697, An addition of 208 sq ft to an, CorrespondenceGEORGE L. FARINSKY
13 EASTFIELD DRIVE
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
MAY 18, 2003
To the Planning Commission
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Ladies and Gentlemen:
This letter is furnished pursuant to an undated notice furnished us concerning Zoning
Case No. 664. As an adjacent Rolling Hills property owner, I hereby advise you that I
oppose the proposed grants of the permits and variances requested in Case 664
because the coverages on the property already exceed those permitted by the City's
regulations and because the additional roof areas will cause further accumulations of
water which will add to those which already flow across our property in heavy rainfalls.
As you know from your previous reviews of the property in question, the requests in this
case are not for approvals to exceed various permitted lot coverages; but rather for
approvals to FURTHER EXCEED permitted lot coverages. If such approvals are
granted, it seems they are tantamount to stating that the existing regulations are
unenforceable. If this is to be the case, wouldn't it be more appropriate to amend the
regulations to permit greater lot coverages for all residents rather that only approving
them for a select few? In this regard, you should note that the Strawns, our prior
neighbors at 11 Eastfield Drive, moved because they could not obtain permission for an
addition which exceeded permitted lot coverage by substantially less than is already
exceeded at the 15 Eastfield property.
There is a potential for excessive water flow damaging our property from the addition
of roof surface and connection of new downspouts on the proposed additions. I have
previously discussed drainage control with the City and the County, who each have
claimed that the other has responsibility for Rolling Hills drainage projects. Past
projects have apparently ended up the hill from us, so we already have substantial
water flow across our property every time there is a significant rainfall. Additional roof
surfaces and drainage connections to the existing "drainage system" (which merely
deposits all the runoff from 15 Eastfield in our easement) will simply aggravate this
situation.
•
With respect to the Case drawings and staff report, note that the garage is now
attached rather than detached. Ask Roger Vink whether another unrecorded addition
was made when the roof was replaced with an unapproved wood shake. There is
another horse shelter structure on the property East of the stable, not shown on the
drawings, that was built approximately in 1993. Also, if the previous coverages were
12,437 square feet and 19,560 square feet, it seems that the proposed 886 and 583
square feet of additions (total 1,469 square feet) would make them 13,906 and 21,029
square feet, respectively. Further, our lot at 13 Eastfield is 3.293 acres or 143,443
square feet rather than the 95,590 shown and your maps show 11 Eastfield is 2.19
acres or 95,396 square feet rather than the 217,800 shown.
I regret I am unable to attend the hearing and hope you will take my objection as well
as your history with the subject property into account in rejecting this request for
permits and variances.
Very truly yours,
George L..Farinsky
•
Ci oeleo een9 JUL
March 16, 2005
Mr. and Mrs. Errol Gordon
15 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
E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com
SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 697, Request for Site Plan Review and
Variance to retain an existing shade shelter, which encroaches into the front yard
setback and to construct an addition to a stable, which would encroach into the front
yard; and request for Variances to exceed the maximum permitted structural and
total lot coverage at an existing single family residence at 15 Eastfield Drive (Lot 52-
EF), Rolling Hills, CA'.
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Gordon:
This letter shall serve to notify you that the Planning Commission adopted a
resolution on March 15, 2005, granting Site Plan Review and Variances to exceed
the maximum structural lot coverage and maximum total lot coverage and the
addition to the stable, but denied the horse shelter in the above case. That action,
accompanied by the record of the proceedings before the Commission will be
reported to the City Council on Monday. March 28. 2005. The City Council staff
report will be forwarded to you on Friday, March 25, 2005.
The Planning Commission's decision in this matter shall become effective thirty days
after the adoption of the resolution by the Commission, unless an appeal has been
filed or the City Council takes jurisdiction of the case within that thirty (30) day appeal
period. (Section 17.54.010(B) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code). Should there be
an appeal, the Commission's decision will be stayed until the Council completes its
proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Code.
If no appeals are filed within the thirty (30) day period after adoption of the Planning
Commission's resolution, the Planning Commission's action will become final and
you will be required to cause to be recorded an Affidavit of Acceptance Form
together with the subject resolution in the Office of the County Recorder before the
Commission's action takes effect. I will forward to you the appropriate forms and
signed resolution for recordation following the City Council meeting
Please feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions.
Sintb6Lei
cel�r,
/V 7 SVe/-
Y nta Schwartz
PI nning Director
cc: Mr. Thomas A. Blair, AIA
Sent. By: LAW OFFICES OF ERROL J GORDON; 12134824508;
Apr-26-05 10:08;
Page 1/1
'ip i:2,Q05
CITY OF ROLLING Att.ILS
ERROL J. GORDON
JOEANN M. GORDON
15 Eastfield Drive
Rolling Hills, California 90274
Telephone No. (310) 377-0689
April 26, 2005
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Mr. Craig Nealis
City Manager
City of Rolling Hills
No. 2 Portuguese Road
Rolling Hills, California 90274
Re:
VARIANCE CONDITION
Zoning Case Nos. 694 and 697
Property Address: 15 Eastfield Drive, Follina Hills. CA
Dear Mr. Nealis:
The horse shelter subject to the variance conditions has
been removed. You are tree to have this fact verified by an
inspection of our property. I am also enclosing a confirmation
of the recordation of the two (2) Affidavit of Acceptance forms
which were signed and notarized on April 18, 2005. I am
enclosing a copy of the first page of these two (2) documents
for your review.
Thus, based upon the foregoing, please remove any
limitation on the issuance of the building perrniL for our
property. If there are`any q stions, please call. Thank you.
