Loading...
458, Construction of a new SFR and, CorrespondencecEya�l2llina JUL February 7, 1994 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX (310) 377.7288 Mr. Richard Colyear 35 Crest Road West Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: LANDSCAPE PLAN AND ESTIMATE FOR 0 CHESTNUT LANE (LOT 241-A-1-MS) Dear Mr. Colyear: Attached is a copy of the approved landscape plan and estimate fulfilling a portion of the requirements for acquiring building permits for the subject property. A bond in the amount of the cost estimate of the implementation of the landscaping plan plus 15% is required to be posted prior to issuance of a grading and building permit and will be retained with the City for not less than two years after landscape installation. Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Sincerely,ti LOLA UNGAR) PRINCIPAL PLANNER ePmli ?ri ori Rrar:yr:lad F' p r. • • MEMORANDUM February 2,1994 TO: Lola Ungar, Principal Planner ATTENTION: Craig Nealis, City Manager FROM: Julie HeinsheimeV SUBJECT: Zoning Case # 458 Colyear Residence 0 Chestnut Lane Landscape plan approved as submitted. • City o/ ie0#4 Brae, January 31, 1994 Ms. Julie Heinsheimer 7 Johns Canyon Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 SUBJECT: LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR 0 CHESTNUT LANE (LOT 241-A-1-MS) Dear Julie: Please review the landscape plan, the cost estimate and the draft resolution (attached) for the subject property. Please let me know if there are any additions, corrections or the plan does not meet with your approval. Sincerely, (A‘e2eal.-- LOLA Printed on Recycled Paper. 010 C) iiy ofiedling January 26, .1994 Mr.. 'Richard C.. Colyear _35 .Crest ..Road West Rolling -Hills, CA 902.7,4 . SUBJECT: -EXP.IRATION OF EXTENSION... APPROVALS RESOLUTION. NOS..93-14 and.92-15 ZONING , CASE ..NO...458 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377.7288 . Dear .Mr..Colyear: I t.:has _ been.. almost...two years .since your .project was: approved by the Planning: '.Commission. ;.We .,woul.d, '.,like .; to..remind .;you .,that :;:your extension. approvals -for:..the .`subject_. zoning case will. "expire on .March 28,.1994., . Section,... 17.46.080(B)'(3) of._:.the.. Rolling, .Hills Municipal. Code . requires that _any extensionbey.ond ..thesecond.anniversary ;shall .not be granted unless a public hearing is held and approval. granted .in .the _.same•..manner and .based upon .the .:same criteria as required .for ,approval of the original project; You .should also .be _aware 'that there .are still two requirements you - will need to. take. care .of before building permits are issued and_ they are: 1. Prepare 2. copies of. a preliminary landscape, plan. for.approval by the, Planning .Department as noted..in Section 12, Condition, J of Resolution No. 92-15 and. post .a bond in .the amount- of .the cost ..estimate of the landscaping. plus 15%. We have, not yet ' received the cost estimate of the landscaping plan and need it to. submit with the. plam to. the Landscape Consultant.' :2. Record easements as noted in Section 12,*Condition R of .Resolution No. 92-15. Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521if you haveany questions. _Sincerely, LOLA UNG _PRINCIPAL PLANNER Printed on Recycled Paper. 0 46,-G ._ Ciiy al RO!fiPZ June 5, 1992 Mr. Richard Colyear 35 Crest Road West Rolling Hills, CA 90274 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 SUBJECT: REOUEST TO APPEAL APPROVAL OF ZONING CASE NO. 458 Dear Mr. Colyear: I have received your letter dated June 4, 1992 wherein you indicated that you did not receive notice of the Planning Commission's approval of Zoning Case No. 458 (Site Plan Review - Richard Colyear, 0 Chestnut Lane) until May 19, 1992. You, therefore, request to appeal the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council. This letter is to inform you that your request to appeal the Planning Commission's decision is untimely. You are now barred from appealing the decision to the City Council. As you are well aware, the Planning Commission approved your application on March 17, 1992 and the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 92-15 on March 28, 1992. By that Resolution, the Planning Commission granted approval of your requested variance and of the Site Plan Review for a manufactured home on property located at 0 Chestnut Lane. On April 6, 1992, I sent you a certified letter containing written notice of the decision. You refused to accept receipt of this letter and the Post Office returned this letter to us on May 18, 1992. I resent that letter to you on May 19, 1992. In the meantime, I sent a copy of the notice and of Planning Commission Resolution No. 92-15 to an officer of your development company, Mr. Herb Montenegro, Vice President of Colyear Development, and to your engineer, Mr. Douglas McHattie. Thereafter, your attorney, Mr. Richard L. Stone, also obtained a copy of that Resolution and stated as much in his telephone conversation with City Attorney Michael Jenkins on April 16, 1992. Mr. Stone informed Mr. Jenkins that both he and you had reviewed the Resolution and that you were in concurrence with the terms of the Resolution including the dedication of the easements to the City. Mr. Stone stated to Mr. Jenkins that you were prepared to sign the affidavit of acceptance if the City Attorney's office prepared the easement deed. ZONING CASE NO. 458 PAGE 2 A few days later, Assistant City Attorney Kevin Ennis spoke with Mr. Stone and asked if you were willing to pay for the preparation of the legal description. Mr. Stone called you that same day and you informed him that you would not pay for preparing a legal description. Mr. Stone relayed your refusal to Mr. Ennis that same day. It is clear from all these actions that (1) you received notice of the Planning Commission's decision in this matter in April, 1992; (2) that at least three of your company's representatives and agents also received notice of that decision in April, 1992; (3) that the latest you received that notice was on April 16, 1992 when your attorney represented your statements and your concurrence to the terms of the Resolution to the City Attorney; and (4) that the latest date the 20 day appeal period lapsed was May 6, 1992 (20 days after April 16, 1992). Your attempt to now claim that the appeal period was not triggered until May 19, 1992 when you finally decided to receive the letter is without merit. Your letter dated June 4, 1992 is therefore untimely and it is too late to appeal the Planning Commission's approval of your project to the City Council. If you have any questions, please feel free to have one of your representatives contact me at (310) 377-1521. Very truly yours, LOLA UNGAR PRINCIPAL PLANNER CITY OF ROLLING HILLS cc: Herb Montenegro, Vice President, Colyear Development Douglas McHattie, South Bay Engineering Richard L. Stone, Esq. Michael Jenkins, City Attorney Kevin G. Ennis, Assistant City Attorney Craig Nealis, City Manager • • FROM : COLYEAR DEU. CORP. JUN. 4.1992 10:34 AM P 1/1 R C111 INCI C. C01year June 4, 1992 Ms. Lola Ungar Principal Planner City of Rolling Hills No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 Re: Zonina Case #458. 0 Chestnut Lane (Lot 241-A-1-MS) Dear Ms. Ungar: I hold your written certification that I have twenty (20) days from my receipt of your notice within which to give you notice of my intention to appeal. 