746M, Approval of modification of ZC, Correspondence• •
C1t ol Rolling
August 9, 2011
Mr. Kuang Lin
Mrs. Ivy Wang
1300 Via Zumaya
Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377.1521
FAX: (310) 377-7288
SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 746Modification, Request to modify the pool area
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Lin:
This is to inform you that the City Council at their August 8, 2011 meeting confirmed the
approval of your request by the Planning Commission to modify the grading in the rear of
the lot and the pool size and location.
Please note however, that the Planning Commission had some concerns and requested
that all of the conditions specified in Resolution No. 2008-01 for the original approval and
Resolution No. 2011-09 for the modification be strictly enforced. Specifically, please
assure that the following is complied with:
• The property lines and easement lines to be staked at all times during
construction
• Final grading shall not exceed the approval and the infinity pool shall not be
higher than as shown and approved on the plans
• As graded certification must match the approved plans
• Submit a certification to the City Planning Department that no grading took place
in the easements. If grading did take place, Rolling Hills Community Association
approval shall be required
• A revised drainage plan to be submitted to Los Angeles County Building and
Safety Department for review and approval
• Once the plans for the revised pool and grading in the rear are finalized, provide
revised grading quantities sheet. The 2008 approval included a maximum of 450
cubic yards of dirt to be exported
• All easements shall remain clear of debris, construction materials and any other
accumulated dirt or other items throughout construction and post construction
• Prior to receiving a final inspection, submit an as built plan showing the square
footage of all the structures, including the house, basement, garage, porches,
pool/spa and trellises, if any. The structural coverages may not exceed those
approved in 2008.
• Lighting and hardscape plan to be submitted to the City and RHCA for approval
This approval becomes null and void if work has not commenced within two -years of
the effective date of the Planning Commission's approval.
Printed on Recycled Poper
• •
Enclosed is a copy of RESOLUTION NO. 2011-09, specifying the conditions of approval
set forth by the Planning Commission. You may want to make copies of the Resolution
for your files. Once you have reviewed the Resolution, please complete the enclosed
AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM, have the signature(s) notarized, and forward (or
hand deliver) the completed form and a copy of the Resolution to:
Los Angeles County Registrar -Recorder
Real Estate Records Section
12400 East Imperial Highway
Norwalk, CA 90650
OR
LAX Courthouse
11701 S. La Cienega Blvd. 6th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90045 310-727-6142
Mon -Fri 8:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.
Include a check in the amount of $11.00 for the first page and $3.00 for each additional
page. (Check with the Recorder's Office for the most recent fees, as they change
periodically).
The City will notify the Los Angeles County Building & Safety Division to issue permits
only after the Affidavit of Acceptance and the Resolution are recorded and received by
the City and any conditions of the Resolution required prior to issuance of building
permits are met. Please assure that your architect, engineer and contractor have copies
of the conditions of approval and the above requirements.
Please feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions.
Sincer ly,
Yanta Schwartz
anning Director
Enclosures: AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM (to be recorded)
RESOLUTION NO. 2011-09 (to be recorded)
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
cc: Doug McHattie, Bolton Engineering (cover letter only)
Nick Resich Construction (cover letter only)
Wayne Chatman and Lisa Naslund, L.A. County Building and Safety (cover letter
only)
RECO
MAIL
CITY t'�"
PLANT
2 PO9
ROLLUi
(310) 3t�
(310) 3
r
•
T RECORDER'S USE ONLY
THE REGISTRAR -RECORDER'S OFFICE REQUIRES THAT THE FORM BE NOTARIZED BEFORE
RECORDATION.
ZONING CASE NO. 746 MODIFICATION
XX SITE PLAN REVIEW -MODIFICATION
I (We) the undersigned state
am (We are) the owner(s) of the real property described as follows:
3 PACKSADDLE ROAD EAST, (LOT 25-SF) ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
This property is the subject of the above numbered case and conditions of approval
I am (We are) aware of, and accept, all the stated conditions in said case:
3 Packsaddle Road East, Rolling Hills CA (LOT 25-SF)
ZONING CASE NO. 746 MODIFICATION
XX SITE PLAN REVIEW -MODIFICATION
(We) certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Signature Signature
Name typed or printed Name typed or printed
Address Address
City/State City/State
• E,(1_it6 r--r- A- .
