561, Construct a practice wall with, Correspondence• •
e'z 0/ IE0ff4 �L6L, 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
September 29, 1998
Mr. and Mrs. John Macleod
14 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
SUBJECT: REFUND ENVIRONMENTAL FEE
ZONING CASE NO. 561
14 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD (LOT 56-A-RH)
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Macleod:
On June 27, 1997, you deposited an environmental fee charged by the State
Department of Fish and Game for $1,275 with the City of Rolling Hills.
Enclosed find a refund check for $1,225. We have deducted two $25 fees ($50)
charged by the County Recorder for the filing of a Negative Declaration prior to the
Planning process on May 28, 1997 and the filing of a Notice of Determination at the
completion of the Planning process with a request for a waiver from the
Department of Fish and Game on September 22, 1997.
Please call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
LOLA M. UNGAR
PLANNING DIRECTO
Printed on Recycled Paper.
1
1..��6y 0/ /0ffifl ..l h/'L INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
CERTIFIED MAIL
September 23, 1997
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX: (310) 377.7288
Email: cityofrh@aol.com
Mr. and Mrs. John Macleod
14 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
SUBJECT: APPEAL PERIOD AND AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM
ZONING CASE NO. 561
14 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD (LOT 56-A-RH)
RESOLUTION NOS. 97-21 & 97-22
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Macleod:
This letter shall serve to notify you that the Planning Commission adopted two
separate resolutions on September 16, 1997, (1) Resolution No. 97-21 to approve your
request for a Variance to permit the encroachment of a sports court into the side
yard setback and granting a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a sports
court at a single family residence and (2) Resolution No. 97-22 to deny your request
for a Variance to construct a proposed practice wall that would encroach into the
side yard setback at 14 Portuguese Bend Road (Lot 56-A-RH), Rolling Hills, CA in
Zoning Case No. 561. Those actions, accompanied by the record of the proceedings
before the Commission were reported to the City Council on September 22, 1997.
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.
We have enclosed a copy of RESOLUTION NOS. 97-21 & 97-22. You need only
record a copy of RESOLUTION NO. 97-21, specifying the conditions of approval set
forth by the Planning Commission. Copies of Resolution Nos. 97-21, 97-22 and the
Printed on Recycled Paper.
• •
approved Exhibit A Development Plan are to keep for your files. Once you have
reviewed the Resolutions, please complete the enclosed AFFIDAVIT OF
ACCEPTANCE FORM, have the signature(s) notarized, and forward the completed
form and a copy of Resolution No. 97-21 to:
Los Angeles County Registrar -Recorder
Real Estate Records Section
12400 East Imperial Highway
Norwalk, CA 90650
Include a check in the amount of $7.00 for the first page and $3.00 for each additional
page.
You will note that Conditions T through W of Section 9 of Resolution No. 97-21
require that a plan that conforms to the development plan as approved (without the
practice wall) must be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff and
the Community Association for their review prior to the submittal- of an applicable
site drainage plan to the County of Los Angeles for plan check for a building permit.
We have arranged with Mr. Rafael Bernal, District Engineering Associate at the
Building & Safety Division Lomita Office, to expedite the process. The City will
notify the Los Angeles County Building & Safety Division to issue permits only
when the Affidavit of Acceptance is received by us and any conditions of the
Resolution required prior to issuance of building permits are met.
Please feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
LOLA UNGAR
PLANNING DIRECTOR
ENC: RESOLUTION NOS. 97-21 & 97-22
EXHIBIT A DEVELOPMENT PLAN
AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM
APPEAL SECTION OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE.
•
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND MAIL :
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
(310) 377-7288 FAX
Recorder's Use
Please record this form with the Registrar -Recorder's Office and return to:
City of Rolling Hills, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA 90274
(The Registrar -Recorder's Office requires that the form be notarized before recordation).
AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGFI .FS ) § §
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
)
ZONING CASE NO. 561
SITE PLAN REVIEW U
VARIANCE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT El
I (We) the undersigned state:
I am (We are) the owner(s) of the real property described as follows:
14 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD (LOT 56-A-RID. ROLLING HILLS
This property is the subject of the above numbered case.
