Loading...
781, """As built"" parking are and , Correspondence1city „fie It, December 22, 2010 Mr. and Mrs. Robert Wolfenden 60 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills CA 90274 4111i INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 Subject: Release of landscaping bond and requirements of Zoning Case No. 781 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Wolfenden: The City has determined that your landscaping meets the conditions of Zoning Case No. 596B, and has therefore released the bond. However, please note that the conditions of approval in Zoning Case No. 781 must be met. We request that the following actions be implemented immediately: • Record Resolution No. 2010-17. The form and instructions were mailed to you on September 16, 2010. • Obtain building permits for the outdoor kitchen and fire place as well as for the walls, if required by the County Building Department • All other conditions of Resolution No. 2010-17 must be met. Also note that you are required to narrow one of the paths within two years of the approval of Zoning Case No. 781, (August 17, 2010) or when the pool is constructed, whichever comes first, or you will be required to submit an amended application to the Planning Commission to retain the path as is. Please do not hesitate to call me at 310 377-1521, should you have any questions. Sipclrely, (7/ /? Yo13nta Schwan Planning Director Printed on Recycled Paper ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The Landscaping Bond in the amount of $14,375 No. 3SM04508300 in Zoning Case No. 596B was releasedrto me by theCity of Rolling Hills on /z - - 2010. Signature: , 44-//e Date: ,/.2- ze7,?.; Cry oll2�l,.gJdl� September 16, 2010 Mr. and Mrs. Robert Wolfenden 60 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 781. Site Plan and Variances for "as built" conditions. Dear Mr. and Mrs. Wolfenden: This letter shall serve to notify you that the Planning Commission adopted resolution on August 17, 2010 granting your request for Site Plan Review and Variance in Zoning Case No. 781. That action, accompanied by the record of the proceedings was reported to the City Council on September 13, 2010 at their regular meeting, at which they received and filed your request. Please note that the Planning Commission placed a condition on your property that any other construction. addition. grading. etc. must come back for approval to the Plannina Commission and that Building and Safety approvals are required for all of the work on your property. Please continue working with the County staff to obtain approvals for the drainage, aradina and assure that all building permits have been pulled for the outdoor structures and the additional gradina. No final approval will be granted for your residence unless all conditions are complied with. The approval included construction of a 698 sa.ft. pool, includina a spa. Prior to commendina construction of the swimming pool you must submit a plan showing how the dirt from excavation of the pool will be utilized to decrease the width of one of the paths below. If in two years this is not accomplished, you are required to come back to the Plannina Commission to request permission to retain the path in its current state or provide other method to decrease the width. Please assure that you and all of your workers/contractor are familiar of the conditions of approval. Before this case takes effect you are required to record an Affidavit of Acceptance Form together with the subject Resolution in the Office of the County Recorder. I am enclosing a copy of RESOLUTION NO. 2010-17, specifying the conditions of approval set forth by the Planning Commission. Please make a copy for your files and record the other. Please complete the enclosed AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM, have the signature(s) notarized, and forward, (or hand deliver), the completed form and one copy of the Resolution to: OR Los Angeles County Registrar -Recorder Real Estate Records Section 12400 East Imperial Highway Norwalk, CA 90650 LAX Courthouse 11701 S. La Cienega Blvd. 6th Floor Printed on Recycled Paper Los Angeles, CA 90045 310-727-6142 Mon -Fri 8:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m Include a check in the amount of $18.00 for the first page and $3.00 for each additional page, (please confirm the cost with the County Clerks Office, as their fees change frequently). Do not hesitate to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Ygnta Schwartz PI nning Director Enclosures: AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM RESOLUTION NO. 2010-17 cc: Doug McHattie, Bolton Engineering RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND MAIL TO: CITY OF ROLLING HILLS PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2 PORTUGUESE BEND RD. ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 (310) 377-7288 FAX t RECORDER'S USE ONLY THE REGISTRAR -RECORDER'S OFFICE REQUIRES THAT THE FORM BE NOTARIZED BEFORE RECORDATION. AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) ZONING CASE NO. 781 VARIANCES XX I (We) the undersigned state XX SITE PLAN REVII C, �- �yq.-Ca4-Nrcivr. va,,t4tztfr. I am (We are) the owner(s) of the real property described as follows: 60 EASTFIELD DRIVE, ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (LOT 104-A-EF, 105-EF) This property is the subject of the above numbered case and conditions of approval I am (We are) aware of, and accept, all the stated conditions in said ZONING CASE NO. 781 XX SITE PLAN REVIEW XX VARIANCES I (We) certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Signature• Signature Name typed or printed Name typed or printed Address _Address City/State City/State City Q o I o/1 n INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 September 1, 2010 Mr. and Mrs. Robert Wolfenden 60 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills CA 90274 Subject: Conditions of approval ZC 781-Modification Dear Mr. and Mrs. Wolfenden: It has been over a year since the Planning Commission visited your property and noticed the "as built" outdoor amenities. One of the conditions of approval of your project was that these structures be legalized by obtaining a building permit. I spoke to you on several occasions to remind you of this requirement. However, to date you have not obtained the necessary permits. In addition, you have not recorded Resolution No. 2010-17 accepting the conditions of approval. The form and instructions for recordation were mailed to you on September 16, 2010. Please contact me if you misplaced the information. In order to avoid future code enforcement action, please obtain the necessary permits and record the Resolution by September 23, 2011. Also note that you are required to narrow one of the paths within two years of the approval of Zoning Case No. 781, (August 17, 2010) or when the pool is constructed, whichever comes first, or you will be required to submit an amended application to the Planning Commission to retain the path as is. Please do not hesitate to call me at 310 377-1521, should you have any questions. Sin terCly, lanta Schwartz Planning Director cc: Wayne Chatman, L.A. County Building and Safety Printed on Recycled Paper • C1t ilel&g August 18, 2010 Mr. and Mrs. Robert Wolfenden 60 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377.7288 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. Site Plan and Variances for "as built" conditions. Dear Mr. and Mrs. Wolfenden: This letter shall serve to notify you that the Planning Commission adopted resolution on August 17, 2010 granting your request for Site Plan Review and Variance in Zoning Case No. 781. That action, accompanied by the record of the proceedings before the Commission will be reported to the City Council on MONDAY, September 13, 2010 at their regular meeting beginning at 7:30 PM. You or your representative must be present to answer any questions the Council may have. Please note that the Planning Commission placed a condition on your property that any other construction, addition, grading etc. on your property must come back for approval to the Planning Commission and that Building and Safety approvals are required for all of the work on your property. The Planning Commission's decision in this matter shall become effective thirty days after the adoption of the resolution by the Commission, unless an appeal has been filed or the City Council takes jurisdiction of the case within that thirty (30) day appeal period. (Section 17.54.010(B) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code). Anyone, including you, may appeal the Planning Commission's decision or parts thereof. Should there be an appeal, the Commission's decision will be stayed until the Council completes its proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Code. Please review the Resolution of approval and if you have any objections to any of the conditions you may appeal them to the City Council within 30 days of adoption of the resolution by the Planning Commission. If no appeals are filed within the thirty (30) day period after adoption of the Planning Commission's resolution, the Planning Commission's action will become final and you will be required to record an Affidavit of Acceptance Form together with the subject Resolution in the Office of the County Recorder before the Commission's action takes effect. The staff report to the City Council will be mailed to you on Friday, September 10, 2010. After the City Council's action, I will forward to you instructions for recordation of the Affidavit Of Acceptance Form and the Resolution. Please feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Sinc y, Yo,Jta Schwartz PI- ing Director cc: Douglas McHattie, Bolton Engineering 0 Printed on Recycled Paper .