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 duly filed 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. 1
3 Packsaddle E.
dr°
D • npre
O -4 O
• m • cf. 0
—
0 • 2 m m
v, o m
A to
A (n 7
m
c m me
• 3
m op
CD
O (Q
co,
co "I
N N `�
•
m
rn
0
0
8B4o-ttg(oLE)xej
A8
m
•
fy
47
0
m
f1
,c1P
.inoo
IOlcW
.sans
OEM
Z NG,
'S'4 08'EO L
'S'd O1701.
391f8V0
03SOdO2id
33a1.I•c JAUr id
33211.4Z 3AO11321
'S'd OB'EOL
a
•
ly nI
_ _ _
1'ANI OZ'Z6 �� _",_
o1oZE6
OS'40t
'AM 061▪ MO13 33HS 5
2
5o0t�4!—l1/__
N1W �:L WSb
Ana
o
3 „0,0Zo89 N
Y j
AUG 02 2011
4604
-\•.....--
L
•AM OZ'Z6/
'`J'l OZ E6
311NVNO OBHSf11d7
N1VM A
I L\
rAxi is
Dt�L 9L't'dV
ot'1vey
ays�c
/4KIQ21L6 111;
CITY OIr ROLLING HILLS
:< x
Approved " /
PLANNING $FEET CorWW
nnrP
DATE, TIME
FAX NO./NAME
DURATION
PAGE(S)
RESULT
MODE
August 9, 2011
rip
TRANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT
•
TIME : 08/09/2011 17:47
NAME : ROLLING HILLS CITY
FAX : 3103777288
TEL : 3103771521
SER.# : BROG5J303281
08/09 17:47
LOMITA BLDG SAF
00:00:27
02
OK
STANDARD
ECM
City ollellRSJd.IG
Mr. Kuang Lin
Mrs. Ivy Wang
1300 Via Zumaya
Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274
INCORPORATE[ JANUARY 24, 1957
NO, 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377.1521
FAX: (310) 377,7288
SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 746Modification, Request to modify the pool area
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Lin:
This is to inform you that the City Council at their August 8, 2011 meeting confirmed the
approval of your request by the Planning Commission to modify the grading in the rear of
the lot and the pool size and location.
Please note however, that the Planning Commission had some concerns and requested
that all of the conditions specified in Resolution No. 2008-01 for the original approval and
Resolution No. 2011-09 for the modification be strictly enforced. Specifically, please
assure that the following is complied with:
• The property lines and easement lines to be staked at all times during
construction
Final grading shall not exceed the approval and the infinity pool shall not be
higher than as shown and approved on the plans
• As graded certification must match the approved plans
• Submit a certification to the City Planning Department that no grading took place
in the easements. If grading did take place, Rolling Hills Community Association
approval shall be required
• A r/1\,If rs..1 rir.11r...I.A •A %.A I., ,k...U4..4 {A AA A f'....AI.• �,.:i.i:.... ww..
•
city fRo ll.•,.y Jh/i
Mr. Kuang Lin
Mrs. Ivy Wang
1300 Via Zumaya
Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274
•
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377.1521
FAX: (310) 377.7288
SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 746Modification, Request to modify the pool area
including grading
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Lin:
This letter shall serve to notify you that the Planning Commission at their July 19, 2011
meeting adopted a resolution granting your request in Zoning Case No. 746
Modification. That action accompanied by the record of the proceedings before the
Commission will be reported to the City Council on Monday, Aueust 8, 2011 beeinnine
at 7:30 PM. You or your representative must be present to answer any questions the
Council may have.
The Planning Commission's decision in this matter shall become effective thirty days
after the adoption of the resolution by the Commission, unless an appeal has been filed
or the City Council takes jurisdiction of the case within that thirty (30) day appeal
period. (Section 17.54.010(B) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code). Should there be an
appeal, the Commission's decision will be stayed until the Council completes its
proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Code.
A copy of the resolution amending the original conditions for this project is included for
your review. Please familiarize yourself with the conditions of approval.
If no appeals are filed within the thirty (30) day period after adoption of the Planning
Commission's Resolution, the Planning Commission's action will become final and you
will be required to cause to be recorded an Affidavit of Acceptance Form together with
the subject Resolution in the Office of the County Recorder before the Commission's
action takes effect. Instructions for recordation will be forwarded to you after the
Council's proceedings.
Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions regarding this matter.