I am (We are) aware of, and accept, all the stated conditions in said
ZONING CASE NO. 561 SITE PLAN REVIEW
VARIANCE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT El
I (We) certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Print Print
Owner Owner
Name, Name
Signature Signature
Address
City/State
Signatures must be acknowledged by a notary public.
State of California )
County of Los Angeles )
On h'hefore me,
Address
City/State
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
•
RESOLUTION NO. 97-21
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH
INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK TO PERMIT A PREVIOUSLY
CONSTRUCTED SPORTS COURT AND GRANTING A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE SAME PREVIOUSLY
CONSTRUCTED SPORTS COURT TO REMAIN AT A SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 561.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES
HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Applications were duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. John Macleod with
respect to real property located at 14 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills (Lot 56-A-
RH) requesting a Variance to permit an encroachment into the side yard setback to
permit a previously constructed illegal sports court and requesting a Conditional
Use Permit for the same previously constructed illegal sports court to remain at an
existing single family residence. At the same time, another application was duly
filed requesting a Variance to permit an encroachment into the side yard setback for
the construction of a sports court practice wall.
Section 2. In July, 1996, the Community Association reported that concrete
was being poured at the subject property for a sports court and staff inspected the
court. On August 1, 1996, staff informed the Macleods in writing of the need to
apply for a Conditional Use Permit. After that time, discussions took place between
the applicants and City staff regarding the case and the specific application
requirements. Applications were received on April 29, 1997.
Section 3. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public
hearing to consider the applications on June 17, 1997, July 15, 1997, and August 19,
1997, and at a field trip visit on June 30, 1997. 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 protesting the same, and from members of the City staff
and the Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed and studied said
proposal. Concerns expressed by Commissioners and the applicants focused on the
legality of a 288 square foot guest house structure existing before City incorporation,
the term "illegal" in connection with the previously constructed sports court, the
definition of a "recreational game court" versus a "patio area," and advice that may
have been given to the applicants by a local architect and a Community Association
employee regarding required City applications. The Commission determined that
the guest house structure is a previously existing nonconforming use and denied, by
way of Resolution No. 97-22, a request for a Variance to permit an encroachment
into the side yard setback for the construction of a sports court practice wall.
RESOLUTION NO. 97-21
PAGE1
• •
Section 4. On May 27, 1997, Planning staff prepared an initial study for the
project. The initial study found that the project would not have a significant effect
on the environment. A Negative Declaration was prepared and was circulated to the
applicant and other interested parties in accordance with State of California CEQA
Guidelines. The public notice of the Planning Commission's intent to recommend
approval of the Negative Declaration was published on May 29, 1997. Copies of the
Negative Declaration were sent to adjacent cities and other government agencies.
No comments on the Negative Declaration were received. The Planning
Commission finds that the project will not have a significant effect on the
environment and adopted a Negative Declaration in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act.
Section 5. 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.
Section 17.16.120(A) requires a side yard setback for every residential parcel in the
RA-S-1 zone to be twenty (20) feet. The applicant is requesting a Variance to permit
an encroachment into the side yard setback to permit a previously constructed
illegal sports court that encroaches a maximum of four (4) feet into the twenty (20)
foot side yard setback. 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 in shape
and the existing sports court pad is located on a hillside slope at the rear of the lot
and away from the street.
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
there is a nearby tennis court, there was minimum grading to create the building
pad on this irregular shaped lot, and there will not be any greater incursion into the
side yard than what already exists on other properties in the same vicinity.
C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to
the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity
and zone in which the property is located. Development on the pad will allow a
substantial portion of the lot to remain undeveloped.
Section 6. • Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission
hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 561 to permit an encroachment
into the side yard setback to permit a previously constructed illegal sports court that
RESOLUTION NO. 97-21
PAGE 2
• •
will encroach a maximum of four (4) feet into the side yard setback, 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 9 of this
Resolution.
Section 7. Section 17.16.210(A)(7) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code
allows for the construction of a sports court provided a Conditional Use Permit for
such use is approved by the Rolling Hills Planning Commission. With respect to
the request for a Conditional Use Permit for a previously constructed 2,170 square
foot sports court, the Planning Commission makes the following findings:
A. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit for a sports court would be
consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General
Plan and will be desirable for the public convenience and welfare because the use is
consistent with similar recreational uses in the community and the court is located
in an area of the property where such use will be the least intrusive to surrounding
properties.