1 also hold the envelope with your postage meter date stamp of May 18, 1992, which I received on May 19, 1992. Today is June 4, 1992, which is within the 20-day period. This will serve as written notice of my intention to appeal each and every aspect of the Planning Commission's action relating to Zoning Case #458. Yours very truly JUN — c '992 CITY OF ROLLING HILL • 1 I CiL O /o/fini CORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 v May 28, 1992 Mr. Herb Montenegro Colyear Development Corporation 11100 Valley Boulevard, Suite 333 El Monte, CA 91731 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 458 0 CHESTNUT LANE Dear Mr. Montenegro: NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 TEL (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Thank you for your FAX note. Planning staff resent our April 6, 1992 letter and documents by regular mail to Mr. Colyear at his home address after it was returned marked "unclaimed" by the United States Post Office on May 19, 1992. Previously, on April 6, 1992, at the same time the letter was sent to Mr. Colyear, copies were also sent to you and Mr. Douglas McHattie. The letter and accompanying documents are customarily sent by the Planning Department with the request for a returned receipt to provide documentation that the applicant did receive the documents and approved/stamped Development Plan, and to complete our discretionary file. Attached is a copy of the mailing envelope and the stamped receipt of mailing for your records. Feel free to call me if you have any questions regarding the Planning Department or development procedures at (310) 377-1521. Sincerely. LOLA M. UNGAR PRINCIPAL PLANNER Ci1 o/ R0ti JII/h GODFREY PERNELL Mayor GORDANA SWANSON Mayor Pro Tem GINNY LEEUWENBURGH Councilwoman JODY MURDOCK Councilwoman THOMAS F. HEINSHEIMER Councilman April 13, 1992 Mr. Richard Colyear 18 Johns Canyon Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 Dear Mr. Colyear: Members of the Rolling Hills Traffic Commission on April 10, 1992 reviewed the final proposal for your driveway to be constructed with the proposed single family residence at 0 Chestnut Lane. The location of the driveway as it is currently depicted, ninety feet (90') from the intersection of Johns Canyon Road and Chestnut Lane, on Chestnut Lane, meets the advice and recommendation of .the Deputy Traffic Engineer and Rolling Hills Traffic Commission of being located at least seventy-five feet (75') from the subject intersection. Therefore, members of the Commission approved this final drawing. Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please do not hesitate to call. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, 4-6 Craig R. Nealis City Manager CN:ds Printed on Recycled Paper. C1i °Mo iling -AIL { CERTIFIED MAIL April 6, 1992 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377.1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 Mr. Richard Colyear 35 Crest Road West Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 458, 0 CHESTNUT LANE (LOT 241-A-1-MS) APPEAL PERIOD AND AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM RESOLUTION NO. 92-15 Dear Mr. Colyear: This letter shall serve as official notification that Zoning Case No.458 was APPROVED by the Planning Commission and the enclosed resolution was approved on March 28, 1992 at an adjourned regular meeting. The Planning Commission's decision will be reported to the City Council at their regular meeting on April 13, 1992. The approval will become effective: (1) Twenty days after the receipt of this letter if no appeals are filed within that time period (Section 17.32.140 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code attached), AND (2) An Affidavit of Acceptance Form and the subject Resolution must be filed by you with the County Recorder (Section 17.32.087). We have enclosed a copy of RESOLUTION NO. 92-15, specifying the conditions of approval set forth by the Planning Commission and the approved Exhibit A Development Plan to keep for your files. Once you have reviewed the Resolution, please complete the enclosed AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM, have the signature(s) notarized, and forward to: County Recorder. Room 15. 227 North Broadway, Los Anffeles, CA 90012 with a check in the amount of $ 5.00 for the first pate and $ 3.00 for each additional paz;e. 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. PAGE 2 Please feel free to call me at (213) 377-1521 if you have any questions. SINCERELY, gl-ajd- LOLA UNGAR PRINCIPAL PLANNER ENCLOSURES: RESOLUTION NO.92-15, EXHIBIT A DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM, AND APPEAL SECTION OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE. cc: Mr. Herb Montenegro Mr. Douglas McHattie • • RESOLUTION NO. 92-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A RETAINING WALL AND GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL OF A NEW RESIDENTIAL • STRUCTURE IN ZONING CASE NO. 458, SUBJECT TO SPECIFIED CONDITIONS. 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. Richard Colyear with respect to real property located at 0 Chestnut Lane, Rolling Hills (Lot 241-A-1-MS) requesting a variance to encroach into the front yard setback to construct a retaining wall and Site Plan Review approval of a proposed 1,674 square foot single family residence, a 350 square foot attached garage, a 450 square foot future stable and a 96 square foot service yard. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application for Site Plan Review on November 19, 1991, December 17, 1991, January 21, 1992 and February 18, 1992, March 17, 1992 and at field trip visits on December 7, 1991, January 11, 1992, February 1, 1992 and February 29, 1992. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application for the variance on March 17, 1992. Section 3. The Planning Commission concurs with Planning Staff that the project qualifies as a Class 3 Exemption (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15303 (a)) and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 4. Sections 17.32.010 through 17.32.030 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 17.16.060 requires a front yard setback for every residential parcel to be fifty (50) feet. The applicant is requesting to construct a retaining wall with a maximum height of five feet (5') above the downslope grade, a maximum length of 252 feet, which will encroach a maximum of fifty (50') feet into the fifty (50) foot front yard setback. Section 5. With respect to this request for a variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: 920327 eeh 1680770 (3) • . 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 there exists existing topographical constraints on the property that necessitate the construction of a retaining wall in order to construct a vehicular driveway onto the property. 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 because of the steep slope on the lot which necessitates a retaining wall to support the slopebank next to the proposed driveway. 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 because the proposed project will be compatible with surrounding properties and will be comparable to the height and nature of an existing retaining wall along the northern edge of the property. Section 6. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the variance for Zoning Case 458 to permit the encroachment of a retaining wall into the front yard setback, to a maximum height of five feet (5'), a maximum length of 252 feet and with a maximum encroachment of fifty (50') feet into the front 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 12 of this Resolution. Section 7. Section 17.34.010 requires a development plan to be submitted for site plan review and approval before any building or structure may be constructed or any expansion, addition, alteration or repair to existing buildings or structures, which involve changes to grading or an increase to the size of the building or structure by more than twenty-five percent (25%) in any thirty-six month period, may be permitted. Section 8. With respect to the Site Plan Review application, the Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact: A. The proposed development, as modified by the conditions of approval, is compatible with the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses because the proposed structure complies with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. The project conforms to Zoning Code setback and lot coverage requirements. The lot has a net square foot area of 87,120 square feet. The proposed residence (1,674 sq. ft.), garage (350 sq. ft.), and future 920327 eeh 1680770 (3) 2 • • stable (450 sq. ft.) will have 2,510 square feet which constitutes 2.9% of the lot which is within the maximum 20% structural lot coverage requirement. The total lot coverage including paved areas and driveway will be 11,470 square feet which equals 13.2% of the lot, which is within the 35% maximum overall lot coverage requirement. B. The proposed development, as modified by the conditions of approval, preserves and integrates into the site design, to the maximum extent feasible, existing natural topographic features of the lot