- C1tof !2 fl,.s JJ,II, August 4, 2010 Mr. and Mrs. Robert Wolfenden 60 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Wolfenden: • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 SUBJECT: Request to continue the public hearing in Zoning Case 780 As you know, the Planning Commission continued your case to the August 17, 2010 Planning Commission meeting and asked you to provide additional information and asked staff to arrange for County engineers to be present at the meeting. Pursuant to State Law, the Planning Commission must act on a development case within certain period of time or the case is automatically approved. They may continue the case for additional 90-days with the applicant's permission. If the Commission for some unforeseen reasons cannot adopt the Resolution of approval that will be presented to them by staff on 8/17, they will have no other choice but to deny your application (as they must take an action). Therefore, it is important that you sign the enclosed form to allow you and the Commission more time, in case the Commission does not pass the project at their August meeting. Due to the fact that August meeting is the last meeting the Commission can deliberate in this case, it is required that you sign permission for the Planning Commission to continue their deliberation, if needed. The form must be returned to the City before the next meeting (August 17), or I will have no choice but to prepare a Resolution of Denial in your case, so that the Commission could act. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me at 310 377-1521 or email at ys@cityofrh.net Sin ' e r- ly, Y jnta Schwartz P : nning Director f. Printed on Recycled Paper • LETTER OF CONSENT TO EXTENSION OF TIME Government Code Section 65957 Date: August 4, 2010 Application: Zoning Case No. 781' Department of Planning City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 Attn: Yolanta Schwartz Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65957, Mr. and Mrs. Robert Wolfenden hereby requests and consents to a ninety (90) day extension to the time periods specified in Government Code Sections 65950, 65950.1 and 65952 for the City of Rolling Hills Planning Commission to take action on the above referenced application at 60 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, CA. Signature of Applicant (1) or Applicant's Representative Printed Name of Applicant (1) or Applicant's Representative Signature of Applicant (2) or Applicant's Representative Printed Name of Applicant (2) or Applicant's Representative Received by: 7/12/2010 City of Rolling Hills Planning Department Subject Zoning Case #781 Dear Planning Commission Members: JUL 12 2010 City of i(7fHng Hills By In response to your letter dated June 16, 2010 I offer the following information. I appreciate the commissions' acceptance of rock walls 3 feet and under, and the motor court wall at 60 Eastfield Drive. I have reduced all of the other rock walls on the property to three feet or less except a 29 foot long and a 35foot long portion on the upper south side of the property, the walls range in height from 3'4" to 4'2". The flat areas the rock walls allow, a flat planting area and a flat walk way. I will show you the wall sections when you make your next visit. I have also removed the rock wall that intruded upon my neighbors' property. I have not, as of yet, requested permission from the association to plant that area. I do plan to ask permission for that and a small fence at the front property line. I have reduced the width on the south side lower road to its minimum with the existing drainage system. I have also removed the rock that was on the slope and re -graded the slope slightly to make it appear more natural. The upper road widths remain the same as when you last visited. The need for the road width is mainly for proper and safe access to the barn area. When you have a horse trailer behind a truck the turning radius is constrained, so you need to swing out and use the entire road just to make the turn. In addition to barn access, as I explained on your field trip, the cesspool company uses the lower road for pumping and servicing my septic system. Included with this correspondence is a letter from the company. In addition to the access the roads afford me, they are the only access to the bottom of the canyon for fire and rescue operations. As you may or may not know there is no access from Open Brand to the canyon. There was never an easement laid out between the first two homes on the North side of Open Brand. My access road would be the only way in. I stopped at the fire station on Crest Road and discussed this with the fireman on duty. He agreed that access might come in handy under certain conditions. He informed me he would come and inspect the road and make a note of it on the fire stations maps and records. I have not seen him and have not checked back with him, although he didn't need to contact me in order to inspect. Thank you again for