EJG:rcid
Enclosure as stated
cc: Mr. Tom Blair
Mr. Luis De La Rosa
pectfu
ERROL J. •RDON
•
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
MAIL TO
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
(310) 377-7288 FAX
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. 697
SITE PLAN REVIEW
VARIANCES
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
•
COPY of Document Recorded
vlas not been complied with original,
4riglnal 011 be rest rued when
processing bris been completed.REGISTRAR • R�,CCRI)ER
LOS ANGEt.ES COtll�ri�
XX
xx
(We) the undersigned. state:
I am (We are) the owner(s) of the real property described as follows:
15 EASTFIELD DRIVE, ROLLING HILLS, (LOT 52-EF) CA 90274
This property is the subject of the above numbered case and conditions of approval
I am (We are) aware of, and accept, all the stated conditions in said
ZONING CASE NO. 697
SITE PLAN REVIEW
VARIANCES •
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
XX
xx
fy (or ,I re) under th penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Signat 4:2 Liav,vi J Signatu 0.e c va
Name ty ed or printed Name typed..or prinled
Pt 1 /s £ -
•
APR hoo
T Recorder's Use Only'
Address Addres
►' L ►vc,
City/State
Signatures must be acknowledged by a notary public,
•
City/State
State of California )
County of Los Angeles) (�
On tk•P(:\ lq 2-Cb5 before me, .1 T ar►leS R. 1 bii
personally appeared Frio io) S. (50rd c:, G1 - oecr\ n (-sorc on
personally known to me (or -per' sn the t c s af-setisfee er-y-e
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that lie/s
capacity(ies) and that by fre/he signature(s) on the
person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
JAMES R. HAMILTON
Comrnlsslon # 1433922 7 Notary Pubilc - California
Los Angeles County
My Comm. Expires Sep 3, 2007I
l
e44ee3-to be the person(s) whose name(s) 4�
executed the same in Ptfslher heir authorized
instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the
Witness by hand and official
Signature of Notary
SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF
•
•
The
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
MAIL TO
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
(310) 377-7288 FAX
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. 664
I (We) the undersigned state:
COPY of Document Recorded
9--994533
i-las not been compared with original.
Original di be gets+rnetI when ; ;:..:w..
processing his been completed.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY REGISTRAR - RECORDER
SITE PLAN REVIEW
VARIANCE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
I am (We are) the owner(s) of the real property described as follows:
15 EASTFIELD DRIVE, ROLLING HILLS, (LOT 52-EF) CA 90274
This property is the subject of the above numbered case and conditions of approval
I am (We are) aware of, and accept, all the stated conditions in said
ZONING CASE NO. 664
1 (We) certi
1
Signature
era
SITE PLAN REVIEW XX
VARIANCE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
(or d under the p nalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and corre
xx
Signat Fi `
�. Go rao n / S F Sto 1 .P K .
• T Recorders Use Only
Name Lr r' t
Addresyee s l A r1 -,41
City/State vV fV 1�.1i1"
Signatures must be acknowledged by a notary public,
State of California
County of Los Angeles )
Name tp inted 1 w� l'
Address(
J oe2 ►k ' Uc-es
City Stet&. N trYNA-
On Sri I ci, Loo 5 before me,-3avvge_S R. L Ciz✓1 Kle6&i ? LLi I LC
r
personally appeared 1 rro I J-, & rabic G_►-kri TnPG-rt ✓• (- c (cl u v.c..
personally known to me (u, NIu.cJ Iv IIs-eR-tli L0 u.-sadis€eete y-evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) ar
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that'lie s/'tie he executed the same in'his7he chef authorized
capacity(ies) and that by ' - 4rttrio.ignature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the
person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
,LAMES R. HAMILTON
Commission # 1433922
Notary Public - California 5
Los Angeles County
My Comm. Expires Sep 3, 2007
i I, I II II
Witness by hand and official s
do-- 2
Signature of Notary
SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF
•
Cry o/ leo?fi..g JJ,PP,
March 29, 2005
Mr. and Mrs. Errol Gordon
15 Eastfield Drive
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 697,
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Gordon:
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
This letter shall serve to notify you that the City Council at their regular meeting on
March 28, 2005, received and filed the Planning Commission's Resolution adopted by
the Planning Commission on March 15, 2005, granting a Site Plan Review and
Variances to exceed the maximum structural lot coverage and maximum total lot
coverage and the addition to the stable in the front yard, but denyingthe horse shelter
in the above case.
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 within that thirty (30) day appeal period to the City Council. (Section 17.54.010(B)
of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code). Should there be an appeal, the Commission's
decision will be stayed until the Council completes its proceedings in accordance with
the provisions of the Municipal Code.
If no appeals are filed within the thirty (30) day period after adoption of the Planning
Commission's resolution, the Planning Commission's action will become final and you
will be required to cause to be recorded an Affidavit of Acceptance Form together with
the subject Resolution in the Office of the County Recorder before the Commission's
action takes effect. Enclosed is an Affidavit of Acceptance Form, which needs to be
signed and notarized and recorded together with the enclosed Resolution in the:
Los Angeles County Registrar -Recorder
Real Estate Records Section
12400 East Imperial Highway
Norwalk, CA 90650
Include a check in the amount of $9.00 for the first page and $3.00 for each additional
page.
Please be advised that we have not received recorded Resolution in Zoning Case
No. 664. I am including the Affidavit Form and the Resolution for Zoning Case
No. 664 for recordation.
r • , •
The City will notify the Los Angeles County Building & Safety Division to issue permits
only after we receive the recordeddocuments and anv conditions of the
Resolutionsrequired prior to issuance of building permits are met.
Please feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions.
Si, rely,
�'1•lanta Schwartz
lanning Director
•
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
MAIL TO
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
(310) 377-7288 FAX
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. 697
SITE PLAN REVIEW X X
VARIANCES X X
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
(We) the undersigned state:
I am (We are) the owner(s) of the real property described as follows:
15 EASTFIELD DRIVE, ROLLING HILLS, (LOT 52-EF) CA 90274
This property is the subject of the above numbered case and conditions of approval
I am (We are) aware of, and accept, all the stated conditions in said
ZONING CASE NO. 697 SITE PLAN REVIEW XX
VARIANCES X X
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
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
Signatures must be acknowledged by a notary public.