Since ely,
G
Y ant
a Schwartz
nning Director
cc: Doug McHattie, Bolton Engineering
Nick Resich, Resich Construction
Printed on Recycled Paper
•
•
Ma l
•City omollin, fidid
FIELD TRIP NOTIFICATION
June 27, 2011
Mr. Kuang Lin
Mrs. Ivy Wang
1300 Via Zumaya
Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274
•
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377.1521
FAX:(310)377.7288
SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 746Modification, Request to modify the pool area
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Lin:
The Planning Commission scheduled a field inspection of your property to view a
silhouette of the proposed project on Tuesday. July 19. 2011. at 7:30 AM.
The site must be prepared according to the instructions provided by the Planning
Commission at their meeting on June 21, which include the following:
• Stake the limits/footprint of the proposed pool
• Show the elevation of the' proposed pool in relationship
to finished floor of the proposed deck and residence
• Stake the proposed height of the entire rear yard at
various locations and provide a platform from which the
Commission could view the adjacent properties
• Provide a platform at the highest elevation of the pool
• Stake the rear and side property lines, easement line and
setback lines (as is also required by the previous
approval)
• Delineate the previously approved area of the pool and
the elevation
• Stake the previously approved elevation of the yard in
various locations.
The silhouette shall be constructed a minimum of 7 days
prior to the field trip. The silhouette must remain on the
property during the entire review process of this case.
including City Council's review. It is. therefore. imperative
that the construction of the silhouette be of a sturdy
n ature. including the stakes for the property. setback and
e asement lines.
After the field trip, the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission will take place on
the same day as the field trip, Tuesday, July 19, 2011 at 6:30 PM at City Hall.
Printed on Recycled Paper
• •
The owner and/or representative must be present to answer any questions regarding the
proposal. Please call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions.
Sin ely,
Yta Schwartz
P Wing Director
cc: Doug McHattie, Bolton Engineering
Nick Resich, Resich Construction
-3olton Engineering Corpotion
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.
RECEIVE
JUN 16 2011
City of Rolling Hills
By
1111 •
City Op/ Rolling 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@cityofrh.net to discuss this
matter or to schedule a meeting.
pS' c ely
Yolta Schwartz
Pla ng Director
Printed on Recycled Paper
•
Bolton Engineering CorpTration
June 13, 2011
Yolanta Schwartz
Planning Director
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Rd.
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Dear Ms. Schwartz;
RECEIVE
JUN 13 2011
ity ot Rolling 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,
1 9``- ` 'C `--/
/1‘1W
Douglas K. McHattie
25834 Narbonne Ave., Suite 210, Lomita, CA 90717 tel (310) 325-5580 fax (310) 325-5581
• •
City o Rolling ivlitio INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
STATUS OF APPLICATION
& NOTIFICATION OF MEETING
June 13, 2011
Mr. Kuang Lin
Mrs. Ivy Wang
1300 Via Zumaya
Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377.1521
FAX: (310) 377.7288
SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 746Modification, Request to modify the pool area
Dear Mr. Lin and Ms. Wang:
Pursuant to state law the City's staff has completed a preliminary review of the
application noted above and finds that the information submitted is:
X Sufficiently complete as of the date indicated above to allow the application to be
processed.
Please note that the City may require further information in order to clarify, amplify,
correct, or otherwise supplement the application. If the City requires such additional
information, it is strongly suggested that you supply that information promptly to avoid
any delay in the processing of the application.
Your application for Zoning Case No. 746 Modification has been set for public hearing
consideration by the Planning Commission at their meeting on Tuesday. June 21 2011.
The meeting will begin at 6:30 PM in the Council Chambers, Rolling Hills City Hall
Administration Building, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills. You or your designated
representative must attend to present your project and to answer questions.
The staff report for this project will be available at City Hall after 3:00 PM on Friday, June
17, 2011. We will forward the report to you and your representative.
Please call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions.
Sincq'`ely,
YolVlta Schwa
Planning Director
cc: Doug McHattie, Bolton Engineering
Printed on Recycled Paper
• •
ofton Engineering Corporation
June 13, 2011
Yolanta Schwartz
Planning Director
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Rd.
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Dear Ms. Schwartz;
n g:
.YM1C. �6' IS .
•
JUN 13 2011
,,7,
D
try „1 t,oIltrig Itlls
t}v ..............