B. The granting of the Conditional Use Permit would be consistent with
the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan because the
sports court will comply with the low profile residential development pattern of the
community and is located on a 1.67 acre parcel of property that is adequate in size,
shape and topography to accommodate such use.
C. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit would be consistent with the
purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan because the
sports court will not impact the view or the privacy of neighbors. The hard -surfaced
area required a minimum amount of grading and will be screened by landscaping.
Section 8. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission
hereby approves the request for a Conditional Use Permit in Zoning Case No. 561
for a previously constructed 2,170 square foot sports court, as shown on the
Development Plan dated April 29, 1997 and marked Exhibit A, subject to the
conditions specified in Section 9.
Section 9. The Variance to permit a sports court to encroach 4 feet into the
side yard setback approved in Section 6 and the Conditional Use Permit for a
previously constructed of a 2,170 square foot sports court approved in Section 8 as
indicated on the Development Plan attached hereto and incorporated herein as
Exhibit A dated April 29, 1997, is subject to the following conditions:
A. The Variance and Conditional Use Permit approvals shall expire
within one year from the effective date of approval as defined in Section
17.38.070(A) and Section 17.42.070(A).
RESOLUTION NO. 97-21
PAGE 3
• •
B. It is declared and made a condition of the Variance and Conditional
Use Permit 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 lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance
with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A dated April 29, 1997, except as otherwise
provided in these conditions.
E. The property on which the project is located shall contain an area of
sufficient size to also provide an area meeting all standards for a stable and corral
with vehicular access thereto.
F. The sports court shall not be located in the front yard.
G. The sports court shall not be located within 50 feet of any paved road or
street easements.
H. Any retaining walls for the sports court shall not exceed 4 feet in height
nor be exposed to the exterior.
I. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 7,017 square feet or 13.3% and
total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 12,300 square feet or
23.3%.
J. The sports court shall not be located on slopes exceeding 2:1 and on the
sides or bottoms of canyons or natural drainage courses.
K. Balanced cut and fill for the sports court shall not exceed 750 cubic
yards.
L. The graded area for the sports court shall not exceed 10,000 square feet.
M. The existing topography, flora and natural features of the lot shall be
retained to the greatest extent feasible.
N. Additional landscape screening shall be planted to obscure the court at
the northern portion of the sports court.
O. The sports court shall be screened on all four sides.
RESOLUTION NO. 97-21
PAGE4
• •
P. Any screening fences for the sports court shall be landscaped and shall
not exceed 8 feet in height.
Q. Landscape screening for the sports court shall be maintained so as not
to obstruct views of neighboring properties but to obscure the court.
R. Lighting for the sports court shall not be permitted.
S. Noise from the hard -surfaced area use shall not create a nuisance to
owners of surrounding properties.
T. Review and approval of a site drainage plan by the City Engineer shall
be obtained for the sports court.
U. A plan that conforms to the development plan as approved by the
Planning Commission must be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department
staff for their review prior to the submittal of an applicable site drainage plan to the
County of Los Angeles for plan check.
V. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills
Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to approval of the
drainage plan.
W. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of
Building and Safety for site drainage plan review must conform to the development
plan described at the beginning of this section (Section 9).
X. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions
of these Variance and Conditional Use Permit approvals pursuant to Sections
17.38.060 and 17.42.060, or the approval shall not be effective.
Y. All conditions of these Variance Conditional Use Permit approvals
must be complied with prior to approval of the site drainage plan by the County of
Los Angeles.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON T E 16TH Dg:C OI\SEPTEMBER, 1997.
ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK .
RESOLUTION NO. 97-21
PAGE5
•
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
) §§
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 97-21 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH
INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK TO PERMIT A PREVIOUSLY
CONSTRUCTED SPORTS COURT AND GRANTING A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE SAME PREVIOUSLY
CONSTRUCTED SPORTS COURT TO REMAIN AT A SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 561.
was approved and adopted at an adjourned regular meeting of the Planning
Commission on September 16, 1997 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Hankins, Sommer, Witte and Chairman Roberts.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Margeta.