including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses, and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls). C. The development plan, as modified by the conditions of approval, follows natural contours of the site to minimize grading and the natural drainage courses will continue to the canyons at the northwest side of this lot. D. The development plan will, in compliance with the conditions contained in this Resolution, supplement the existing vegetation with landscaping that is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community. E. The development plan, as modified by the conditions of approval, substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage because the new structures will not cause the structural and total lot coverage to be exceeded. Further, the proposed project will have a buildable pad of 12,000 square feet and a building pad coverage of 17.7%. F. The proposed development, as modified by the conditions of approval, is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences. As indicated in Paragraph E, the lot coverage maximum will not be exceeded and the proposed project is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood. Modifications have been made to reduce the prominence of the house on the lot by moving the structure away from the edge of the building pad. The ratio of the proposed structure to lot coverage is similar to or less than the ratio found on several properties in the vicinity. G. The proposed development, as modified by the conditions of approval, is sensitive and not detrimental to convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because conditions have been imposed to place the driveway so as to intersect with Chestnut Lane at a point which is farther away from the corner of Chestnut Lane and Johns Canyon Road than as originally shown on the proposed Site Plan. H. The project conforms with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and is categorically exempt from environmental review. 920327 eeh 1680770 (3) 3 • . Bection 9. The Commission's finds that it has authority to impose conditions of approval on this discretionary land use decision pursuant to the City's police power, the State Planning and Zoning Law, City ordinances and California Government Code Section 66499.34. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66499.34, the City is precluded from granting any approval necessary to develop any real property which has been divided, or which has resulted from a division, in violation of the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act or of the provisions of local ordinances enacted by the City if it finds that development of such real property is contrary to the public health or the public safety. California Government Code Section. 66499.34 also authorizes the City, with respect to parcels of real property created in violation of the Subdivision Map Act or local ordinances that are under the ownership of the same person who was the record owner of the property at the time the violation occurred, to impose such conditions as would be applicable to a current division of the property, except that if a conditional certificate of compliance has been filed for record, then the City may only impose such conditions stipulated in that certificate. Section 10. With respect to the requirements of California Government Section 66499.34, and for purposes of showing a nexus between the provisions of condition "K" of Section 12 and the need for that condition, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. Richard Colyear was a record owner of the subject property at the time of its subdivision in 1970. B. In 1970, as a condition of tentative map approval of the tract, certain perimeter easements were imposed for bridal trails, road and public utilities to be reserved for the benefit of the Rolling Hills Community Association in documents to be recorded. The parcel that is the subject of this application is a part of that tract. The requirement that these perimeter easements be reserved by document was denoted by the applicant on the final map approved and recorded for the tract. However, the applicant has never recorded any of the easements imposed by his conditional subdivision approval. C. The City's Sanitary Sewer Feasibility Study, prepared by ASL Consulting Engineers on February 9, 1988, recommends the installation of future sewer lines to service the immediate vicinity of parcel to be constructed along the westerly property line of Parcel 2 (Lot 2), along the boundary line of proposed Parcels 1 and 2 and then along the easterly property line of Parcel 1 (Lot 1) (See Map 13 of 22 to the ASL Study). Based upon this Study and the need to provide for the future installation of sewers to serve the property which is the subject of this application and to serve properties in the immediate vicinity of the subject property, conditions have been attached to require the applicant to record an easement to the City (to be 920327 eeh 1680770 (3) 4 • • immediately transferred to the Rolling Hills Community Association) for ingress and egress purposes to construct underground utilities along those portions of the properties described above. D. The Planning Commission further finds that the City is considering the construction of a sewer system and that if it finds such a system to be necessary, will need these easements through which the system can be constructed and maintained for the benefit of the subject property and surrounding properties. E. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66499.34, only by the imposition of condition "K" of Section 12 to address the applicant's original violation of subdivision approval can the Planning Commission properly approve the application for Site Plan Review. Section 11. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review application for Zoning Case No. 458 for a proposed residential development as indicated on the development plan incorporated herein as Exhibit A, subject to the conditions contained in Section 12 of this Resolution. Section 12. The variance to the front yard setback approved in Section 6 of this Resolution and the Site Plan Review for residential development approved in Section 11 of this Resolution are subject to the following conditions: A. The variance and Site Plan Review approval shall expire within one year from the effective date of approval as defined in Section 17.34.08O.A. B. It is declared and made a condition of the Site Plan Review approval, that if any conditions thereof are violated, this approval 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 Buildings and Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be compiled with unless otherwise set forth in the Permit, or shown otherwise on an approved plan. D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file dated March 19, 1992 and marked Exhibit A, except as otherwise provided in these conditions. E. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of Building and Safety for plan check review must 920327 eeh 1680770 (3) 5 • • include a 550 square foot corral and must conform to the development plan approved with this application. F. Grading shall be limited so that the amount of soil displaced to construct the building pad shall not exceed 4000 cubic yards of soil. Cut and fill slopes shall not exceed a steepness of a 2 to 1 slope ratio. The grading plan shall utilize land form or contour grading techniques in its design so as to create a building pad and slopes that blend with the horizontal and vertical contours of the natural terrain. G. The building pad coverage shall not exceed 17.7%. H. The driveway from the street to the building pad of the subject property, as shown on the plans dated March 19, 1992 shall be moved so that the northeasterly point of intersection of the driveway with Chestnut Lane occurs at least seventy-five (75) feet from the center of the radius curve of the intersection of Chestnut Lane and Johns Canyon Road. I. To obscure the building on the pad, the structures, driveway, graded slopes and retaining walls shall be screened and shielded from view with native drought -resistant vegetation that is compatible with the surrounding vegetation of the community. J. A landscape plan must be submitted to and approved by the City of Rolling Hills Planning Department staff prior to the issuance of any grading and building permit. The landscaping plan submitted must comply with the purpose and intent of the Site Plan Review Ordinance, shall incorporate existing mature trees and native vegetation, and shall utilize to the maximum extent feasible, plants that are native to the area and/or consistent with the rural character of the community. A bond in the amount of the costs estimate of the implementation of the landscaping plan plus 15% shall be required to be posted prior to issuance of a grading and building permit and shall be retained with the City for not less than two years after landscape installation. The retained bond will be released by the City Manager after the City Manager determines that the landscaping was installed pursuant to the landscaping plan as approved, and that such landscaping is properly established and in god condition. K. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66499.34, the City's police power, State Planning and Zoning law, the City's ordinances and other applicable powers and authority available to the City, and based upon the findings contained in Section 7 of this Resolution relating to violations. of the Subdivision Map Act and local ordinances at the time the parcel was created, the applicant shall prepare and, upon approval and acceptance by the City, record prior to the issuance 920327 eeh 1680770 (3) - 6 - • •. of any grading or building permit for the subject parcel, an easement in gross, in favor of the City of Rolling Hills (with the intention that the City convey it immediately to the Rolling Hills Community Association) for ingress, egress and the installation, maintenance, repair, replacement and removal of sewer lines and other underground utilities over that certain real property described as (i) the westerly ten (10) feet of Parcel 2, (ii) ten (10) feet on either side of the boundary line between Parcels 1 and 2 and (iii) the easterly ten (10) feet of Parcel 1. The easement deed shall prohibit Grantor or any successor to Grantor from constructing or erecting any improvements or altering the contours of the surface of the easement areas other than installation of shallow rooted landscaping and necessary irrigation systems. L. The property that is the subject of this approval is also the subject of pending litigation entitled Richard C. Colyear v. City of Rolling Hills, etc, et al, and City of Rolling Hills v. Richard C. Colyear (Case No. YC005965) regarding conditions of approval of a lot line adjustment involving Parcel 1 (lot 1), and Richard C. Colyear v. City of Rolling Hills (Case No. SB91C00317) involving the processing fees for the lot line adjustment. The approval of this Site Plan Review shall not limit, impair or otherwise prejudice the City's position with respect to the pending litigation mentioned above. M. This Site Plan Review approval shall not in any way constitute a representation that Parcel 1 (Lot 1) was •subdivided in with the State Subdivision laws, the City's ordinances or conditions imposed pursuant thereto. N. The retaining wall in the front yard setback shall not exceed five (5') feet in height measures from the downslope side of the wall to the surface of the ground, shall not exceed 252 feet in length and shall be permitted to encroach the maximum fifty (50') feet into the front yard setback. The retaining wall shall be constructed in accordance with the approved Site Plan, identified as Exhibit "A". 0. Prior to the submittal of an applicable final grading plan to the County of Los Angeles for plan check, a detailed grading and drainage plan with related geology, soils and hydrology reports that conform to the development plan as approved by the Planning Commission must be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their review. Cut and fill slopes shall not exceed a steepness of a 2 to 1 slope ratio. P. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit. 920327 eeh 1680770 (3) - 7 • • Q. Notwithstanding Section 17.34.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, any modifications to the project which would constitute additional development shall require the filing of a new application for approval by the Planning Commission. R. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this Site Plan Review, or the approval shall not be effective. S. Conditions C, D, F, G, H, I, J, K, 0, and P of this Site Plan Review approval must be complied with prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit from the County of Los Angeles. 1992. ATTEST: PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 28th day 'of March, r— DIANE SAWY R, DEPUTY CY CLERK ALAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN 920327 eeh 1680770 (3) - 8 - • • The foregoing Resolution No. 92-15 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A RETAINING WALL AND GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL OF A NEW RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE IN ZONING CASE NO.. 458, SUBJECT, TO SPECIFIED CONDITIONS. was approved and adopted at a regular adjourned meeting of the Planning Commission on March 28, 1992, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Carmissioners Frost, Hankins, Lay and Chairman Roberts NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Com nissioner Raine 920327 eeh 1680770 (3) �-' OA4 c� DEPUTY C TY CLERK 'C'\ - 9 - RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND MAIL TO: Recorder's Use CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 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). ACCEPTANCE FORM State of County of STATE. OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss ZONING CASE NO. 4rSX SITE PLAN REVIEW VARIANCE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT I (We) the undersigned state: I am (We are) the owner(s) of the real property described as follows: 0 Nesfiauf Lam (Zoe 24'/-4' - (-/11S), /�o l � //s This property is the subject of the above numbered cases. I am (We are) aware of, and accept, all the stated conditions in said ZONING CASE NO. 'i' SITE PLAN REVIEW VARIANCE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT I (We) certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Print Owner Name Signature Address City/State Print Owner Name Signature Address City/State Signatures must be acknowledged by a notary public. On this the day of the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared ❑ personally known to me ❑ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) within instrument, and acknowledged that WITNESS my hand and official seal Notary's Signature 19_, before me, subscribed to the Pxecuted it. See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof • • 17.32.140--17.32.160 17.32.140 Appeal --Persons authorized. The action by the Planning Commission in matters described in this a chapter shall be by majority vote and shall be final, con- c p.1 clusive and effective twenty calendar days after the tiling v of notice, as provided in Section 17.32.090, unless within said twenty -day period an appeal in writing is filed with the City Clerk by any of the following: r2r A. The applicant; 8. Any person who protested, either orally or in writing, as a matter of record, prior to the final vote of the Planning Commission on the matter and who, in addition, received or was entitled to receive the written notice specified in subdivision 2 of subsection A of Section 17.40.060; or C. The City Council, upon the affirmative vote of three members of the Council. (Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord. 155 $4, 1978: Ord. 33 56.14, 1960) . 17.32.150 Appeal--Contents--Fee. An appeal from any order, requirement, decision, or determination under the title must set forth specifically wherein it is claimed there was an error or abuse of discretion by the Planning Commission or wherein the decision of the Planning Commission is not supported by the evidence in the matter. In addition, any person appealing the decision of the Planning Commission must pay to the City Clerk, at the time of filing the written notice of appeal, the required fee specified by resolution as hereafter adopted and from time to time changed by the City Council. (Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord. 33 56.15, 1960). 