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,
Douglas K. McHattie
25834 Narbonne Ave., Suite 210, Lomita, CA 90717 tel (310) 325-5580 fax (310) 325-5581
• •
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
66Aroit,tp)04,
R
%;14, LI: 11 ‘f
JUN 16 2011
City of Rolling Hills
By
• •
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
6,6ti -(1
Kr" it„F Crifs•—,
JUN 16 201
City of Rolling Hill: -
By
rY.i
A
•
C1t ////, Jh/h
June 9, 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:
This is to acknowledge the receipt of your correspondence to Doug McHattie,
Bolton Engineering with a copy to the City. The matter of the requested
modification to the previously approved pool at 3 Packsaddle Road East has
been scheduled for review by the Planning Commission. The meeting will take
place on Tuesday, June 21, 2011 at 6:30 PM. In a few days you will receive a
notice of the public hearing. Notices will also be mailed to all neighbors within
1,000 foot radius of subject property.
Your correspondence will be provided to the commissioners as part of the public
record. You are welcome to attend the meeting and bring up your concerns at the
meeting.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me at 310 377-1521 or
email at vs@citvofrh.net.
Sinc
Y
nta Schwartz
nning Director
Printed on Recycled Paper
.,1 • t.
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
F rku FWED
JUN032011
City of Rolling 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.
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 ofJanuary 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 ghat subsequent owners do.
As 1 said in my letter oflJanuary 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. 1 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 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 1 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. 1 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? /f Doug's statement is correct ,that this
increase to 6 feet of fill is minor, then it appears to me that in Rolling Hills if I want to do something in my
construction project which the Planning Commission partially disapproves of (in this case, the Planning
Commission approved 4 feet of fill instead of 7 feet of fill), / should take what 1 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.
2
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".
1 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 Lis' 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, 1'm guessing that there will not be a
hearing where the publi? can make comments, is that correct?
VII1. 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 cicerns 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 ofJanuary 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 ofJanuary 5 2008 and April 2, 2011, 1 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 1
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 Tong -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, 1 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 ofApril 2, 2011, paragraph W of Resolution 2008-0lsays "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 1 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 afier 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 afier the project is over because
of the run of 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.
6
Bolton Engineering Corporation
May 5, 2011
Jia Shu
969 Afton Road
San Marino, CA 91108
Subject: Letter to the City postmarked April 5, 2011.
Dear Mr. Shu:
The purpose of my meeting with your mother was to ask her if she would
object to changing the layout of the proposed swimming pool and its location. I
explained to your mother that the original design of the pool was done by the
Architect. When the old house was demolished and the grading was performed,
the owner had a landscape architect provide a more detailed design. As you can
see from the attached drawing, the proposed pool is located farther from your
mother's house. Also, this design has an additional 2 feet of fill in the rear yard.
This additional fill should increase both the visual privacy and Iessren the noise
from the pool during use.
The following are our responses to the questions raised in your letter:
A. The design change of the pool has the pool rotated 90 degrees from
the original design. This should have very limited impact on privacy or noise
issues by the adjacent property owned by your mother.
B. The necessity for the shrubs and screening landscaping, now that the
rough grading is completed, is in question. For your peace of mind, we suggest
you arrange to visit the property to see the privacy for both the neighboring
property owner and your mother that the development offers.
C. The proposed change is minor. These changes are commonly made
for most projects. Generally, the scope of this change is considered minor and
does not require a new resolution by the city.
D. 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.
E. The initial grading for a project and the current state for the grading at
#3Packsaddle East is called "rough grading". Rough grading has the slope
steepness and slope location correct and per plan. The final, finished grading
remains to be done. Generally, after the rough grading is complete, the house is
constructed and then the finish or fine grading is done. Generally, this fine
25834 Narbonne Ave., Suite 210, Lomita, CA 90717 tel (310) 325-5580 fax (310) 325-5581 '
Bolton Engineering Corporation
grading and finish work will be performed as in conjunction with the landscaping
and irrigation work along with constructing the driveway, and any exterior flat
concrete decks and walks work.
F. Los Angeles County Department of Building and Safety acting as the
City Engineer is responsible to ensure that the site development is per approved
plans. Both the City personnel and the County personnel have made inspections
of the grading and work at #3 Packsaddle East and are satisfied with the existing
rough grading and site. They will have on going inspections for the work and will
inspect the site after the final grading is performed and is ready for occupancy.