your consideration, Bob and Janet Wolfenden • �n01---I:t i11JLt. I 14'its1 Going strong for over sixty years June 25, 2010 Mr. R. T. Wolfenden 60 Eastfield Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Mr. Wolfenden: The current in use septic system located at 60 Eastfiled is located below the residence on the bottom of the hillside slope area. This septic system, as do all septic systems, require they be pumped and receive some general maintenance. As this system gets older the frequency of the pumps and general maintenance will most likely increase. Due to the difference in elevation and the distance from the driveway down the slope to the existing septic system, the only way to properly service the septic system is from the access road. Respectfully, Matt Tullius — Project Manager Atlas Cesspool Service THE MAHAFFEY COMPANIES 1800 S. ALAMEDA STREET • E. Rancho Dominguez, CA 90221 • (310) 605-1700 • FAX (310) 668-2040 CONTRACTORS LICENSE: CA 520180 C1.t, /o//ing d1�L3 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 June 16, 2010 Mr. and Mrs. Robert Wolfenden 60 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 781 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Wolfenden: This letter shall serve to notify you that the Planning Commission after a field visit to your property and lengthy discussion of your "as built" project at their June 15, 2010 meeting, indicated that several parts of the request would be granted and that more information and clarification is needed for the remaining aspects of the application. The Planning Commission indicated that they would not object to the 3-foot walls along the motor court and would allow all of the rock walls to remain, subject to reducing them to 3 feet or less. They requested that the rock walls be removed from the neighbors' property along the access road to the stable. The Commission requested information on how would the disturbed area be affected (currently at 63.7% disturbance of the net lot area), if the lower roads (south) and the slopes around them were brought to pre -disturbed condition, and how can you mitigate the widths of the remaining roads to provide for a more natural and landscaped areas. One possibility they discussed would be to request permission from the RHCA to plant in the easement between your property and 58 Eastfield, along the stable access. Should it be infeasible to re -grade portions of the lot to its pre-existing state, please provide written reasons and experts' opinion. The Planning Commission scheduled another field visit to view the swimming pool and the accessory structures that were constructed but which were not on the original plan. Please stake the swimming pool, spa, water slide, pool equipment area and all other proposed structures. The field trip is scheduled for Tuesday, July 20, 2010 at 8:00 am. After the next field trip, the Planning Commission will continue deliberating your project at their regular meeting scheduled for Tuesday, July 20 at 6:30 pm. The Planning Commission could approve your project, deny it or approve only parts thereof. The Planning Commission's decision can be appealed to the City Council. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 310 377-1521.. Sinc .cel Yola Schwartz, Planning Direct Cc: Doug McHattie, Bolton Engineering Printed on Recycled Paper • 6/11/2010 City of Rolling Hills Planning Commission Dear Commission Members: JUN142010 City of Rolling Hills By The last public hearing left me concerned that several issues regarding my property might not be fully understood by the commission. Specifically, 1. The proper procedure for a re -compaction grading project, such as the one done on my property. 2. The necessity to remove underground stone and rocks. 3. A garden wall that was built in 2002. 1. With regard to the grading project, the city staff implied that we failed to follow LA County regulations when we did the work. This is not the case. Western Soils, an approved and licensed soil company was hired to supervise and control all aspects of the project. Los Angeles County requires soils testing for compaction and relies on private soils engineers, such as Western Soils, to supervise projects and conduct all tests in the field. Before the re -compaction begins the engineer must certify that the digging has reached competent soil. In some areas under my house we reached competent soil approximately 30 feet below the front door entry. Competent soil is soil that can be added to by layering in 6" to 12" lifts, compacting each layer as they go. The soils company tests these layers each day the project moves ahead, testing to make sure each layer is at least 90% compacted. At the hearing it was suggested that LA County should have inspected the project periodically. However, this was not county policy at the time the project was done. We followed all procedures and submitted all required soils and compaction reports. Furthermore, all of these reports were approved by the county. 