533, Grading required prior to cons, Staff Reports• •
L C1t o/IQO//�n „AI
50TH ANNIVERSARY
1957 — 2007
MEMORANDUM
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377.1521
FAX: (310) 377.7288
TO: HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 7B
DATE: APRIL 17, 2007
Mr. Bernard Howroyd requested that this item be placed last on the agenda. He is
traveling on business and will be coming back that evening.
® Printed on Recycled Paper
• •
city �,� een9il.ff
50TH ANNIVERSARY
1957 — 2007
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310)377.1521
FAX: (310) 377-7288
DATE: APRIL 17, 2007
TO: HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF A CONDITION OF
APPROVAL IN ZONING CASE NO. 553, MR. BERNARD
HOWROYD, 7 MAVERICK LANE
REQUEST
The property owner, Mr. Bernard Howroyd, has requested that the Planning
Commission review Resolution No. 97-10, condition "R" in Zoning Case No. 553,
approved by the Planning Commission on May 20, 1997, and provide
interpretation as to the intent of that condition. The applicant is asking for
reconsideration of the condition in order to proceed with additional development
on his property. The applicant has indicated an interest in adding a garage to the
property. Although the City has not received final plans, the RHCA has already
received and approved plans. Enclosed is Mr. Howroyd's request with
attachments.
BACKGROUND
1. On 5/3/05 City staff noticed in the minutes of RHCA Architectural
Committee meeting that the Committee approved a garage addition at
that address. Staff contacted the project architect to inform him that
City's approval would be required as well.
2. On 5/10/05 the architect submitted plans for a 674 sq.ft. addition
(garage) and requested an over -the counter approval. Staff researched
the project file and found that a restrictive condition was placed on a
previous application, in Zoning Case No. 553, which reads that "any
modifications to the project, which would constitute additional
structural development shall require the filing of a new application for
Site Plan Review approval by the Planning Commission". Staff advised
the architect that it would like to review the case further to determine
the applicability of the condition.
3. Zoning Case No. 553 was a request for a Variance to recognize
unauthorized substantial import of soil for a previously approved
7 Maverick 1 0
® Printed on Recycled Paper
•
stable and corral and a request for modification to a previously
approved Site Plan to allow the increased grading for the construction
of the stable and corral.
4. In reviewing the files, staff found that the language pertaining to this
condition is stated differently in the minutes of the approval of the
modification of the grading and import of soil in ZC. No. 553 than in
the Resolution. The minutes indicate that Chairman (Roberts) stated
that " he would like to assure that any further development on this
property be brought back before the Planning Commission". See the
enclosed minutes dated April 15,1997.
The minutes indicate that all of the Commissioners in attendance expressed
concern over the fact that this application came before the Commission "after the
fact". Commissioner Hankins expressed concern over the exceedance of the
building pad coverage.
5. Subsequently, staff conferred with the Assistant City Attorney. After
reviewing the resolution, minutes and staff report in Zoning Case No.
553, the assistant City Attorney responded to staff that in her opinion
her review points to the interpretation that the Commission felt that too
much was being done on this property and was concerned that the
applicant neglected to get permits for prior work. These Commission
concerns support the interpretation that the condition intended that any
further construction/grading on the property would have to come
before the Commission. She also stated that, staff can disagree with her
interpretation, and over -rule it.
6. On 5/23/05 City Manager met with Mr. Howroyd to discuss the City's
and the Attorney's interpretation of the condition in resolution No. 97-
10. The City Manager offered several options, including that Mr.
Howroyd apply for a Site Plan Review for the addition or request an
interpretation of the condition from the Planning Commission.
7. In July 2005, Mr. Howroyd contacted the office of the City Attorney and
on July 22, 2005 met with the Assistant City Attorney. On August 10,
2005, the Assistant City Attorney issued a letter to Mr. Howroyd,
enclosed, stating her opinion in this matter, concluding that "The City
Attorney and the City Manager have considered your contention and,
after reviewing the Resolution, the Minutes and the Municipal Code,
have concluded that your proposed addition requires approval of the
Planning Commission. Accordingly, you must apply for a site plan
review approval for the addition".
8. In September 2005, Mr. Howroyd wrote a letter to Mr. Allan Roberts
(former Planning Commission Chairman) asking him for clarification
and interpretation of the condition in Resolution No. 97-10, whether it
applied to the project at hand or to any further development on the
property.
7 Maverick
2 2
• •
9. On 10/6/05 Mr. Howroyd submitted a response to the City from Allan
Roberts, stating that the restriction was placed on the project before the
Planning Commission at that time.
10. Subsequently, several meetings were held between staff and Mr.
Howroyd concerning this matter. Staff continued to provide Mr.
Howroyd with the option to request Planning Commission
interpretation of the condition of approval.
11. On March 30, 2007, Mr. Howroyd submitted a letter to the City asking
to be placed on the Planning Commission agenda to request Planning
Commission interpretation of this condition.
CONCLUSION
The Commission may modify the condition to clarify that it does not apply to
future development. In that case, the Resolution will need to be considered at a
future meeting and then presented to the City Council for approval of the
modified Resolution. Alternatively, the Commission may concur with the
condition as is, so that a site plan review would be necessary for any future
development.
7 Mave:rie.k
a
Bernard Howroyd
March 30, 2007
Honorable Chairman Witte
And Members of the Planning Commission
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
By
t.�
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
SUBJECT: Request for review of staff's interpretation of a condition of approval in Resolution No. 97-10.
Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
In 1997, I came before the Planning Commission for a modification to a Site Plan Review application for
grading and construction of a stable and corral, which was approved in 1996. The request for modification
consisted of additional grading and a variance for improper importation of soil. The modification was
approved on May 20, 1997 by Resolution No. 97-10. One of the conditions of this resolution states that "any
modification to the project which would constitute additional structural development shall require the filing of
a new application for a Site Plan Review approval by the Planning Commission".
I now wish to add a 720 square foot garage to my residence, and convert the existing garage to living space.
This would ordinarily be subject to "over the counter approval". However, the City may have interpreted the
intent of the 1997 approval to require Planning Commission review for any future development on my
property.
My recollection of the meetings is that the restriction related to the improper importation of soil and
additional grading for the 1996 project, and was not intended to apply to my house as well. So I contacted the
then Chairman, Allan Roberts, to get his recollection on the intent of the restriction in Resolution No. 97-10.
Mr. Roberts' recollection is the same as mine, and he states that the restriction was put on the project under
review at that time. (See enclosed letters.)
As a twenty year resident who enjoys my home with my family in this community, I look forward to many more
years here. So, I am asking that you please review the attached resolution toward your interpretation that I may
be permitted to complete this project of under 1000 square feet. Your earliest consideration will be very
appreciated by me and my family.
Respectfully,
Us-t-S-4
Bernard Howroyd
7 MAVERICK LANE
ROLLING HILLS. CALIFORNIA 9u274
03/29/2007 15:49 3103777288 ROLLING HILLS PAGE 05/11
RESOLUTION NO. 97-10
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE
THE PREVIOUSLY ILLEGALLY IMPORTED AND SUBSTANTIAL
AMOUNT OF SOIL FOR A STABLE AND CORRAL AREA AND
•GRANTING A REQUEST FOR A MODIFICATION TO AN
APPROVED SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION TO ALLOW THE
INCREASED GRADING QUANTITIES TO REMAIN AT THE SITE
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW STABLE AND CORRAL
AREA AT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN
ZONING CASE NO. 553.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY
FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Applications were duly filed on February 6,1997, by Mr. Bernard
Howroyd with respect to real property located at 7 Maverick Lane, Rolling Hills (Lot
28-SK) requesting a Variance to allow the previously illegally and imported
substantial amount of soil that is in excess of a previous Administrative approval
and a request for a modification of an approved Site Plan Review application for a
stable and corral area to allow unauthorized increased grading quantities on the site.
These applications were made after it came to light that a substantial amount of soil
was imported that exceeded the amount permitted by Administrative approval• and
that grading had begun and had been substantially increased without City and
County approvals.
Section 2; On January 16, 1996, the Planning Commission approved an
application for Site Plan Review to construct a stable with loft and corral area that
required grading by Resolution No. 96-1 in Zoning Case No. 535. A previous
application for the same stable with loft and corral area was approved by the
Planning Commission on September 7, 1993, extended for one year, and expired. on
September 7, 1995.
SectiQn3.. An "as graded" plan was submitted by the applicant that showed
substantial amounts of soil imported as well as substantial amounts of additional
grading. At the construction site, the eastern portion of the pad for the stable and
corral area had been raised and substantially expanded.
Section 4. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public
hearing to consider the applications for a Variance and Site Plan Review on March
18, 1997 and April 15,1997, and at a field trip visit on April 5, 1997.
Section 5. The applicant was notified of the public hearing in writing by
first' class mail and through the City's newsletter. Evidence was heard and
presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal, from all persons
RESOLUTION NO. 97.10
PAGE 1
03/29/2007 15:49 3103777288
•
ROLLING HILLS CITY PAGE 06/11.
protesting the same, and from members of the City staff and the Planning
Commission having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. Concerns
expressed by Planning Commissioners, residents and the applicant focused on the
excessive importation of soil that took place without City and. County approvals, the
increased grading that took place without City and County approvals, the disruption,
of the property site, the disruptions experienced by the neighbors, and the
substantial enlargement of the building pad for the stable and corral at the subject
site.
Section 6. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a
Class 3 Exemption (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301(e)) and is therefore
categorically exempt from environmental review under the California
Environmental Quality Act.
Section 7. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Rolling Hills
Municipal Code 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 a parcel of
property to the same 'extent enjoyed by similar properties in the same vicinity.
Paragraph 3 of Subsection 7016.9 of Section 15.04.170 of Title 15 (Building and
Construction Code) permits the City Manager to grant an exception to the balanced
cut and fill ratio under certain conditions to allow for the' importation of soil not to
exceed 500 cubic yards. The applicant is requesting to allow a previously illegally
imported and substantial amount of soil that is in excess of the previous
Administrative approval. Soil quantities cut were 340 cubic yards and dirt quantities
fill.ed. were 1,750 cubic yards. Of these quantities, 1,410 cubic yards of soil were
imported to the building site. With respect to this request for a Variance, the
Planning Commission finds as follows:
A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and
conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply
generally to the other property or class of use in the same zone because the lot is
irregular and the building pads are located close to the street, side yards, and adjacent
residences. The soil prepared for the stable and corral area pad shrank more than
anticipated and. required additional soil quantities. Without the additional soil, the
sloping rear portion, precludes an adequate pad sized for the stable and corral area.
B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment
of a substantia,1 property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and
zone, but which is denied to the property in question. The Variance is necessary
because the additional imported soil will support and stabilize the pad for the stable
and corral area.
C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially
detrirnental, to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in
RESOLUTION NO. 97-10
PAGE 2
n.s, tWLUOI 17: a: • 31e3777:
•
ROLLING HILLS CITY
•
PAGE 07/11
such vicinity andzone in which• the property is located. The development of a
stable with loft and enlargement of the building pad for the stable and corral area,
will allow a substantial portion of the lot to remain undeveloped.
Section 8. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission
hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 553 to permit the previously
illegally imported 1,410 cubic yards of soil that is in excess of a previous
Administrative approval as indicated on the development plan submitted with this
application and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A, subject to the
conditions specified in Section 11 of this Resolution.
Section Section 17.46.010 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code requires a
development plan to be submitted for site plan' review and approval before any
grading takes place, or any building or structure may be constructed or any
expansion, addition, alteration or repair to existing buildings may be made which
involve changes to grading or an increase to the size of the building or structure by
at least 1,000 square feet and has the effect of increasing the size of the building or
structure by more than twenty-five percent (25%) in any thirty-six month period.