17.32.160 Appeal--Recordkeeping. Upon receipt of a written appeal and the payment of the fee required, the City Clerk shall advise the Secretary of the Planning Commission to transmit forthwith the complete record of the entire proceeding before the Planning Commission. The Secretary of the Planning Commission shall be charged with the duty and responsibility of maintaining a complete file and record on each application processed pursuant to this chapter which shall contain the original application processed pursuant to this chapter, all correspondence and reports pertaining thereto, all affidavits of publication, posting and mailing, as required by law, minutes of all meetings of the Planning Commission pertaining to this matter, advisory reports of technical agents, the report, findings and decision of the Planning Commission, and an affidavit of the mailing and the giving of said notice, as required by this chapter. (Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord. 33 $6.16, 1960). 215 (Rolling Rills 8/83) • • 17.32.170--17.32.200 • 17.32.170 City Council to be Board of Zoning Adjustment and Appeal. For the purpose of this chapter and in conformity with Article 2 of Chapter 4, Title 7 of the Government Code of the State of California, the City Council appoints and creates each and every member of the City Council, sitting as a whole, as the Board of Zoning Adjustment and Zoning Appeal for the City. The City Council shall meet as a Board of Zoning Adjustment and Zoning Appeal in connection with other City business and, in so meeting, shall be governed by all the rules and regulations now adopted or hereafter adopted governing the procedure of the City Council. (Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord. 33 56.17, 1960) . 17.32.180 Appeal--Nearing--Notice--Basis for decision. ti The City Clerk shall set a hearing before the City Council as ��Zoning Adjustment and Zoning Appeal not less the after the receipt of said appeal or request for review. The hearing shall be on at lest days prior written notice to the apprrEM7 the appellant, and to any other persons who received or should have received, under Section 17.40.060, notice of the hearing before the Planning Commission. At such a hearing no new matter nor new evidence shall be received or considered by the Board of Zoning Adjustment and Appeal, and the Board shall make its determination on the basis of the record brought before it on appeal or review. (Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord. 33 56.18, 1960). 17.32.190 Appeal --New hearing --Authorized when. Notwith- standing the provisions of Section 17.32.180, the Board of Zoning Adjustment and Appeal may, by majority action at any time during the course of the review of a decision of the Planning Commission under this chapter brought before it by appeal, determine that a new hearing shall be set by the Board of Zoning Adjustment and Appeal, at which time the public will be entitled to appear to present new or additional evidence for or against said application. (Ord. 1$S (part) , 1981: Ord. 33 f 6.19 , 1960) . 17.32.200 Appeal--Nev bearing --Copy of records. The action of the Board Of Zoning Adjustment and Appeal shall be by majority vote and shall be final and conclusive. The decision of the Board under this chapter shall be set forth in full in the minutes of the meeting of the Board of Zoning Adjustment and Appeal. A certified copy of the excerpts of said minutes shall be delivered by the City Clerk to the City Council, the Secretary of the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission for their use and records, as well as to the applicant or the appellant, if they are different parties. (Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord. 33 S6.20, 1960). 216 (Rolling Hills 8/83) • • 17.. 32.210--17. 36.010 17.32.210 Appeal --Notice. Upon the filing of such an appeal, the City Clerk shall give notice of the filing of said notice to: A. Applicant; B. Appellant; and C. Any person who protested, either orally or in writing, as a matter of record, prior to the final vote of the Planning Commission on the matter and who, in addition, received or was entitled to receive the written notice specified in subdivision 2 of subsection B of Section 7.40.060. (Ord. 188(part), 1981:. Ord. 155 $6, 1978: Ord. 33 56.21, 1960). 17.32.220 Appeal--Nearing--Multiple appeals. In the event more than one..appeal is filed purusant to Section 17.32.140 then all appeals shall be heard at the same time. (Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord. 155 56, 1978: Ord. 33 36.22, 1960). • i C1iy o//e.ee,.9 GODFREY PERNELL Mayor GORDANA SWANSON Mayor Pro Tem GINNY LEEUWENBURGH Councilwoman JODY MURDOCK Councilwoman THOMAS F. HEINSHEIMER Councilman March 18, 1992 Mr. Richard Colyear 35 Crest Road West Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Mr. Colyear: INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 At the regular meeting of the Planning Commission held Tuesday, March 17, 1992, Planning Commissioners took action to approve a resolution granting variance and site plan review approval in Zoning Case No. 458, subject to specified conditions. A separate correspondence from Principal Planner Lola Ungar describing the remaining actions necessary to finalize this resolution will be forthcoming. Members of the Traffic Commission, on their field trip to the subject site on January 17, 1992, requested that the final driveway access be resubmitted to the Traffic Commission for review. Members of the Traffic Commission will conduct their next regular meeting at 8:30 a.m. on Friday, April 3, 1992. At that meeting, it is respectfully requested that your Engineer be present to describe the driveway access as it is currently proposed for this new single family residence. Your cooperation regarding this matter is appreciated. Should you wish to discuss this further, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, (./rzt-4 Craig R. Nealis City Manager CN:ds cc: Doug McHaddy, South Bay Engineering Printed on Recycled Paper. • City U/ /E'0f/n4 4_Lh�/ �INCORPORATED JANUARY 241957 March 18, 1992 Mr. Richard Colyear 35 Crest Road West Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Mr. Colyear: NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 458 Request for a Variance to permit the encroachment of a retaining wall into the front yard setback and requests Site Plan Review to permit the construction of a proposed new single family residence and an attached two -car garage. Dear Mr. Colyear: This letter shall serve as official notification that Zoning Case No. 458 was APPROVED by the Plannning Commission at their regular meeting on March 17, 1992. The final Resolution and conditions of APPROVAL will be forwarded to you after they are signed by the Planning Commission Chairman and City Clerk. The Planning Commission's decision will be reported to the City Council at their regular meeting on April 13, 1992. You should also be aware that the decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed within twenty days after you receive the final Resolution (Sections 17.32.140 and 17.32.150 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code). Feel free to call me at (213) 377-1521 if you have any questions regarding this matter. LOLA M. UNGAR PRINCIPAL PLANNE cc: Mr. Herb Montenegro Mr. Douglas McHattie Ci1 op?e?n9Jd?F February 20, 1992 Mr. Richard Colyear 35 Crest Road West Rolling Hills. CA 90274 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 458 18 JOHNS CANYON ROAD (LOT 241-A-1) Dear Mr. Colyear: INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS. CALIF. 90274 (213) 377.1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 We have arranged for the Planning Commission to conduct a field inspection of your property to view the revised access driveway off Chestnut Lane on Saturday. February 29. 