G. 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.
H. 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.
I feel that letter writing, while it is good practice, additional and possibly
better information could be conveyed to assuage your concerns at an on -site
visit. I suggest that we arrange a meeting, at your convenience so that your
concerns can be addressed.
I reiterate that Ms. Lin is asking to change the shape and location of the
pool and move it further away from your mother's property.
Please call me so that we may move this to a successful conclusion. My
cell phone is the best way to contact me at 310-497-2187.
Thank you sincerely,
Douglas K. McHattie
Vice President
25834 Narbonne Ave., Suite 210, Lomita, CA 90717 tel (310) 325-5580 fax (310) 325-5581
2ece .6/4//„ Mr. shu_
• •
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
(kr-rz O'n°(jd'L:
R E C V E
JUN 16 2011
City of Rolling Hills
By
6 W. Packsaddle Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
January 5, 2008
City of Rolling Hills Planning Commission and
Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director
City of Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Subject: Proposed New Residence at 3 East Packsaddle Road
Dear Ms. Schwartz:
ORMO)
JAN 0 8 2008
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
8y '1/4
I understand that the proposed plans for 3 E. Packsaddle Road will be discussed at the Planning Commission
meeting on Tuesday January 15, 2008. Can you please send me prior to the January 15th meeting a copy of the
materials which will be given to the members of the Planning Commission for their review before the meeting
(as well as any materials which surface after you give the Commissioners their packets, including materials
which may be presented at the meeting)? Can you please send these materials to both my mother's house at 6
W. Packsaddle Road, Rolling Hills, and to my house at 969 Afton Road, San Marino, CA 91108? If this is not
possible, can you please send the materials to my house? (Thanks in advance).
If any geotechnical studies have been performed for this area, or will be performed for this project, can you also
send me copies?
Thank you.
Dear Commissioners:
I am writing this letter on behalf of my mother, Nan Shu, owner of the property located at 6 W. Packsaddle
Road.
Summary
It is my understanding that the Lins would like a large flatter area in their backyard by adding up to 4 feet of fill,
and that they wish to build a swimming pool in that filled area.
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." (Italics added).
Looking at the Site Plan, it appears that the existing grade at the edge of the 4 foot fill is currently at
approximately 94, and that the existing grade at the foot of the existing steps is approximately 98. To me,
"minimizing grading" would mean that the flat area for the proposed pool would be at approximately 96. (I
presume that this would mean that there would be another, higher, flat area when one first walks out of the
house; this other area would be at the elevation of the existing house.)
We have a number of concerns, including loss of privacy (both visual privacy and noise), the possibility of the
project destabilizing the land in the area, and the possibility of creating a long term ongoing source of friction
between neighbors.
From our point of view the solution should NOT include fill to create a higher pad, and should NOT depend on
shrubs to preserve privacy.
Assuming there are no geological issues, we would favor a solution in which the flat area is at the level of the
existing grade at the four stakes which mark the edge of the proposed four foot fill (three stakes are at a filled
elevation of 98 and one is at the filled elevation of 96 on the Site Plan reviewed by the Planning Commission on
December 18, 2007). The flat area would be at 94, and would be created by cutting into the earth as one moves
from the four stakes marking the proposed four foot fill back towards the house. With this solution, we would
probably not see the need for shrubs to provide visual privacy. I believe that less grading is involved (less dirt
will be removed) with this solution than with the current proposed grading (with four feet of fill) in the Site Plan
of Dec 18. However this should be confirmed by a surveyor or other professional.
The rest of this letter:
1. explores a number of suggestions and comments which have come up in the course of my discussions
with the architect, Criss Gunderson, and with the City.
2. includes pictures
3. discusses our concerns in more depth
4. raises some questions for you regarding process for a residential development project such as this, the
role of the Planning Commission vs the Architecture Committee, etc.
I apologize for the length of this letter, but there are many options, constraints and requests in this situation. I
thank you in advance for your time and I look forward to your response.
Discussion
As discussed above, our concerns include loss of visual privacy and noise. People in 3 E. Packsaddle's backyard
will be looking down at my mother's house and property at 6 W. Packsaddle, and likely generating increased
noise, resulting in a continuing erosion of privacy. My mother's property has already suffered significant loss of
privacy as a result of cutting down trees and shrubs to accommodate neighbors' views over the years. But, the
loss of privacy will become much more pronounced with the proposed grading (creating elevated ground by
adding fill) and construction of a pool in the backyard at 3 E. Packsaddle Road. Our loss of privacy will be
further exacerbated because it is likely the proposed pool and backyard will be the focal point for many of the
property owner's entertaining/social events.
