412, Construct a retaining wall in , Resolutions & Approval Conditions•
RESOLUTION NO. 91-11
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING
HILLS APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO RESOLUTION NO. 90-8
GRANTING A VARIANCE TO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK AND SITE PLAN
REVIEW APPROVAL IN ZONING CASE NO. 412.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY
FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. A request has been filed by Mr. Gordon Siu with
respect to real property located at 9 Caballeros Road, Rolling
Hilts (Lot 32-SK) requesting a modification to the condition of
approval for a Variance to the side yard setback requirements to
construct additions to the existing structure, a Variance to
construct a retaining wall, and Site Plan Review. The modification
requested is to extend the allowable time period to fulfill the
requirements of the County of Los Angeles Department of Building
and Safety.
Section 2. The Commission considered this item at its meeting
on May 21, 1991 at which time information was presented indicating
that the extension of time is necessary due to the requirements of
the County.
Section 3. Based upon information and evidence submitted, the
Planning Commission does hereby amend Paragraph (C), Section 10 of
Resolution No. 90-8 to read as follows:
"C. The Variance and Site Plan Review approvals shall expire
within twenty-four (24) months of the approval of this
Resolution."
Section 4. Except as herein amended, the provisions of
Resolution No. 90-8 shall continue to be in full force and effect.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 21ST DAY OF MAY, 1991.
ATTEST:
Qv,Ors .: nr
DIANE SAWYER, DEPUVA CITY CLERK
C-A„„g,
ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN
• •
Resolution No. 91-11
Page 2
The foregoing Resolution No. 91-11 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING
HILLS APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO RESOLUTION NO. 90-8
GRANTING A VARIANCE TO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK AND SITE PLAN
REVIEW APPROVAL IN ZONING CASE NO. 412.
was approved and adopted at a regular adjourned meeting of the
Planning Commission on May 30, 1991 by the following roll call
vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS FROST, HANKINS, LAY, RAINE AND CHAIRMAN
ROBERTS
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
For Records Use
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND MAIL TO:
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
Pleaserecord this form with the -Registrar -Recorder's Office and
return to:
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
(The Registrar -Recorder's Office requires that the form be notarized
before recordation.)
Acceptance Form
STATE OF_CALIFORNIA ) ss
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO.
VARIANCE CASE NO. 412
I (We) the undersigned state:
I am'(We are) the owner(s). of the real property described as follows:
1 Maverick Lane, Rolling Hills,CA 90274 (LOT.31-:$K)
This property is the subject of the above numbered cases.
I am (We are) aware of, and accept, all the stated conditions in said •
Conditional Use Permit•Case No.'
Variance Case No. 412
I (We) certify (or declare) under the penalty. of perjury that the
foregoing is true'and correct.
(Where the owner•.and applicant. are not the same, both must sign.)
Type or print
Applicant Name
Address
City, State
Signature
Owner Name
Address
City, State
Signature
This signature must
be acknowledged by a
notary public. Attach
appropriate acknowledgement.
• •
RESOLUTION NO.
90-8
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO THE
SIDE YARD SETBACK, AND SITE PLAN
REVIEW APPROVAL IN ZONING CASE NO. 412
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES
HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Applications were duly filed by Mr. Gordon
Siu with respect to real property located at 9 Caballeros Road,
Rolling Hills (Lot 32-SK) requesting a variance to the side yard
setback requirements to construct an addition to the residence, and
site plan review approval to construct additions to the existing
structure. A joint application was also duly filed by Mr. Gordon Siu
with respect to Lot 32-SK and Dr. and Mrs. Mansoor Mirsaidi with
respect to real property located at 1 Maverick Lane, Rolling Hills
(Lot 31-SK) requesting a variance to construct a retaining wall,
portions of which to lie on both parcels described above.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly
noticed public hearing to consider the applications on January 16,
1990, February 20, 1990 and March 20, 1990; and conducted a field
site review on January 6, 1990 and February 10, 1990.