The applicant is requesting to modify the approved Site Plan application for a stable
and corral area to allow unauthorized increased grading quantities on the site where
grading has taken, place. The applicant's latest proposal submitted on February 6,
1997, requests increasedgrading quantities of 1,410 cubic yards of fill soil. With
respect to this request, the Planning Commission makes the following findings of
fact:
A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan, the
Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses because the proposed structure complies
with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low density residential
development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. The
project conforms to Zoning Code setback and lot coverage requirements. The lot has
a net square foot area of 109,197 square feet. The proposed stable (1,294 sq.ft.), existing
residence (4,964 sq.ft.), garage (540 sq.ft.), swimming pool (623 sq.ft.), and service yard
(96 sq.ft.) will have 7,517 square feet which constitutes 6.9% of the lot which is
within the maximum 20% structural lot coverage requirement. The total lot
coverage including paved areas and driveway will be 16,050 square feet which equals
14.7% of the lot, which is within the 35% maximum overall lot coverage
requirement. Coverage on the lower stable pad will be 17% which is similar in size
to several neighboring developments. The proposed project is on a relatively large
lot with the proposed structure located away from the road so as to reduce the visual
impact of the development and is similar and compatible with several neighboring
developments.
B. The development, as modified, 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). The additional grading and imported soil
RESOLUTION NO. 97-10
PAGE 3
03/23/2007 15:49 3103777 85
ROLLING HILLS CITY PAGE 08/11.
• •
for this project willprovide additional stability to the stable and corral area and the
hillside area in which it is located.
C. The development plan follows natural contours of the site to
minimize grading and the natural drainage courses will continue to the eastern
canyon at the rear of the lot. The additional grading quantities do not cause
substantial modification to land forms because the hillside will be stabilized, will
conform to the City and. County slope safety standards, and the graded areas will be
recompacted to a higher compaction level than existing soil conditions.
D. The development -plan incorporates existing large trees and native
vegetation to the maximum extent feasible and, as reconditioned, supplements it
with landscaping that is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the
community.
E. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and
undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage because the new
structures will not cause the structural and total lot coverage to be exceeded.
Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped so as to minimize the impact
of development. Further, the proposed stable project will have a buildable pad
coverage of 17%. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped so as to
maintain scenic vistas across the northeasterly portions of the property.
F. The proposed development, as conditioned, is harmonious in scale
and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences. As indicated
in Paragraph A, the lot coverage maximum will not be exceeded and the proposed
project is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood, when compared. to this large
lot. Grading was done to recornpact the soil and provide stability to the hillside. The
ratio of the proposed. structures to lot size is similar to the ratio found art several.
properties in the vicinity.
G. The proposed development is sensitive to and not detrimental to the
convenience and safety of circulation of pedestrians and vehicles because the
proposed project will utilize existing Maverick Lane for access and will not be
. altered.
The project will not have a significant effect on the environment and
is categorically exempt from environmental review under the California
Environmental Quality Act.
Section 10, Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission
hereby approves a modification to an approved Site Plan Review application to
allow increased grading quantities at the site for a stable and corral area. The
modifications are shown on the Development Plan and marked Exhibit A in
Zoning Case No. 553. The approved modifications are subject to the conditions
contained in Section 11 of this Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 97.10
PAGE 4
• 03/29/2007 15:49
3103777288
•
ROLLING HILLS CITY
PACE 09/11
Section 11. The Variance to permit the previously illegally imported 1,410
cubic yards of soil that is in excess of a previous Administrative approval and
modification to an approved Site Plan Review application to allow increased
grading at the site for a stable and corral area approved in Sections 8 and 10, as
indicated on the Development Plan attached hereto and incorporated herein as
Exhibit A in Zoning Case No. 553, are subject to the following list of conditions.
These conditions include applicable conditions of approval previously imposed on
the Site Plan Review application by Resolution. No. 96-1 on January 16, 1996. To the
extent these conditions duplicate prior conditions imposed on this project, the
conditions set forth herein shall be considered as continuations of those, prior
requirements:
A. The Variance and Site Plan Review approvals shall expire within one
year from the effective date of approval as defined in Section, 17.38.070(A) and
Section 17.46.080(A).
13. It is declared and made a condition of the Variance and Site Plan
Review approvals, that if any conditions thereof are violated, the Permit shall be
suspended and the privileges granted thereunder shall lapse; provided that the
applicant has been given written notice to cease such violation and has failed to do
so for a period of thirty (30) days.
C. All requirements of the Building and Construction Ordinance, the
Zoning Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be
complied with unless otherwise approved by Variance. •
D. The stable, loft and corral area shall be developed and maintained in
substantial conformance with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A except as
otherwise provided in these conditions.
E. New grading plans shall be submitted to the County Department of
Building a.n.d Safety for grading plan check review and must conform to the
development plan approved with this application.
F. Total grading for this project, including all other, approvals for this
property, shall not exceed 340 cubic yards of cut soil and 1,750 cubic yards of fill soil.
No further soil shall be imported or exported from the property.
G. Any grading shall preserve the existing topography, flora, and natural
features to the greatest extent possible.
H. The easterly downsl.ope of the corral area shall be repaired and restored
to a 2:1 slope ratio as required by the Rolling Hills Municipal Code and the County
of Los Angeles.
RESOLUTION NO. 97-10
PAGES
03/29/2007 15:49 3103777288
•
ROLLING HILLS CITY PAGE 10/1f
•
H. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed, 7,517 square feet or 6.9% and
total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 16,050 square feet or
14.7%.
1. Maximum disturbed area of the lot shall not exceed 39.33% of the net
lot area.
The building pad coverage for the stable and corral shall not exceed
K. The stable loft shall have no glazed openings and the loft area shall be
limited in use to the storage of feed, tack, and stable equipment.
L. The stable and loft shall be limited in use to horsekeeping activities
and shall not be converted or otherwise used for habitable space.
M. The building permit issued in 1994 for an attached 440 square foot
garage shall be completed, inspected by the County and finalled.
N. All free-standing retaining walls incorporated into the project shall not
be greater than 5 feet in height at any one point.
O. Landscaping shall be designed to prevent slope erosion on disturbed
slopes that shall be well -planted using native drought resistant vegetation and
irrigated.
P. • Prior to the submittal, of an applicable final grading plan to the County
of Los Angeles for plan check, a detailed grading and drainage plan with related
geology, soils and hydrology reports that conform to the development plan as
approved by the Planning Commission must be submitted, to the Roiling Hills
Planning Department staff for their review. Cut and fill slopes must conform to the
City of Rolling Hills standard of 2 to 1 slope ratio.
Q. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills
Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior, to the issuance of
any building or grading permit.
R. Notwithstanding Section 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code,
any modifications to the project which would constitute additional structural ``�
development shall require the filing of a new application for, Site Plan Review
approval by the Planning Commission.
S. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions
of. these Variance and Site Plan Review approvals, or the approvals shall not be
effective.
RESOLUTION NO. 97-10
PAGE
•03/29/2007 15:49 3103777288
V •
ROLLING HILLS CITY
• Ill
HAUL 11 / 11
T. All conditions of these Variance and Site Plan Review approvals must
be complied with prior to the issuance of a building or, grading permit from the
County of Los Angeles.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON THE 20TH DAY OF MAY, 1997.
ATTEST:
MARILYN K RN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
)
) §S
ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 97-10 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE THE
PREVIOUSLY ILLEGALLY IMPORTED AND SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF
SOIL FOR A STABLE AND CORRAL AREA AND GRANTING A REQUEST
FOR A MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN REVIEW
APPLICATION TO ALLOW THE INCREASED GRADING QUANTITIES TO
REMAIN AT THE SITE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW STABLE
AND CORRAL AREA AT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT IN ZONING CASE NO. 553.
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on May 20, 1997
by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Hankins, Sommer, Witte and
Chairman Roberts.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None .
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Margeta.
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices
MARILYN KE , DEPUTY CITY CLERK
RESOLUTION NO. 97-10
PAGE 7
(13
7 Maverick Lane
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
August 17, 2005
Allan Roberts
1303 Stonewood Court
San Pedro,,CA 90731
Dear Allan:
Pinl4
By
OCT 0 6 2005
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
I live at 7 Maverick Lane, and I reed clarification regarding Resolution No. 97-10,
which you signed on May 20, 1997, as Chairman of the Planning Commission. I
have enclosed a copy of the Resolution and the minutes forwarded to me by the
City of Rolling Hills.
There is a misunderstanding between the City and myself on this resolution. I
am now in the process, 8 years later, of wishing to put caissons in the landslide
area of my driveway, and extend an existing patio over my garage by
approximately 700 square feet.
This work would ordinarily be subject to permit "over the counter," but the City
has taken the position that the 1997 variance requires ongoing Planning
Commission approval for any alterations to the property.
To the contrary, my recollection of the meeting, and my reading of the
resolution, is that the variance was related to the improper importation of soil for
the 1997 project, and was not intended to require Planning Commission approval
for future projects.
Would you kindly study Resolution No. 97-10 and give me clarification as to
whether it was the intention of the Planning Commission that the resolution
apply to the 1997 project on the lower pad only, or if is was meant to apply to
my house as well.
I hope this letter finds you in good health, and I will be very grateful for your
honest opinion.
Sincerely,
Bernie Howroyd
Encl: a/s
•
OCTIN31M{PitTO
• 0 e 2005
8y
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
September 12, 2005
Mr. Bernard Hoaroyd
7 May crick Lao:
Rolling Hills, CA 50274
Dear acre:_,
ALLAN ROBERTS
1303 STONEWOOI) COURT
SAN PEDRO, CA 00732
in arisker to your question as to :he intent of Rcsohuticn No. 97.10, w•hirh I signed on
May 20,1997, the rcttriction +.v s put on tie project which vas in violztioa; of
import:,tion of dirt end w:.s intended to avoid sy further importation of dirt on :hat
project.
Hope this c:Z~iies your irtigi ry.
very truiy yours,
Allan Roberts
..�
Fri*I Planner Ungar presented the staff reporalining the applicant's request and the
Pla g Commission field trip. Commissioner Margeta stated that he has abstained from
consideration of zoning —..Case No. 553 due to the proposed project's proximity to his
residence. Chairman Roberts opened the public hearing and called for testimony.
Mr. Bernard Howroyd, applicant, commented on a letter regarding the project submitted by
Mr. James Brogdon, 5 Maverick Lane. He stated that Mr. Brogdon has since stated to him
that it is best that he finish this project. Mr. Howroyd requested that the Planning
•- .Commission allow him to complete his project.
Chairman Roberts stated that he would like to ensure that any further development on
this property be brought back before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Hankins
expressed concern regarding the fact that this project came before the Commission after -
the -fact and that any resolution relative to this case should reflect that this work has
already been done without City approval. She commented on the proposed grading and
the City's 30% guideline. 'In response to Commissioner Hankins, Principal Planner Ungar
reported that the additional soil for this project came from an excavation for a basement at
5 Sagebrush Lane. Chairman Roberts stated that these types of occurrences have led staff to
initiate the grading confirmation process procedures reviewed by the Planning
Commission at a previous meeting.
Hearing no further discussion, Chairman Roberts closed the public hearing and called for a
motion.
Commissioner Witte moved that the Commission direct staff to prepare a Resolution of
Approval for the request for a Variance to allow increased grading quantities in Zoning
Case No. 553 with standard findings of fact and standard conditions of approval including
conditions that any further development on the property would require • Planning
Commission approval, no importation of soil be permitted without Planning Commission
approval and that no living quarters or conversion of the barn area occur. Commissioner
Sommer seconded the motion which carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Hankins, Witte, Sommer and Chairman Roberts.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: Margeta.
Commissioner Witte moved that the Commission direct staff to prepare a Resolution of
Approval for the request for Site Plan Review to allow increased4grading quantities in
Zoning Case No. 553 with standard findings of fact and standard conditions of approval
including conditions that any further development on the property would require
Planning Commission approval, no importation of soil be permitted without Planning
Commission approval and that no living quarters or conversion of the barn area occur.
Commissioner Sommer seconded the motion which carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Hankins, Witte, Sommer and Chairman Roberts.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: Margeta.
Charles Raine, 2 Pinto Road, expressed concern for the proposed project. He questioned
what recourse the City has when violations of the City's Municipal Code occur. Assistant
City Attorney Ennis explained the penalties imposed for violations of the Municipal Code.
ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
CONSIDERATION OF SITE DEVELOPMENT MODIFICATIONS
Commissioner Witte presented a draft letter which he proposes that the City use to deter
unapproved site development. City Manager Nealis reported that staff will be preparing a
report regarding economic penalties and/or other disincentives (or after the fact grading
and methods of increasing the monitoring of a project for review by the Planning
mutes
Planning Commission Meeting
April 15, 1997
.g.
ZoJ!N CASE
553
K1G! ni/'LIOF90 LL: 44 .:aIib4au441
• •
JENKINS & HOGIN LLP
PAGE 02
MICHAEL JENKINS
CHRISTI HOGIN
MARK D. HENSLEY
BRADLEY E. WOHLENBERG
KARL H. BERGER
GREGG KovAcEvicf
joHN C. Corn
LINDA A. BURROWS
ERIXA R. AXLUFI
JENKINS (Sz HOGIN, LLP
A LAW PARTNERSHIP
MANHA1TAN TOWERS
1230 ROSECRANS AVENUE, SUITE 110
MANHATTAN BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90266
(310)643-8448 • FAX (310) 643-8441
wwvt.LocALGovL Aw.coM
August 10, 2005
Mr. Bernard Howroyd
7 Maverick Lane
Rolling Hills, California 90274
Reference: Resolution No. 97-10
Dear Mr. Howroyd:
WRITER.s EMAIL ADDRESS:
CHOGIN @LOCALGO VLA W. COM
I know you have been anxious to receive this letter memorializing our meeting in my
office on July 22, 2005. I am sorry that I have made you wait.
I understand that you want to add 600 square feet to your house. Ordinarily, a permit for
such an addition may be issued administratively, a so-called over-the-counter permit, without the
necessity of a hearing before the Planning Commission. However, your property is subject to the
conditions imposed by Resolution No. 97-10. That Resolution memorialized the City's approval
of your application for an after -the -fact variance for importation of soil and increased grading and
a site plan review for a new stable and corral. The approvals were subject to conditions, which
conditions you accepted. You have built the structures approved by the permits and thereby
accepted the benefits of the approvals.
One of the conditions of approval stated that any modifications to the project which
would constitute additional structural development requires a new site plan review application to
the Planning Commission. You have suggested that this condition creates no obstacle to your
obtaining an administrative, over-the-counter approval from staff for your proposed 600 square
foot addition because, you contend,"project" as used in that condition applies narrowly to the
applications that were the subject of Resolution No. 97-10 (e.g. to permit the illegal importation
of soil, grading and the new stable and corral). Further, you have suggested that the condition is
unambiguous and, in accord with a basic maxim of statutory construction, words should be given
their plain meaning, without reference to evidence beyond the four corners of the Resolution.
uu/ err/ zuun zz: q4 i1Uber38441 JENKINS & HOGIN LLP PAGE 03
• •
jENIZNS & HOGIN, LLP
Mr. Bernard Howroyd
August 10, 2005
Page 2
There are several factors that mitigate against your contention and in favor of the
conclusion that the condition imposed in Resolution No. 97-10 was intended toapply to any
additional structural -development on your property.
1. The Minutes of the April 15, 1997 Planning Commission meeting set forth the
motion that Resolution No. 97-10 memorialized. That motion directed staff to
prepare a resolution approving the application subject to the standard condition
and conditions that "any further development on the property would require
Planning Commission approval, no importation of soil be permitted without
Planning Commission approval and that no living quarters or conversion of the
barn area occur."
2. The findings set forth in the Resolution specifically refer to the limited amount of
structural lot coverage as a basis for approval of the variance and modification to
the development standards in the Zoning Ordinance. Hence, a condition that
heightens review of further structural development that would alter the
circumstances under which the permit was granted follows naturally.
3. It is a regular practice of the Rolling Hills Planning Commission to impose a
condidon of approval that requires any further development on a project site to be
reviewed by the Planning Commission. This condition is imposed where the
Planning Commission finds that such review is necessary to mitigate the potential
impacts caused by the approval of a permit on a site that may be reaching toward
maximum lot coverage or may pose a threat of upsetting a balance on the property
that formed the basis for the approval in the first instance. That condition is
sometimes expressed as "property" and sometimes expressed as "project" but the
Commission's intent has been clear and consistent for many years.
4. City staff has consistently interpreted similarly worded conditions to require
Planning Commission review for all new structures on a property.
I know that you feel that the condition was imposed to punish you for having illegally
imported soil on to your property and that you believe that the property owner that exported the
excess soil has escaped responsibility for his illegal activity. However, there is no indication that
the old issue plays any role in the City's interpretation and enforcement of the condition.
The City Attorney and the City Manager have considered your contention and, after
reviewing the Resolution, the Minutes, and the Municipal Code, have concluded that your
bt/ by/ 1bb5 & : 44 . 1 bb44 441
JENK1NS & HUCi1N LLF' HgbEb4
• •
Mr. Bernard Howroyd
August 10, 2005
Page 3
JENKINS & HOGIN, LLX'
proposed addition requires approval of the Planning Commission. Accordingly, you must apply
for a site plan review approval for the addition.
When we met July 22, I suggested that you have two additional options. First, you may
apply to the Planning Commission for an amendment to the Resolution to eliminate that
condition. The amendment application would require a noticed public hearing before the .
Planning Commission. The Commission's decision is subject to appeal to the City Council.
Alternatively, you may request that the Planning Commission review staffs interpretation of the
condition of the Resolution and consider whether the condition applies CO your proposed
addition. This item would be presented to the Planning Commission as an item from staff and
staff would recommend that the Commission affirm its interpretation. You would be afforded an
opportunity to persuade the Planning Commission that your interpretation is correct.
Finally, there is a subtext CO this dialogue that we have been having that merits mention.
As mentioned above, the Planning Commission approved your stable on the express condition
that the stable not be converted to habitable space and shall be used only for horsekeeping.
Indeed, the permit itself provides that the violation of any condition of approval shall cause the
permit to lapse upon written notice by the City. In our meeting I advised you that the City staff
believes that your stable is no longer being used for horsekeeping. I recommend that you apply for •
a CUP to legalize any change of use at the same time that you apply for the site plan review for
the addition.
Very truly yours,
•
risti Hogin
Assistant City Attorney
City of Rolling Hills
cc: Craig Nealis
Yolanta Schwartz
• •
CttyoPeeting Jd//
50TH ANNIVERSARY
1957 - 2007
DATE: MAY 15, 2007
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310)377.1521
FAX: (310) 377-7288
TO: HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF A CONDITION OF
APPROVAL IN ZONING CASE NO. 553, MR. BERNARD
HOWROYD, 7 MAVERICK LANE
REOUEST
The property owner, Mr. Bernard Howroyd, has requested that the Planning
Commission review Resolution No. 97-10, condition "R" in Zoning Case No. 553,
approved by the Planning Commission on May 20, 1997, and provide
interpretation as to the intent of that condition. The applicant is asking for
interpretation of the condition in order to proceed with additional development
on his property. The applicant has indicated an interest in adding a garage to the
property. Enclosed is Mr. Howroyd's request with attachments.
BACKGROUND
This matter was discussed at the April 17, 2007 Planning Commission meeting
and was continued to tonight's meeting. The April 17 staff report is attached.
The RHCA Architectural Committee approved the garage addition. However,
when the plans were submitted to the City for over-the-counter approval, City
staff researched the property file and determined that Planning Commission
approval would be required. Regardless of Planning Commission's '
determination of the meaning of the condition in the resolution, the City may
require further review of the plans for compliance with the development
standards of the Zoning Ordinance.
At the April 17, 2007 meeting, Commissioners requested information on other
cases with restrictive development condition that were considered in the same
period of time as case No. 553, to find out how the condition reads and if further
development was requested and approved over the counter or required Planning
Commission approval.
Staff looked at 20 cases with a development restriction condition approved
between 1996 and 2000. In all of these cases the restrictive clause reads the same
® Printed on Recycled Paper
• •
as in Mr. Howroyd's case, "Any modification to the project which would
constitute additional structural development shall require the filing of a new
application for approval by the Planning Commission". From looking at these
cases, it appears that previous staff used this language,- whether or not the
Commission had concerns over a particular project or over further development
on the entire property. In 2001, current staff brought this language to the
Planning Commission for interpretation and clarification of how to interpret this
condition for future applications. The Commission agreed that in the future, the
Commission will give staff a clearer direction, and that it would in most cases
apply to any additional development on the property. Since 2001, in cases where
the Commission imposes a restrictive condition, it reads that, any further
modification, development or grading on the "property" requires Planning
Commission approval.
Out of these 20 cases, staff researched 7 properties, which requested subsequent
construction. Out of the seven cases:
• 2 received administrative approval because:
(a) the minutes did not specify Commission's concerns,
(b) the original case was not contentious.
(c) there was never unauthorized work on the property.
• 1. after staff determined that Planning Commission approval would be
required was withdrawn by the applicants.
• 4 received Planning Commission review because:
(a) the minutes of the original cases indicated that the Commission had
concerns over the project based on either grading, lot coverage or
building pad coverage, and/or
Out of the four cases that were brought before the Commission two
would have come before the Planning Commission for other discretionary
approvals, such as a Variance, however, staff determined that a Site Plan Review
would also be required due to the development restriction clause.
Should the Commission request that staff research additional cases, staff will be
prepared to provide this information at the next meeting.
• •
c<<y ope eeng i/I/IfI
50TH ANNIVERSARY
1957 — 2007
DATE: APRIL 17, 2007
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24. 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS. CALIF. 90274
(310) 377.1521
FAX: (310) 377.7288
TO: HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF A CONDITION OF
APPROVAL IN ZONING CASE NO. 553, MR. BERNARD
HOWROYD, 7 MAVERICK LANE
REQUEST
The property owner, Mr. Bernard Howroyd, has requested that the Planning
Commission review Resolution No. 97-10, condition "R" in Zoning Case No. 553,
approved by the Planning Commission on May 20, 1997, and provide
interpretation as to the intent of that condition. The applicant is asking for
reconsideration of the condition in order to proceed with additional development
on his property. The applicant has indicated an interest in adding a garage to the
property. Although the City has not received final plans, the RHCA has already
received and approved plans. Enclosed is Mr. Howroyd's request with
attachments.
BACKGROUND
1. On 5/3/05 City staff noticed in the minutes of RHCA Architectural
Committee meeting that the Committee approved a garage addition at
that address. Staff contacted the project architect to inform him that
City's approval would be required as well.
2. On 5/10/05 the architect submitted plans for a 674 sq.ft. addition
(garage) and requested an over -the counter approval. Staff researched
the project file and found that a restrictive condition was placed on a
previous application, in Zoning Case No. 553, which reads that "any
modifications to the project, which would constitute additional
structural development shall require the filing of a new application for
Site Plan Review approval by the Planning Commission". Staff advised
the architect that it would like to review the case further to determine
the applicability of the condition.
3. Zoning Case No. 553 was a request for a Variance to recognize
unauthorized substantial import of soil for a previously approved
7 Maverick
Rir:ed on Recycled Popci
•
stable and corral and a request for modification to a previously
approved Site Plan to allow the increased grading for the construction
of the stable and corral.
4. In reviewing the files, staff found that the language pertaining to this
condition is stated differently in the minutes of the approval of the
modification of the grading and import of soil in ZC. No. 553 than in
the Resolution. The minutes indicate that Chairman (Roberts) stated
that " he would like to assure that any further development on this
property be brought back before the Planning Commission". See the
enclosed minutes dated April 15, 1997.
The minutes indicate that all of the Commissioners in attendance expressed
concern over the fact that this application came before the Commission "after the
fact". Commissioner Hankins expressed concern over the exceedance of the
building pad coverage.
5. Subsequently, staff conferred with the Assistant City Attorney. After
reviewing the resolution, minutes and staff report in Zoning Case No.
553, the assistant City Attorney responded to staff that in her opinion
her review points to the interpretation that the Commission felt that too
much was being done on this property and was concerned that the
applicant neglected to get permits for prior work. These Commission
concerns support the interpretation that the condition intended that any
further construction/grading on the property would have to come
before the Commission. She also stated that, staff can disagree with her
interpretation, and over -rule it.