Another concern is that the amount of "engineered" fill proposed to elevate the backyard by 4 feet will threaten
the stability of the hillside and create an increased chance of a land subsidence or land slide to occur. This will
adversely impact and cause damage to my mother's property which is located downhill from 3 E. Packsaddle
Road's backyard. Indeed the entire Packsaddle/Southfield area has suffered instability. I personally know of
three houses on Packsaddle which have had sufficient damage to warrant repairs. I recommend that the Planning
Commission look further into this to see what other houses in the area have suffered damage due to instability of
the hillside (if another agency would normally have responsibility for this area of the project, I recommend that
the Planning Commission do its best to ensure that a geotechnical study is performed). The statement in the
City's "Residential Development Highlights" that "the Site Plan must minimize grading" is quite relevant in this
area of Rolling Hills.
Criss Gunderson (310 373 8077; 2024 Via Pacheco, Palos Verdes Estates) and I met on Wednesday December
19, 2007, at 3 East Packsaddle Road. We discussed our concerns and objectives. I believe Mr. Gunderson and I
achieved a verbal understanding in principle regarding our concern about the loss of visual privacy. I explained
that we do not want to see people in the backyard at 3 East Packsaddle from my mother's property. Mr.
Gunderson said that his clients would prefer not to see the roof of my mother's house from their property. (Mr.
Gunderson and I did not discuss this on Dec 19, but as discussed above, we also do not wish to be subjected to
increased noise, we are concerned about creating a future long term and on going source of friction between
neighbors, and we want assurance that the engineered fill and drainage will not degrade or threaten the existing
integrity and stability of the hillside.)
NOTE:
Four stakes which are mentioned in a number of places in this letter are shown in Figure 1. These stakes are in a
line along the western edge of the proposed 4 foot fill (this line of stakes is parallel to the property line between
3 E. Packsaddle's and my mother's properties; they mark the transition from the flattish area (which includes the
proposed swimming pool) to the 2:1 slope). For sake of discussion, I am numbering these stakes 1, 2, 3 and 4
starting at the north end of the line of stakes (closest to the Watts' property) and moving southward (toward the
Rutgers' property). Stakes 1, 2 and 3 are along contour line 98 in the proposed plan, and the fourth (the
southernmost stake) is on contour line 94 in the proposed plan.
At the Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday night Dec 18th, I questioned the statement that the maximum
height of the fill was approximately 4 feet because the height of one of the stakes I saw during the field visit
earlier that morning was much greater. It turned out that the top of stake 4 is actually 5' 8", not 4'. Mr.
Gunderson agreed that the stake was certainly higher than four feet and speculated that perhaps it had accidently
been knocked down and then put back into place incorrectly. I mention this because the attached pictures
assume that the other three stakes along the edge of the fill area are at the correct heights. If the other stakes are
not at the correct height, then the impression provided by some of the pictures attached to this letter is also not
correct.
In addition because it is too difficult to estimate the height of the fill in the rest of the filled area without more
information, what follows in the way of the height of shrubs may turn out to be inappropriate. The key (in terms
of privacy) is to ensure that the overriding objectives — that we not see people in the backyard of 3 East
Packsaddle from my mother's yard or experience increased noise — are met.
During our meeting on Wednesday Dec 19, I asked Mr Gunderson about the possibility of "starting at the grade
at the bottom of the existing steps and then adding fill out to the perimeter of the proposed fill area while slowly
sloping downward as he does in his proposal of Dec 18 (he starts at 102 near the proposed new house and then
slowly drops off to 100 and then 98 as the filled area moves away from the Lin's house towards my mother's
property). He said that it would be impossible to get the RHCA Architecture Committee to agree to having so
many steps between the house and the pool because the Architecture Committee wants to see a single -level
ranch -style living space including outdoor living space, that they would require that the patio and pool to be at
the same level of the house itself.
On January 2, 2008, I followed up with the Rolling Hills Community Association regarding the role of the
RHCA Architecture Committee. I was told that the RHCA Architecture Committee will be reviewing the
aesthetics of the proposed project at 3 E. Packsaddle Rd after the Planning Commission approves the plans (Site
Plan, etc). And that the Architecture Committee is not concerned with the absence or presence of fill, the
elevation or location of the pool, etc. - these items will be specified in the plans approved by the City of Rolling
Hills Planning Commission. This is inconsistent with my understanding after talking with Mr. Gunderson.