Section 3. With respect to the application submitted
by Mr. Siu for a variance to the side yard setback to construct an
addition to the residence, Sections 17.32.010 through 17.32.030
permit approval of a variance from the standards and requirements of
the Zoning ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
applicable to the property and not applicable to other similar
properties in the same zone prevent the owner from making use of the
property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties. Pursuant
to these Sections, the Planning Commission finds that:
A. Due to the shape and topography of the lot and
the existing developmental pattern, the residence cannot be expanded
significantly into the side yards, because thelot is generally
narrow and elongated, and the existing residence was originally
developed with an angular orientation upon the lot.
B. In view of the topographical situation and the
existing developmental pattern of the residence, there exists unique
circumstances, not generally applicable to other properties in the
same zone, that justify the encroachment because the residential
structure cannot be expanded significantly into the other side yard
or front yard.
C. The grant of the variance under these
circumstances will not be detrimental to the public health, safety
and welfare, will be compatible with surrounding properties and will
be consistent with the goals of the Zoning Ordinance.
Section 4. Based on the foregoing findings, the
Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No.
412 to permit an encroachment into the side yard setback, as
indicated in the development plans submitted with this application
and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A, subject to the
conditions set forth in Section 10 of this Resolution.
Section 5. With respect to the application submitted
by Mr. Siu for site plan review, Section 17.34.010 requires a
development plan to be submitted for site plan review and approval
before any building or structure may be constructed or any expansion,
addition, alternation or repair to existing buildings may be made
which involve changes to grading or an increase to the size of the
building or structure by more than twenty-five percent (25%) in any
thirty-six (36) month period.
Section 6. The Commission makes the following findings
of fact:
A. The proposed residential structure at 9
Caballeros Road is compatible with the low density, rural character
requirements of the General Plan. This project is compatible with
the Zoning Ordinance because. the project complies with the Zoning
Ordinance lot coverage requirements. The net square footage of the
lot is approximately 82,400 square feet. The proposed residential
structures and stable equal 6,419 square feet which represents 7.8%
structural lot coverage, which is within the 20% maximum coverage
that is permitted. The total lot coverage is 9,703 square feet which
represents a proposed total lot coverage of 11.8% which is within the
35% maximum coverage that is permitted. The proposed project is
compatible with surrounding residential structures. The proposed
project includes a residence and existing stable, which structures
are similar to surrounding residential land use patterns.
B. The proposed development preserves and
integrates into the site design, to the maximum extent feasible,
existing natural topographic features of the lot including
surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses, and
land forms (such as hillsides and knolls) because the proposed
development will minimize grading by incorporating use of the
existing building pad, lowering the proposed southerly residential
addition, and retain the existing barn. The project will not disrupt
mature trees and minimize alteration of existing natural land forms
on the site.
• •
C. The development plan follows natural contours of
the site to minimize grading because all drainage flow from the site
will be channeled into existing drainage courses to the canyon.
D. The development plan preserves surrounding
native vegetation of the site and supplements it with landscaping
that is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the
community.
E. The development plan substantially preserves
that natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building
coverage •because the construction will not impact most of the lot
area and will occur within the existing rear yard area of the lot
where the current stable and open space exists and will be retained.
F. The proposed development is harmonious in scale
and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding
residences because the structures will have a building pad coverage
of 32.8% and a total lot coverage of 11.8%, which are less that the
prescribed maximum percentages permitted by the City.
G. The proposed development is sensitive and not
detrimental to convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians
and vehicles because the existing driveway entry will not be
changed.
H. The project conforms with the requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act and is categorically exempt
from environmental review.
Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings, the
Commission hereby approves the site plan review application for an
expansion of the residential structure on the property located at 9
Caballeros Road as indicated on the development plan attached hereto
as Exhibit A and subject to the conditions set forth in Section 10 of
this Resolution.
Section 8. With respect to the joint application
submitted by Mr. Siu and Dr. and Mrs. Mansoor Mirsaidi for
construction of a retaining wall crossing the common property line,
Sections 17.32.010 through 17.32.030 permit approval of a variance
from the standards and requirements of the Zoning ordinance when
exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property
and not applicable to other similar properties in the same zone
prevent the owner from making use of the property to the same extent
enjoyed by similar properties. Pursuant to these Sections, the
Planning Commission finds that:
A. Due to the shape and topography of the lot and
the existing developmental pattern, construction of a retaining wall
within the side yard is necessitated due to significant topographical
conditions that exist, and because such wall is necessary to allow
vehicular access to the rear each parcel.