2. The second issue that I want to clarify is the necessity of removing underground rocks and boulders. When a geologist digs test holes on a property, one of the things he determines is the bedding angle. Because the Palos Verdes Peninsula is composed of mainly sedimentary rock that has been uplifted millions of years ago, a property may have a downward sloping bedding angle that would tend to slide away under the load of a structure. My property had a downward sloping bedding angle. (Note: All of this information is available in a more technical format in the soils and geology reports prepared by Western Soils.) To correct this downward sloping bedding angle, all rocks, boulders, and soil that make up the bedding angle must be removed down to a competent base. Once removed the only rocks that can be reused are those that are 6" in diameter or smaller. These small rocks along with soil are then layered, compacted and tested until the proper elevation is reached. Additionally, the slope of the hillside must be no steeper • e than one foot rise for every two feet of run; the slopes at my house meet these standards. There is no fool -proof method of knowing how much soil and rock will need to be reworked on a project. Usually three or four test holes are dug prior to the work being started to give a general idea what lies ahead. Unknown underground conditions may become evident once a project gets underway. Soil and rock conditions can change dramatically within a few feet. In our case, correcting the downward sloping angle of the hillside turned out to be a much bigger project than we originally anticipated. The disturbed area was further increased by the need to build an access road on the north side of the property. The bottom line is that stabilizing this hillside required the removal of the rocks and boulders and there was no way to reuse them during the re -compaction process. 3. The third issue is a wall built in 2002 on the south side of my garage driveway. I originally applied for a variance that included the wall in question. The city granted all parts of the variance except the wall. Subsequent to that decision, and within the allotted timeframe for response, I sent a letter to the planning commission requesting that they revisit the matter. A dated and stamped copy of this letter is in your files. I discussed the matter with the city manager at the time, who advised me not to worry about it. I really don't know if the commission was ever made aware of my letter. All I know for sure is the city office received it and date stamped it. I thought the matter was approved until this most recent hearing. I believe it was the commission's duty to notify me if they objected to my argument and wanted to debate the matter further. Thank you fojyir time, Bob • fenden C;t, opeo ili.g Jh/i FIELD TRIP NOTIFICATION May 20, 2010 Mr. and Mrs. Robert Wolfenden 60 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 • INCORPORATED JANLIARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377.7288 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 781 Mod. Dear Mr. and Mrs. Wolfenden: The Planning Commission scheduled a field visit to your property to view the project on Monday, June 14, 2010 at 7:30 AM. The owner and/or representative must be present to answer questions regarding the proposal. The site is to be prepared according to the following requirements. Please note that inadequate staking may result in postponement of the case to another month. A. Delineate graded areas, unless obvious; If there is a way to stake or delineate what was previously approved and what is the extent of graded area now would be beneficial. B. Stake/delineate the proposed pool and location of pool equipment area; C. Delineate/stake the property lines, setback lines and the easement lines in the area of the wall along the motor court; Your neighbors within 1000-foot radius will be notified of this field trip. After the field trip, the next meeting of the Planning Commission will take place on Tuesday, June 15. 2010 at 6:30 PM at City Hall, at which time the Commission will further discuss and deliberate your proposal. Please call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Sincerfely, . u4 Yolonta Schwartz Planning Director cc: Douglas McHattie, Bolton Engineering 0 Printed on Recycled Paper • R. T. WOLFENDEN CO. 460 W. 5TH Street San Pedro, CA 90731 P: (310) 548-5038 F: (310) 548-5048 Yolanta Schwartz Principal Planner City of Rolling Hills No 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills Subject: Grading at 60 Eastfield Drive Dear Ms. Schwartz: GENERAL CONTRACTOR GENERAL ENGINEERING CONTRACTOR LICENSE #430897-A, B, C16,C21,HAZMAT REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT APR 2 7 2010 City of Rolling Hills By This letter is, hopefully, an explanation of grading in excess of