development on the
neighboring properties. Planning Director Schwartz presented an explanation of the proposed
cut and fill and pointed out the areas to be graded on a cross-section of the property.
The impact of the proposed export of the soil required for the basement on the neighborhood
and the RI-ICA roadways was discussed. Mr. Gunderson explained that approximately 120
truckloads would be generated. He indicated that a neighbor had expressed a need for soil to
repair slopes on his property. Planning Director Schwartz stated that approval would be
necessary if soil were to be exported to a neighboring property. Mrs. Kristen Raig, RHCA
Manager reported that the RHCA charges soil hauling companies per truck entering the gate
to offset the costs of repair to the roadways.
Discussion ensued regarding the size of the proposed residential structure as compared to
others in the neighborhood and concerns were expressed about the bulk of the structure on the
property. Concerns were also expressed regarding drainage from the property and the
locations of the dissipaters and the effect that they would have on the property below. Mr.
Gunderson explained the existing and proposed drainage course on the property and the
experience of the engineering firm designing the drainage. He also explained that the County
would have to review, approve and permit any drainage plan for the property.
Commissioners further discussed the amount of soil excavation for the proposed basement
and its impact on the neighborhood and RI ICA roadways. Comments were offered regarding
whether there would be a positive affect on the drainage if the soil remained on the property.
Mr. Gunderson commented on concerns expressed about the size of the proposed residence.
He explained that many properties in this area have remained unchanged since the homes
were constructed. He noted that there are larger homes on Southfield Drive. Discussion
ensued regarding the size of the proposed basement and the amount of soil excavation.
1
• •
Discussion ensued regarding the fences located in the casements at the side and rear of the
property. It was noted that it is recommended that the applicant confirm that when the license
agreement was issued by the MICA to plant in the easement that it included the fence and if
the fence was not part of the agreement that the applicant obtain a separate agreement from
the RCHA and that the rear fence be relocated along the easement line.
Mr. Shu commented on the impact of the proposed porches in the rear of the residence.
Planning Director Schwartz explained the location of the proposed porches as compared to the
existing footprint of the residence.
Discussion ensued regarding the size of home the applicant could construct if remodeling
were considered rather than construction of a new home. Planning Director Schwartz
indicated that under the municipal code requirements the applicant could add enough square
footage onto the residence to create a 6,700 sq. ft. home which is slightly more than what the
current application calls for.
Further discussion ensued regarding concerns raised regarding the size of the home and the
concerns raised about the impact on the neighboring property. It was suggested that
landscaping might mitigate the neighbor's concerns as long as the vegetation did not block
views from other properties in the area. Planning Director Schwartz commented that the 2:1
slopes would be required to be landscaped by the County. Mr. Gunderson explained that
landscaping would maintain privacy between the neighbors and that the applicants intend to
plant vegetation to not only provide privacy for the neighbor but for them as well. Following
an explanation by the Assistant City Attorney regarding Planning Commission resolutions
and conditions that may be imposed pertaining to landscaping, Mr. Shu requested to review
any landscape plan submitted by the applicant.
Further discussion ensued regarding concerns regarding export of soil from the basement, size
of the proposed residence as well as the size of the basement and the concerns expressed by
the neighboring property owner. Concerns were also expressed regarding the variance to
permit a stable to be constructed in the front yard.
Regarding the export of soil, it was suggested that the applicant might wish to spread some of
the soil from the basement on the front yard area to alleviate some concerns regarding
drainage. Mr. Gunderson indicated that this may be a solution, however, due to the
topography of the property and the revisions made to the plan, most of the soil would still
need to be exported. He stated that if the Commission desired, it would be possible to spread
all of the soil from the basement on the property but that the property would then be raised.
He explained that the plan had been revised so that the residential structure sat lower on the
pad and further toward the roadway so that it would have less of an impact on the property
below. Further discussion ensued regarding whether or not the export of soil is necessary for
this project. The Commission concluded that the applicants' representative should consider
spreading some dirt in the front so that the amount of soil needed to be exported would be
less.
Commissioner DeRoy indicated that she was unable to attend the field trip earlier in the day
and would like the opportunity to view the site in the field before she could make a decision
on the proposal.
• •
Commissioner Witte moved that the Planning Commission direct staff to prepare a resolution
approving the request for a site plan review for grading and construction of a new single
family residence with basement to replace an existing residence; request for a minor variance
to encroach with the basement light wells into side yard setbacks; request for a variance to
locate a future stable and corral in the front yard; and request for a variance to export dirt
generated from the basement with the standard findings of fact and the standard conditions of
approval including conditions that any further development including the future stable on the
property must be reviewed by the Planning Commission, that the project be screened from
adjacent properties and that a landscaping plan be submitted to staff, that the rear three -rail
fence be relocated out of the easement with RHCA review and approval, that the fence on the
southern easement be relocated to location approved by the RI-ICA and that the applicant
work with the RHCA to keep the easement open for equestrian activities. Commissioner
Smith seconded the motion which carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Henke, Smith and Witte.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Chairman Sommer.
ABSTAIN: Commissioner DeRoy.
Vice Chairman Henke announced that the public hearing would remain open to allow for
Commissioner DeRoy to visit the site and for further comments regarding the project to be
offered at the next meeting including calculations for export of soil.
• •
PUBLIC HEARINGS ON ITEMS CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS MEETING
ZONING CASE NO. 746. MR. AND MRS. LIN, 3 PACKSADDLE ROAD EAST, (LOT
25-SF). REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENCE TO REPLACE AN EXISTING RESIDENCE; REQUEST FOR A
MINOR VARIANCE TO ENCROACH WITH THE BASEMENT LIGHT WELLS INTO
SIDE YARD SETBACKS; REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO LOCATE A GARDEN
ROOM IN THE FRONT YARD; AND REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TO CONSTRUCT A GARDEN ROOM.
Planning Director Schwartz presented the staff report outlining applicant's revised request
and providing background regarding the property, she indicated that the lot has been
previously graded and that at this time no additional disturbance is proposed, other than re -
disturbing the existing lot. She also provided copies of correspondence from Drs. Richard and
Joanne Rutgers (5 Packsaddle East). She stated that the correspondence was received after the
agenda materials were prepared. Planning Director Schwartz also indicated that the
Commissioners visited the site this morning.