B. In view of the topographical situation and the
existing developmental pattern, there exists unique circumstances,
not generally applicable to other properties in the same zone, that
justify the encroachment of the retaining wall. The construction of
the wall will permit vehicular access to the rear of the parcels and
mitigate potentially unsafe conditions by supporting the sloping
topography adjacent to the vehicular access.
C. The grant of the variance under these
circumstances will not be detrimental to the public health, safety
and welfare, and will be compatible with surrounding properties and
will be consistent with the goals of the Zoning Ordinance because the
retaining wall serves to support earth on Lot 31-SK that may impact
Lot 32-SK should ground failure occur along the vehicular access.
Section 9. Based on the foregoing findings, the
Planning Commission hereby approves the variance for Zoning Case No.
412 to permit construction of a retaining wall which encroaches into
the side yard setback, as indicated in the development plans
submitted with this application and incorporated herein by reference
as Exhibit A, subject to the conditions set forth in Section 10 of
this Resolution.
Section 10. The variance granted in Section 4, the site
plan review approved in Section 7, and the variance granted in
Section 9 are subject to the following conditions:
A. The variance to construct a residential addition
in the side yard setback as indicated on the development plan shall
not be effective if the existing residential structure is demolished
to an extent of more than fifty (50%) percent.
B. Pursuant to Section 9, the variance for the
construction of a retaining wall as indicated on the developmental
plan shall not be effective unless a certified copy of the settlement
agreement, as filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court entitled
Stinnett v. Mirsaidi, L.A.S.C. Case No. C 694969, is filed with the
City Clerk.
C. The variance approvals shall expire if not used
in one year from the effective date of approval as defined as
specified in Section 17.32.110 of the Municipal Code.
D. The proposed building plan must be approved by
the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Committee
before the applicant receives a grading permit from the County of Los
Angeles.
• •
E. Prior to the submittal of a final grading plan
to the County of Los Angeles, the grading plan shall be submitted to
the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their review, along
with related geology, soils and hydrology reports. This grading plan
must conform to the development plan as approved by the Planning
Commission.
F. A landscape plan must be submitted to the City
of Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for approval. The
landscaping plan submitted must comply with the purpose and intent of
the Site Plan Review Ordinance. The landscaping plan shall
incorporate existing mature trees and native vegetation. A bond in
the amount of the cost estimate for the landscaping plus 15% may be
required to be posted and retained with the City for not less than
two years after landscape installation. The retained bond will be
released by the City after the City Manager determines that the
landscaping was installed pursuant to the landscaping plan as
approved, and that such landscaping is properly established and in
good condition.
G. The working drawings submitted to the County
Department of Building and Safety for plan check must conform to the
development plan approved with this site plan review.
H. Any modifications to the development plan as
approved by the planning Commission shall require the filing of an
application for modification of the development plan and must be
reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to Section
17.34.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code.
day
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th
April , 1990.
/s/ Allan Roberts
Allan Roberts, Chairman
ATTEST:
\41;(2
Deputy f'ity!"Clerk
r
% 01/17/90 • 18:09
•
002
•
.,
MUTUAL RELEASE
AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
itEaw
MAR 2 0 1990
CITY bt` ROLLING HILLS
By
1. 1' R1'XES
1.1. The parties to this Mutual Release ali2H0JettlenOWS.
Agreement ("Agreement") are Rolling Hills Community oiation
of Rancho Palos Verdes ("RCHA"), represented by sid* T. Crab,
Roy Stinnett and Rosemarie Stinnett (hereinafter theI
"STINNETTS") , represented by chriatopher F. Wilson o!l ,the law
offices of Morgan, Lewis & Sockius, and Jesse 8. Heriat,dos of the
law offices of Anderson, NcPharlin & Conners, and Merlsoor end
Manzar Mirsaidi (hereinafter the "MIRSAIDIS"), repted by
Alex Powell of the law offices of Cornell, Powell, Mievney &
Hackett and Neil Gunny of the ].aw offices of Sages a Nsasphy.