ABSTAIN: None.
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices
L .k-o
MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
RESOLUTION NO. 97-21
PAGE6
RESOLUTION NO. 97-22
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT THE
ENCROACHMENT OF A SPORTS COURT PRACTICE • WALL INTO
THE SIDE YARD SETBACK AT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN
ZONING CASE NO. 561.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES
HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. An application was duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. John Macleod
with respect to real property located at 14 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills (Lot
56-A-RH) requesting a Variance to permit an encroachment into the side yard
setback for the construction of a sports court practice wall. At the same time, other
applications were duly filed requesting a Variance to permit an encroachment into
the side yard setback to permit a previously constructed illegal sports court and
requesting a Conditional Use Permit for the same previously constructed illegal
sports court at an existing single family residence.
Section 2. In July, 1996, the Community Association reported that concrete
was being poured at the subject property for a sports court and staff inspected the
court. On August 1, 1996, staff informed the Macleods in writing of the need to
apply for a Conditional Use Permit. After that time, discussions took place between
the applicants and City staff regarding the case and the specific application
requirements. Applications were received on April 29, 1997.
Section 3. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public
hearing to consider the applications on June 17, 1997, July 15, 1997, and August 19,
1997, and at a field trip visit on June 30, 1997. 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 protesting the same, and from members of the City staff
and the Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed and studied said
proposal. Concerns expressed by Commissioners and the applicants focused on the
legality of a 288 square foot guest house structure existing before City incorporation,
the term "illegal" in connection with the previously constructed sports court, the
definition of a "recreational game court" versus a "patio area," and advice that may
have been given to the applicants by a local architect and a Community Association
employee regarding required City applications. The Commission determined that
the guest house structure is a previously existing nonconforming use and approved,
by way of Resolution No. 97-21, the requests for a Variance and a Conditional Use
Permit to permit the encroachment into the side yard setback for the previously
constructed sports court.
RESOLUTION NO. 97-22
PAGE 1
Section 4. On May 27, 1997, Planning staff prepared an initial study for the
project. The initial study found that the project would not have a significant effect
on the environment. A Negative Declaration was prepared and was circulated to the
applicant and other interested parties in accordance with State of California CEQA
Guidelines. The public notice of the Planning Commission's intent to recommend
approval of the Negative Declaration was published on May 29, 1997. Copies of the
Negative Declaration were sent to adjacent cities and other government agencies.
No comments on the Negative Declaration were received. The Planning
Commission finds that the project will not have a significant effect on the
environment and adopted a Negative Declaration in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act.
Section 5. 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.
Section 17.16.120(A) requires a side yard setback for every residential parcel in the
RA-S-1 zone to be twenty (20) feet. The applicant is requesting a Variance to permit
an encroachment into the side yard setback to permit the construction of a 32 foot
long, eight foot high sports court practice wall at the north side of the sports court
that will encroach a maximum of six (6) feet into the twenty (20) foot side yard
setback. With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds
as follows:
A. There are no exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and
conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply
generally to the other property in the same vicinity and zone. The Variance is not
necessary because the practice wall will be large and solid .which the Commission
finds is not customary on properties in the vicinity so that the proposed practice
wall is not appropriate for the property.
B. The Variance is not 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 because a guest house and sports
court already encroach into the north side yard setback and additional
encroachments would exacerbate the amount of structures within setback areas.
C. The . granting of the Variance will be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and
zone in which the property is located because the proposed project does not
minimize structural coverage on the pad and leaves little open space between
property lines. The encroachment also makes the proposed sports court practice
wall addition more visually prominent on the building pad than appropriate for the
existing development pattern of the City.
RESOLUTION NO. 97-22
PAGE2
Section 6. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission
hereby denies the request for a Variance approval for the construction of a sports
court practice wall that will encroach into the side yard setback in Zoning Case No.
561.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON TH 6TH,D • Y SkI'TIMBER, 1997.
ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
MARILYN KE , DEPUTY CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
) §§
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 97-22 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING
HILLS DENYING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT THE ENCROACHMENT OF A SPORTS
COURT PRACTICE WALL INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK AT A SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 561.
was approved and adopted at an adjoumed regular meeting of the Planning Commission an September
16, 1997, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Hankins, Sommer, Witte and Chairman Roberts.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Margeta.
ABSTAIN: None.
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices
MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
RESOLUTION NO. 97-22
PAGE 3
17.54.010
17.54 APPEALS
17.54.010 Time for Filing Appeals
A. All actions of the Planning Commission authorized by this
Title may be appealed to the City Council. All appeals shall
be filed in writing with the City Clerk.
B. All appeals must be filed on or before the 30th calendar day
after adoption of the Planning Commission's resolution on
the project or application. Application fees shall be paid as
required by Section 17.30.030 of this Title.
C. Within 30 days after the Planning Commission adopts a
resolution which approves or denies a development
application, the City Clerk shall place the resolution as a
report item on the City Council's agenda. The City Council
may, by an affirmative vote of three members, take
jurisdiction over the application. In the event the City
Council takes jurisdiction over the application, the Planning
Commission's decision will be stayed until the City Council
completes its proceedings in accordance with the provisions
of this Chapter.
17.54.020 Persons Authorized to File an Appeal
Any person, including the City Manager, may appeal a decision of
the Planning Commission to the City Council, in accordance with
the terms of this Chapter.
17.54.030 Form, Content, and Deficiencies in an Appeal Application
A. All appeals shall be filed in writing with the City Clerk on a
form or forms provided by the City Clerk. No appeal shall
be considered filed until the required appeal fee has been
received by the City Clerk.
B. The appeal application shall state, at a minimum, the name
and address of the appellant, the project and action being
appealed, and the reasons why the appellant believes that
the Planning Commission erred or abused its discretion, or
why the Planning Commission's decision is not support by
evidence in the record.
76
ROLLING HILLS ZONING
MAY ?A, 1993
17.54.030
C. If the appeal application is found to be deficient, the City
Clerk shall deliver or mail (by certified mail), to the
appellant a notice specifying the reasons why the appeal is
deficient. The appellant shall correct the deficiency with an
amendment to the appeal form within seven calendar days of
receiving the deficiency notice. Otherwise, the appeal
application will be deemed withdrawn, and the appeal fee
will be returned to the applicant.
17.54.040 Request for Information
Upon receipt of a written and complete appeal application and fee,
the City Clerk shall direct the Planning Commission Secretary to
transmit to the City Council the complete record of the entire
proceeding before the Planning Commission.
17.54.050 Scheduling of Appeal Hearing
Upon receiving an appeal, the City Clerk shall set the appeal for a
hearing before the City Council to occur within 20 days of the filing
of the appeal. In the event that more than one appeal is filed for
the same project, the Clerk shall schedule all appeals to be heard
at the same time.
17.54.060 Proceedings
A. Noticing
The hearing shall be noticed as required by Section 17.30.030 of
this Title. In addition, the following parties shall be noticed:
1. The applicant of the proposal being appealed;
2. The appellant; and
3. Any person who provided oral testimony or written
comments to the Planning Commission during or as part of
the public hearing on the project.
B. Hearing
The City Council shall conduct a public hearing pursuant to the
provisions of Chapter 17.34 of this Title. The Council shall
consider all information in the record, as well as additional
information presented at the appeal hearing, before taking action
on the appeal.
77
ROLLING HILLS ZONING
MAY 24, 1993
• •
17.54.060
C. Action
The Council may act to uphold, overturn, or otherwise modify the
Planning Commission's original action on the proposal, or the
Council may remand the application back to the Planning
Commission for further review and direction. TheCouncilshall
make findings to support its decision.
D. Finality of Decision
The action of the City Council to approve, conditionally approve, or
deny an application shall be final and conclusive.
E. Record of Proceedings
The decision of the City Council shall be set forth in full in a
resolution or ordinance. A copy of the decision shall be sent to the
applicant or the appellant.