6. On 5/23/05 City Manager met with Mr. Howroyd to discuss the City's
and the Attorney's interpretation of the condition in resolution No. 97-
10. The City Manager offered several options, including that Mr.
Howroyd apply for a Site Plan Review for the addition or request an
interpretation of the condition from the Planning Commission.
7. In July 2005, Mr. Howroyd contacted the office of the City Attorney and
on July 22, 2005 met with the Assistant City Attorney. On August 10,
2005, the Assistant City Attorney issued a letter to Mr. Howroyd,
enclosed, stating her opinion in this matter, concluding that "The City
Attorney and the City Manager have considered your contention and,
after reviewing the Resolution, the Minutes and the Municipal Code,
have concluded that your proposed addition requires approval of the
Planning Commission. Accordingly, you must apply for a site plan
review approval for the addition".
8. In September 2005, Mr. Howroyd wrote a letter to Mr. Allan Roberts
(former Planning Commission Chairman) asking him for clarification
and interpretation of the condition in Resolution No. 97-10, whether it
applied to the project. at hand or to any further development on the
property.
7 Maverick- J
9. On 10/6/.05 Mr. Howroyd submitted a response to the City from Allan
Roberts, stating that the restriction was placed on the project before the
Planning Commission at that time.
10. Subsequently, several meetings were held between staff and Mr.
Howroyd concerning this matter. Staff continued to provide Mr.
Howroyd with the option to request Planning Commission
interpretation of the condition of approval.
11. On March 30, 2007, Mr. Howroyd submitted a letter to the City asking
to be placed on the Planning Commission agenda to request Planning
Commission interpretation of this condition.
CONCLUSION
The Commission may modify the condition to clarify that it does not apply to
future development. In that case, the Resolution will need to be considered at a
future meeting and then presented to the City Council for approval of the
modified Resolution. Alternatively, the Commission may concur with the
condition as is, so that a site plan review would be necessary for any future
development.
7 Maverick
larch 30,2007
Honorable Chairman Witte
And Members of the Planning Commission
City of Rolling Hills -
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
By
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
SUBJECT: Request for review of staff's interpretation of a condition of approval in Resolution No. 97.10.
Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
In 1997,.I came before the Planning Commission for a modification to a Site Plan Review application for
grading and construction of a stable and corral, which was approved in 1996. The request for modification
consisted of ' additional grading and a variance for improper importation of soil. The modification was
approved on May 20, 1997 by Resolution No. 97-10. One of the conditions of this resolution states that "any
modification to the project which would constitute additional structural development shall require the filing of
a new application for a Site Plan Review approval by the Planning Commission".
I now wish to add a 720 square foot garage to my residence, and convert the existing garage to living space.
This would ordinarily be subject to "over the counter approval". However, the City may have interpreted the
intent of the 1997 approval to require Planning Commission review for any future development on my
property.
My recollection of the meetings is that the restriction related to the improper importation of soil and
additional grading for the 1996 project, and was not intended to apply to my house as well. So I contacted the
then Chairman, Allan Roberts, to get his recollection on the intent of the restriction in Resolution No. 97.10.
Mr. Roberts' recollection is the same as mine, and he states that the restriction was put on the project under
review at that time. (See enclosed letters.)
As a twenty year resident who enjoys my home with my family in this community, I look forward to many more
years here. So, I am asking that you please review the attached resolution toward your interpretation that I may
be permitted to complete this project of under 1000 square feet. Your earliest consideration will be very
appreciated by me and my family.
•
Respectfully,
Bernard Howroyd
7 MAVERICK LANE
ROLLING ttlLI.C, f.AI.11 ORN1A 91$274-
(a)
e.S/ '. i 7 15: 49 3103777288
•
ROLLING HILLS ITY PAGE 85/11
RESOLUTION NO. 97-10
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A VARIANCE' TO RECOGNIZE
THE PREVIOUSLY ILLEGALLY IMPORTED AND SUBSTANTIAL
AMOUNT OF SOIL FOR A STABLE AND CORRAL AREA AND
GRANTING A REQUEST FOR A MODIFICATION TO AN
APPROVED SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION TO ALLOW THE
INCREASED GRADING QUANTITIES TO REMAIN AT THE SITE
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW STABLE AND CORRAL
AREA AT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN
ZONING CASE NO. 553.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY
FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: •
,Section 1. Applications were duly filed on February 6, 1997, by Mr. Bernard
Howroyd with respect to real property located at 7 Maverick Lane, Rolling Hills (Lot
28-SK) requesting a Variance to allow the previously illegally and imported
substantial amount of soil that is in excess of a previous Administrative approval
and a request for a modification of an approved Site Plan Review application for a
stable and corral area to allow unauthorized increased grading quantities on the site.
These applications were made after it came to light that a substantial amount of soil
was imported that exceeded, the amount permitted by Administrative approval and
that grading had begun and had been substantially increased without City and
County approvals.
Section 2. On January 16, 1996, the Planning Commission approved an
application for Site Plan Review to construct a stable with loft and corral area that
required grading by Resolution No. 96-1 in Zoning Case No. 535. A previous
application for the same stable with loft and corral area was approved by the
Planning Commission on. September 7, 1993, extended for one year, and expired on
September 7,1995.
Section 3.. An "as graded" plan was submitted by the applicant that showed
substantial amounts of soil imported as well as substantial amounts of additional
grading. At the construction site, the eastern portion of the pad for the stable and
corral area had been raised and substantially expanded,.
Section 4. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public
hearing to consider the applications for a Variance and Site Plan Review on March
18, 1997 and April 15, 1997, and at a field trip visit on April 5, 1997.
Section 5. The applicant was notified of the public hearing in writing by
first' class mail and through the City's newsletter. Evidence was heard and
presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal, from all persons
RESOLUTION NO, 97.10
PAGE 1
03/29/2007 15:49 3103777298
•
ROLLING HILLS CITY
.
PAGE 06/ 11.'
protesting the same, and from members of the City staff and the Planning
Commission having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. Concerns
expressed by Planning Commissioners, residents_ and the applicant focused on the
excessive importation of soil that took place without City and County approvals, the
increased grading that took place without City and County approvals, the disruption.
of the property site, the disruptions experienced by the neighbors, and the
substantial enlargement of the building pad for the stable and corral at the subject
site.
Section 6. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a
Class 3 Exemption (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301(e)) and is therefore
categorically exempt from environmental review under the California
Environmental Quality Act.
Section 7. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Rolling Hills
Municipal Code 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 a parcel of
property to the same 'extent enjoyed by similar properties in the same vicinity.
Paragraph 3, of Subsection 7016.9 of Section 15.04.170 of Title 15 (Building and
Construction Code) permits the City Manager to grant an exception to the balanced
cut and fill ratio under certain conditions to allow for the' importation of soil not to
exceed 500 cubic yards. The applicant is requesting to allow a previously illegally
imported and substantial amount of soil that is in excess of the previous
Administrative approval. Soil quantities cut were 340 cubic yards and dirt quantities
filled. were 1,750 cubic yards. Of these quantities, 1,410 cubic yards of soil were
imported to the building site. With respect to this request for a Variance, the
Planning Commissionfinds as follows:
A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and
conditions applicable to th.e property or to the intended use that do not apply
generally to the other property or class of use in the same zone because the lot is
irregular and the building pads are located close to the street, side yards, and adjacent
residences. The soil prepared for the stable and corral area pad shrank more than
anticipated and. required additional soil quantities. Without the additional soil, the
sloping rear portion precludes an adequate pad sized for the stable and corral area.
B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment.
of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and
zone, but which is denied to the property in question. The Variance is necessary
because the additional imported soil will support and stabilize the pad for the stable
and corral area.
C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in
RESOLUTION NO. 97.10
PAGE 2
-J.w 7 '1.'.1//i_"
•
RCLLING HILLCITY PAGE 07/11
such vicinity and. zone in which. the property is located. The development of a
stable with loft and enlargement of the building pad for the stable and, corral area,
will allow a substantial portion of the lot to remain undeveloped.
Section 8. Based upon' the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission
hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 553 to permit the previously
illegally imported 1,4.10 cubic yards of soil that is in excess of a previous
Administrative approval as indicated on the development plan submitted with this
application and incorporated herein. by reference as Exhibit A, 'subject to the
conditions specified in Section 11 of this Resolution.
Section 9. Section 17.46.010 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code requires a
development plan to be submitted for site plan review and approval before any
grading takes place, or any building or structure may be constructed or any
expansion, addition, alteration or repair to existing buildings may be made which
involve changes to grading or an increase to the size of the building or structure by
at least 1,000 square feet and has the effect of increasing the size of the building or
structure by more than twenty-five percent (25%) in any thirty-six month period.
The applicant is requesting to modify the approved Site Plan application for a stable
and. corral area to allow unauthorized increased grading quantities on the site where
grading has taken place. The applicant's latest proposal submitted on February 6,
1997, requests increased. grading quantities of 1,410 cubic yards of fill soil. With
respect to this request, the Planning Commission makes the following findings of
fact:
A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan, the
Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses because the proposed structure complies
with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low density residential
development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. The
project conforms to Zoning Code setback and lot coverage requirements. The lot has
a net square foot area of 109,197 square feet. The proposed stable (1,294 sq.ft.), existing
residence (4,964 sq.ft.), garage (540 sq.ft.), swimming pool (623 sq.ft.), and service yard
(96 sq.ft.) will have 7,517 square feet which constitutes 6.9% of the lot which is
within the maximum 20% structural lot coverage requirement. The total lot
coverage including paved areas and driveway will be 16,050 square feet which equals
14.7% of the lot, which is within the 35% maximum overall lot coverage
requirement. Coverage on the lower stable pad will be 17% which is similar in size
to several neighboring developments. The proposed project is on a relatively large
lot with the proposed structure located away from the road so as to reduce the visual
impact of the development and is similar and compatible with several neighboring
developments.
B. The development, as modified, 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). The additional grading and imported soil
RESOLUTION NO. 97.10
PAGe3
33/ 23/20e7 15: 49 310377 :�.a
ROLLING HILLS CITY PAGE a9/11 .•
• •
for this project will, provide additional stability to the stable and corral area and the
hillside area in which it is located.
C. The development plan follows natural contours of the site to
minimize grading and the natural drainage courses will continue to the eastern
canyon at the rear of the lot. The additional grading quantities do not cause
substantial modification to land forms because the hillside will be stabilized, will
conform to the City and. County slope safety standards, and the graded areas will be
recompacted to a higher compaction level than existing soil conditions.
D. The development plan incorporates existing large trees and native
vegetation to the maximum extent feasible and, as reconditioned, supplements it
with landscaping that is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the
community.
E. The development plan substantially preserves the natural arid
undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage because the new
structures will not cause the structural and total lot coverage to be exceeded.
Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped so as to minimize the 'impact
of development. Further, the proposed stable project will have a buildable pad
coverage of 17%. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped so as to
maintain scenic vistas across the northeasterly portions of the property.
F. The proposed development, as conditioned, is harmonious in scale
and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences. As indicated
in Paragraph A, the lot coverage maximum will not be exceeded an,d the proposed
project is' consistent with the scale of the neighborhood when compared. to this large
lot. Grading was done to recompact the soil and provide stability to the hillside. The
ratio of the proposed. structures to lot size is similar to the ratio found on several.
properties in the vicinity.
G. The proposed development is sensitive to and not detrimental to the
convenience and safety of circulation of pedestrians and vehicles because the
proposed project will utilize existing Maverick Lane for access and will not be
altered.
H. The project will not have a significant effect on the environment and
is categorically exempt from environmental review under the California
Environmental Quality'Act. •
Section 10. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission
hereby approves a modification to an approved Site Plan Review application to
allow increased grading quantities at the site for a stable and corral area. The
modifications are shown on the Development Plan and marked Exhibit A in
Zoning Case No. 553. The approved modifications are subject to the conditions
contained, in Section 11 of this Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 97.10
PAGE 4
its3
a3/ 2'3/ 2007 15:49 3103777288
•
ROLLING HILLITY PAGE 09/11 •
Section 11. The Variance to permit the previously illegally imported 1,410
cubic yards of soil that is in excess of a previous --Administrative approval and
modification to an approved Site Plan Review application to allow increased
grading at the site for a -stable and corral area approved in Sections 8 and 10, as
indicated on the Development Plan attached hereto and incorporated herein as
Exhibit A in Zoning Case No. 553, are subject to the following list of conditions.