2. RECITALS
2.1 On or about auly 13, 1988, the bT
action in the Los Angeles superior court entitled
,irsaid i, L.A.S.C. Case No. C 694 969, alleging,
interferences with an easement, emotional distress,
injury. The MIRSAIDIS filed an Answer\denying the s
the Complaint.
•
2.2 On or about September 7, 19e6, .the 11107.0AXDZS
filed a cross -complaint against the STINNETT8 eliegt#ty,
Alia, interference with an easement,* emotional distsisips, and
01,17,90 • 18:10
•
003
personal injury. The STINNETTS filed an Answer dki#Aqthe
allegations of the Cross -Complaint.
2.3 The parties have now agreed to set4
e1.
disputes between them.
3. ZOBZEI liF.'I'NZEI�.. MiR„ PARtaBfi
3.1 7avntu by us Parties. The 1411110tiVIS Shall Soey
the sum of $16,500.00 to the STINNETTS; the STINNIOTS shell pert'
the sum of $16, 500.00 to the MIRSAIDIS: and IRRCA shall pay the
Scum of $1,000.00 for easement clearance. Said polOwnts:shell be
allocated by the parties as set forth in section '3f.2 below.
1--
3.2 Allocation.of Pods. Of the $34, OO to be paid,
$22,000 will be allocated to the STINNETTS as froctiional disks
•
and -physical injury compensationt.$12,000 vill'be allocated to
the STINNETTS for clearance of the easement. If the cost of
clearance of the easement exceeds, $12, 000, they of
MIRSAIDIS will pay the additional monies needed
equally the additional expense. It the cost of
than $12 , 000, the unused easement clearance funds'
to the MIRSAIDIs.
3.3 �a�een�_and
and
will share
darance is loss
Shell be paid
retaining wall ("New Retaining Wall') which is 30
A
*eeest long and
01/17/90 .18:11
•
004
32 inches high at its highest portion shall be built in the
easement. The easement shall be at least 17 fee t4Lde ,at !the
dowhill end of the Now Retaining Wall. The uphillrl and of .the Mew
Retaining Wall shall terminate at, the downhill end* the
conorete stripe presently in the easement.
The MIR$AIDIS eshall . be permitted to cutltnd m imtain .an
entrance into the easement from their parking areal thigh the
old retaining wall presently in the easement whictieis cleeeot to
tha MIRs1 IDI house. The entrance' shall not 20 feet in
width. The entrance shall be for a driveway.
Oleander bushes ourz ently in the oast 11. be
removed or moved back away from the STINNICTT pr sty at Least
five feet and replanted or replaced.
Dirt, top -soil or fill dirt removed
pursuant to this agreement to clear blockage of
shall be placed in lower areas ,of the easement
easement to bs passable by a hay truck into the
ea(e etionb
II
driveway. Decomposed granite may be placed in th6leameSent tta
help make the easement passable by a hay truck.
The concrete strips, old retaining valt ap fennel and
drainage pipes currently in the easement need no 1,o fc drved.
- 3
01/17/90 •18:11
•
005
The five ash tress along the edge of thelFIPSIAIZt
property closest to the STTNNSTT property shall be1reasovedlby tbs
MIRSAIDIS and replanted, if at all; in a location +er.• they via l
not block or grow to bloc) the view from the STXMOIOT prepertY
3,4 trainin
R� Q- Wea. The MIUSl1Tatl:Itsd }OMMTTS
will and hereby do stipulate to the restraining osier• e,kmbeid.•
heroto as Exhibit 1.
3.5 Dismissal With Preiudice. The mites 's3esill
I
prepare, execute and filo requests for dismissal, -Sith preludiCie,
dismissing the lawsuit referred to in the recitals,
3.6 Couts_ a►n¢ Peen. . The parties 1 biSertheiti
own costs and attorneys' fees (except to the extent insuteinee
carriers for the parties are obligated to pay dst114 cis
incurred by their insureds).
3.7 conajeration. The execution a0i(e1
documents provided for herein is in consideratior this
execution and delivery of releases contained in ti t Aeht.
'4.