State of California
County of Los Angeles )
On before me,
personally appeared
T Recorder's Use Only
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized
capacity(ies) and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the
person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
Witness by hand and official seal.
Signature of Notary
SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF
i 0
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
MAIL TO
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
(310) 377-7288 FAX
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. 664
SITE PLAN REVIEW X X
VARIANCE X X
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
I (We) the undersigned state:
I am (We are) the owner(s) of the real property described as follows:
15 EASTFIELD DRIVE, ROLLING HILLS, (LOT 52-EF) CA 90274
This property is the subject of the above numbered case and conditions of approval
I am (We are) aware of, and accept, all the stated conditions in said
ZONING CASE NO. 664
SITE PLAN REVIEW XX
VARIANCE XX
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
I (We) certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
T Recorders Use Only
Signature Signature
Name typed or printed Name typed or printed
Address Address
City/State City/State
Signatures must be acknowledged by a notary public.
State of California
County of Los Angeles )
On before me,
personally appeared
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized
capacity(ies) and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the
person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
Witness by hand and official seal.
Signature of Notary
SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF
ritibtawmajigiii74111111I41111'1111I
•a Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete
item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. •
Print your name and address on the reverse:
so that we can return the card to you.
a Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front if space permits.
1. Article Addressed to:
Mr. & Mrs. Errol Gordon
15 Eastfield Drive
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
2. Article Number
(Transfer from service Labe°
7002 0510 0001 4835 0530
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
Mr. & Mrs. Errol Gordon
15 Eastfield Drive •
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
A Signature
X
B. RI
0 Agent
0 Addressee
f...eayr Printed Name) C.' Date ofiDellye_
12-Pe to i4- ito /fi 5-
D. Is delivery address different from item i?/ 0 Yes
If YES, enter delivery address below: 0 No
3. Syvice Type
FRII Certified Mail Dflxpress Mail
El Registered Retum Receipt for Merchandise
GI Insured Mail 0 C.O.D.
4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes
Z.C. Ocr7, le Otrz_ tqlos
US. FC57....4.;!1
.../
A i
D
e' ..--- '-'3 v "-',..:-"S,-' fl 1 1 • .,,1
' • -•-•-, /--- u si, I i - A 1 :1
H NIZIEF032.C',.7:, *1
' OS jfiiy
(WATU.NAle) CO -Mt
Prod On IOXIbsVityw
Postage $
Certified Fee
Postmark
j r-9 Return Receipt Fee
I=1 012-6)
cl (Endorsement Required)
al Restricted Delivery Fee
(Endorsement Required) _s
Lfl
Total Po
c3 Sent To Mr. & Mrs. Errol Gordon
fli Street, Ap; 15 Eastfield Drive
o or PO Box Rolling H
ills, CA 90274
City State
Ltalglita-
PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Retum Receipt
102595-02-M-1540
•
•
SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION .
• Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete
ftem 4 If Restricted Delivery Is desired.
■ Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
• Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front if space permits.
1. Article Addressed to:
Mr. & Mrs. Errol Gordon
15 Eastfield Drive
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
2. Article Number
(Transfer from service label)
COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY
A. Signature
X
B. Received by( Printed Name)
0 Agent
❑ Addressee
C. Date of Delivery '
D. Is delivery address different from item 1? 0 Yes
If YES, enter delivery address below: ❑ No
3. Srice type
01 Certified Mall ❑ Mall
❑ Registered Return Receipt for Merchandise
❑ Insured Mall ❑ C.O.D.
4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee)
Z,C. NA G'7 leNRAt of gzqr s
PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Retum Receipt
❑ Yes
102595-021540
L
r
7
7002 0510 ❑nni.
03/14/2005 11:05 3105441190
GEORGE L FARINSKY
PAGE 01
Planning Commission
City of Rolling Hills
No. 2 Portuguese' Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
RE: Resolution No. 2005-10
15 Eastfield Drive
BARBARA J. FARINSKY
13 EASTFIELD DRIVE
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
MARCH 14, 2005
We received the letter from Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director on March 12, 2005 for the
Planning Commission to consider the approval for the above application. Mier reading through
the information, we are in agreement with the Planning Commissions resolution to deny the
Variance to retain the existing 140 square foot horse shelter and continue to be opposed to the
issurnce of a building permit for the residential and stable additions because we believe they result
in material overbuilding on the property. We also believe the installation of a fire retardant roof is
mandatory in all events.
We will be unable to attend the March 15, 2005 meeting as we will be out of town.
Thank you for considering our objections.
Yours very truly,
Barbara Farinsky
Sent By: LAW OFFICES OF ERROL J GORDON; 12134824508;
Feb-11-05 12:27AM; Page 2/2
• •
ERROL J. GORDON
JOEANN GORDON
15 Eastfield Drive
Rolling Hills, California 90274
Phone (310) 377.0689
February 10, 2005
Via Feesinmiie Only
Mr_ Craig Nealis
City Manager
City of Rolling Hills
No. 2 Portuguese Road
Rolling Hilts, California 90274
Re: Variance Requeel
Case Number 697
QroDurtv address: 15 Easilieid Drive. Rallina Hills. CA
Dear Mr. Nealls:
In follow-up to our telephone conversations several days ago, 1 have discussed with
Joeann the horse on our propeny which was awned by former neighbor and close friend.