These conditions include applicable conditions of approval previously imposed on
the Site Plan Review application by Resolution. No. 96-1 on January 16, 1996. To the
extent these conditions duplicate prior conditions imposed on this project, the
conditions set forth herein shall be considered as continuations of those. prior
requirements:
A. The Variance and Site Plan Review approvals shall expire within one
year from the effective date of approval as defined in Section 17.38.070(A) and
Section •17.46.080(A).
B. It is declared and made a condition of the Variance and Site Plan
Review approvals, that if any conditions thereof are violated, the Permit shall be
suspended and the privileges granted thereunder shall lapse; provided that the
applicant has been given written notice to cease such violation and has failed to do
so for a period of thirty (30) days.
C. All requirements of the Building and Construction Ordinance, the
Zoning Ordinance, and. of the zone in which the subject property is located must be
complied, with unless otherwise approved by Variance. •
D. The stable, loft and corral area shall be developed and maintained in
substantial conformance with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A except as
otherwise provided in these conditions.
E. New grading plans shall be submitted to the County Department of
Building and Safety for grading plan check review and must conform to the
development plan approved with this application.
F. Total grading for this project, including all other, approvals for this
property, shall not exceed 340 'cubic yards of cut soil and 1,750 cubic yards of fill soil.
No further soil shall be imported or exported from the property.
G. Any grading shall preserve the existing topography, flora, and natural
features to the greatest extent possible.
H. The easterly downsl.ope of the corral area shall be repaired and restored
to a 2:1 slope ratio as required by the Rolling 'Hills Municipal Code and the County
of Los Angeles.
RESOLUTION NO.97.10 .
PAGE 5
03/29/2007 15:43
3103777288
•
ROLLING HILLS eV PACE 10/11
H. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed. 7,517 square feet or 6.9% and
total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed. 16,050 square feet or
14.7%.
I. Maximum disturbed area of the lot shall not exceed 39.33% of the net
lot area.
The building pad coverage for the stable and corral shall not exceed
K. The stable loft shall have no glazed openings and the loft area shall be
limited in use to the storage of feed, tack, and stable equipment.
T.. The stable and loft shall be limited in use to horsekeeping activities
and shall not be converted or otherwise used for habitable space.
M. The building permit issued in 1994 for an attached 440 square foot
garage shall be completed, inspected by the County and finalled.
N. All free-standing retaining walls incorporated into the project shall not
be greater than 5 feet in height at any one point.
O. Landscaping shall be designed to prevent slope erosion on disturbed
slopes that shall be well -planted using native drought resistant vegetation and
irrigated.
15. • Prior to the submittal of an applicable final grading plan to the County
of Los Angeles for plan check, a detailed grading and drainage plan with related
geology, soils and hydrology reports that conform to the development plan as
approved by the Planning Commission must be submitted, to the Rolling Hills
Planning Department staff for their review. Cut and fill slopes must conform to the
City of Rolling Hills standard of 2 to 1 slope ratio.
Q. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills
Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of
any building or grading. permit.
R. Notwithstanding Section 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code,
any modifications to the project which would constitute additional structural
development shall require the filing of a new application for Site flan Review
approval by the Planning Commission.
S. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions
of. these Variance and Site Plan Review approvals, or the approvals shall not be
effective.
RESOLUTION NO.97-10
PAGE 6
edI ' r tub! 15: 43 3103777288
•
ROLLING HILLS CITY
rH(zt 11/1l
T. All conditions of these Variance and Site Plan Review approvals must
be complied with prior to the issuance of a building or, grading permit from the
County of Los Angeles. ..
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON THE 20TH DAY OF MAY, 1997.
ATTEST:
IC gi
MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
)
§§
ALLAN, ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 97-10 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE THE
PREVIOUSLY ILLEGALLY IMPORTED AND SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF
SOIL FOR A STABLE AND CORRAL AREA AND GRANTING A REQUEST
FOR A MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN REVIEW
APPLICATION TO ALLOW THE INCREASED GRADING QUANTITIES TO
REMAIN AT THE SITE FOR THE• CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW STABLE
AND CORRAL AREA AT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT IN ZONING CASE NO. 553.
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on May 20, 1997
by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Hankins, Sommer, Witte and.
Chairman Roberts.
NOES: None_
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Margeta.
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices
MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
RESOLUTION NO. 97.10
PAGE 7
7 Maverick Lane
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
August 17, 2005
Allan Roberts
1303 Stonewood Court
San Pedro, CA 90731
Dear Allan:
By
PRIM
OCTO n2005
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
I live at 7 Maverick Lane, and I need clarification regarding Resolution No. 97.10,
which you signed on May 20, 1997, as Chairman of the Planning Commission. I
have enclosed a copy of the Resolution and the minutes forwarded to me by the
City of Rolling Hills.
There is a misunderstanding between the City and myself on this resolution. I
am now in the process, 8 years later, of wishing to put caissons in the landslide
area of my driveway, and extend an existing patio over my garage by
approximately 700 square feet.
This work would ordinarily be subject to permit "over the counter," but the City
has taken the position that the 1997 variance requires ongoing Planning
Commission approval for any alterations to the property.
To the contrary, my recollection of the meeting, and my reading of the
resolution, is that the variance was related to the improper importation of soil for
the 1997 project, and was not intended to require Planning Commission approval
for future projects.
Would you kindly study Resolution No. 97-10 and give me clarification as to.
whether it was the intention of the Planning Commission that the resolution
apply to the 1997 project on the lower pad only, or if is was meant to apply to
my house as well.
I hope this letter finds you in good health, and I will be very grateful for your
honest opinion.
Sincerely,
Bernie Howroyd
End: ajs
ytyMU,
OCT• 0 fi 2005
ay
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
Se? c:rbtr 12, 2005
Mr. Bernard Howro_ d
7 Maverick Lae;=
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Dear Bern:_.
ALLAN ROBERTS
1303 STO`IEWOO1) COURT
VAN PEDRO, CA 90732
(n answcr rp your question as to the irate. t of Resolu:ica No. 97-10, s hi;h I signed on
May 20,1997, the reAtrietion W2is Fur on tie project which was: in violotiee+ of
imporution of dirt znct wz.s intenciad to ave;d 2zay further is-tpor tion of dirt on That
project.
Hope this cla flies Your iNtity.
very truly yours, /
k,r2
Allan Roberts
Pri I Planner Ungar presented the staff repo•tlrning the applicant's request and the
Pia g Commission field trip. Commissioner Margeta stated that he has abstained from
consideration of zoning -Case No. 553 due to the proposed project's proximity to his
residence. Chairman Roberts opened the public hearing and called for testimony.
Mr. Bernard Howroyd, applicant, commented on a letter regarding the project submitted by
Mr. James Brogdon, 5 Maverick Lane. He stated that Mr. Brogdon has since stated to him
that it is best that he finish this project. Mr. Howroyd requested that the Planning
Commission allow him to complete his project.
Chairman Roberts stated that he would like to ensure. that any further development on
this property be brought back before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Hankins
expressed concern regarding the fact that this project came before the Commission after -
the -fact and that any resolution relative to this case should reflect that this work has
already been done without City approval. She commented on the proposed grading and
the City's 30% guideline. In response to Commissioner Hankins, Principal Planner Ungar
reported that the additional soil for this project came from an excavation for a basement at
5 Sagebrush Lane. Chairman Roberts stated that these types of occurrences have led staff to
initiate the grading confirmation process procedures reviewed by the Planning
Commission at a previous meeting.
Hearing no further discussion, Chairman Roberts closed the public hearing and called for a
motion.
Commissioner Witte moved that the Commission direct staff to prepare a Resolution of
Approval for the request for a Variance to allow increased grading quantities in Zoning
Case No. 553 with standard findings of fact and standard conditions of approval including
conditions that any further development on the property would require ' Planning
Commission approval, no importation of soil be permitted without Planning Commission
approval and that no living quarters or conversion of the barn area occur. Commissioner
Sommer seconded the motion which carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Hankins, Witte, Sommer and Chairman Roberts.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: Margeta.
Commissioner Witte moved that the Commission direct staff to prepare a Resolution of
Approval for the request for Site Plan Review to allow increased"grading quantities in
Zoning Case No. 553 with standard findings of fact and standard conditions of approval
including conditions that any further development on the property would require
Planning Commission approval, no importation of soil be permitted without Planning
Commission approval and that no living quarters or conversion of the barn area occur.
Commissioner Sommer seconded the motion which carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Hankins, Witte, Sommer and Chairman Roberts.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: Margeta.
Charles Raine, 2 Pinto Road, expressed concern for the proposed project. He questioned
what recourse the City has when violations of the City's Municipal Code occur. Assistant
City Attorney Ennis explained the penalties imposed for violations of the Municipal Code.
ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
CONSIDERATION OF SITE DEVELOPMENT MODIFICATIONS
Commissioner Witte presented a draft letter which he proposes that the City use to deter
unapproved site development. City Manager Nealis reported that staff will be preparing a
report regarding economic penalties and/or other disincentives for after the fact grading
and methods of increasing the monitoring of a project for review by the Planning
mutes
_ Planning- Commission Meeting
April 15, 1997 •3-
Zo�u�NG [ ASS
553
JtNK1Nt & HUU1N LLP
•
PAGE 02
MICHAEL jENKUNS
CHPJSTI HOGIN
MA1u; D. HE JSLEY
BRADLEY E. WOHLENBERG
KARL H. BERGER
GREGC KOVACEvICH
jOHN C. Corn
LINDA A. BURROWS
ERixA R. AKLUFI
JENKINS & HOGIN, LLP
A LAW PARTNERSHIP
MANHATTAN TowER5
1230 RosECRANs AVENUE, SurrE 110
MANHATTAN BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90266
(310)643-6443 • FAX (310) 643-8441
vAty.LocALGovLA\.coM
August 10, 2005.
Mr. Bemard Howroyd
7 Maverick Lane
Rolling Hills, California 90274
Reference: Resolution No. 97-10
Dear Mr. Howroyd:
WRITER'S EMAIL ADDRESS:
CHoG1N@LocALGovLAV.coM
I know you have been anxious to receive this letter memorializing our meeting in my
office on July 22, 2005. I am sorry that I have made you wait.
I understand that you want to add 600 square feet to your house. Ordinarily, a permit for
such an addition may be issued administratively, a so-called over-the-counter permit, without the
necessity of a hearing before the Planning Commission. However, your property is subject to the
conditions imposed by Resolution No. 97-10. That Resolution memorialized the City's approval
of your application for an after -the -fact variance for importation of soil and increased grading and
a site plan review for a new stable and corral. The approvals were subject to conditions, which
conditions you accepted. You have built the structures approved by the permits and thereby
accepted the benefits of the approvals.
One of the conditions of approval stated that any modifications to the project which
would constitute additional structural development requires a new site plan review application to
the Planning Commission. You have suggested that this condition creates no obstacle to your
obtaining an administrative, over-the-counter approval from staff for your proposed 600 square
foot addition because, you contend,."project" as used in that condition applies narrowly to the
applications that were the subject of Resolution No. 97-10 (e.g. to permit the illegal importation
of soil, grading and the new stable and corral). Further, you have suggested that the condition is
unambiguous and, in accord with a basic maxim of statutory construction, words should be given
their plain meaning, without reference to evidence beyond the four corners of the Resolution.
l-
(1
..,,. LL.44 a1riot( :iG441
JENKINS a HOG IN LLP PAGE B3
• •
Mr. Bernard Howroyd
August 10, 2005
Page 2
JEN1UNS & HOG1N, LLP
There are several factors that•mitigate against your contention and in favor of the
conclusion that the condition imposed in Resolution No. 97-10 was intended to apply to any
additional structural development on your property.
1. The Minutes of the April 15, 1997 Planning Commission meeting set forth the
motion that Resolution No."97-10 memorialized. That motion directed staff to
prepare a resolution approving the application subject co the standard condition
and conditions that "any further development on the property would require
Planning Commission approval, no importation of soil be permitted without
Planning Commission approval and that no living quarters or conversion of the
barn area occur."