4.1 Re1U06s. For the consideration •' •forth• Lin
this Agreement, the receipt and adequacy of which -lie hereby
1'
f:
I! !
01ii7/90 • 18:12
•
006
1
w
i
acknowledged, the parties to this Agreement, and
hereby release and forever discharge each other, sil
Jowls! of
their assocfatQs, owners, stockholders, prededeseellet.ea4c 4o ,
heirs, spouses, executors, administrators, assigniolvente,
insurers, directors, officers, partners, joint vaC4Overs,
lawyers, and all persons acting by, through, under for invonoe t
with them, or any of them, from any and all claisis�Idemands,
actions or causes of action, or obligations, liabilities,
indebtedness, breaches of contract, breaches of dolor, suite,
liens, Lawsuits, costs, or expanses of any natur.! alsoever,
known or unknown, fixed or contingent (except enyP4g nts••or
claims arising directly from this Agreement), ur1i4rq out•ot,
based upon, or relating to the lawsuit referred tel in th.
Recitals, the claims made in it, or the facts a11d od1 in it.
(The parties, however, reserve any unresolved aia1astbearnay
have against their own insurers.)
4.2 Jvenants. The Settling• Parties; * ttiggiOrr
covenant and agree that they will pursue no ale � St ems( id
action against the other parties hereto, their } j I
assigns, agents, insurers, employees, attorneys th t
attorneys at law, or any of them,.'colloctively o i via ly !
for any type of relief that in any fashion itnrcioftlaretieeis
from the lawsuits described in the Recitals h ve10,! including the
prosecution thereof. (Except that the parties pxve'the
-5 _
01/17/90 018:13
•
rights to pursue any unresolved claims they mkbt
their own insurers.)
4.3 WarrAntips. Each of the pes1.4400
sent, and warrants to the other that each has:. .
capacity, and authority to enter into this 14i redOsit. "1.
none of them has sold, assigned, .er in any'maumeeprii210fittribetOnT
claims which any of them ever had against the othiiir.to air th. 1
d
party, and that no other releases or nettleMoat 114
from any other person or entity to release aMda ! •
007
f ii
completely the other parties from the claims
4.4 Waives.. It is the intentlo>a
executing this
each and every
specified from
Agreement, and
Agreement that it shall be ei
claim, demand, and cause of actebilit
the beginning of time to the date
in furtherance of ;this intentiouii
4tootinio**ii‘.
expressly waive any and all rights and benefits
them by the provisions of Section 1542 of tb* ti
any similar provision of any other state, f
statute, code, ordinance, or law .and expresw1y.
releases contained in this Agreement shall btll0
and effect according to each and all
of this Agreement, including as well
and unsuspected.claims, demands, and
'itettii It*
i(t4404
ttideti
i it6.•
expres • Is
those re as►tilst+ftci. s l�
causes of 14noit•' !,.•
fil
'f.
Ili
If
I!"
I. •
MAR-20-90 TUE 11037 SC.A ESCROW
parties to this Agreement. Section 1542 of the Civil Code, which
is hereby waived, reads as follows:
A general release does not extend
to claims which a creditor does not
know or suspect to exist in his favor
at the time of executing the release,
.
which if known by him, must have
materially affected his settlement with
the debtor.
4.5 genreseitat,ons. As further consideration for
the entry into this Agreement, the parties, and each of them,
warrant and represent that neither they, nor any corporation or
entity in which they are an owner, which is controlled by them,
or in which they have an interest, intends to assert any claim or
file any lawsuit against any other party to this Agreement
arising out of, based upon, or relating to the lawsuit referred
to in the Recitals. the claims made in it, or the facts alleged
in it.
5. riCECUTION NOT AM ADMISSION
By entering into this Agreement, no party hereto admits
that the claims of the other were or are valid or meritorious.
Each party hereto has in the past denied and continues to deny
- 7 -
tt MAR=2e=1S°90 '• TUE " 1 1 : 37 Se. A'' ESCRo,.j
•
•d ii �._ .. 'r'<jF',t:3•fie .P 0 A
the claims, assertions, allegations, and contentions of the
others, and this Agreement and the underlying Settlement are
strictly for the purpose of compromising disputes.