17.54.070 Statute of Limitations
Any action challenging a final administrative order or decision by
the City made as a result of a proceeding in which by law a hearing
is required to be given, evidence is required to be taken, and
discretion regarding a final and non -appealable determination of
facts is vested in the City of Rolling Hills, the City Council, or in
any of its Commissions, officers, or employees, must be filed within
the time limits set forth in the California Code of Civil Procedure,
Section 1094.6
78
ROLLING HILLS ZONING
MAY 24, 1993
•
•
P 852 865 23LI -
RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL
NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED
NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL
(See Reverse)
Sent to
Postage J S
Certified Fee
Special Delivery Fee
Restricted Delivery Fee
Return Receipt showing �' I ./ to whom and Date Delivered /
0, Return Receipt showing to whom,
0, Date, and Addr DelivY
c TOTAL.P a 7
Post
co
E
i 0
LL
to
a
. S
Code
,y .47./ 7o2714
7
d
Iv
s
C
0
a)
a
E
rn
• rn
w
cc
Z : .er • 6-6/
cc
5. Received By: (PPS Name)
cc
N
SENDER:
• Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services.
■ Complete items 3, 4a, and 4b.
• Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can retum this
card to you.
• Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece, or on the back if space does not
permit.
■ Write'Return Receipt Requested'on the mailpiece below the article number.
• The Retum Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date
delivered.
3. Article Addressed to:
y r, a- 07r-5. o��, ))/acGe,,,,e,
2-5, its a 3/2/
I also wish to receive the
following services (for an
extra fee): ai
1. CIAddressee's Address
2. ❑ Restricted Delivery cn
Consult postmaster for fee.
4a. Article Number $
4b. Service Typeiv .'
lc�
Po �J yL _ � j.p Registered Certified lx
�o�u ❑ Express Mail 0 Insured c
❑ Retum Receipt for Merchandise 0 COD
1//15 '//s, 6.4 9ca7d
6. Signature:
X
PS Form 3811, December 1994
or Agent)
7. Date of Delive
dressee's Address (Only if requested
and fee is paid)
Domestic Return Receipt
al
N
0
AG
CO
t•
—
•City ol Rolling
August 28,1997
•
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
Mr. and Mrs. John Macleod
14 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 561, Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
previously constructed illegal sports court, request for a Variance to
permit the encroachment of the previously constructed sports court into
the side yard setback, and request for a Variance to permit the
construction of a sports court practice wall that will encroach into the side
yard setback for property at 14 Portuguese Bend Road (Lot 56-A-RH),
Rolling Hills, CA.
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Macleod:
This letter shall serve to notify you that the Planning Commission voted at their
regular meeting on August 19, 1997 to direct staff to prepare a resolution to approve
your request for a Conditional Use Permit for a previously constructed illegal sports
court and a request for a Variance to permit the encroachment of the previously
constructed sports court into the side yard setback. The Planning Commission also
directed staff to prepare a resolution to deny a request for a Variance to permit the
construction of a sports court practice wall that will encroach into the side yard
setback. These actions in Zoning Case No. 561 shall be confirmed in the draft
resolutions that are being prepared. The Planning Commission will review and
consider the draft resolutions, together with conditions of approval and findings of
denial, at an upcoming meeting and make its final decision on your applications at
that subsequent meeting.
The draft resolutions with the findings and conditions of approval and findings of
denial will be forwarded to you before .being signed by the Planning Commission
Chairman and City Clerk.
The decision shall become effective thirty days after the adoption of the Planning
Commission's resolutions 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.
Printed on Recycled Paper.
The Planning Commission's action taken by resolution approving the development
application for the sports court and denying the development application for the
sports court practice wall is tentatively scheduled for September 16, 1997. 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 September 22, 1997.
Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
LOLA M. UNGAR
PLANNING DIRECTOR
City O/ 1201/6Z1 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
August 7,1998
Mr. and Mrs. John Macleod
14 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
SUBJECT: Expiration of Approvals for Zoning Case No. 561
14 Portuguese Bend Road (Lot 56-A-RH)
Resolution No. 97-21
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Macleod:
This letter is to inform you that it has been almost one year since the approval of Resolution No. 97-21
by the Planning Commission to approve your request for a Variance to permit the encroachment of a
sports court into the side yard setback and granting a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a
sports court at a single family residence. Approvals will expire on September 16.1998.