Following discussion about the position and design of the proposed garden room and the
impression that the development seems very crowded in the rear, Chairman Sommer called
for testimony.
Mr. Criss Gunderson, Architect, explained that he would agree to re -locate the garden room.
He also indicated that the applicants propose to demolish the existing residence and construct
a new house that would comply with all City regulations, except that small areas of two light
wells would encroach four feet. into the side yard. The new house will be one foot higher in
elevation than the existing house. He also explained that currently the front of the property
doesn't have good natural drainage because it is flat. In response to Commissioner Smith, Mr.
Gunderson confirmed that the level of the proposed house and the pool would be the same,
and that the existing trees in front yard would be removed. There will be new, dwarf type
species planted instead, so nobody's view be impaired.
Commissioners discussed possible modifications to the size of the basement and reducing the
size and height of the pad in the back. Chairman Sommer indicated that the proposed house is
very large for the neighborhood and that reducing the basement maybe a solution for a
smaller house. Commissioner DeRoy also supported modification to the size of the basement
and expressed concern about the steep slope that will be created at the end of the pad and the
amount of fill necessary for the enlarged pad. Commissioners discussed the location of the
stable and agreed that its location may be undesirable and obtrusive to adjacent properties.
Mr. Criss Gunderson requested continuance of this case to the next Planning Commission
meeting for the purpose of revising the plan to address the Commissioners concerns.
Following further discussion, the Commission indicated that the applicant should revisit the
project and another field trip to the property was scheduled.
Hearing no further discussion the public hearing was continued to a field review to be held on
Tuesday, December 18, 2007 at 8:00 a.m.
•
1. FIELD TRIP TO THE FOLLOWING SITE
A. ZONING CASE NO. 746. Mr. and Mrs. Lin, 3 Packsaddle Road
East, (Lot 25-SF). Request for a Site Plan Review to construct a new single
family residence to replace an existing residence; request for a minor
Variance to encroach with the basement light wells into side yard
setbacks; request for a Variance to locate a garden room in the front yard;
and request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a garden room.
Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the proposal and pointed out the proposed
garden room, stable in the rear of property and the light wells that encroach into
the side setbacks. Criss Gunderson, applicant's architect, explained the
development and pointed out that the lot is very narrow, that several currently
existing non -conforming features will be eliminated with the new house, such as
extreme side yard encroachments, double driveway, and pool in front yard. He
stated that the garden room will not have solid walls, except for the fire place
wall, will not have a bathroom or a kitchen and is desirable in that location by
the applicant. He further stated that the garden room is quite a distance away
from the road and is screened with trees and other vegetation.
Dr. Rutgers stated that the garden room does not fit with Rolling Hills'
architecture and that it would set a precedence for other applicants to request
living/sitting quarters in the front yard.
Lengthy discussion ensued concerning the location of the stable and the proposal
to raise the rear yard 6-7 feet from the current elevation to create a larger
building pad to accommodate the pool and future stable and the resulting slope.
Commissioners commented that there seem to not be adequate room in
relationship to the rear property line to lengthen the building pad and provide
for acceptable slopes between the top of the pad and the easement line.
Commissioners also commented on the fact that the pool was not staked, so that
it was difficult to visualize the top of slope.
Mr.. Watts stated that he is concerned with loss of privacy with both the raised
pad for the new residence and the location of the stable.
Further discussion ensued concerning moving the new house further to the front
(east), reorienting the pool, locating the garden room in the rear or attaching it to
the residence and reduce the size of the residence and the basement. Mrs. Lin
stated that she is willing to plant more trees to allow for privacy and remove
those trees that block neighbors view. She reiterated the importance of the
garden room to her, where she can relax and enjoy nature.
• •
NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS,
ZONING CASE NO. 746,, MR. AND MRS. LIN, 3 PACKSADDLE ROAD EAST, (LOT
25-SF). REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENCE TO REPLACE AN EXISTING RESIDENCE; REQUEST FOR A
MINOR VARIANCE TO ENCROACH WITH THE BASEMENT LIGHT WELLS INTO
SIDE YARD SETBACKS; REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO LOCATE A GARDEN
ROOM IN THE FRONT YARD; AND REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TO CONSTRUCT A GARDEN ROOM.
Planning Director Schwartz presented the staff report outlining the applicants' request and
providing background regarding the property. Discussion ensued regarding the proposed
garden room that is proposed to be placed in the front yard and the location of the proposed
future stable. Chairman Sommer opened the public hearing and called for testimony.
Mr. Criss Gunderson, applicant's architectural representative, explained the architectural
features and other characteristics of the existing and proposed residence and drew the
Commission's attention to the photographs of the property from various positions that were
included in the staff report. He further explained the ranch -like characteristics of the new
design which includes porches and trellises. He also explained the proposed grading that is
required for the project. Mr. Gunderson also explained the orientation of the proposed new
residence to capture the view.
Discussion ensued regarding the proximity of the proposed swimming pool to the future
stable and corral location. Commissioners discussed other locations on the property that
could accommodate a future stable. Mr. Gunderson explained that the applicant does not plan
on constructing a stable and explained other alternative locations on the property for a future
stable should future property owners wish to construct one.
Discussion ensued regarding the proposed garden room that is proposed to be in the front
yard. Mr. Gunderson explained the architectural features and the intended use of the garden
room. He indicated that if the garden room were to be placed in the rear yard that it would
block the view from the main portions of the residence.
Discussion ensued regarding the size of the proposed basement and the amount of soil
proposed to be excavated to create it. Mr. Gunderson explained that the applicant intends to
use the space in the basement and that it is not being created to generate soil for use on other
portions of the property. He further explained the topography of the property and the grading
required for the proposed development. The Commissioners also discussed the encroachment
of the basement light wells into the side yard setbacks. Planning Director Schwartz pointed
out the locations of the light wells on the plan.
Discussion ensued regarding the grading and whether the allowance of the export of soil
would affect the project. Mr. Gunderson explained that the soil being generated from the
basement would create a natural more flat and ranch -style property but if it were allowed they
would not object to the export of soil. Commissioners also discussed the pad coverage
calculations.