6. ApvIO OP COUNSEL,
Each party represents and warrants that, in agreeing to
the terms of this Agreement, it has read the document, has had
the document explained by counsel of choice, is aware of the
content and legal effect of the document, and is acting on the
advice of counsel of choice and not in reliance on any
representation of the other parties to the Agreement, except as
expressly set forth herein.
7. NI$C T,LANEOUS
7.1 Further Actions. Each of the parties hereto
agrees to execute and deliver to each of the other parties hereto
all additional documents, instruments, and agreements, and to
take such additional action as is required to implement the terms
and conditions of this Agreement.
7.2 Assignments. The parties agree that the rights
arising out of paragraph 3.4 of this Agreement shall not be
assignable and shall not inure to the benefit of the heirs,
8
01/17/90 • 18:14
•
personal representatives, successors, or
or any of them.
7.3 Attorneys' Taivs_to_lnroxcli.
or in equity to enforce any of the provisions OtT
009
: •
this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be m0,00 04,4oOper.
from the unsuccessful party all costs, expenses460460000,000;
attorneys' tees incurred by the prevailing party4inaluangi
without limitations, such costs, expenses, and ieriftottainipeal;):
and, if such prevailing party shall recover Ind** itilnkt11140b3
action or proceeding, such costs and expenses, $.46104iiiirt***of
expert witnesses and attorneys' fees, shall be iitfrFAtuoids)04011rt
of the judgment.
7.4 $ntirtAareement. This
entire Agreement and understanding concern:Lig,
heroin and supersedes and replaces any prLor it1t0041(
agreement between the parties hereto, either 1041:014423001.14i1
except as expressly provided herein. h .
. .
7.5 anglisia/fLiay. ! This • 115'
interpreted under the laws of the state *fa* 0
construed according to its fair:meaning, an0,4444.'. .10444bSt I
strictly construed against any party herets-
.11
•
•
j
i
01/17/90 41118:15
• • 010
•
7.6 , Duaimatal. Ths partiei t y
originals of this Agreement, in counterparts, c ;
they are required to aign or furnish hai etut p1 1'
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT::
MORGAN, LLWXS & BOCKX"Cs
By:� hvF•
�� ChristoOher F. Wilson
Attorneys for the STINNETTB
Dated:
ANDERSON, MOPHARLIN is CONNERS
By:
JSSSE 8. HERNANDEZ
Attorneys for the STINNETTS
Dated:
CORNELL, POWE
Attorneys for the MIRSAIDIS
i
Dated:
HAGENBAUGH & MURPHY
By:
Mail Gunny
Attorneys for the MIRSAIDIS
Dated!
•
fi
• 1.
y3
II
1;
- 10 -
01i1?/90 41/19:19
OF Sion F• CBOTyAW dgFICFS
8Y
:1 F o • • ELLS
co = for /ATVS or
SOCHO CO ' WAS VE0$$
Datadt
Dated=
Datedt
Devil
. Dates'
011,90 18:17
•
012
LAW OFFICES OF SIDNEY F. CROFT i
By:
Sidney F. Croft
Attorneys for ROLLING HILLS,
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION OF '
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
Dated:
i
r 11
Nam
Datldt
Datedt
Ro11iflq
Assaf
Verdes
By:
Its
Datedt
♦,'
li
01/17/90 41118:16
r 10 1 1fo 1 •111W}Y4
•
•
LAW OFFICES Or SIDNEY !1. CROFT
By:
Sidney F. Croft
Attorneys for ROLLING HILLS
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION OF I
RANCHO PALOS VERDES r i ::
i Ii Ali ?
kiI i !
Dated: 91!':liii��.,1ia, 1..•• iii 1 1 y1 -.1':1 : ' !.
i. 1
1
Dated: ;.. 'i
1;i•
:
'
a
Dated:
Dated:
Dated:
Rollipor
Asscciet
Verdes
BY:
Its
a1 ,1:
IT, :•
:.4
t' i ,I ' o �f �-1`1
r, I, .ri.' .1 .i.•
II;
Dated: .; , t 1i
11 1�
w i.i1, I. , 1• ! I' 1
fy•
•