Therefore I would appreciate clarification from the Planning Commission as to who approves the elevation of
the pool relative to the house. In addition, if it is the role of the Planning Commission to approve the elevation
of the pool relative to the house, does the Planning Commission have a preference on this issue (for this
particular project, will the Planning Commission require that the pool be at the same elevation as the house)?
During our meeting on December 19, 2007, I also asked Mr Gunderson how high up the existing steps the fill
will go (there are currently two sets of steps - six steps go down from the house to a landing, and then four more
steps go down to the grass). Mr. Gunderson said the fill would go half way up the upper set of existing steps,
which is approximately 4 or 5 feet above the existing ground at the bottom of the steps. When I stand on the
existing lawn on the line where there is four feet of fill (along the four stakes), it appears to me to be a LOT of
earth!
When we met on Dec 19, Mr. Gunderson and I discussed the following ways of possibly addressing our concern
about loss of visual privacy:
1. Plant shrubs along the fence at the easement on 3 E. Packsaddle's west property line (the property line shared
by 3 E. Packsaddle's and my mother's properties). These shrubs would be tall enough to prevent us from seeing
someone in the Lin's backyard. (This was also suggested by the Planning Commission at their meeting on night
of Tuesday Dec 18. As discussed below, after further reflection, I have concerns with this suggestion.)
2. Permanently reserve the northern half of the portion of the filled area between contours 98 and 100 on the Site
/ Plot Plan (the northwest portion of the filled area, which is closest to my mother's driveway) for a garden or
other non -human use. The idea is to not have people standing in that portion of the filled area, looking down on
my mother's property. (Mrs. Lin has subsequently rejected this idea).
3. These requirements will be recorded with the deed for the property at 3 E. Packsaddle Road at the Los
Angeles County Recorder's Office and would therefore be permanent restrictions that run with the land (i.e.
these restrictions would apply to the current owner and all other future owners of the property).
4. After Criss Gunderson and I met on Dec 18, it became apparent that in order to meet the objective of not
seeing people in the 3 E. Packsaddle's backyard, it is important that there be shrubs along the northern boundary
of that yard as well (the boundary between the Lin's and the Watts' properties) - from the northwest corner of
their property to the existing palm tree on their property. Assuming the height of stakes 1, 2 and 3 are correct,
nine foot high shrubs along this boundary will probably be sufficient. (Figure 2 shows why it is important that
shrubs be planted along the northern boundary).
NOTE:
From our point of view, the shrubs need to be at a minimum height (not a maximum height). I mention this
because in conversation with more than one person who is involved in this project, there was confusion as to
whether there should be a resolution specifying a maximum or a minimum height for the shrubs. From our point
of view there should be a minimum height (to use an extreme example, if there were a maximum height, the
owner of 3 E. Packsaddle could cut the shrubs to 2 feet tall - that would be useless in providing visual privacy for
my mother's property).
NOTE:
A number of pictures are included with this letter (the pictures were mostly taken on Sat Dec 21, 2007; a few
were taken later). These pictures show both what we would see from my mother's property if the person was
standing on the proposed fill (along the four stakes) in the 3 E. Packsaddle Road's backyard (Figures 2 and 3),
and what a person would see of my mother's property looking down from different points in the 3 E. Packsaddle
Road's proposed yard (Figures 4, 5, 6 and 7). Some of the pictures (Figures 2, 3 and 4) include a couple of poles
with a string and light blue flags. The string and light blue flags on these poles is approximately 9-10 feet above
the current ground level. Figures 8, 9 and 10 show the view from the bottom of the existing steps in 3 E.
Packsaddle's backyard.
While the measures Mr. Gunderson and I discussed on Dec 19 will help significantly in addressing our concerns
for visual privacy in the short run, there are still a number of questions and concerns.
A. What measures will be taken for noise abatement?
B. What measures will be taken to warrant that the stability of the hillside will not be impacted by placement of
engineered fill and construction of a pool within the fill area?
C. Does a process exist for ensuring that the end result of the Lin's construction project adheres to the plans and
specifications approved by the Commission, including meeting or exceeding the, requirements mentioned above
(for example, that we not see people in 3 E. Packsaddle's backyard and that they not be looking down on my
mother's yard/house)? Will there be as-builts (drawings / diagrams / plans created after the project has been
completed which show what was actually implemented / built) available for review and inspection?