We have purchased the anifnal to put the issue to rest. Although the horse has never bean
on our property for commercial purposes, we are however concerned about the precedent
that our decision will possibly have on other property owners In the City who decide to allow
a guest to keep a horse an their property. I have read the three (3) sections of the
Municipal Code sent to me by your staff which cover this Issue. These sections do not
address the issue of a 'guest animal on the property." Instead, Section 17..16.200A(5)
invokes a restriction against a commercial enterprise being undertaken by the keeping of
an animal in a barn. stable or corral. There has never been a commercial enterprise
associated with our keeping the subject horse on our property. Instead, the horse has been
used by my family. including my wife, daughter and grandchildren. Since Joeann has
experienced and witnessed serious accidents on our traits over the years, we know that
It Is tar safer to ride with another person, rather man alone. Accordingly, the reason in
deciding to acquire the horse is for safety since it will remain conveniently available for our
friend to ride with Joeann on the trails.
I hope that this resolves this issue once and for all. If there are any questions,
please contact us. Thank you.
G/1-4„,_
ERROL J. ORLON
JOEANN GORDON
EJG:rcld
• .
Planning Commission
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Ladies and Gentlemen:
RE Zoning Case No. 664 & 697
Resolution No. 2005-03
GEORGE L. FARINSKY
BARBARA J. FARINSKY
13 EAS [FIELD DRIVE
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
JANUARY 28, 2005
JAN 2 8 2005
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
/
We were disappointed to receive a call January 19 from Yolanta that Ms Hankins of the Planning
Commission, who was absent from the December meeting that we attended concerning the
request for a Site Plan Review and Variance for the 15 Eastfield Drive (Lot 52-EF) property, had
added her vote to the Commission's action of that meeting, which Ms Hankins did not attend.
How is it possible to add her vote when she did not attend? The application in question was
denied at that meeting by a two to one vote at a duly held meeting at which a quorum was
present! There's a formal set of minutes that document the denial. This apparently "retroactive"
vote made the Commission's vote two in favor of the above request and two opposed. Yolanta
said that a revote was made and was now three to one in favor of the above request to add 208
square feet to the barn, keep the nonpermitted horse shelter, and make the addition to their home
and replace the wood shake roof when the addition was completed. This achieved the result
which I thought the City Attorney said was not possible due to the nendancv of the earlier
approval! ...on an application that shouldn't have even been on the agenda because it was
formally denied at a previous meeting.
We opposed the proposed grants of the permits and variances requested in Case 664. We oppose
those in Case No. 697. The property owners are now requesting to add additional stable space
and to retain the unperrnitted shade shelter on a property on which the lot coverage has already_
been exceeded and for which a previous ruling required removal of one structure. Mr. Gordon
stated at the December meeting that they boarded horses on their property and charged the border
for expenses. The City Attorney at the meeting stated that Rolling Hills does not permit
this and that the City would have to take this up with Mr. Gordon. Has any action been taken on
this? Is the planned addition to the horse stable and the illegal shade shelter to enable them to
board horses other than for their family? The odor from the existing stall mucking receptacle is
already horrible. Will the expansion only make it worse? Would you permit it if it was located
next to your property? Should Rolling Hills have a limitation on the number of horses allowed
per acre, as some cities require. The Gordons stated they own three horses -- and seemed to
imply that they board one or two others that they do not own. Since the Commission took a field
trip to the above property, you must realize that 15 Eastfield has only a little over an acre of total
• .
property, which leaves an extremely small area for three or five or possibly more horses, some
of which don't even belong to the property owners and may violate the City's boarding
regulations. By virtue of the horse stables, shade shelter, riding ring, art studio, tennis court, spa,
and their home, the lot has already exceeded the Planning Commission's regulations for lot
coverage. By permitting the current request, you will be permitting another addition to the horse
stable and home to exceed the lot coverage even further.
Didn't the Planning Commission previously approve the 15 Eastfield home addition with the
stipulation that the illegal shade shelter be removed to maintain the lot coverage regulation? Now
it is my understanding that the permit is to be changed to add the addition to the horse stable,
keep the illegal shade shelter, plus make another addition to their home! Does the Planning
Commission follow the property coverage guidelines in the Charter? Will all residents have those
same rights to add excessive amounts of buildings, etc. to their property once a precedent has
been established with 15 Eastfield? Why are we put in a position to have to fight for a ruling
enforcing City regulations which have already been exceeded?
We will be attending the hearing and hope you will take our objection into account in rejecting
this reauest for permits and variance. Also, we request that you adhere to your previous
ruling requiring the property owners to remove the existing unpermitted shade shelter
before the home remodeling is started to replace the wood shake roof with a fire retardent
material once the home remodeling is completed and to discontinue the boarding of horses
owned by others. If the owners choose not to complete the home remodeling, I believe the
existing wood shake roof should be replaced immediately due to its potential fire hazard, rather
than have the extension that the Planning Commission has granted.
Very truly yours,
George lr. Farinsky
Barbara J. Farinsky
•OG
January 19, 2005
•
Ciiy ofieeenq _ueP
Mr. and Mrs. Errol Gordon
15 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
E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com
SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 697, Request for a Site Plan Review and Variances
to retain an existing shade shelter, which encroaches into the front yard
setback and to construct an addition to a stable, which would encroach
into the front yard; and request for Variances to exceed the maximum
permitted structural and total lot coverage at an existing single family
residence at 15 Eastfield Drive (Lot 52-EF), Rolling Hills, CA.
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Gordon:
This letter shall serve to notify you that the Planning Commission at their regular
meeting on January 18, 2005 did not approve the previously requested resolution to
deny your request in Zoning Case No. 697. Instead, the Commission voted 3-1 to direct
staff to prepare a resolution of approval of your request in Zoning Case No. 697 and
shall be confirmed in the draft resolution that is being prepared. The Planning
Commission will review and consider the draft resolution, together with conditions of
approval, at their February meeting and make its final decision on your application at
that meeting.