1992. The Planning Commission will meet at your project site at 7:30 AM. The site must be prepared with stakes and colored tapes or ribbon denoting the limits of the proposed driveway, the property lines. and the limits of easements along Chestnut Lane. The property line limits should be clearly defined. The owner and/or representative should be present to answer any questions regarding the proposal. Feel free to call me at (213) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Sincerely, 1114r1-- LOLA M. UNGAR PRINCIPAL PLANNER cc: Mr. Herb Montenegro Mr. Douglas McHattie • City o1) iof/Li Jh/1 February 18, 1992 Mr. Douglas McHattie South Bay Engineering Corporation 304 Tejon Place Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 458, 18 JOHNS CANYON ROAD MR. RICHARD C. COLYEAR SITE PLAN REVIEW Dear Mr. MCHattie: NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377.1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 I am in receipt of the most recent revised plans for Zoning Case No. 458 that you submitted to me on Friday. February 14, 1992. I noticed that the revised plans show a retaining wall in the front yard setback. This came as a surprise to me because at the last Planning Commission meeting you clearly indicated that the driveway could be relocated in accordance with the Traffic Commission's recommendation without requiring a retaining wall to support the driveway. The addition of the retaining wall in the front yard setback creates the necessity for a Variance from the requirement of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 17.28.022 (Required yards shall be maintained unobstructed from the ground up of any structure except certain specified structures). As you know, the time deadline to provide proper public notice of the Variance passed several weeks ago. Without a duly noticed Variance application before the Commission, the Commission cannot take final action on the Site Plan Review application at its meeting tonight. This is unfortunate for all involved because the City, as well as Mr. Colyear, is eager to have final action taken on . the Site Plan Review application. For these reasons, I will have to recommend that the public hearing on this item be continued to the Planning Commission's next regular meeting on Tuesday, March 17, 1992. It will be up to the Commission whether it wants to take public testimony tonight on the application or whether it desires to continue the whole item until next month's meeting. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, LOLA UNGAR PRINCIPAL PLANNER cc: Mr. Richard Colyear Mr. Herb Montenegro Attachment: Variance Application Form Cuy (Pelting Jhfh January 23, 1992 Mr. Richard Colyear 35 Crest Road West Rolling Hills, CA 90274 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX (213) 377-7288 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 458 18 JOHNS CANYON ROAD (LOT 241-A-1) Request for a Site Plan Review to permit the construction of a proposed new single family residence, an attached garage, and a stable. Dear Mr. Colyear: We have arranged for the Planning Commission to conduct a field inspection of your property to view the proposed access driveway off Chestnut Lane on Saturday. February 1, 1992. The Planning Commission will meet at 7:00 AM at City Hall for a time and then proceed to the scheduled project sites. Do not expect the Commission at 7:00 AM, but be assured that the field trip will take place before 11 AM. The site must be prepared with stakes and colored tapes or ribbon denoting the limits of the proposed driveway, the property lines, and the limits of easements along Chestnut Lane. The boundary limits should be clearly defined. The owner and/or representative should be present to answer any questions regarding the proposal. Feel free to call me at (213) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Sincerely, LOLA M. UNGAR PRINCIPAL PLANNER cc: Mr. Hugh Montenegro• Mr. Douglas McHattie ci r+, • COLYEAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION H. Alexander Montenegro Executive Vice President January 8, 1992 VIA FAX AND U. S. MAIL Ms. Lola Ungar Principal Planner CITY OF ROLLING HILLS No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 Re: 18 Johns Canyon Road Rollina Hills, California Dear Lola: J A N 1 0 1992 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 6y ............. Mr. Colyear was in attendance at the December 17, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. He has asked that he be provided with a DRAFT of the portion of those minutes that relate to his matter heard before the Commission. If there were any objections to those minutes, should those objections be presented before the next meeting or in person at that meeting? Thank you in advance for your prompt response to this request. H. (Herb) Alexander Montenegro Executive Vice President cc: Richard C. Colyear 11100 Valley Boulevard (818) 444-8203 • Suite 333 • Post Office Box 5425 • (4:11 Monte, California 91734-1425 (213) 686-0617 FAX (818) 350-9239 "City • alrzeen$ Free December 20, 1991 Mr. Richard Colyear 35 Crest Road West Rolling Hills, CA 90274 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377.1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 458 18 JOHNS CANYON ROAD (LOT 241-A-1) Request for a Site Plan Review to permit the construction of a proposed new single family residence, an attached garage, and .a stable. Dear Mr. Colyear: We have arranged for the Planning Commission to conduct a field inspection of your property to view the proposed access driveway off Johns Canyon Road on Saturday, January 4, 1992 at 7:00 AM. The site must be prepared with stakes and colored tapes or ribbon denoting the limits of the proposed driveway, all property lines at the intersection of Johns Canyon Road and Chestnut, and the limits of all easements. These boundaries should be in a manner that clearly defines demarcation lines. The owner and/or representative should be present to answer any questions regarding the proposal. Feel free to call me at (213) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Sincerely, of-e-J14, LOLA M. UNGAR PRINCIPAL PLANNER •cc: Mr. Hugh Montenegro • DAVID N. STONE 9 JOHNS CANYON ROAD ROLLING HILLS. CALIFORNIA 90274 DEC• g!glEawq ' 6 1991 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS BY December 12, 1991 Ms. Lola M. Ungar Planning Commission City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 RE: Zoning Case 458, Mr. Richard Colyear Dear Ms. Ungar and Planning Commission, I have reviewed the subject application and plans and am concerned about some aspects of the proposed development. My concerns are detailed in this letter because I am unable to attend the Planning Commission meetings. 1. Driveway Location: I object to the proposed location of the driveway at the intersection of Johns Canyon Road and Chestnut Lane. This seems to be a potentially dangerous location as it impacts traffic safety. If at all possible, relocating the driveway to Chestnut Lane would seem safer. If relocating is impossible, then I hope that appropriate measures can be taken to insure traffic safety. 2. Water Run -Off: If the proposed driveway location is not changed, then I am also concerned about potential water run-off from the property down the driveway. Specifically, the ability of the existing road configuration to direct increased, water run-off away from the properties on Johns Canyon Road (#9 and #10). 3. Waste Water Disposal: Consider requiring connection to the privately funded sewer line which will soon be built to service the four properties on the north side of Chestnut Lane and the three additional properties at the intersection of Johns Canyon Road and Morgan Lane. The sewer line will end at the intersection of Johns Canyon Road and Morgan Lane. It does not seem unreasonable to require connection to this sewer • • because of the proximity of the sewer line to Mr. Colyear's property. Furthermore, this would be of great benefit in assuring geologic stability of his hillside and adjacent properties, would further the City's interests in expanding sewer use through the city, and would probably not be that much more expensive than an on site waste disposal system. If it is not possible to require sanitary sewer connection, then I hope that the City will insure that the placement and construction of any on site waste disposal systems will be such that stability of the hillside and adjacent properties will not be compromised. 