D. If so, what is that process? For example, I understand that Criss Gunderson will be preparing a Landscape
plan. Who is it submitted to, is it open to public review / comment, etc.? Will a third party (i.e. city inspector)
be confirming the height of the fill and the height of the shrubs, etc after they have been put into place? What is
the process for ensuring the stability of the hillside will not be compromised by placement of engineered fill and
pool, and the drainage will be adequate? Etc.
E. Whether or not there is a formal process, how can we keep informed as to the portions of the project which
are of interest to us (the landscape plan, the final actual height of the fill, etc.).
F. If, at some point in the future, the owner of 3 E. Packsaddle Road does not maintain the shrubs / garden in the
appropriate locations or at the appropriate height, what is the process for enforcement? Who do we contact?
Who will enforce the requirements?
This last point is a major concern. If I were the owner of 3 E. Packsaddle Road, I would not want to pay for a
gardener or tree company to trim the shrubs more frequently than necessary. Therefore, there is a natural
tendency to trim them to a relatively low height and as infrequently as possible. From our point of view, this
could lead to a problem of trimming the shrubs below the minimum height, or even removing shrubs altogether
at some point in the future.
So it seems that planting shrubs and creating a garden might be a good short term solution. However there is a
distinct possibility that in the future this solution will lead to a never-ending source of friction between neighbors
(my mother and whoever owns the property at 3 E. Packsaddle) and a degradation of the value of my mother's
property. This concern regarding maintaining proper height of shrubs is well founded in that we have had
similar experiences with other neighbors in the past. We do not want to see another problem among neighbors
created.
This brings us to another point. Figures 8, 9 and 10 show the view from the bottom of the existing steps.
Figures 4, 6 and 7 show the view while standing at the line of four stakes, 3 or 4 above the existing grade at the
height of the proposed fill. The improvement in the view is minimal. Is such a nominal enhancement in view
enough to make it worthwhile to create a potential never-ending source of friction between neighbors, and to add
to concerns about the stability of the soil and hillside in the area?
3 East Packsaddle Road already has a spectacular panoramic view of the ocean and coastline without any fill.
The pictures give you an idea of the view, but if they have not already done so, I suggest that the members of the
Planning Commission to go to the site themselves on a sunny day to see the view "in real life". The conditions
during the last field visit (the morning of Dec 18) were poor - it was rainy and gray with very poor visibility.
In conclusion, I understand that the owners of 3 East Packsaddle Road would like to have a larger flat area in
their backyard and that they wish to build a pool in that flat area. Can they consider cutting into the existing
grade instead of adding fill on top of the existing grade? That would result in less impact on the visual privacy
of my mother's property, and might help with noise as well. Cutting into the existing grade instead of adding fill
to the existing grade will also result in less concern about the stability of the hillside in the area.
Taking this one step further, it would be helpful if we could take pictures in the vicinity of the existing steps at
the elevation of the existing grade along the 4 stakes (this means that the flat area would be at 94 on the Site Plan
reviewed at the Dec 18 Planning Commission meeting, and would be created by cutting into the earth as one
moves from the four stakes marking the proposed four foot fill back towards the house). Unfortunately it is not
possible to take these pictures, but I would not be at all surprised if the view were still quite spectacular. In fact,
this is the solution that we favor most, because with this solution I believe that the need for shrubs to provide for
privacy would be much reduced, and perhaps eliminated altogether. There should also be much less risk of
contributing to the destabilization of the hillside in the area (compared with the proposal for 4 feet of fill).
The Planning Commission has raised concerns about the size of the basement and the amount of dirt to be
removed from 3 East Packsaddle Road. At the Planning Commission meeting on Dec 18, it sounded like it
would be acceptable to take '/, of the dirt removed for the basement and distribute it over the front yard, and
taking V.$ of the dirt to build the raised / filled area in the backyard. This would eliminate the need to remove any
dirt from 3 East Packsaddle. I realize that if the owners cut into the existing grade in the backyard instead of
building a raised pad with fill, there would be even more dirt to dispose of. I propose that dirt be spread over the
entire (front and back) yards; the increase in height will be minimal.
Thanks for your time, and we look forward to your response.
S' rely,
Ji