Dr. Richard Rutgers, 5 Packsaddle Road East, commented on the location of the proposed
garden room and expressed concerns that it is visible from the roadway. Mr. Gunderson
explained that the proposed location of the garden room was selected so as not to block a view
from the residence in the rear and that this would be apparent when the project is viewed in
the field. Commissioners requested that Mr. Gunderson provide a drawing of the garden
room and that all aspects of the proposed development be staked for viewing at the field trip.
Bearing no further discussion the public hearing was continued to a field review to be held on
Tuesday, November 20, 2007 beginning at 7:30 a.m.
1.
•
City `ie reR9 JJI/I1
•
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377.1521
FAX: (310) 377.7288
DATE: JUNE 21, 2011
TO: HONORABLE CHAIRPERSON AND MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR
APPLICATION NO.
SITE LOCATION:
ZONING AND SIZE:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PUBLISHED:
ZONING CASE NO. 746 Modification
3 PACKSADDLE ROAD EAST (LOT 25-SF)
RAS-1, 1.28 ACRES (GROSS)
MR. KUANG LIN & MRS. IVY WANG
DOUG MCHATTIE, BOLTON ENGINEERING
JUNE 9, 2011
REQUEST AND RECOMMENDATION
Request for modification to a previously approved Site Plan Review application
to construct a swimming pool, on a property where a new single family residence
was also approved at 3 Packsaddle Road East. The modification entails additional
grading in the rear to raise the rear yard area, changing the shape and orientation
of the pool and locating the pool closer to the residence.
It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the staff report, open the
public hearing, take public testimony and provide direction to staff.
BACKGROUND
1. In January 2008 the City approved a Site Plan Review and Variances in case
No. 746 for the construction of a new 6,230 square foot residence, 781 square foot
garage, 559 square foot pool with pool equipment area, 900 square feet of porches,
780 square feet detached trellises, barbeque area and 4,940 square foot basement. A
minor variance was granted to encroach with a portion of the light wells into the
side yard setback and a variance to export dirt and to locate future stable and
corral in the front yard area of the lot. The development standards for structural
and total lot coverage are at the maximum permitted and no new structures would
be allowed. The project is under construction.
2. During the proceedings, as a result of neighbors' concerns and Planning
Commission direction, the applicants modified their project several times. Much
discussion revolved around the back yard and grading and how it would affect the
privacy and drainage. Mr. Shu, on behalf of the property owners at 6 Packsaddle
ZC NO. 746 MOD.
0 1
Printed on Recycled Paper
•
•
A
Road West expressed concerns regarding the proposal to raise and enlarge the rear
building pad area, the amount of fill necessary to fill in the rear pad area, loss of
privacy and noise that would result from the proposed uses in the rear yard on the
raised building pad and geological issues resulting from the grading of the pad.
Mr. Shu also addressed the need to screen the rear of the property to provide for
tranquility and privacy.
The final approval was to grade the rear yard and to raise the rear area by four
feet. A maximum of 559 square foot oval swimming pool with a spa was
approved. At its longest dimension the pool was proposed to be 32 feet. The edge
of the pool was approved at 100' elevation, which is about 4'8" feet below the rear
of the residence, and it was to be accessed by two sets of step down concrete
raisers (gently sloped rear yard; 4.6 feet in 46 feet). The pool was to be located 15
feet from the 50-foot rear yard setback line and 45 feet from the rear wall of the
residence. A 2:1 descending slope was approved west of the pool; towards the rear
property line. The approval also required screening along the west and north
easement line with shrubs that would be maintained at no less than 9' and no more
than 10' in height.
3. The applicants request a modification to the approved plans for the pool
area. Enclosed is a written request for the proposed modification. The proposed
pool would be a 475 square foot infinity pool (with spa) oriented east -west, rather
than north -south and would be 32 feet long and 14 feet wide, plus a spa. The
closest side of the pool would be 20 feet from the residence, and the infinity side
would be on the opposite side. The infinity side would have a spill —way wall of
2.5 feet in height. The highest point of the surface of the water would be 4.5 feet (2
feet raised pad and 2.5 ft rear pool spill -way wall) from the originally approved
pool. The project area overall would be raised by about 2 feet. The overall
backyard flat area would shrink, especially at the south western corner.
The re -grading would affect 7,000 square feet of the rear yard. Approximately 681
cubic yards of dirt will be required for this project. The dirt is available from the
basement and grading of the lot, as well as from the excavation of the pool.
If approved, it will be required that the drainage be re-evaluated and revised, if
necessary.
4. The property has been roughly graded to the previously approved plans
and drainage devices have been installed. During the grading process Soils and
Geological Reports and Reports of Grading Activities were submitted by the
applicant's engineer and reviewed by the Building Department. County
Geotechnical Division approved this project, as built to date, from a geologic and
soils standpoint.
5. Enclosed for your reference is correspondence from Mr. Shu, on behalf of
the property owners at 6 Packsaddle Road West. In his correspondence Mr. Shu is
questioning the approval process in general, the qualifications of the persons
involved in preparing and reviewing the plans and reports, and the reasons for the
requested change and is objecting to the proposal on the basis that it will affect his
ZC NO. 746 MOD.
2 1 L 1
• •
parent's privacy and that the construction may negatively affect drainage, cause
erosion and instability of the lot. Mr. Shu is also concerned with the "as built"
drainage and grading.
Also enclosed is a letter from the City to Mr. Shu as well as a letter from property
owners at 2 Packsaddle Rd. W. who are unable to attend tonight's meeting and are
requesting that the project area be staked. The neighbors at 5 Packsaddle Road E.
visited City Hall and reviewed the plans. They expressed concern about the
proposed additional grading and drainage, specifically at the south western corner
of the lot.
6. A "No Further Development" without review and approval by the Planning
Commission condition was placed on this case. The proposal does not constitute
additional "structural" development, as the proposed pool will be 475-square feet,
which is smaller than previously approved pool. Staff was willing to review this
change over-the-counter, however given the past history of this case staff
requested that the applicant contact the adjacent neighbor, explain the proposed
change and provide verification to staff that they have agreed. Doug McHattie,
applicant's representative, contacted Mrs. Shu, the property owner at 6 Packsaddle
Road W. Since Mr. Shu, property owners' son, expressed objections to the
modification and has raised many questions staff has determined that this request
be reviewed by the Planning Commission and that all neighbors have an
opportunity to provide input.