4. Lot Coverage: I am concerned that so much of the proposed improvements is driveway hardscape that it will make possible future residence additions impossible because of lot coverage limitations. This may not be important to the developer, however it should be important to the City because future owners will surely appeal to the City for exemptions ("hardship exemptions") to lot coverage limitations to enable the residence to be brought into closer conformity with neighboring residences. This could be a difficult situation for all concerned, and can be prevented with appropriate planning requirements (increase proposed residence size, provide potential space for future addition, etc.). Sincerely, David N. Stone • City oy iei4 November 25, 1991 Mr. Richard Colyear 35 Crest Road West Rolling Hills, CA 90274 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 458 18 JOHNS CANYON ROAD (LOT 241-A-1) Request for a Site Plan Review to permit the construction of a proposed new single family residence, an attached garage, and a stable. Dear Mr. Colyear: We received a letter from Mr. Montenegro regarding the subject case on.November 20, 1991. Following are the answers to questions posed by Mr. Montenegro. We have arranged for the Planning Commission to conduct a field inspection of your property to view a silhouette of the proposed project on Saturday, December 7, 1991 at 7:00 AM. The Planning Commission has not addressed visiting the factory where the Manufactured Home is designed and built. We will inform the Commission of the alternate accessway to the South. Thank you for informing us of the alternate access route. The Planning Department makes no contentions and does not wish to trespass on any property without permission of the owners. The last item listed in your letter is not clear regarding a "foundation plan." Are you referring to the quotation from the soils report that you submitted with the application? The site must be prepared with a full-size silhouette of the proposed project showing the roof ridge and bearing walls. We have enclosed Silhouette Construction Guidelines. In addition, the proposed accesswav from Johns Canyon Road must be staked along with the property lines and easements of all effected properties. We suggest that you use flags and or tape of different colors to denote the separate easements. The owner and/or representative should be present to answer any questions regarding the proposal. • • • ZONING CASE NO. 458 PAGE 2 Feel free to call me at (213) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Sincerely, LOLA M. UNGAR PRINCIPAL PLANNER cc: Mr. Hugh Montenegro Mr. Douglas McHattie i ci1 y • /?of/'in INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 SILHOUETTE CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES 1. 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. The Silhouette shall not remain erected for a period longer than one week unless directed by the Planning Commission or City Council. 2. Silhouettes should be constructed with 2" x 4" lumber. Printed boards are not acceptable. 3. Bracing should be provided where possible. 4. Wire, twine or other suitable material should be used to delineate roof ridges and eaves. 5. Small pieces of cloth or flags should be attached to the wire or twine to aid in the visualization of the proposed construction. 6. The application may be delayed if inaccurate silhouettes are constructed. 7. If you have any futher questions contact Department Staff at (213) 377-1521. • Se SECTION 1 CI id PLAN or incomplete the Planning 4 • COLYEAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATI H. Alexander Montenegro Executive Vice President November 20, 1991 VIA FAX AND U. S. MAIL Ms. Lola agar Principal Planner CITY OF ROLLING HILLS No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 Re: 18 Johns Canyon Road Rolling Hills, California Dear Lola: NOV 2 21991 Of ROMIG OW D r r Nov 21 1991 City Of Rolling Hills By As a follow-up to last night's Planning Commission hearing, Mr. Colyear would like to know your comments on the following: o When does the Commission plan to visit the site? o Does the Commission plan a visit to the factory where the Manufactured Home is designed and built? o If the Commission wishes to view the site from the South, they should do that by utilizing the Association easement (Ghormley driveway) as this is the alternative access location together jai tY� the revi r.ting easement over the $ k ' easterly. property line. o Mr. Ghormley, Dr. Saks, and Mr. Colyear have all agreed that access to the lot should be taken from the North. However, if Dr. Carey's objection is sustained, an alternative access currently exists. o Mr. Colyear would also like to know whether you contend that he has an obligation to permit the Commission to trespass on Lot 2, other than in the easement area, for the Commission to view Lot 1. 11100 Valley Boulevard • Suite 333 • Post Office Box 5425 • • El Monte, California 91734-1425 (818) 444-8203 (213) 686-0617 FAX (818) 350-9239 • • Ms. Lola Ungar November 20, 1991 Page 2 o In your November 9, 1991 Staff Report, you set forth one suggestion for a foundation plan, but that was not the only alternative mentioned. Please respond to the above at your earliest convenience but no later than November 29, 1991 as Mr. Colyear wants to keep the process moving. Sincerely, H. A''lexander Montenegro Executive Vice President cc: Mr. Richard C. Colyear • • ((tij) c COLYEAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION H. Alexander Montenegro Executive Vice President November 18, 1991 VIA FAX AND U. S. MAIL Ms. Lola Ungar Principal Planner CITY OF ROLLING HILLS No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 Re: 18 Johns Canyon Road Rollina Hills. California Dear Lola: 11,51@sa NOV 'i. 9 1991 CITY OF ROLLING NULLS BY................................ In your November 9, 1991 Staff Report, you state that the purpose of the application is to request approval to construct a new 1,674 square foot single family residence on the site. This report should be corrected to state that approval is requested to place on the site a 1,674 square foot Manufactured Home, as that term is defined at Title 1, Section 2, National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1703) and, therefore, it is not relevant whether this unit is compatible with the General Plan, zoning ordinances, and surrounding uses or is harmonious in scale and mass with the site. H. Alexander montenegro Executive Vice President cc: Richard C. Colyear 11100 Valley Boulevard • Suite 333 • Post Office Box 5425 • El Monte, California 91734-1425 (818) 444-8203 (213) 686-0617 FAX (818) 350-9239 • • FAX (213) 564-4105 TELEX 67-4674 c Hiti T� SWE:t CigontWiNW 5321 FIRESTONE BOULEVARD SOUTH GATE, CALIFORNIA 90280 November 15, 1991 City of Rolling Hills 2, Portuguese Bend rd. Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Attention: Planning Commission Subject: Zoning Case #458 Dear Neighbors: TELEPHONE (213) 564-3281 NOV 1 81901 OrTY OF ROLLING HILLS By — My family and I have only two requests with regard to this Zoning Case: The first is that the address assigned to this parcel be such that it does not confuse the post office , UPS or any other delivery services. I understand that number eighteen has been assigned only for reference purposes, and that another address will be assigned at a later date. The second request is once the property is finish graded, that the native plants removed or destroyed by any grading or construction be replanted. This of course to be done within reason, and within the guidelines and wishes of the Landscape Committee and the Fire Department. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. SWS/may/266 riniq SERVICE CENTER INSTITUTE Sincerely, phen Wultz "TONS OF QUALITY" 213i 319•iS2 2 RQLL1140 ILLS November 13, 1990 � MO L.5,il?,„ c TO: CRAIG NEALIS, CTTY MANAGER FROM: PEGGY MINOR, MANAGER v" COLYP..,AR LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT of G/t W.L M.. G^ATUALI[![ SO O RD. • RCLL1NO MALL$, CALIr. 90274 CALIFORNIA„ This to advise that the Rolling Hills Commuinity Association authorizes and approves the use of its easement that exists in tho vicinity of the intersection of Chestnut Lane and Johns Canyon Road by Richard Colyear for private driveway access to thin vacant parcel (lot 3). This private driveway access may be located on the RHCA easement located in the vicinity of the intersection of Chestnut Lane al... .johns C..::+-.= aoad. This access to Parcel 3 was approved in 1910 during the subdivision of the tract. do cc: Richard L. Stone cc: South Say Engineering * 20d 1'_ `::.:►1!s • "' `+c]r.