The findings and conditions of approval of the draft resolution will be forwarded to you
before the Planning Commission meeting.
The decision shall become effective thirty days after the adoption of the Planning
Commission's resolution unless an appeal has been filed or the City Council takes
jurisdiction of the case within that thirty (30) day appeal period. (Section 17.54.010(B) of
the Rolling Hills Municipal Code). Should there be an appeal, the Commission's
decision will be stayed until the Council completes its proceedings in accordance with
the provisions of the Municipal Code.
The Planning Commission's action taken by resolution approving the development
application is scheduled for Tuesday. February 15, 2005. That action, accompanied by
the record of the proceedings before the Commission, is tentatively scheduled to be
placed as a report item on the City Council's agenda at the Council's regular meeting on
Monday, February 28, 2005.
Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions regarding this matter.
olanta Schwartz
Tanning Director
IL
cc: ' Mr. Thomas A. Blair. AIA
•
City olaeeng
FIELD TRIP NOTIFICATION
November 18, 2004
Mr. and Mrs. Errol Gordon
15 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
E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com
SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 697 Request for a Site Plan Review and Variance
to retain an existing shade shelter, which encroaches into the front yard setback and to
construct an addition to a stable, which would encroach into the front yard; and request
for Variances to exceed the maximum permitted structural and total lot coverage at 15
Eastfield Drive (Lot 52-EF), Rolling Hills, CA.
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Gordon:
The Planning Commission will conduct a field inspection of the subject property on
SATURDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2004 at 8:00 A.M.
The site must be prepared according to the enclosed instructions and the following
requirements:
• A full-size silhouette must be prepared for the addition to the stable, showing the
footprints and roof ridge of the addition and covered porch;
• Stake the front property line (roadway easement) and the front yard setback line.
The owner and/or representative must be present to answer any questions regarding the
proposal.
After the field trip, the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission will take place
on December 29, 2004 at 6:30 PM at City Hall.
Please call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions.
SincerAIy,
r
✓ f,l
Y6lanta Schwartz
Planning Director
Enclosure: Silhouette Construction Guidelines
cc: Thomas A. Blair Associates
®PruUli,f cal Iiot',yr:l,,rj
•
City. opeolfiny.
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377-1 521
FAX: (310) 377-7288
E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com
SILHOUETTE CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES
When required by the Planning Commission or City Council, a silhouette of
_ proposed construction should be erected for the week preceding the
designated Planning Commission or City Council meeting.
Silhouettes should be constructed with 2" x 4" lumber. Printed boards are not
acceptable.
Bracing should be provided where possible.
Wire, twine or other suitable material should be used to delineate roof ridges
and eaves.
Small pieces of cloth or flags should be attached to the wire or twine to aid i n
the visualization of the proposed construction.
The application may be delayed if inaccurate or incomplete silhouettes are
constructed.
If you have any further questions contact the Planning Department Staff at
(310) 377-1521.
.01
SECTION PLAN
GEORGE L. FARINSKY
13 EASTFIELD DRIVE
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
NOVEMBER 15, 2004
RE: ZONING CASE NO. 697 By
NOV 1 6 2004
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
With respect to the Memorandum dated November 16, 2004 relative to Zoning Case No. 697,
please note the following observations and questions:
1. The applicant also states that "the existing shade structure has existed without issues for at
least 15 years...". I believe this is not true -and that the -structure was constructed (was it without
a permit?) in February, March and April 1993.
2. There is no mention in this document of the City's previous determination to have the
applicants replace the existing wood shake roofing (installed without permit and presumably
determined by the City to be a fire hazard in violation of the building regulations). Is this going to
be further deferred? Will the City assume liability for any damages possibly caused by its failure
to enforce its earlier determination?
3. I have no recollection of ever having been advised of an application for the issuance of any
approval for a 540 square foot basement. Are basements legal in Rolling Hills?
4. Is the expansion of what is already a multi -stalled stable really requested to stable horses owned
by persons other than the applicants?
5. Are the City's regulations intended to be enforced? Equally with respect to all property
owners? Or only with respect to some. If they aren't intended to be enforced equally with
respect to all property owners, why have them at all. Is the Planning Commission's duty to
enforce the City's regulations or is it something different?
6. Is the issue at hand one of "Mansionization" versus equestrian aspects? Is it one of approving
anything a resident can hide from view? Are parcels on which ANY construction was done prior
to enactment of certain planning regulations exempt from ALL SUBSEQUENT
REGULATIONS? Is nonconforming development related to equestrian uses (including those of
other than applicants?) exempt therefrom...or subject thereto? If the former, why not exempt all
nonconforming construction.
7. Is there another property in the city with as many retroactively and prospectively approved
nonconforming violations? Where does it end? Purchasers are buying large properties for
significant amounts with the expectation that the City's regulations dictate that the size of the
property has some relationship with the extent of development that will be permitted. Are these
purchasers relying on possible misrepresentations of the facts?
Very truly yours,
GEORGE L. FARINSKY
13 EASTFIELD DRIVE
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
NOVEMBER 15, 2004
RE: ZONING CASE NO. 697 Sy
t OV 1 6 2004
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
With respect to the Memorandum dated November 16, 2004 relative to Zoning Case No. 697,
please note the following observations and questions:
1. The applicant also states that "the existing shade structure has existed without issues for at
least 15 years...". I believe this is not true and that the structure was constructed (was it without
a permit?) in February, March and April 1993.
2. There is no mention in this document of the City's previous determination to have the
applicants replace the existing wood shake roofing (installed without permit and presumably
determined by the City to be a fire hazard in violation of the building regulations). Is this going to
be further deferred? Will the City assume liability for any damages possibly caused by its failure
to enforce its earlier determination?