2. The findings set forth in the Resolution specifically refer to the limited amount of
structural lot coverage as a basis for approval of the variance and modification to
the development standards in the Zoning Ordinance. Hence, a condition that
heightens review of further structural development that would alter the
circumstances under which the permit was granted follows naturally.
3. It is a regular practice of the Rolling Hills Planning Commission to impose a
Condition of approval that requires any further development on a project site to be
reviewed by the Planning Commission. This condition is imposed where the
Planning Commission finds that such review is necessary to mitigate the potential
impacts caused by the approval of a permit on a site that may be reaching toward
maximum lot coverage or may pose a threat of upsetting a balance on the property
that formed the basis for the approval in the first instance. That condition is
sometimes expressed as "property" and sometimes expressed as "project" but the
Commission's intent has been clear and consistent for many years.
4. City staff has consistently interpreted similarly worded conditions to require
Planning Commission review for all new structures on a property.
I know that you feel that the condition was imposed to punish you for having illegally
imported soil on to your property and that you believe that the property owner that exported the
excess soil has escaped responsibility for his illegal activity. However, there is no indication that
the old issue plays any role in the City's interpretation and enforcement of the condition.
The City Attorney and the City Manager have considered your contention and, after
reviewing the Resolution, the Minutes, and the Municipal Code, have concluded that your
up/ ubi .utl] LL: 44 . itIb4:;G441
JENK1NS e HUCi1N LLN
• •
HAbE U4
Mr. Bernard Howroyd
August 10, 2005 .
Page 3
JENKINS & HOGIN, LLP
proposed addition requires approval of the Planning Commission. Accordingly, you must apply
for a site plan review approval for the addition.
When we met July 22, I suggested that you have two additional options. First, you may
apply to the Planning Commission for an amendment to the Resolution to eliminate that
condition. The amendment application would require a noticed public hearing before the .
Planning Commission. The Commission's decision is subject to appeal to the City Council.
Alternatively, you may request that the Planning Commission review staffs interpretation of the
condition of the Resolution and consider whether the condition applies CO your proposed
addition. This item would be presented to the Planning Commission as an item from staff and
staff would recommend that the Commission affirm its interpretation. You would be afforded an
opportunity to persuade the Planning Commission that your interpretation is correct.
Finally, there is a subtext to this dialogue that we have been having that merits mention.
As mentioned above, the Planning Commission approved your stable on the express condition
that the stable not be converted CO habitable space and shall be used only for horsekeeping.
Indeed, the permit itself provides that the violation of any condition of approval shall cause the
permit to lapse upon written notice by the City. In our meeting I advised you that the City staff
believes that your stable is no longer being used for horsekeeping. I recommend that you apply for •
a CUP to legalize any change of use at the same time that you apply for the site plan review for
the addition.
Very truly yours,
risti Hogiri
Assistant City Attorney
City of Rolling Hills
cc: Craig Nealis
Yolanta Schwartz
•
e41L 0/ R0fi2 ichee
HEARING DATE: APRIL 15,1997
TO:
FROM:
/Op
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX: (310) 377.7288
E-mail: cityofrh@aoi.com
HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
LOLA M. UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
APPLICATION NO.
SITE LOCATION:
ZONING AND SIZE:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PUBLISHED:
REQUEST
ZONING CASE NO. 553
7 MAVERICK LANE (Lot 28-A-SK)
RAS-2, 2.91 ACRES
MR. BERNARD HOWROYD
MR. DOUGLAS MCHATTIE, SOUTH BAY
ENGINEERING
MARCH 8, 1997
Request for a Variance to allow the importation of a substantial amount of soil that
is in excess of a previous Administrative approval and a request for a modification
of an approved Site Plan Review application for a stable and corral area to allow
unauthorized increased grading quantities on the site.
BACKGROUND
1.
The Planning Commission viewed the site on Saturday, April 5, 1997.
2. In November, 1996, staff was alerted to the fact that there was a substantial
increase in the importation of soil and increased grading taking place at 7
Maverick Lane and that the soil was coming from 5 Sagebrush Lane. The City
requested that each of the property owners provide "as graded" plans. When
these plans were not forthcoming in a timely manner, a Stop Work Order
was issued by the City and County related to grading and building work
because there was evidence that the project at 7 Maverick Lane was not being
implemented in accordance with approved plans (Uniform Building Code
Section 104.2.4) and that soil beyond the administrative approval of 130 cubic
yards had occurred. The City also requested that the property owners apply to
the City to request a Variance and Site Plan Review approvals to allow the
unauthorized grading quantities. A Chronology of Events is attached as well
as a letter from Mr. Jim Brogdon, 5 Maverick Lane.
ZONING CASE NO. 553
PAGE 1
Printed on Recycled Paper.
• •
3. The applicant is requesting a Variance to allow the importation of
approximately 1,410 cubic yards of soil that is in excess of a previous
Administrative approval that allowed 130 cubic yards of soil to be imported
from 5 Sagebrush Lane to 7 Maverick Lane in accordance with Section
15.04.150 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (attached). Mr. Douglas
McHattie, South Bay Engineering, originally requested the 130 cubic yards of
soil because the recompacted soil at the project site was as the Soils Engineer
described it, "taking a tremendous shrink." Letters from Mr. McHattie
requesting the importation of soil and and one from Principal Planner Ungar
granting the exportation of 130 cubic yards of soil to 7 Maverick Lane are
attached.
The applicant is also requesting a modification of an approved Site Plan
Review application for the construction of a 1,294 square foot stable with loft
and an increased corral area to allow unauthorized increased grading
quantities on the site.
Grading quantities for the project were approved for 110 cubic yards of cut soil
and 110 cubic yards of fill soil. The applicant would now like to modify those
figures to 340 cubic yards of cut soil and 1,750 cubic yards of fill soil. The
additional soil was used to increase the size of the building pad from 4,560
square feet to 7,609 square feet and increased the depth of the pad from 36 feet
to 53 feet. In addition, the original approved plan showed that the slope
between the stable and beginning of the driveway to be 3 to 1 but, is instead 1-
1/2 to 1.
4. The application requesting Site Plan Review for a stable with loft and corral
area was approved by the Planning Commission on January 16, 1996 in
Zoning Case No. 535. A previous application for the same stable with loft and
corral area was approved by the Planning Commission on September 7, 1993.
On September 20, 1994, the Planning Commission approved a one year time
extension. The time extension expired on September 7, 1995.
5. The existing house, attached garage, and swimming pool were constructed in
1960. The Planning Commission approved Variances to the front and side
yard setbacks and Site Plan Review for substantial additions that included a
detached subterranean garage but, these approvals expired on March 17, 1993.
These additions were not constructed. A request for a Variance to encroach
into the side yard setback to construct an attached garage was denied on
September 7, 1993 and the denial was upheld by the City Council on January
24, 1994. Retaining walls and the residence encroach up to 33' into the 50'
front yard setback and up to 34' into the 35' southwest side yard setback. A
building permit for a 440 square foot attached garage to be constructed beyond
allowable setbacks was issued in 1994 but, as yet has not been finalled.
ZONING CASE NO. 553
PAGE 2
• •
6. Access to the stable and corral is from the existing cul-de-sac off Maverick
Lane through the easement at the northern portion of the lot and traverses
the lot diagonally past the existing driveway to the southeastern side of the
lot. The slope of the access path varies from 20% near Maverick Lane, 21% as
the access route passes the residence, and there is an average slope of 14.8%.
7. The 7,277 square foot residential building pad has an 84.22% structural
coverage. The building pad coverage on the second building pad is 17%, and
there is a total building pad coverage of 49.8%.
8. The disturbed area of the lot will be 42,150 square feet or 39.3% (40%
maximum).
9. The structural lot coverage approved and proposed is 7,517 square feet or 6.9%
(20% permitted) and the total lot coverage proposed is 16,050 square feet or
14.7% (35% permitted).
10. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the proposed plans and
take public testimony.
VARIANCE REQUIRED FINDINGS
A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not
apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone; and
B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by
other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied the property in question; and
C. That the &ranting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
properties or improvements in the vicinity; and
D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; and
E. That the variance does not grant special privilege;
F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste Management
Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; and
G. That the variance request is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills.
ZONING CASE NO. 553
PAGE 3
•
SITE PLAN REVIEW II ' APPROVED I PROPOSED
RA-S-2ZONE SETBACKS
Front: 50 ft. from front easement line
Side: 35 ft. from property line
Rear: 50 ft. from property line
STRUCTURES
(Site Plan Review required if size of
structure increases by at least 1,000
sq.ft. and has the effect of increasing
the size of the structure by more than
25% in a 36-month period).
GRADING
Site Plan Review required if
excavation and/or fill or
combination thereof that is more than
3 feet in depth and covers more than
2,000 sq.ft.) must be balanced on site.
DISTURBED AREA
(40% maximum; any graded building
pad area, any remedial grading
temporary disturbance), any graded
slopes and building pad areas, any
nongraded area where impervious
surfaces exist)
STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE
(20% maximum)
TOTAL LOT COVERAGE
(35% maximum)
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PAD
COVERAGE
STABLE AND CORRAL BUILDING
PAD COVERAGE
TOTAL BUILDING PAD •
COVERAGE
STABLE (450 SQ.FT.
& 550 SQ.FT. CORRAL)
STABLE ACCESS
(4:1 or 25% maximum slope)
ROADWAY ACCESS
PRESERVE VIEWS
PRESERVE PLANTS AND
ANIMALS
ZONING CASE NO. 553
PAGE 4
Retaining wall and residence
encroaches up to 33' into 50' front
yard setback and up to 34' into the
35' southwest side yard setback
Residence
Garage
Swim Pool
Stable
Service Yard
4,964 sq.ft.
540 sq.ft.
623 sq.ft.
1,294 sq.ft.
96 sq.ft.
TOTAL 7,517 sq.ft.
110 cubic yards cut
110 cubic yards fill
26.7% or 29,184 sq. ft.
6.9%
14.7%
84.22% of a 7,277 sq.ft. pad
28.4% of a 4,560 sq.ft. pad
63.5% (1 pad)
1,294 sq.ft. stable
3,266 sq.ft. corral
Average 14.8%
No encroachments proposed
Residence
Garage
Swim Pool
Stable
Service Yard
4,964 sq.ft.
540 sq.ft.
623 sq.ft.
1,294 sq.ft.
96 sq.ft.
TOTAL 7,517 sq.ft.
340 cubic yards cut
1,750 cubic yards fill
39.33% or 42,150 sq.ft.
6.9%
14.7%
84.22%b of a 7,277 sq.ft. pad
17% of a 7,609 sq.ft. pad
49.8%(2 pads)
1,294 sq.ft. stable
6,315 sq.ft. corral
Average 14.8%
Existing off Maverick Lane cul-de- Existing off Maverick Lane cul-de-
sac sac
Trail traverses rear of property Planning Commission review
N/A Planning Commission review
• •
CHRONOLOGY
7 Maverick Lane. Mr. and Mrs. Bernard Howroyd
1960 The existing house, attached garage, and swimming pool were
constructed.
4/6/91 The Planning Commission approved a Variance to the front and
side yard setbacks to construct residential additions and Site Plan
Review to construct substantial residential additions that included a
subterranean garage in Zoning Case No. 444.
3/17/92 The Planning Commission approved a one year time extension for
the applicant to finance the approved project .
4/6/93 Approvals expired.
9/7/93 Application for 1,294 square foot stable with loft and a 3,266 square
foot corral area was approved but, a request for a Variance to
encroach into the side yard setback to construct an attached garage
was denied by the Planning Commission in Zoning Case No. 497.
10/25/93 The applicant appealed the decision of the Planning Commission to
the City Council. The Council upheld the decision of the Planning
Commission.
9/20/94 The Planning Commission approved a one year time extension for
the stable with loft and corral area project due to the plan check
process that requires Grading and Geology approvals that are
expected within the month.
2/16/95 A building permit for a 440 square foot attached garage to be
constructed within allowable setbacks was issued, but not yet
finalled.