what was originally permitted for my property. There are two contributing factors which caused the grading to go over the original estimate. The first was caused from excessive rock found subsurface at my site; the second was the building of an access road to replace the existing asphalt road that runs from Eastfield to the California Water Service tanks located at the bottom of my lots. The grading project was supervised by Western Laboratories in Torrance. The field work was done by Mike Drew's Construction. In simplest terms, as the track loader machine uncovered more and more rock, rock that was to large to be used in the compacted fill, the rock veins had to be removed to competent material. Once competent material was reached, excavation stopped, testing was done and the process of placing and compacting the fill was started. A site visit to my property today will show that I have many tons of rock all over my property, even though Mike Drew's hauled approximately 200 truck loads of rock to Chandler Sand and Gravel. The access to my planned barn area was originally planned and approved using the existing access road that serves the Water Company. The water company gave their permission and the city planning approved my project based upon their agreement. During the construction process the neighbors discovered that the access road ran over their property, they complained to the city, and the water company. The water company revoked permission to use the road. This created the necessity to excavate and re compact the entire north property line of my lot, in order to allow for the building of a road capable of handling trucks and horse trailers. Today this service road is entirely on my property, we do not use any part of the Water Company road. • • The completion of a home in Rolling Hills is not as straight forward as one might think it should be. I have built many buildings in the flatlands that were very predictable as far as time and costs are concerned. I believe everyone on the planning commission and at your office realizes that home construction in Rolling Hills generally takes longer than expected. Site conditions are the root cause of these delays. No one knows going in exactly what they will find under the surface. I originally estimated between $150,000 and $200,000 for the grading, including testing and engineering. The final cost was in excess of $400,000. I sincerely hope this satisfies the planning departments concerns regarding the grading at my property. Robert T. olfenden Address: Telephone: Fax: 111 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING DIVISION SOILS ENGINEERING REVIEW SHEET 900 S. Fremont Ave., Alhambra, CA 91803 (626) 458-4925 (626) 458-4913 Additions and Stables Pads Location Developer/Owner Engineer/Architect Soils Engineer Geologist Rough Grading (Grading Plan Check No. 0104180001) 60 Eastfield Drive, City of Rolling Hills Wolfender Bolton Engineering Corp. Westem Laboratories (98-2621) Same as above Review of: Soils Engineering Report Dated 10/18/09 (resubmitted with COI Previous Review Sheet Dated 2/10/10 ACTION: Rough Grading is recommended for approval. NOTES) TO THE PLAN CHECKER/BUILDING AND SAFETY ENGINEER: A. ON -SITE SOILS HAVE HIGH TO MEDIUM EXPANSION POTENTIAL. B. ON -SITE SOILS ARE MODERATELY CORROSIVE TO FERROUS METALS. Reviewed by •shi :'<-,.-1'171'•'STIL"1' Please complete a Customer Service Survey at httpi/dpw.l+r unty.gov/g NOTICE: Public safety, relative to geotechnical subsurface .loration, shal . provi Angeles County Code, Chapter 11.48, and the State of Califomia, Title 8, Construction Safety Orders. P:tYoshl60 Eastfield Dr, City of Rolling Hills, FGR-A 2 District Office Job Number Sheet 1 of 1 . 12.02 GMPH DISTRIBUTION: Drainage Grading Geo/Soils Central File District Engineer Geologist Soils Engineer Engineer/Architect Date 3/31 /10 rdance with current codes for excavations, inclusive of the Los Dist. Office 12.02 Sheet 1 of 1 Cou*f Los Angeles Department of Public s DISTRIBUTION GEOTEC ICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING D VISION 1 Dist. Office GEOLOGIC REVIEW SHEET 1 Geologist 900 So. Fremont Ave., Alhambra, CA 91803 Soils Engineer TEL. (626) 458-4925 1 GMED File Tract / Parcel Map Lot(s) Parent Tract Location City of Roiling Hills Site Address 60 Eastfieid Drive APN 7567-004-041 Geologist Westem Laboratories Developer/Owner Wolfender Solis Engineer Westem Laboratories Engineer/Arch. Bolton En. ineerina Cora. Review of: ROUGH GRADING AND FINAL GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS Geologic Report(s) Dated Solis Engineering Report(s) Dated Geology and Soils Engineering Report(s) Dated 10/16/09 References: Grading P.C. No, 0104180001 For. Pads for addition and stable Building P.C. No. Action: Based on the above referenced reports, rough grading is recommended for approval from a geologic standpoint for the issuance of building permits, with conditions below 1. The above report(s) contains recommendations that must be enforced. 