You will note that Conditions T through W of Section 9 of Resolution No. 97-21 require that a plan that
conforms to the development plan as approved (without the practice wall) must be submitted to the
Rolling Hills Planning Department staff and the Community Association for their review prior to the
submittal of an applicable site drainage plan to the County of Los Angeles for plan check for a building
permit. We have arranged with Mr. Rafael Bernal, District Engineering Associate at the Building &
Safety Division Lomita Office, to expedite the process. The City will notify the Los Angeles County
Building & Safety Division to issue permits only when the Affidavit of Acceptance is received by us
and any conditions of the Resolution required prior to issuance of building permits are met.
You can extend approvals for one year only if you apply to the Planning Commission in writing to
request an extension prior to the expiration date. The filing fee for the time extension is $200 to be paid
to the City of Rolling Hills.
Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
LOLA UNGAR
PLANNING DIRECTOR
Enclosures: Resolution No. 97-21
Affidavit of Acceptance Form
Printed on Recycled Paper,
• •
When recorded mail to:
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, Ca 90274
(310) 377-1521
(310) 377-7288 FAX
Space above for Recorder's use
(The Registrar -Recorder's Office requires that the form be notarized before recordation).
AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGFI FS ) § §
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
ZONING CASE NO. 561
SITE PLAN REVIEW O
VARIANCE •
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT •
I (We) the undersigned state:
I am (We are) the owner(s) of the real property described as follows:
14 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD (LOT 56-A-RH)
This property is the subject of the above numbered case.
I am (We are) aware of, and accept, all the stated conditions in said
ZONING CASE NO. 561 SITE PLAN REVIEW O
VARIANCE •
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT •
I (We) certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Print Print
Owner Owner
Name Name
Signature Signature
Address Address
City/State - City/State
Signatures must be acknowledged by a notary nublic.
State of California )
County of Los Angeles )
On before me, , a Notary Public
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 Public
See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof
•
ei4'
June 19, 1997
•
/E'Of/ifl Jh LL INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
FIELD TRIP NOTIFICATION
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377.1521
FAX: (310) 377-7288
E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com
Mr. and Mrs. John Macleod
14 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 561, a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
previously constructed illegal sports court and a request for a Variance to
permit the construction of a sports court practice wall that will encroach
into the side yard setback for property at 14 Portuguese Bend Road (Lot 56-
A-RH), Rolling Hills, CA.
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Macleod:
We have arranged for the Planning Commission to conduct a field inspection of
your property to view the sports court and proposed practice wall on Monday., Tune
30, 1997. The Planning Commission will meet at 6:30 PM at your residence.
A full-size silhouette in conformance with the
attached guidelines must be prepared for the practice
wall.
The owner and/or representative should be present to answer any questions
regarding the proposal.
Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you -have any questions.
. Sincerely,
LOLA UNGAR
PRINCIPAL PLANNER
Attachment: Silhouette Construction Guidelines
Printed on Recycled Paper.
John MacLeod
14 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
June 16, 1997
Mr. Craig Nealis
City of Rolling Hills
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Dear Craig:
D
JUN 1 7 1997
o1 Y+C IP:fi'`*,'jFL.LS
As we discussed, we will be out of the country from Tuesday, July 8 through Wednesday, July
23 and therefore request the following:
1. A continuance until the August meeting for follow up on our request (assuming the July
meeting will occur when we are out of the country)
2. The site tour to occur on either June 21, June 28, July 5, July 26, August 2, August 9 or
August 16.
Please give me a call if you have any questions or if you need any more information.
Sincerely,
ink
John MacLeod
City 0/ Rolling
•
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
STATUS OF APPLICATION & NOTIFICATION OF MEETING
May 28, 1997
Mr. and Mrs. John Macleod
14 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 561, a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
previously constructed illegal sports court and a request for a Variance to permit the
construction of a sports court practice wall that will encroach into the side yard
setback for property at 14 Portuguese Bend Road (Lot 56-A-RH), Rolling Hills,
CA.
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Macleod:
Pursuant to state law the City's staff has completed a preliminary review of the application noted
above and finds that the information submitted is:
X Sufficiently comnlete as of the date indicated above to allow the application to be processed.