9/7/95 The time extension for the stable with loft and corral area project
expired.
1/16/96 The Planning Commission approved a new application for a 1,294
square foot stable with loft and corral area.
Existing retaining walls and the existing residence encroach up to
33' into the 50' front yard setback and up to 34' into the 35'
southwest side yard setback.
The applicant stated that portions of the existing slope would be
removed and recompacted to maintain existing grades and were
ZONING CASE NO. 553
PAGE 5
outlined with a dashed line on the approved plot plan. Grading
would require 110 cubic yards of cut soil and 110 cubic yards of fill
soil and was shown on the approved plot plan by a textured gray
area.
7/19/96 Building permits were issued for grading and retaining wall.
8/5/96 Final stable construction plans approved by the City for County to
issue permits.
9/13/96 Building permits issued for stable with loft.
9/19/96 Request from Mr. Douglas McHattie, South Bay Engineering, to
import 130 cubic yards from 1 Buggy Whip Drive, owned by Mr.
John Z. Blazevich, because the soil at the 7 Maverick Lane site was
taking a tremendous shrink.
9/20/96 Ms. Lata Thakar, District Engineer, County Building and Safety,
requests that temporary drainage and erosion control measures be
taken for the property because the grading was not complete nor did
it appear that it would be finished by November 1, 1997 and the
beginning of the rainy season.
9/20/96 A request to import 130 cubic yards of soil from 1 Buggy Whip to 7
Maverick Lane was denied by City staff because no evidence was
submitted supporting the need to export soil.
10/7/96 Letter received from Andy Glassell, contractor at 5 Sagebrush Lane,
requesting to export 450 cubic yards of soil from three 65 foot deep
seepage pits and extra deep footings required by the County Building
Dept, 130 cubic yards to be delivered to 7 Maverick Lane and the
remainder for Community Association road repair and for
improvements to the Clif Hix Riding Ring. Request approved by
City staff on October 8,1996.
11/96 Telephone calls were received from City Council members and
Rolling Hills Community Association Board members regarding
grading at site.
Mrs. Beth King and Mr. John Resich, Association Architecture
Committee, called upon City staff to voice their concern about the
amount of grading taking place at the subject site.
12/6/96 Letter sent separately to Mr. & Mrs. Bernard Howroyd and Mr. and
Mrs. James Hao, owners of 5 Sagebrush Lane, requesting "as graded"
plans from both parties.
ZONING CASE NO. 553
PAGE 6
a •
12/17/96 Letter sent separately to Mr. & Mrs. Bernard Howroyd and Mr. and
Mrs. James Hao, 5 Sagebrush Lane, giving a 10 day deadline for "as
graded" plan requests.
1/3/97 Stop Work Order issued by the City and County related to grading
and building work because there was evidence that the project was
not being implemented in accordance with approved plans
(Uniform Building Code Section 104.2.4).
2/6/97 Applications were made by Mr. Howroyd requesting a Variance to
allow the importation of a substantial amount of soil that is in
excess of a previous Administrative approval and requesting a
modification of an approved Site Plan Review application for a
stable and corral area to allow unauthorized increased grading
quantities on the site at 7 Maverick Lane.
ZONING CASE NO. 553
PAGE 7
•
cry ofielin9����
HEARING DATE: MARCH 18,1997
TO:
•
�c
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX: (310) 377-7288
E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com
HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: LOLA M. UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
APPLICATION NO.
SITE LOCATION:
ZONING AND SIZE:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PUBLISHED:
REOUEST
ZONING CASE NO. 553
7 MAVERICK LANE (Lot 28-A-SK)
RAS-2, 2.91 ACRES
MR. BERNARD HOWROYD
MR. DOUGLAS MCHA i 11E, SOUTH BAY
ENGINEERING
MARCH 8, 1997
Request for a Variance to allow the importation of a substantial amount of soil that
is in excess of a previous Administrative approval and a request for a modification
of an approved Site Plan Review application for a stable and corral area to allow
unauthorized increased grading quantities on the site.
BACKGROUND
1.
The Planning Commission will view the site on Saturday, April 5, 1997.
2. In November, 1996, staff was alerted to the fact that there was a substantial
increase in the importation of soil and increased grading taking place at 7
Maverick Lane and that the soil was coming from 5 Sagebrush Lane. The City
requested that each of the property owners provide "as graded" plans. When
these plans were not forthcoming in a timely manner, a Stop Work Order
was issued by the City and County related to grading and building work
because there was evidence that the project at 7 Maverick Lane was not being
implemented in accordance with approved plans (Uniform Building Code
Section 104.2.4) and that soil beyond the administrative approval of 130 cubic
yards had occurred. The City also requested that the property owners apply to
the City to request a Variance and Site Plan Review approvals to allow the
unauthorized grading quantities. A Chronology of Events is attached as well
as a letter from Mr. Jim Brogdon, 5 Maverick Lane.
ZONING CASE NO. 553
PAGE 1
Printed on Recycled Paper.
• •
3. The applicant is requesting a Variance to allow the importation of
approximately 1,410 cubic yards of soil that is in excess of a previous
Administrative approval that allowed 130 cubic yards of soil to be imported
from 5 Sagebrush Lane to 7 Maverick Lane in accordance with Section
15.04.150 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (attached). Mr. Douglas
McHattie, South Bay Engineering, originally requested the 130 cubic yards of
soil because the recompacted soil at the project site was as the Soils Engineer
described it, "taking a tremendous shrink." Letters from Mr. McHattie
requesting the importation of soil and and one from Principal Planner Ungar
granting the exportation of 130 cubic yards of soil to 7 Maverick Lane are
attached.
The applicant is also requesting a modification of an approved Site Plan
Review application for the construction of a 1,294 square foot stable with loft
and an increased corral area to allow unauthorized increased grading
quantities on the site.
Grading quantities for the project were approved for 110 cubic yards of cut soil
and 110 cubic yards of fill soil. The applicant would now like to modify those
figures to 340 cubic yards of cut soil and 1,750 cubic yards of fill soil. The
additional soil was used to increase the size of the building pad from 4,560
square feet to 7,609 square feet and increased the depth of the pad from 36 feet
to 53 feet. In addition, the original approved plan showed that the slope
between the stable and beginning of the driveway to be 3 to 1 but, is instead 1-
1/2 to 1.
4. The application requesting Site Plan Review for a stable with loft and corral
area was approved by the Planning Commission on January 16, 1996 in
Zoning Case No. 535. A previous application for the same stable with loft and
corral area was approved by the Planning Commission on September 7, 1993.
On September 20, 1994, the Planning Commission approved a one year time
extension. The time extension expired on September 7, 1995.
5. The existing house, attached garage, and swimming pool were constructed in
1960. The Planning Commission approved Variances to the front and side
yard setbacks and Site Plan Review for substantial additions that included a
detached subterranean garage but, these approvals expired on March 17, 1993.
These additions were not constructed. A request for a Variance to encroach
into the side yard setback to construct an attached garage was denied on
September 7, 1993 and the denial was upheld by the City Council on January
24, 1994. Retaining walls and the residence encroach up to 33' into the 50'
front yard setback and up to 34' into the 35' southwest side yard setback. A
building permit for a 440 square foot attached garage to be constructed beyond
allowable setbacks was issued in 1994 but, as yet has not been finalled.
ZONING CASE NO. 553
PAGE 2
• •
6. Access to the stable and corral is from the existing cul-de-sac off Maverick
Lane through the easement at the northern portion of the lot and traverses
the lot diagonally past the existing driveway to the southeastern side of the
lot. The slope of the access path varies from 20% near Maverick Lane, 21% as
the access route passes the residence, and there is an average slope of 14.8%.
7. The 7,277 square foot residential building pad has an 84.22% structural
coverage. The building pad coverage on the second building pad is 17%, and
there is a total building pad coverage of 49.8%.
8. The disturbed area of the lot will be 42,150 square feet or 39.3% (40%
maximum).
9. The structural lot coverage approved and proposed is 7,517 square feet or 6.9%
(20% permitted) and the total lot coverage proposed is 16,050 square feet or
14.7% (35% permitted).
10. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the proposed plans and
take public testimony.
VARIANCE REQUIRED FINDINGS
A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not
apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone; and
B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by
other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied the property in question; and
C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
properties or improvements in the vicinity; and
D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; and
E. That the variance does not grant special privilege;
F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste Management
Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; and
G. That the variance request is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills.
ZONING CASE NO. 553
PAGE 3
•
•
SITE PLAN REVIEW
RA-S-2ZONE SETBACKS
Front: 50 ft. from front easement line
Side: 35 ft. from property line
Rear: 50 ft. from property line
STRUCTURES
(Site Plan Review required if size of
structure increases by at least 1,000
sq.ft. and has the effect of increasing
the size of the structure by more than
25% in a 36-month period).
GRADING
Site Plan Review required if
excavation and/or fill or
combination thereof that is more than
3 feet in depth and covers more than
2,000 sq.ft.) must be balanced on site.
DISTURBED AREA
(40% maximum; any graded building
pad area, any remedial grading
(temporary disturbance), any graded
slopes and building pad areas, any
nongraded area where impervious
surfaces exist)
STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE
(20% maximum)
TOTAL LOT COVERAGE
(35% maximum)
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PAD
COVERAGE
STABLE AND CORRAL BUILDING
PAD COVERAGE
TOTAL BUILDING PAD
COVERAGE
STABLE (450 SQ.FT.
& 550 SQ.FT. CORRAL)
STABLE ACCESS
(4:1 or 25% maximum slope)
ROADWAY ACCESS
PRESERVE VIEWS
PRESERVE PLANTS AND
ANIMALS
ZONING CASE NO. 553
PAGE 4
II
APPROVED I PROPOSED
Retaining wall and residence
encroaches up to 33' into 50' front
yard setback and up to 34' into the
35' southwest side yard setback
Residence
Garage
Swim Pool
Stable
Service Yard
4,964 sq.ft.
540 sq.ft.
623 sq.ft.
1,294 sq.ft.
96 sq.ft.
TOTAL 7,517 sq.ft.
110 cubic yards cut
110 cubic yards fill
26.7% or 29,184 sq. ft.
6.9%
14.7%
84.22% of a 7,277 sq.ft. pad
28.4% of a 4,560 sq.ft. pad
63.5% (1 pad)
1,294 sq.ft. stable
3,266 sq.ft. corral
Average 14.8%
No encroachments proposed
Residence
Garage
Swim Pool
Stable
Service Yard
4,964 sq.ft.
540 sq.ft.
623 sq.ft.
1,294 sq.ft.
96 sq.ft.
TOTAL 7,517 sq.ft.
340 cubic yards cut
1,750 cubic yards fill
39.33% or 42,150 sq.ft.
6.9%
14.7%
84.22%b of a 7,277 sq.ft. pad
17% of a 7,609 sq.ft. pad
49.8%(2 pads)
1,294 sq.ft. stable
6,315 sq.ft. corral
Average 14.8%
Existing off Maverick Lane cul-de- Existing off Maverick Lane cul-de-
sac sac
Trail traverses rear of property
N/A
Planning Commission review
Planning Commission review
• •
CHRONOLOGY
7 Maverick Lane. Mr. and Mrs. Bernard Howroyd
1960 The existing house, attached garage, and swimming pool were
constructed.
4/6/91 The Planning Commission approved a Variance to the front and
side yard setbacks to construct residential additions and Site Plan
Review to construct substantial residential additions that included a
subterranean garage in Zoning Case No. 444.
3/17/92 The Planning Commission approved a one year time extension for
the applicant to finance the approved project .
4/6/93 Approvals expired.
9/7/93 Application for 1,294 square foot stable with loft and a 3,266 square
foot corral area was approved but, a request for a Variance to
encroach into the side yard setback to construct an attached garage
was denied by the Planning Commission in Zoning Case No. 497.
10/25/93 The applicant appealed the decision of the Planning Commission to
the City Council. The Council upheld the decision of the Planning
Commission.
9/20/94 The Planning Commission approved a one year time extension for
the stable with loft and corral area project due to the plan check
process that requires Grading and Geology approvals that are
expected within the month.