3. I have no recollection of ever having been advised of an application for the issuance of any
approval for a 540 square foot basement. Are basements legal in Rolling Hills?
4. Is the expansion of what is already a multi -stalled stable really requested to stable horses owned
by persons other than the applicants?
5. Are the City's regulations intended to be enforced? Equally with respect to all property
owners? Or only with respect to some. If they aren't intended to be enforced equally with
respect to all property owners, why have them at all. Is the Planning Commission's duty to
enforce the City's regulations or is it something different?
6. Is the issue at hand one of "Mansionization" versus equestrian aspects? Is it one of approving
anything a resident can hide from view? Are parcels on which ANY construction was done prior
to enactment of certain planning regulations exempt from ALL SUBSEQUENT
REGULATIONS? Is nonconforming development related to equestrian uses (including those of
other than applicants?) exempt therefrom...or subject thereto? If the former, why not exempt all
nonconforming construction.
7. Is there another property in the city with as many retroactively and prospectively approved
nonconforming violations? Where does it end? Purchasers are buying large properties for
significant amounts with the expectation that the City's regulations dictate that the size of the
property has some relationship with the extent of development that will be permitted. Are these
purchasers relying on possible misrepresentations of the facts?
Very truly yours,
C1i o/ ie0ii
STATUS OF APPLICATION
& MEETING NOTIFICATION
November 8, 2004
Mr. and Mrs. Errol Gordon
15 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
E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com
SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 697, Request for a Site Plan Review and Variance
to retain an existing shelter, which encroaches into the front yard setback and to
construct an addition to a stable, which would encroach into the front yard; and
request for Variances to exceed the maximum permitted structural and total lot
coverage at 15 Eastfield Drive (Lot 52-EF), Rolling Hills, CA.
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Gordon:
Pursuant to state law the City's staff has completed a preliminary review of the
application noted above and finds that the information submitted is:
N/ Sufficiently complete as of the date indicated above to allow the application to be
processed.
Please note that the City may require further information in order to clarify, amplify,
correct, or otherwise supplement the application. If the City requires such additional
information, it is suggested that you supply that information promptly to avoid any delay
in the processing of the application.
Your application for Zoning Case No. 697 has been set for public hearing consideration
by the Planning Commission at their meeting on Tuesday. November 16, 2004.
The meeting will begin at 6:30 PM in the Council Chambers, Rolling Hills City Hall
Administration Building, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills. You or your designated
representative must attend to present your project and to answer questions.
The staff report for this project willbe available at the City Hall after 3:00 PM on Friday,
November 12, 2004. We will mail a copy to you and your representative.
Please call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
n
Y l nta Schwartz
Pia ming Director
PN, ft l or. li,•,.'rrd
•
To the Planning Commission
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Ladies and Gentlemen:
RE: Zoning Case No. 697
BARBARA J. FARINSKY
13 EASTFIELD DRIVE
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
NOVEMBER 6, 2004
NOV 12 2004
GUY OF RUNG HILLS
By
We received your notice for the above case requesting a Site Plan Review and Variance to retain
an existing shade shelter. which encroaches into the front yard setback and to construct an
addition to a stable. which would encroach into the front yard. 15 Eastfield Drive (Lot 52-EF)
already has exceeded permitted lot coverage allowed by city regulations.
It was our understanding in May 2003 that the above property owners requested a variance for an
addition on their home and would be granted the permit only if they removed the existine shade
shelter and replaced the ilieeaI wood shake on all their existing roof lines. There was work
being done on the home this last summer. We were under the assumption that the owners
received their permit and were completing their home addition and would soon be removing the
shade shelter and replacing the wood roof shakes. Since the July 2004 deadline to replace the
roof has passed, I spoke to Roger Vink and was informed that the permit was never issued for
any home remodeling and that Case No. 697 was going to be presented to the Planning
Commission. The illegal wood shake roof had been granted an extension for several years to be
replaced by July 2004, and it is still not completed. The wood shake roof is a fire hazard to all of
the neighbors in our area. Should it be a source of a fire which damages other properties, would
the city's failure to timely enforce its earlier ruling provide grounds for the city to be held liable
for any resulting damage?
Enclosed is a copy of our letter dated May 18, 2003 stating that we opposed the proposed grants
of the permits and variances requested in Case 664. We oppose the Case No. 697 for the same
reasons because the property owners are now requesting to add an additional stable and to retain
the illegal shade shelter that has exceeded the lot permits. Would the stable expansion be required
if the residents (who we believe own only one horse) were not housing horses other than their
own, which they may already be doing?
The Planning Commission's duty is to protect all the property owners in the city and to enforce
the building regulations equally for all. As stated in our May 18, 2003 letter the former neighbors
at 11 Eastfield Drive were not able to obtain permission for an addition which exceeded permitted
lot coverage by substantially less than is already exceeded at the 15 Eastfield property. The
•
Planning Commission should look at that case again to determine why that addition was turned
down, and why 15 Eastfield has continually been allowed to exceed permitted lot coverage.
We unfortunately will be unable to attend the hearing and hope you will again take our objections
into account in reiectine this request for permits and variances. Also, we hope you will
adhere to your previous ruling reauiring the proverty owners to remove the existing shade
shelter and replace the wood shake roof with a fire retardent material.
Very truly yours,
Barbara J. Farinsky
GEORGE L. FARINSKY
13 EASTFIELD DRIVE
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
MAY 18, 2003
To the Planning Commission
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Ladies and Gentlemen:
This letter is furnished pursuant to an undated notice furnished us concerning Zoning
Case No. 664. As an adjacent Rolling Hills property owner, I hereby advise you that I
oppose the proposed grants of the permits and variances requested in Case 664
because the coverages on the property already exceed those permitted by the City's
regulations and because the additional roof areas will cause further accumulations of
water which will add to those which already flow across our property in heavy rainfalls.