7. This is a new public hearing. Notices of this request have been sent to
residents within 1,000-foot radius of the property, Mr. Shu and a notice was
published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News on June 9, 2011.
8. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA
17.46.010 Purpose.
The site plan review process is established to provide discretionary review of
certain development projects in the City for the purposes of ensuring that the proposed
project is consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates environmentally and
aesthetically sensitive grading practices; preserves existing mature vegetation; is
compatible and consistent with the scale, massing and development pattern in the
immediate project vicinity; and otherwise preserves and protects the health, safety and
welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills.
17.46.050 Required findings.
A. The Commission shall be required to make findings in acting to approve,
conditionally approve, or deny a site plan review application.
ZC NO. 746 MOD.
•
•
B. No project which requires site plan review approval shall be approved by
the Commission, or by the City Council on appeal, unless the following findings can be
made:
1. The project complies with and is consistent with the goals and policies of the general
plan and all requirements of the zoning ordinance;
2. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by
minimizing building coverage. Lot coverage requirements are regarded as maximums,
and the actual amount of lot coverage permitted depends upon the existing buildable area
of the lot;
3. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and
surrounding residences;
4. The project preserves and integrates into the site design, to the greatest extent
possible, existing topographic features of the site, including surrounding native
vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls);
5. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of the site and to minimize the
amount of grading required to create the building area;
6. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect drainage flow, unless
such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course;
7. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature trees and supplements
these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping which is compatible with and enhances
the rural character of the community, and landscaping provides a buffer or transition area
between private and public areas;
8. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and safe movement of
pedestrians and vehicles; and
9. The project conforms to the requirements of CEQA.
SOURCE: City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance
ZC NO. 746 MOD.
4
•
•
Balton Engineering Corporation
June 13, 2011
Yolanta Schwartz
Planning Director
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Rd.
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Dear Ms. Schwartz;
I herewith respectfully request a planning commission
modification to the approved development of 3 Packsaddle E
The modification entails additional grading to raise the
and locating the pool closer to the residence.
Sincerely,
f_
Douglas K. McHattie
ltiu
hearing on a minor
ast.
rear swimming pool pad
26834 Narbonne Ave , Silite 210, Lomita, CA 90717 tel (.'•10) 325_55t30 lax (310) 25-E581
• •
Bolton Engineering Corporation
25834 Narbonne Avenue, Suite 210
Lomita, Ca. 90717
(310) 325-5580
June 16, 2011
#3 Packsaddle, Rolling Hills, California
Lin Residence
This letter is in response to concerns considering the minimal rearyard grading and pool relocation.
Below is a list of the changes being proposed.
1. Eliminate the approved pool, relocate pool closer to the residence by 17.5 linear feet.
2. Relocation of pool moves edge of pool 26 feet away from proposed top of slope. Approved
pool location was 13 feet away from top of slope.
3. Raise grade 2 feet at the approved pool location.
4. Reduction of hardscape in the rearyard.
5. Reduce size of pad in the rearyard.
:'.:tea C
•
•
6 W. Packsaddle Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
May 28, 2011
Doug McHattie
Bolton Engineering Corp
25834 Narbonne Ave, Suite 210
Lomita, CA 90717
310 325 5580
p s :; 'E D
JUN 0 3 2011
City ;,t Tolling Hills
By
City of Rolling Hills Planning Commission and Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director
2 Portuguese Bend Road
City of Rolling Hills, CA 90274
310 377 1521
cc: Mitch Miller
Los Angeles County Department of Building and Safety
900 S. Fremont Ave
Alhambra, CA 91803
626 458 6390
cc: Rolling Hills Community Association
1 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
310 544 6222
Subject: New Residence Under Construction at 3 East Packsaddle Road
Dear Mr. McHattie and Ms Schwartz:
Most of this letter is in response to Mr. McHattie. However the material in italics is directed to Ms Schwartz and the
Planning Commission.
Mr. McHattie, thank you for your response dated May 5, 2011 (copy enclosed here, together with a copy of my
letters dated April 2, 2011 and January 5, 2008). I appreciate the time you took to write your letter.
I. In your letter you mentioned an attached drawing. There was no drawing enclosed with your letter. Please send
the drawing.
II. At the end of your first paragraph, you said "Also, this design has an additional 2 feet of fill in the rear yard. This
additional fill should increase both the visual privacy and lessen the noise from the pool during use."
That doesn't address my concern. My concern is not just with the pool; my concern is with visual privacy and noise
from the Lin's entire yard.
As stated in my letter of January 5, 2008, Criss Gunderson (the Lins' architect) suggested that perhaps the northern
half of the filled area (which is closest to my mother's driveway) could be permanently reserved for a garden or
other non -human use. As stated in my letter, Mrs. Lin subsequently rejected this idea. It is clear that people may
come right up to the edge of the filled area, closest to my mother's house and yard. Therefore, increasing the height
of the fill will exacerbate the invasion of visual privacy and noise because the Lins and their guests will be looking
down on my mother's house and yard from a higher vantage point.
Unless the Lins and all subsequent owners of 3 E. Packsaddle limit their activities to that part of the raised/flattish
area such that they will not see my mother's house or yard (in other words, limit their activities to that part of the
Lin's backyard closest to their house), increasing the height of the fill will NOT increase visual privacy or lessen the
noise from the Lin's property; the opposite will happen. Clearly this is not a practical idea because Mrs. Lin has
1
•
already indicated that she does not want any such limitation, and even if she has changed her position, 1 don't see
how the Lins can limit what subsequent owners do.
As I said in my letter of'January 5, 2008, the Lins had a spectacular view of the ocean and coastline without any fill
at all. To add fill to the height planned in January 2008 would result in very little improvement in the view. Adding
two more feet now does nothing to improve the view. But it does have the very real potential of worsening the noise
and loss of visual privacy problem for my mother. As I said in my letter of January 5, 2008, I understand that the
Lins want to have a larger flattish area in their back yard. I did not receive a response to that letter, so I'll repeat a
point I made in that letter:
i believe that the way to lessen the noise and invasion of visual privacy for my mother is to decrease the
height of the fill by grading back into the hill (towards the house) and creating a flattish area LOWER than
the original plan (as of Jan 2008), not to fill to the height in the January 2008 plan. The Lins would still
have their larger flattish area with a spectacular view.