2/16/95 A building permit for a 440 square foot attached garage to be
constructed within allowable setbacks was issued, but not yet
finalled.
9/7/95 The time extension for the stable with loft and corral area project
expired.
1/16/96 The Planning Commission approved a new application for a 1,294
square foot stable with loft and corral area.
Existing retaining walls and the existing residence encroach up to
33' into the 50' front yard setback and up to 34' into the 35'
southwest side yard setback.
The applicant stated that portions of the existing slope would be
removed and recompacted to maintain existing grades and were
ZONING CASE NO. 553
PAGES
• •
outlined with a dashed line on the approved plot plan. Grading
would require 110 cubic yards of cut soil and 110 cubic yards of fill
soil and was shown on the approved plot plan by a textured gray
area.
7/19/96 Building permits were issued for grading and retaining wall.
8/5/96 Final stable construction plans approved by the City for County to
issue permits.
9/13/96 Building permits issued for stable with loft.
9/19/96 Request from Mr. Douglas McHattie, South Bay Engineering, to
import 130 cubic yards from 1 Buggy Whip Drive, owned by Mr.
John Z. Blazevich, because the soil at the 7 Maverick Lane site was
taking a tremendous shrink.
9/20/96 Ms. Lata Thakar, District Engineer, County Building and Safety,
requests that temporary drainage and erosion control measures be
taken for the property because the grading was not complete nor did
it appear that it would be finished by November 1, 1997 and the
beginning of the rainy season.
9/20/96 A request to import 130 cubic yards of soil from 1 Buggy Whip to 7
Maverick Lane was denied by City staff because no evidence was
submitted supporting the need to export soil.
10/7/96 Letter received from Andy Glassell, contractor at 5 Sagebrush Lane,
requesting to export 450 cubic yards of soil from three 65 foot deep
seepage pits and extra deep footings required by the County Building
Dept, 130 cubic yards to be delivered to 7 Maverick Lane and the
remainder for Community Association road repair and for
improvements to the Clif Hix Riding Ring. Request approved by
City staff on October 8,1996.
11/96 Telephone calls were received from City Council members and
Rolling Hills Community Association Board members regarding
grading at site.
Mrs. Beth King and Mr. John Resich, Association Architecture
Committee, called upon City staff to voice their concern about the
amount of grading taking place at the subject site.
12/6/96 Letter sent separately to Mr. & Mrs. Bernard Howroyd and Mr. and
Mrs. James Hao, owners of 5 Sagebrush Lane, requesting "as graded"
plans from both parties.
ZONING CASE NO. 553
PAGE 6
• •
12/17/96 Letter sent separately to Mr. & Mrs. Bernard Howroyd and Mr. and
Mrs. James Hao, 5 Sagebrush Lane, giving a 10 day deadline for "as
graded" plan requests.
1/3/97 Stop Work Order issued by the City and County related to grading
and building work because there was evidence that the project was
not being implemented in accordance with approved plans
(Uniform Building Code Section 104.2.4).
2/6/97 Applications were made by Mr. Howroyd requesting a Variance to
allow the importation of a substantial amount of soil that is in
excess of a previous Administrative approval and requesting a
modification of an approved Site Plan Review application for a
stable and corral area to allow unauthorized increased grading
quantities on the site at 7 Maverick Lane.
ZONING CASE NO. 553
PAGE 7
•
Cay spaeenS
October 8,1996
Mr. Andrew Glassell
5 Sagebrush Lane
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
SUBJECT: BALANCED CUT AND FILL EXCEPTION
Dear Mr. Glassell:
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS. CALIF. 90274
(310) 377.1521
FAX (310) 377.7288
E•mait cityolrheaol.com
Thank you for your letter of October 7, 1996. As we noted, Paragraph 3 of Section
15.04.150 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permits an exception to the balance cut
and fill ratio requirement of up to 500 cubic yards of soil to be exported or imported
when a structure cannot be completed without the requested import or export of
soil.
The export of 450 cubic yards of soil from 5 Sagebrush Lane may be used to finish the
Howroyd project at 7 Maverick Lane (130 cubic yards), the remainder for
Community Association road repair and for improvements to the Clif Hix Riding
Ring.
Please call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions.
LOLA UNGA
PRINCIPAL PLANNER
cc Ms. Peggy Minor, Rolling Hills Community Association Manager
Mr. Roger Vink, RHCA Architectural Inspector
to
Printed on Recycled Paper
October 7, 1996
City of Rollings Hills
2 Pprtugese Bend Road
Rolling Hills,.Ca. 90274
Re: #5 Sagebrush Lane
Dear City Manager,
•
CITY OF ROLI "sir: HILLS
Approved 4.5-3 elA • "Mt
PLANNING DEPART NT
Pursuant to Sect. 7015.4 Paragraph 13; in that the
project has been started and that in order to continue
the project it is necessary for us to export approximately
450 cubic yards of dirt produced from the 3 sixty-five
foot deep seepage pits and extra deep footings, both requir-
ed by the County Building Department, we respectfully request
that we be allowed to remove the dirt from the site as soon
as possible.
•
Sincerely,
Andrew Glassell
pic-Z7 at ke.S(Fosz C-0Nµu.Nc--11 4s,oc. goal) cztpWi¢,
City on2 e&n, ui/Id
JOOY MURDOCK
Mayor
B. ALLEN LAY,
MayuPfo Tem
THOMAS F. HEINSHEIMER
Counanember
FRANK E. HILL
Count member
GODFREY PERNELL. D.D.S.
C cucimernbor
September 20, 1996
Mr. Doug McHattie
South Bay Engineering
304 Tejon Place
Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274
Dear Mr. McHattie:
•
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1937
NO.2 PORTUOUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS. CALIF. 90274
(3101377•1 621
. FAX (3t0) 377.72$$
E•m•It dtyoln+e.otcom
Thank you for your letter dated September 19, 1996 requesting to export 240 cubic
yards of soil from the Blazevich job site at 1 Buggy Whip Drive. The letter appears
to satisfy the reasons why soil needs to be imported at 7 Maverick Lane and the Hix
Ring. However, you have not submitted any evidence supporting the need to
export the soil from 1 Buggy Whip Drive as required pursuant to Section 15.04.150 of
the Municipal Code (enclosed). Therefore, your request is denied at this time.
In order to consider your request for approval, you must comply with the
provisions of Paragraph 3 of Section 15.04.150 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code
which provides an exception to the balance cut and fill ratio requirement.
Conditions which must be met include:
a. construction of the structure on the lot or parcel has commenced.
b. that the need to import or export soil could not have been foreseen prior
to commencement of construction and
c. that either the structure cannot be completed without the requested
import or export of the soil or that the emergency condition exists due to
the threat of land subsidence or other eminent danger.
Until the provisions of Section 15.04.150 are satisfied, and approval is granted by the
City, you are not permitted to export any soil from 1 Buggy Whip Drive.
s:
Pr nttd or. Pec' c el Paper
•
Page 2.
We will promptly consider this matter when you submit the necessary written
evidence supporting your request. Should you desire to discuss this further, please
do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Craig R. Nealis
City Manager
CRN:mjs
mchatfie/export.corres
cc City Council
Lola Ungar, Principal Planner
Bernard Howroyd
Robert Jonas
15.r. -15.04.150
15.04.150 Section 7015.4 amended. Section 7015 of
the Building Code, entitled 'Excavations,' is amended to
add subsection 7015.4 to read:
7015.4 BALANCED CUT AND FILL RATIO.
1. No export or import of soil shall be permitted
from or. to any lot in the City.
2. No grading plan for which a permit is required
shall be approved unless the amount of soil to be cut
from the site equals the amount of soil to be filled
on the site.
3. The City Manager may grant an exception to the
requirements of parts 1 and 2 of this paragraph (d) to
allow for the import or export of soil not to exceed
500 cubic yards if he or she finds, based upon written
reports and other information submitted, that all of
the following conditions are present: (a) construc-
tion of a structure on the lot or parcel has com-
menced, (b) that the need to import or export the soil
could not have been foreseen prior to commencement of
construction, and (c) that either the structure cannot
be completed without the requested import or export of
soil or that an emergency condition exists due to the
threat of land subsidence or other imminent danger.
(Ord. 257-U §1(part), 1995).
173 (Rolling Hills 5/96)
•_J SOL'i .fAY ENGINEERING CC: *NY
3 p
c5
September 19,1996
Craig Nealls
City Manager
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Dear Mr. Nealis:
p@Eric3
SEP 2 0 1996
CITY OF
BY
I was copied a letter from AGI Geotechnical, Inc. in which they stated a need for dirt at 7
Maverick Lane.
At this time I am requesting that we be allowed to export the allowable maximum of 500 cubic
yards of earth from the Blazevich property.
In as much as we have already moved 260 cubic yards to complete the Hilliard job, this would
leave 240 cubic yards that we would be allowed to export.
There has been an urgent request from the Caballeros to obtain dirt to finish the Hix ring.
I am estimating 110 cubic yards would complete that task. The remainder, 130 cubic yards, be
used to finish the Howroyd project as requested in the AGI letter, which is enclosed.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
OIJTH BAY ENGINEERING COMPANY
Douglas K. McHatfie
Vice President
961nealis2.sam196ami ja
❑ 304 TEJON PLACE • PALOS VERDES ESTATES. CA 90274 • (310) 375.2556 IN L.A. (213) 772.1555 • FAX (310) 378.3816
0 521 SPECTRUM CIRCLE. SUITE A • OXNARD. CA 93030 • (805) 278.0381 • FAX (805) 278.0681
•
A.G.I. GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
7247 Hayvenhuret Avenue, Unit A-2 • Van Nuys, CA 91408 • (818) 785.5244 • FAX (818) 785.8251
September 4,1996 Job # 4-1332-03
Bernie Howroyd
#7 Maverick .
Rolling Hills, Calif 90274
RE: Grading operations at above mentioned location
Dear Mr. Howroyd;
During my observations of the grading operations on the slope behind your residence, it is
obvious that the soil being placed is taking a tremendous shrink. This is not an uncommon
occurrence in this area and can generally be remedied with the importing of soil from another
local project. Since all of the criteria for your project is predicated on the pad reaching proposed
design elevation, and the high shrinkage factor is making that unlikely, you may be needing soil.
As luck would have it, a recent backfill design criteria change for the basement walls at
# 1 Buggy Whip Drive, here in rolling hills, allows you that opportunity.
If this is may be of any benefit to you feel free to contact Dutch Phillips ( grading contractor )
# 1 Buggy Whip. The job site Phone is 310-541-9925 or the fax No. is 310-541-2969.
Thank you for your time,
Kevin M. , anley denior Soils Yechnician
Engineering Geology • Soil Engineering • Environmental Studies
53
//vt,m2,cm-ek ra-d)*/$1-
t(yzvot- iii7A44--(-
trei:e.T
444,0-v-c.
dti
•
eitS Vt BROGDON
5 MAVERICK IN.
ROWNG HILLS, CA 90271
3//L/17
•
(944.4-4 f^6cvii-
L , 7 e;34,:tt, c
(./) 6--1)1;1 ik -711 ary‘-e'tA:e./
li ;)/1,
/i/:
) 2 - 4__
�►. � 9 70
i' 33;owe, ,ti r fl aa,_
rl�C. -4 Gl/12 - 4
f,4 _;,„„)-e-t-,t,
, a-,,,,(. 4 -/dtc
el it., 0,,,,AA-e-gicr AA-r- /„.„, , at,_ ,36 a_,,,,,,,,„,
t/,v tite,
Ifr, ,
Cj,t,/-- 6/
1) j14- d-Or(114-- i,01/ ale 14,e14-v-
-eL.0.&;01- 1,);-614- .4P-i-t-za-lta''A-e'
'6'46 4'4-6441'
i.j,j4_ 1.„t c. A aid-EAP- att4/Lci-a-r--6A-ei-eze
,,,,, rii9ze;i; 4)Artiti lc ci4-6-c
lib c2 ILL Ivid.givu;v7, e,6-04/gYvuif-Ad d,,--e-f-
E;-' fn - "n 7 9
!I ,_
MAR 13199?
CITY O" r ..LLS
By