As you know from your previous reviews of the property in question, the requests in this
case are not for approvals to exceed various permitted lot coverages, but rather for
approvals to FURTHER EXCEED permitted lot coverages. If such approvals are
granted, it seems they are tantamount to stating that the existing regulations are
unenforceable. If this is to be the case, wouldn't it be more appropriate to amend the
regulations to permit greater lot coverages for all residents rather that only approving
them for a select few? In this regard, you should note that the Strawns, our prior
neighbors at 11 Eastfield Drive, moved because they could not obtain permission for an
addition which exceeded permitted lot coverage by substantially less than is already
exceeded at the 15 Eastfield property.
There is a potential for excessive water flow damaging our property from the addition
of roof surface and connection of new downspouts on the proposed additions. I have
previously discussed drainage control with the City and the County, who each have
claimed that the other has responsibility for Rolling Hills drainage projects. Past
projects have apparently ended up the hill from us, so we already have substantial
water flow across our property every time there is a significant rainfall. Additional roof
surfaces and drainage connections to the existing "drainage system" (which merely
deposits all the runoff from 15 Eastfield in our easement) will simply aggravate this
situation.
• •
With respect to the Case drawings and staff report, note that the garage is now
attached rather than detached. Ask Roger Vink whether another unrecorded addition
was made when the roof was replaced with an unapproved wood shake. There is
another horse shelter structure on the property East of the stable, not shown on the
drawings, that was built approximately in 1993. Also, if the previous coverages were
12,437 square feet and 19,560 square feet, it seems that the proposed 886 and 583
square feet of additions (total 1,469 square feet) would make them 13,906 and 21,029
square feet, respectively. Further, our lot at 13 Eastfield is 3.293 acres or 143,443
square feet rather than the 95,590 shown and your maps show 11 Eastfield is 2.19
acres or 95,396 square feet rather than the 217,800 shown.
I regret I am unable to attend the hearing and hope you will take my objection as well
as your history with the subject property into account in rejecting this request for
permits and variances.
Very truly yours,
George L. Farinsky
Jun,19 01 02:18p Jenkins & Hogin, LLP
(310) 939-1726 p•2
JENKINS HOGIN,uP
MICHAEL JENKINS
CHRISTI HOGIN
A LAW PARTNERSHIP
1325 NINETEENTH STREET
MANHATTAN BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90266
(310)939-1736 • FAX (310) 939-1726
www.LocalGovLaw.com
WRITER'S EMAIL ADDRESS:
MJENKINS@L OCALGOVLAW.COM
Errol J. Gordon, Esq.
15 Eastheld Drive
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
June 19, 2001
Re: Settlement documents
Dear Mr. Gordon:
Enclosed is an execution original Settlement Agreement for your signature. Please sign it
and return it to Craig Nealis in City Hall. He will arrange for execution by the City, and will
forward you a fully executed copy for your files.
Thank -you for your cooperation.
iy you
Je
City Attorney
City of Rolling Hills
cc: Craig Nealis
Jun,19 01 02:18p Jenkins & Hogin, LLP
(310) 939-1726 p.3
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (hereinafter "Agreement") is
entered into as of the dates set forth below by and between the
City of Rolling Hills, a municipal corporation (hereinafter
"City")and Errol Jay and Joeann Gordon, individuals (hereinafter
"Gordon").
RECITALS
A. Rolling Hills Municipal Code Sections 15.04.100
and 17.16.190 provide that no more than 200 square feet of re-
roofing may match existing roofing materials where the existing
roof is covered with wood shake or shingles.
B. Pursuant to Building Permit No. BL1202007200046
Gordon performed a remodeling project at his residence located at
15 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, during the course of which
more than 200 square feet of new wood shake material was
installed on the roof.
C. City contends that the roofing work was
unauthorized by the Building Permit and in violation of the
Rolling Hills Municipal Code.
D. Gordon contends that the re -roofing was authorized
by the approved plans and permits.
E. There exists a dispute between the parties as to
whether the new roofing material must be removed and the
structure re -roofed with a Class A roof covering in compliance
with the Municipal Code.
F. The parties have each determined that it is in
their respective interests to settle the dispute in the manner
prescribed by and set forth hereunder in this Agreement.
G. It is the intent of the parties in entering into
this Agreement to effectuate an orderly and amicable resolution
of the dispute.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and of
the mutual promises and covenants hereinafter set forth, it is
hereby stipulated by and between the parties hereto as follows:
1. Parties. The parties to this Agreement are:
(a) The City of Rolling Hills, a municipal
corporation.
(b) Errol Jay Gordon, an individual and Joeann
Gordon, an individual.
W8390\1010\644331.1
Jun. 19 01 02:19p
Jenkins & Hogin, LLP
(310) 939-1726 p.4
2. Re-Roofino of Residence. Gordon shall re -roof the
entire residential structure (house and garage)located at 15
Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills within three (3) years of the date
of execution hereof. The roof shall be covered with a roof
covering acceptable to the City and the Rolling Hills Community
Association.
3. Citv's Remedies. City agrees to forbear from
taking enforcement action against Gordon relative to the re-
roofing of the subject structure until and unless Gordon fails to
re -roof within the time period set forth in Paragraph 2 above.
Should Gordon fail to comply with the obligation set forth in
Paragraph 2, Gordon agrees that City may record the lien attached
hereto as Exhibit A. Gordon hereby waives the right to contest
the recordation of the lien as above provided.
4. Release of Lien. It is mutually understood that
Gordon may refinance the mortgage on the property notwithstanding
the within agreement and possible lien. In such event, and if
the lien has been recorded as provided in Paragraph 3 above, City
agrees to release the lien as long as the lender segregates and
dedicates the necessary funds, up to $30,000,to re -roof the
structures as contemplated herein, in an escrow account or in
another manner sufficient to ensure the re -roofing contemplated
herein.