Why is the height of the fill now being increased? I would really like an answer to this question.
III. In paragraph B of your letter you said "The necessity for the shrubs and screening landscaping, now that the
rough grading is compl9ted, is in question." I disagree. As stated above, increasing the height of the fill will make
the problems of loss of visual privacy and noise worse. As I said in my letter of January 5, 2008, i have significant
concerns with the idea that screening landscaping is a good solution. Nonetheless the Planning Commission has
said that screening landscaping of between 9 and 10 feet in height must be maintained at all times. That requirement
should now be increased by at least 2 feet because the person standing on the edge of the filled area will be 2 feet
higher than originally planned in January 2008. Furthermore, because the original height was required by
Resolution 2008-01 to be recorded, I would expect that the new height should also be recorded.
IV. in paragraph C of your letter you said "The proposed change is minor. ... and does not require a new resolution
by the city. i don't see the change as minor because, as stated in my letter of April 2, 2011:
As noted in Section 10 Paragraph A of Resolution No 2008-01, "The applicants originally proposed
balanced cut and fill, which would result in raising the rear of the lot up to 7 feet, which both the Planning
Commission and the neighbors objected to". If the Planning Commission has not yet approved the change
in the amount of fill, I would strongly urge them to reject it. But if the Planning Commission has already
approved the change (to increase the height of the fill to 6 feet — which is a 50% increase in the height in
the original approved plan), was this original objection to 7 feet taken into consideration? Also, if the
Planning Commission has already approved the change, I'm curious as to where they would have drawn the
line. Would a change to increase the fill to 6 feet 6 inches have been rejected? if this change has been
approved, please inform me of the basis for the approval, especially since the substantial increase in the
height of the fill should have reasonably warranted a serious review by the Planning Commission.
Nonetheless, based on your (Doug McHattie's) comment, apparently the Planning Commission considers the
increase in the height of the fill to be "minor", and so I will direct my question to them:
What is considered to be a minor change in general, i.e. a change which does not require another review by the
Planning Commission? •
In this particular situation, what amount of change to the height of the fill would have been considered large
enough to warrant another resolution by the Planning Commission? If Doug's statement is correct ,that this
increase to 6 feet offill is minor, then it appears to me that in Rolling Hills if 1 want to do something in my
construction project which the Planning Commission partially disapproves of (in this case, the Planning
Commission approved 4 feet offill instead of 7 feet offill), 1 should take what I can get initially and then make one
or more "minor" changes later on, in order to get essentially everything that 1 originally wanted. I'll venture to say
that the Planning Commission does not intend that the process can be "gamed" in such a manner (note: I certainly
do not intend to offend the Planning Commission by wondering if their process is being "gamed"; to the contrary, 1
think the Planning Commission is to be applauded for their service to the community!). Nonetheless, if the increase
to 6 feet is considered "minor, then it appears that the process is being "gamed" and 1 hope the Planning
Commission will take immediate steps to remediate this flaw, starting with the Lins' project.
• •
V. In your paragraph D you said that "The pool design change has been reviewed by the soils engineer Steve Ng.
He has stated that the additional two feet of fill does not cause any stability problems for the rear slope".
I have several questions:
1. Who does Steve Ng work for?
2. What are Steve Ng's credentials, in particular
a. what is his State -issued license number and
b. how much experience has he had working on projects in the Palos Verdes peninsula (my understanding is that
there are geological similarities across the Peninsula as well as some differences, but there are more similarities in
the geological and soil characteristics among different locations on the Peninsula than there are between the
Peninsula and locations in the surrounding Los Angeles area)?
3. When you say "rear slope" I assume you are referring to the rear slope of the Lins' property, not the hillside that
the Lins' property, my mother's property, and that of surrounding neighbors are all part of. If I am incorrect, and the
phrase "rear slope" refers to the entire hillside, not just the Lins' property, what is Steve Ng's statement based on?
As I suggested and asked in my letters of January 5, 2008, and April 2, 2011, has a geological study of the entire
hillside (not just the Lug' property) been done in order to assess the possible impacts of the fill which is part of this
project? If there has bden such as study, can you send it to me, or tell me where I can get a copy?
If "rear slope" refers to the rear slope of the Lins' property, not to the entire hillside that the Lins' property, my
mother's property, and surrounding neighbors share, then Steve Ng' statement does not address my concern. The
Lins' project should not have adverse impact on any neighbors.
4. If such a study (a geological study of the entire hillside) is felt to be unnecessary, whose professional judgment is
that opinion based on?
VI. I gather that your paragraphs E and F are in response to paragraph E in my letter of April 2, 2011:
"Is someone responsible for ensuring that the amount of fill approved by the Planning Commission is the
amount of fill that is actually place by the end of the project? If so, who is that person/party and how do
they ensure that more fill is not added?"
Thank you for that information.
1. Who on the construction project team is responsible for the rough and fine grading and for saying that the
approved amount of fill is in place and therefore rough grading / fill and fine grading portions of the project are
ready for inspection?
2. Can you tell me whether there is documentation that I can get from you or from the City and the Los Angeles
County Department of Building and Safety indicating that the inspectors have signed off that the grading has been
done according to plan, and whether they raised any concerns?
VII. In your paragraph G, you said that "Rolling Hills Planning Dept and L.A. Co Dept of Building and Safety have
reviewed the revision to the swimming pool and do not have any specific objections to the revision. The final
approval for this change has not been made." I have a few questions:
1. I see the change in layout and location of the swimming pool and the increase in the amount of fill as two separate
changes. Are you talking about both the swimming pool and the increase in fill in your statement in your paragraph
G, or are you just talking about the revision to the swimming pool?
2. You said that the "Rolling Hills Planning Dept and L.A. Co Dept of Building and Safety ... do not have any
specific objections to the revision." Do they have any objections or comments of any sort (not just specific
objections)?