2. Do not submit building plans to the Geotechnical and Materials Engineering Division for structures on the pads created by the subject grading, provided code requirements and the consultant's recommendations are followed. 3. Foundation excavations must be inspected and approved by the consulting soils engineer prior to the placing of steel or concrete. 4. The Soils Engineering review dated 3/31/10 is attached. Prepared by Charles Nestle Reviewed by Date 3/31/10 Please complete a Customer Service Survey at htto:/Idow.Iacountv.aov/ao/amedsurvev P:1GmeputrbGeology ReviewiForms1Form07.doc 8. R.T. WOLFENDEN 60 Eastfield Drive Richie-Bray ARCH. COMM. MTG. - 105 & 104 A EF — 4/15/013 Mr. North left the room and did not participate in the discussion or the decision of the Committee. The Committee reviewed hardscape plans for a new swimming pool, slide, spa, barbeque and exterior fireplace. Relocate pool slide to edge of slope near spa and off of access deck at Elevation 497. Extend top of slide 2' above spa area. Drop pool level to Elevation 494. Exterior fireplace is too massive. Reduce height and width of structure. Fireplace fire box detailing is not compatible with Rolling Hills ranch style design. Stone material is acceptable provided that it is laid roughly coursed. Landscape and lower lot driveway is not approved in the easement if landscaping is desired to be in the easement, need to request for a license agreement from the RHCA Board of Directors for approval. The decision of the Committee was unanimous. iv1,111 c _ oruy 105 & 104 A EF 60 Eastfield Drive Mr. Nor h el ft the room and did not participate in the discussion or the decision of the Committee. Mr. Wolfenden attended the meeting. The Committee reviewed the revised plans for a new swimming pool, grotto with a slide, spa, exterior fireplace and barbeque area with the property owner. The new swimming pool, grotto with a slide, spa, exterior fireplace and barbeque area are approved as submitted. The decision of the Committee was unanimous. t Feather Crass IGAL \ • -5/6/08 1 i } 1 1 • R.T. WOLFENDEN CO. 846 WATSON AVENUE, UNIT C WILMINGTON, CA 90744 (310) 830-8226 • FAX (310) 830-9066 November 12, 2001 Craig R. Nealis City of Rolling Hills #2 Portuguese Bend Road r,7, OF Htu—s Rolling Hills, CA 90274 ray • GENERAL CONTRACTORS GENERAL ENGINEERING CONTRACTOR REAL ESTATE BROKERAGE INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE 4430897-A, B, C16, C21, HAZMAT r~. 'fl Dear Mr. Nealis: As you know I recently applied for a variance for walls and planters in the setback areas. At the meeting I attended I agreed to remove some of the three-foot high wall in the side yard setback. I appreciate the commission approving the front yard planters. I have rethought that action and respectfully request that the planning commission reconsider the side yard wall. After discussing the situation with several neighbors I feel I did not adequately explain my needs for the side yard walls or explain fully that they have no impact on anybody, except my family. The main reason I needed that little parking area, created by the walls, is to park two extra family cars. I have five children; the two oldest already drive, #3 is 1 1/2 years away. My wife and I have two cars and a truck between us. Additionally we have a motor home, a boat and a motorcycle trailer. Since we remodeled an existing house we did not have the choice where to put the garage. My younger kids play basketball, skateboard, play roller hockey, and play other games where a large concrete area is required. Additionally we do not want to move cars around to accommodate the comings and goings of other family members. In the period since our meeting I have looked around and seen many other houses with side yard encroachments, one new one is under construction just up Eastfield. I realize I screwed up by not asking for permission first, but as I • • told the planning commission I did not realize I was building something that needed approval. Additionally my side yard is not an area where anybody will be riding or walking as it leads down to fairly steep dangerous ravine that leads to nowhere. The neighbor to the south of me has not made any provision for any traversing a!ong our mutual property line. I do not know if you can distribute this letter to each city council member and ask them to override the planning commission, or if the issue must go back to the planning commission for there review. In any event I would like to request an action that does not put me back at '`start" again and if at all possible does not cost me additional fees. I am out of town this week attending outdoor science camp, with my daughter, as an adult volunteer chaperon, otherwise I would be at the meeting to represent myself. Thank you for your help in this matter. Regards, Bob and Janet Wolfenden