Please note that the City may require further information in order to clarify, amplify, correct, or
otherwise supplement the application. If the City requires such additional information, it is strongly
suggested that you supply that information promptly to avoid any delay in the processing of the
application.
Your application for Zoning Case No. 561 has been set for public hearing consideration by the
Planning Commission at their meeting on Tuesday. June 17, 1997.
The meeting will begin at 7:30 PM in the Council Chambers, Rolling Hills City Hall
Administration Building, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills. You or your designated
representative must attend to present your project and to answer questions.
The staff report for this project will be available at the City Hall after 3:00 PM on Friday, June 13,
1997. Please arrange to pick up the staff report to preview it prior to the hearing.
Please call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
LOLA M. UNGAR
PRINCIPAL PLANNER
cc: Mr. Ross Bolton, Civil Engineer
rib
Printed on Recycled Paper
•
C1iy ie0fA4 Jh/XS
May 28, 1997
Los Angeles County Clerk
Environmental Filings Department
12400 East Imperial Highway
Norwalk, CA 90650
ORIGINAL REM)
JUN 0 31997
COUNTY CLERK
BY . DEPUP
•
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
Attn: Angel Shells
SUBJECT: Notice of Intent to File a Negative Declaration
ZONING CASE NO. 561, a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
previously constructed illegal sports court and a request for a Variance to
permit the construction of a sports court practice wall that will encroach into
the side yard setback for property at 14 Portuguese Bend Road (Lot 56-A-
RH), Rolling Hills, CA.
Dear Angel:
Enclosed find a Notice of Intent to File a Negative Declaration and a Notice of Public
Hearing regarding Zoning Case No. 561 for a proposed project at 14 Portuguese Bend
Road in the City of Rolling Hills.
Please post for 30 days and after that time please stamp and return to the City in the
enclosed self-addressed envelope.
Sincerely,
LOLA UNGAR
PRINCIPAL PLANNER ER
97062678
Printed on Recycled Paper.
•
•
C1i 0/ RollingJUL
PAGE 2
MAY 28, 1997
NEGATIVE DECLARATION DETERMINATION
MR. AND MRS. JOHN MACLEOD
ZONING CASE NO. 561
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
As the applicant, I understand that a Negative Declaration has been determined and that the
public hearing and consideration by the City of Rolling Hills will be on the project as
proposed.
Applicant(s) Signature
()-(
Date
Date
Printed on Recycled Paper.
• •
April 29, 1997
To the City of Rolling Hills:
As a matter of explanation for the enclosed conditional use permit application, we
would like to provide some background information.
Immediately after we purchased our home in 1994, we removed a pool and
substantial decking, stairs and equipment surrounding it. We had the debris hauled
away, and filled the hole with dirt from the rear of our property. We then reseeded
the main, side lawn where the pool had'been, and left the rear pad of our property
empty for three years, while we thought about what to do with it --more lawn, or a
hardscaped area for the children's bikes and ball playing. We eventually decided on
a concrete slab, so that the children would have a safe place to play in the rear of the
property, rather than on the front driveway which abuts Portuguese Bend Road.
We discussed our intentions with a local architect and a Community Association
mployee, who advised us that as long as we :did not intend to fence the slab, it
would not require any permitting from the City, because it would function as any
other hardscaped patio area. It was with this understanding that we went ahead and
put in a slab last summer.
However, the City took issue with our slab, saying it did indeed require a
conditional use permit because of its purpose -- for play and sports. We still do not
feel that the City's position was clear ahead of time in its regulations, and we feel
victimized having received advice which turned out to be wrong. (Had we known
that any slab, with or without fencing, would require a permit, we would have
applied for the permit in advance.) Anyway, it is our intent to be "good neighbors,"
so we are now proceeding with the application after the fact. And, since the slab will
now be considered a "court," we are requesting full fencing and its use as such.
Further;, 'in reviewing the survey prepared for this application, we realized that our
corral fencing and the corner of our pre-existing guest house both extend into the
side setback area. In positioning the slab, we had used these two structures as
guidelines. So, because the slab extends into the setback, we have included a
variance application.
Thank you -for taking the time to review this package; please contact usdirectly with
any questions you may have.
cerely,
and Judy MacLeod
14 Portuguese Bend Road