3
•
3. Is there a date on which you expect approval or disapproval to be made? Based on your comment above that this
is a minor change which does not require another resolution by the City, I'm guessing that there will not be a
hearing where the publi? can make comments, is that correct?
VIII. In your paragraph H you said "Based on your initial concerns about the drainage, we redesigned the drainage
so the drainage outlet was relocated so that all the flow was directed away from your mother's rear yard as much as
practical. As part of this drainage system, a outlet structure was constructed in the southwest corner of the property.
That structure is quite new and appears to be working as intended. The County does not allow drainage to flow
uncontrolled over graded slopes from a developed lot. We believe directing the drainage away from your mother's
house and pool is an improvement to her property."
We are very far from a common understanding on virtually all parts of your statement above. Addressing each part
your paragraph H, one part at a time:
1. "Based on your initial concerns about the drainage, we redesigned the drainage so the drainage outlet was
relocated so that all the flow was directed away from your mother's rear yard as much as practical."
What were my initial ccrcems about the drainage (which sentences in my previous letters are you referring to?).
How is it that my "initial concerns about the drainage" leads you to the conclusion that all flow should be "directed
away from my mother's rear yard as much as practical"?
As I said in my letter of January 5, 2008,
'As stated in the "Residential Development Highlights" document published by the City of Rolling Hills,
"The Site Plan must minimize grading; preserve terrain and natural drainage courses; be harmonious in
scale and mass with the building pad, the natural terrain, and surrounding residences; preserve native
vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses, and land forms; and must be convenient and safe for the
movement of pedestrians, equestrians and vehicles."' (underlining added)
The natural drainage before the Lins' construction project started was a natural slope with no man-made drainage
system at all. The water simply flowed down hill, and was distributed over the entire width of the Lins' backyard
slope. I don't believe I ever said that there was a problem with that.
If you are saying that the original natural drainage was a problem for my mother, can you please explain how you
arrived at that conclusion?
And how is it that concentrating the drainage to one corner of the Lins' property and then allowing that water to
flow onto my mother's property (the portion of the hill just above my mother's pool) will reduce that problem for
my mother? From my layman's point of view, that is quite counterintuitive.' And I am wondering: is there increased
risk of my mother having problems with the stability of the earth in the area of her pool in the future as a result of
the Lins' drainage system? There are NO such problems now and the area has been stable for at least 40 years.
From my layman's point of view, as I said in both my letter of January 5 2008 and April 2, 2011, I expected that it
would have been best to minimize the impact on existing Iandforms (to have stayed with the original land forms that
existed before the Lin's bought the property). In addition, I'll note that my point of view is consistent with the
sentence quoted from the "Residential Development Highlights" above.
Now that extensive changes have been made to the Lins' back yard, what analyses have been done, and what
assurances are there from professionals (geologists, soil engineers, geotechs, hydrologists, etc.) that there will not be
adverse impacts on other homeowners on the hillside shared by the Lins, my mother and others? Who are these
professionals and what are their license numbers and qualifications?
2. "That structure is quite new and appears to be working as intended".
If you are saying that the drainage system is substantially less than 2 years old, then I'm even more concerned. As I
said in my letter of April 2, 2011, over 2 feet of dirt, sediment and debris have built up along the fence on the
property line between the Lins' and my mother's property. That indicates the volume of water is quite substantial
4
• •
and the amount of dirt, sediment and debris will be dumped onto my mother's property is quite substantial. What
will the mid- to long-term impact be on my mother's property and that of 5 E. Packsaddle Rd? When the project has
been completed and the,wire fence has been removed, the debris that is now caught by the fence will flow freely
downhill onto that one portion of my mother's property. While that is not appreciated, there are other bigger
questions: (a) Will there be more erosion and faster erosion of that portion of my mother's property? (b) Will the
land in that portion of my mother's property be less stable in the future (including her pool as mentioned above)
because of all of the water being dumped into that one area?
3. "The County does not allow drainage to flow uncontrolled over graded slopes from a developed lot."
I doubt that the County says that you should concentrate all of the runoff from a graded slope and dump it into just
one small part of a neighbor's property. I expect the County's intent is to require that the grading NOT adversely
impact neighbors at all. The best way to insure the stability of the hillside (including the neighbors' properties, not
just the Lins' property) is to not change the natural geography and contour of the hillside and drainage at all.
However, given the fact that the geography, contour of the hillside, and drainage patterns have been altered by the
Lins' project, I am concerned that the opposite of the County's intent is happening here (that my mother's property
will likely be adversely jrnpacted).
4. "We believe directing the drainage away from your mother's house and pool is an improvement to her property."
The Lins' project has changed the natural geography and contour of the hillside, and as a result, changed the
drainage pattern as well. From my layman's point of view, this increases the chances of earth slippage or other
problems occurring elsewhere on the hillside (again, I'm talking about the entire hillside shared by the Lins, my
mother and other neighbors). it may take some time for the effects of this change in the drainage to appear, but if
that is what happens, then redirecting the drainage is NOT an improvement to the value of my mother's property.
However, since you are saying that the Lins' drainage system is an improvement for my mother, what is your
reasoning? What is your reasoning based on - have any studies or analyses been done?
5. This next question is directed to the Planning Commission (or appropriate City agent or department). As stated in
my letter of April 2, 2011, paragraph W of Resolution 2008-01says "No drainage device may be located in such a
manner as to contribute to erosion or in'any way affect an easement, trail or adjacent properties."
In addition to affecting my mother's property, the Lins' drainage system will clearly affect the easement between the
Lins' property and my mother's. As I mentioned in my April 2 letter over two feet of dirt, sediment and debris has
already built up in the less than 2 years that the drainage system has been in place. / request that the Planning
Commission enforce this requirement that the drainage device not affect the easement and my mother's adjacent
property in any way.
6. Furthermore (again this question is directed to the Planning Commission), Section 11 Paragraph V of Resolution
No 2008-01 says that "During and after construction perimeter easements and trails shall remain free and clear of
encroachments including, but not limited to, ... grading, ... debris, ..., unless otherwise approved by the Rolling
Hills Community Association".
There is currently debris in the easement, and there will be debris in the easement after the project is over because
of the run off Has the FJ-iCA approved?