5. Aareement Bindinu. This agreement shall inure to
the benefit of and be binding upon the officers, agents,
employees, consultants, independent contractors, members, heirs,
successors, assigns and delegees of the parties herein. Any such
assignee or delegee shall be fully bound by each and every
applicable term and condition of this Agreement as though a
signatory thereto.
6. Deny Liability. It is understood and agreed that
this Agreement is the compromise of disputed claims, and that the
terms and conditions recited hereinabove are not to be construed
as an admission of liability on the part of the parties, and that
said parties deny liability therefor and intend merely to avoid
litigation.
7. Entire Aareement. It is understood and agreed
that no promise, inducement or agreement not herein expressed has
been made to the undersigned, and that this Agreement contains
the entire agreement between the parties hereto with reference
solely to the matters herein addressed. All prior discussions
and negotiations have been and are merged and integrated into,
and are superseded by, this Agreement.
8. Advice of Counsel. The advice of legal counsel
has been obtained by the parties prior to the execution of this
Agreement. All parties hereby execute this settlement
voluntarily with full knowledge of its significance.
W8390\1010\644331.1 - 2 -
Jun19 01 02:19p Jenkins & Hogin, LLP (310) 939-1726 p.5
9. Enforcement of Agreement. In the event of a
violation of this Agreement, the parties shall have available all
remedies at law or in equity available, which remedies shall
include, by way of illustration but not limitation, suits for
injunctive or declaratory relief, specific performance, relief in
the nature of mandamus or actions for damages; all of said
remedies shall be cumulative and not exclusive of one another,
and the exercise of any one or more of said remedies shall not
constitute a waiver or election with respect to any other
available remedy.
10. Interpretation. This Agreement is deemed to have
been prepared by all of the parties hereto, and any uncertainty
or ambiguity herein shall not be interpreted against the drafter,
but rather, if such ambiguity or uncertainty exists, shall be
interpreted according to the applicable rules of interpretation
of contracts.
11. Authority. The persons so signing this Agreement
hereby warrant that they have full authority to sign this
Agreement on behalf of the respective parties on whose behalf
they sign, as well as their officers, agents, employees,
consultants and independent contractors.
12. Costs. Each of the parties shall bear its own
costs and attorneys' fees in connection with the matters leading
up to and the negotiation of this Agreement.
13. Final Aonrova]- of Construction. Upon execution of
this Agreement, City shall issue final approval of the
construction performed at 15 Eastfield Drive pursuant to Building
Permit No. BL0007200046, Electrical Permit No. EL0010180064,
Mechanical Permit No. ME0010180011 and Plumbing Permit No.
PL0010180009.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this
Agreement to be executed by each of them and/or by their
respective and duly authorized representatives on the date set
forth below.
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
Dated: - .....-----......- ---- By:__ ... --- ----
City Manager
W8390\1010\644331.1 - 3 -
Jun 19 01 02:19p Jenkins & Hogin, LLP
(310) 939-1726 p.6
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Dated:
ERROL JAY GORDON
By:
Errol Jay Gordon
Joeann Gordon
Dated: By:
Joeann Gordon
W6390\1010\644331.1 - 4 -
Jun 19 01 02:19p
Jenkins & Hogin, LLP t310) 939-1726
p.7
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
CITY OF ROLLING HII .I S
2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(Exempt from filing fees)
Above for Recorder's Use Only
NOTICE OF LIEN
(15 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, California)
PROPERTY OWNERS: Errol Jay Gordon and Joeann Gordon, cunently residing at 15
Eastf eld Drive, Rolling Hills, CA 90274.
Legal Description
The real property upon which a lien is claimed is that certain parcel of land lying and being
in the City of Rolling Hills, County of Los Angeles, State of California, and particularly described
as follows (the "Property"):
Lot: 52
Parcel: 11
Tract: 29529
in the City of Rolling Hills, County of Ios Angeles, State of California, as per Map
recorded in Book 7567, page 2 of Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County.
Common Description
15 Eastlield Drive, Rolling Hills, California 90274
Gordons have failed to construct a new roof on the residential structure on the
above -described property as required by Rolling Hills Municipal Code Sections 15.04.100 and
17.16.190 and their agreement with the City dated . 2001.
Pursuant to the authority vested by the provisions of the Uniform Building Code,
adopted by reference by Section 15.04.010 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, and pursuant to
the agreement entered into by and between the Gordons and the City of Rolling Hills dated June
, 2001, Gordons are obligated to re -roof the residential structure on the above -referenced
property in order to resolve the dispute described in the aforementioned agreement. The City
does hereby claim a lien for the cost of said re -roofing in the amount of $30,000, and the same
4;ORDONLIEN
Jun 19 01 02:19p
Jenkins & Hogin, LLP (310) 939-1726
p.9
shall be a lien upon said real property until the structure has been re -roofed in accordance with .
the provisions of the Municipal Code.
This lien shall run with all of the above described land and shall be binding upon
Gordon and all future owners, encumbrances, their successors, heirs or assignees and shall
continue in effect until released by the authority of the Building Official of the City of Rolling
Hills upon submittal of request and evidence that this Lien is no longer required by law. This
lien may be satisfied upon a sale of the property, or a refinance of the tnortgage thereon, if the
escrow or title company handling said transaction segregates and dedicates the necessary funds, up
to $30,000, to re -roof the residence and garage on the property, in an escrow account, or in
another manner sufficient to ensure the re -roofing contemplated herein.
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS,
a California municipal corporation
By:
Craig Nealis
City Manager
Dated: June , 2001
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
) ss.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
On , 2001, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and
for said County and State, personally appeared , personally known to
me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose natne(s)
is/arc subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the
same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the
instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the
within instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
2
Notary Public