In conclusion, the Lins' oroiect as a whole (the grading and fill which will result in people being able to look down
on most of my mother's property, the risk of destabilizing the hillside (due to the grading, fill and change to
drainage patterns) and the house itself) is decreasing the value of my mother's property.
Let me explain this last point more fully. Before the Lins built their house, you could not see any portion of the
previous house at 3 E. Packsaddle. Now, as you come up my mother's drive way and as you walk into the front
courtyard of my mother's house, a portion of the Lins' house (the roof of the outdoor porch on the northern side of
the Lins' house, closest to 2 West Packsaddle Road, including the gable and some of the posts holding up the roof)
are very clearly visible. Needless to say, this contributes to a feeling of neighbors living on top of each other. My
mother's house used to have the feeling of being in a rural setting, with no neighbors' houses in view. No more.
5
• •
Thank you for your time and we look forward to responses from both Bolton Engineering and the Planning
Commission.
6
• •
13
• •
6 W. Packsaddle Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
April 2, 2011
City of Rolling Hills Planning Commission and Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director
2 Portuguese Bend Road
City of Rolling Hills, CA 90274
310 377 1521
cc: Doug McHattie •
Bolton Engineering Corp
25834 Narbonne Ave, Suite 210
Lomita, CA 90717
310 325 5580
cc: Mitch Miller
Los Angeles County Department of Building and Safety
900 S. Fremont Ave
Alhambra, CA 91803
626 458 6390
cc: Rolling Hills Community Association
1 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
310 544 6222
Subject: New Residence Under Construction at 3 East Packsaddle Road
Dear Ms. Schwartz:
w2i
+` ?.,
I am writing this letter on behalf of my mother, Nan Shu, owner of the property at 6 W. Packsaddle Road.
Rolling Hills, which is downhill from 3 E. Packsaddle Road.
On Tuesday March 22, Doug McHattie of Bolton Engineering stopped by to give my mother a copy of a
revised plot plan for the construction project at 3 E. Packsaddle Road, Rolling Hills. It appears that the
plan is now to add 2 more feet of fill to the backyard, on top of the 4 feet of fill that was previously
approved.
As discussed in my letter of January 5 2008 (copy enclosed), we favored a plan which would have involved
cutting back into the hill instead of adding fill to create a larger flat area with space for a swimming pool.
Such as plan would have resulted in less grading, in that less dirt would have been moved in total, and
instead of adding a substantial amount of dirt to the hillside, some dirt would have been removed from the
hillside (which I believe is less likely to result in problems with stability of the hillside in the future). The
surplus dirt could have been distributed over the front yard, between the house and Packsaddle Road. The
issues we raised at that time were:
I. loss of privacy (both visual privacy and noise)
2. the possibility of the project destabilizing the land in the area
3. the possibility of creating a long term source of friction between neighbors.
Nonetheless, the Planning Commission chose to approve the plan put forward by the representatives for the
owners of 3 E. Packsaddle.
Now, because six feet of fill will be added instead of 4 feet of fill, our concerns are heightened.
I have a number of questions and comments.
• •
A. Was the change in this project reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Planning Commission, the
Rolling Hills Community Association, and the Los Angeles County Department of Building and Safety
with our original concerns in mind? Did Bolton Engineering, Coast Geotechnical, SWN Soiltech
Consultants and any other parties (soil engineers, geologists, etc) who were originally involved in drawing
up the plans (plot plans, grading and drainage plans, landscape plans, etc), analyze the possible impacts and
render their opinions as to future impacts (all impacts — stability of the hillside, impact on neighbors'
property, property values, privacy, etc) in light of the proposed changes to the plans'?
B. The original approval by the Planning Commission required shrubs to be maintained between 9 and 10
feet in height to provide visual screening. If the fill is going up by 2 feet, will it also be required that the
shrubs be 2 feet taller (between 1 I and 12 feet)?
C. The original approval (in 2008) by the Planning Commission required that an Affidavit of Acceptance of
all conditions of the Site Plan Review and Variance approvals be executed and recorded. If the changes to
the Resolution (for example in the height of the shrubs) have been approved, have the changes also been
executed and recorded?
D. As noted in Section 10 Paragraph A of Resolution No 2008-01, "The applicants originally proposed
balanced cut and fill, which would result in raising the rear of the lot up to 7 feet, which both the Planning
Commission and the neighbors objected to". If the Planning Commission has not yet approved the change
in the amount of fill, I would strongly urge them to reject it. But if the Planning Commission has already
approved the change (to increase the height of the fill to 6 feet — which is a 50% increase in the height in
the original approved plan), was this original objection to 7 feet taken into consideration? Also, if the
Planning Commission has already approved the change, I'm curious as to where they would have drawn the
line. Would a change to increase the fill to 6 feet 6 inches have been rejected? If this change has been
approved, please inform me of the basis for the approval, especially since the substantial increase in the
height of the fill should have reasonably warranted a serious review by the Planning Commission.
NOTE: My understanding, based on Section 11 Paragraph S of Resolution No 2008-0 I, is that the Planning
Commission must approve this change.
E. Is someone responsible for ensuring that the amount of till approved by the Planning Commission is the
amount of fill that is actually place by the end of the project? If so, who is that person/party and how do
they ensure that more fill is not added?
F. I have just become aware of a part of the drainage system at 3 E. Packsaddle. There are three drainage
pipes (of various diamters) coming out of a cement wall built into the fill in the southwest corner of 3 E.
Packsaddle's lot. Water, sediment, and debris (leaves, twigs, etc) from these pipes are directed) more or
less into the corner of the property where 3 E. Packsaddle's, 5 E. Packsaddle's and 6 W. Packsaddle's lot
lines come together. The drainage system can not have been in place for more than 2 years, but in that
short period of time over 2 feet of dirt, sediment and debris (leaves, twigs, etc) have built up against the
wire fence between 3 E. Packsaddle's and 6 W. Packsaddle's property line (there is a temporary wire fence
with openings between the strands of wire of roughly 2" x 4"). See the enclosed picture. The two pens
have been placed vertically, with about 0.5" sticking into the ground. The red pen is at the original ground
level. The yellow pen is just inside the wire fence, near the top of the debris that has built up against the
fence.
In addition, the construction contractors have placed temporary construction soil / sediment control fiber
rolls along the perimeter of 3 E. Packsaddle's property where it adjoins my mother's property. After the
fiber rolls are removed, I am concerned that the sediment, debris and dirt will be carried onto my mother's
property (by water from 3 E. Packsaddle). resulting in an increased chance of soil instability and erosion on
her property.
I have several concerns.
• •
I. Is it a good idea to divert the water which had been flowing downhill across the entire hillside to be
concentrated to one corner of 3 E. Packsaddle's lot? What will happen to the stability of the rest of the
hillside? Have the soil engineer and geologist/geotech for this project reviewed the situation, approved
this design and rendered an opinion that there will not be an adverse impact on neighbors in the long
term (say, 25 or 50 years in the future)?
Note that my neighbor at 5 E. Packsaddle has a driveway that runs across the hillside (more or less
north -south). Will the drainage runoff from 3 E. Packsaddle lead to erosion which will undermine his
driveway?
2. When the fiber rolls and wire fence are removed and a 3 rail white fence is installed (I assume that is
part of the project), the dirt/sediment/debris/runotf will flow onto my mother's property at 6 W.
Packsaddle and possibly onto my neighbor's property at 5 W. Packsaddle (it's probably not easy to
determine exactly where the water will flow unless it is raining). Section I I Paragraph V of
Resolution No 2008-01 says that "During and after construction perimeter easements and trails shall
remain free and clear of encroachments including, but not limited to, ... grading, ... debris, ..., unless
otherwise approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association". There is currently debris in the
easement, and there will be debris in the easement after the project is over because of the run off. Has
the RHCA approved?
3. Paragraph W says "No drainage device may be located in such a manner as to contribute to erosion
or in any way affect an easement, trail or adjacent properties." The drainage system is not in
compliance with every part of this requirement. Is the Planning Commission responsible for enforcing
this requirement?
Thank you for your time and we look forward to your response.
•
• r
6 W. Packsaddle Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
April 2, 2011
City of Rolling Hills Planning Commission and Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director
2 Portuguese Bend Road
City of Rolling Hills, CA 90274
310 377 1521
To the Planning Commission:
My parents bought 6 W. Packsaddle in 1971. Over time we have noticed a gradual change in the character
of Rolling Hills, and not for the better. There has been significant erosion of the rural nature that existed
when they first moved into Rolling Hills and for a number of years afterwards.
The project at 3 E. Packsaddle seems to be a good example of "mansionization" in Rolling Hills. There
may be more egregious projects, but this project includes variances for setback, for the location of the
stable, and for exporting dirt. The project is at the limits for structural lot coverage and net lot coverage. A
lot of dirt has been moved to create a large area for the swimming pool and for entertaining. Instead of
working with the piece of land they bought and minimizing modifications to the land and impacts on the
neighbors, this project is pushing the limits in every way imaginable.
Instead of being an oasis in the middle of the city, Rolling Hills is moving in the direction of being like
other parts of the city. Yes, the lot sizes are generally large, but we are feeling more and more like we are
living on top of each other, elbow -to -elbow, very much aware that we are in a big city.
My family and I urge you to resist the pressures of mansionization„ and to support the idea that people
should live within the limits of the property they purchased (approve fewer variances).
NOTE: Given the instability of the hillsides in Rolling Hills (as I said in my letter of Jan 5, 2008, there are
a number of homes in the area which have experienced problems with slippage of the earth), I feel
particularly strongly that folks should not disturb the original lay of the land (and they should not adversely
impact their existing neighbors). Although there may not be adverse impacts in the near term (5-10 years
from now), will there be the impacts 20, 30, or 50 years down the road? As expert witnesses / geologists /
soil engineers can tell you, hillsides can be quite complex and fragile. The anecdotal evidence points to our
hillside falling into that category.
Sin rely,
J i a0h
Ctty ol) /e0//,_Alio
June 15, 2011
Mr. Jia Shu
969 Afton Road
San Marino, CA 91108
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310)377.1521
FAX: (310) 377.7288
Subject: 3 Packsaddle East, proposed modification to the pool
Dear Mr. Shu:
As stated in my letter dated June 9, 2011, this project has been scheduled for
review by the Planning Commission on Tuesday, June 21, 2011 at 6:30 PM. The
Planning Commission's role is to review individual projects for consistency with
the general plan and all other applicable city ordinances and evaluate the general
characteristics of projects such as compatibility, mass, bulk, location, height, and
open space.
Many of the concerns expressed in your letter relate to the process of approval
and construction and City and County staffs responsibilities and procedures for
inspections and assurance that the project is constructed to grading and building
code standards. We would like to answer your questions either in a meeting or
by phone. We will be glad to arrange a meeting between yourself and City and
County staff at your convenience during working hours. Please let me know if
you would like us to schedule such a meeting and your availability, or call me
and we can discuss your concerns by phone.
Of course, you are welcome to come the Planning Commission meeting and
participate.
You can reach me at 310 377-1521 or email at vs@citvofrh.net to discuss this
matter or to schedule a meeting.
Yolta Schwartz
Pla ing Director
6/14/2011
Dear Rolling Hills Planning Commission:
Regarding Zoning Case No. 746 Modification- We are the neighbors Bob and Hillary Watts
residing at #2 Packsaddle Road West and our backyard shares a common property line with #3
Packsaddle Road East. It is unclear after inspecting the plans at City Hall how this proposed
change will affect us. Our ambience has already been seriously impacted by the residence
structure which now looms above our yard and peers down into our once private pool area and
master bedroom. We are very concerned that raising the pool higher will further detract from
our privacy and the aesthetic above our yard which from our perspective appears contrived due
to the grading that's occurred already. Therefore we are respectfully requesting that the
proposed grade change be staked and clearly marked and that we be allowed to visit so we can
see with our own eyes what the plan is. We will be out of town from June 20th to July 10th and
so are unable to attend the June 21st Public Hearing but seriously hope that our absence for
that short time will not preclude our ability to inspect the proposed change.
Sincerely, Bob and Hillary Watts col...,
6k
\;132)41°
EcvED
JUN 16 2O1;
City of Roiling Hills
By