�L.• t :ems - -s.41j+tisy N I Z1t11At 'Q.elbrddEHS Wd t � � �J 06-6 1: I • • CLI, o1 Rollin _AA NOTIFICATION LETTER October 9, 1991 Mr. H. Alexander Montenegro Executive Vice President Colyear Development Corporation 11100 Valley Boulevard, Suite 333 El Monte, CA 91734-1425 SUBJECT: Zoning Case No. 458 18 Johns Canyon Road (Lot 241-A-1) Dear Mr. Montenegro: INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 Your application for Zoning Case No. 458, a request for a Site Plan Review to permit the construction of a new single family residence and an attached garage, has been deemed complete for filing. The matter has been set for public hearing consideration by the Planning Commission on Tuesday, November 19, 1991. 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, November 15, 1991. Please arrange to pick up the staff report to preview it prior to the hearing. There is one matter that I must bring to your attention at this point, and that is the staff's concern regarding the validity of the underlying parcel on which the residential construction is proposed. As you may know, this is an issue raised in a pending lawsuit, Colyear v. City of Rolling Hills. Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. YC005965, and arises from Mr. Colyear's failure as yet to satisfy the easement imposed as a condition of approving the original lot split. This will be one of the issues the City must address under Section 17.34.040 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code in determining whether or in what manner to approve the application for Site Plan Review. -1- • • Please call me at (213) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Sincerely, LOLA M. U,NGAR a& -de PRINCIPAL PLANNER CC: Craig Nealis, City Manager Michael Jenkins, City Attorney Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney Ci1 `� een9 �a,�e September 6, 1991 Mr. H. Alexander Montenegro Executive Vice President Colyear Development Corporation 11100 Valley Boulevard, Suite 333 El Monte, California 91734-1425 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 SUBJECT: APPLICATION FOR ZONING CASE NO. 458, 18 JOHNS CANYON ROAD (LOT 241-A-1); A REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND A GARAGE. Dear Mr. Montenegro: I am in receipt of your letter dated August 30, 1991 wherein you included a paragraph that alleged that the City of Rolling Hills has "delayed" the processing of your application and is not dealing in good faith with regard to your application for Site Plan Review approval of a proposed manufactured house at the above address. As you know, I have worked with you on an almost daily basis over the telephone to assist you in completing your application. I have spent countless hours of time reviewing your submittals and explaining what needs to be done to make them complete and accurate. As I have explained to you, I cannot, under State law, accept an application as complete when it does not contain basic informationnecessary for the Commission to make a decision or if it contains obvious inaccuracies. I cannot give you or your client special exceptions to the City's standard requirements. All other applicants are required to comply with these standards and are required to submit the type of information and make the corrections I have requested. I would like to state that there has been no delay on the part of the City in processing your application. In fact, I have worked very hard to expedite my staff review at your request and have consistently done so in much less time than allowed by law. All you and your client had to do was to file a complete and • • Page 2 accurate application in the first place to have avoided any "delays" which you say you have encountered. The City's failure to accord your client special treatment does not constitute bad faith. The fact that I have caught fundamental errors in your proposed site plan drawing and found items shown on the drawing that would violate the City's laws and intrude upon other persons property does not constitute bad faith. I am puzzled that you would even make this statement, knowing all of. the extra efforts I have taken to expedite your application since it was originally submitted. Sincerely, /--)06 LOLA M. UNGAR PRINCIPAL PLA cc: Craig Nealis, City Manager Michael Jenkins, City Attorney Kevin G. Ennis, Assistant City Attorney • (( clp )) C O R P COLYEAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION H. Alexander Montenegro Executive Vice President September 4, 1991 Ms. Lola Ungar Principal Planner CITY OF ROLLING HILLS No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 Re: 18 Johns Canyon Road Rolling Hills, California Dear Lola: SEP 12 1991 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS VIA FAX (213) 377-7288 I am in receipt of your letter dated September 6, 1991. I believe it is in everyone's best interest to get on with the matter at hand instead of expending our efforts debating this issue. I've recently had discussions with Ms. Carol Jones at South Bay Engineering regarding the latest set of drawings required in connection with the Site Plan Application for the subject property. I understand Ms. Jones has had these drawings delivered to you on Monday, September 9, 1991. Based on our previous conversations, I believe the issue of the retaining wall will be satisfied by this latest set of drawings. Given your letter of August 2, 1991 and all previous telephonic conversations since then, it appears that all the issues that have kept this application from the review of the Planning Commission, rave now . been met, Therefore, if no additional issues surface, we expect the Planning Commission to review this application on the next available meeting date scheduled for October 15, 1991. Sincerely, H. Alexander Montenegro Executive vice President cc: Richard C. Colyear 11100 Valley Boulevard • Suite 333 • Post Office Box 5425 • El Monte, California 91734-1425 (818) 444-8203 (213) 686-0617 FAX (818) 350-9239 • i cip COLYEAR DEVELOPMENT CORPO H. Alexander Montenegro Executive Vice President August 30, 1991 VIA FAX AND U. S. MAIL Ms. Lola Ungar Principal Planner CITY OF. ROLLING HILLS No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 Re: 18 Johns Canyon Road Rolling Hills. California Dear Lola: SEP - 3 1991 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS I've had an opportunity to confer with Mr. Colyear regarding those outstanding issues as addressed in your August 2, 1991 correspondence and discussed in our conference call yesterday. In regard to the proposed retaining wall, the application seeks only to obtain approval to permit the construction of a new single family residence and a garage. Although it is fundamental that ingress and egress exists, it seems that any approval to permit construction could be contingent upon the conformance of such ingress and egress to be within city standards. As to the easement issue, we contend that all easements that are of record are shown on the map. No grant of easement currently exists for easements not shown. It is becoming increasing clear that the City of Rolling Hills is not dealing in good faith. It appears that this application for Site Plan review will continually be fraught with delays in order to prevent its review by the Planning Commission. Sincerely, H. lexander Montenegro Executive Vice President cc: Richard Colyear Richard Stone, Esq., Sheppard, Mullin, Richter, & Hampton Carol Jones, South Bay Engineering 11100 Valley Boulevard • Suite 333 • Post Office Box 5425 • El Monte, California 91734-1425 (213) 686-0617 FAX (818) 350-9239 (818) 444-8203 OLENN R. WATSON ROBERT O. BEVERLY HARRY L OERSHON DOUGLAS W. ARGUE MARK L LAMKEN ARNOLD SIMON RICHARD H. DINEL ERWIN E. ADLER DAROLD D. PIEPER FRED A. FENSTER THOMAS A. FREIBERG, JR. ALLEN E. RENNETT STEVEN L DORSEY WILLIAM L BTRAUB2 ROBERT M. OOLDFRIED ANTHONY S. DREWRY MITCHELL E. ABBOTT TIMOTHY L NEUFELD ROBERT P. DE METER GREGORY W. BTEPANICICH ROCHELLE BROWNE DONALD STERN MICHEEL JENKINB WILLIAM B. RUDELL DAVID L COHEN TERESA R. TRACY QUINN M. BARROW CAROL W. LYNCH TERRY A. TRUMBULL COLEMAN J. WALSH. JR. JOHN A. BELCHER JEFFREY A. ROBIN WILLIAM K KRAMER CURTIS L COLEMAN STEVEN H. KAUFMANN MARSHA JONES MOUTRIE GREGORY M. KUNERT AMANDA F. SUBBKIND WILLIAM E. MATSUMURA SCOTT WEIBLE DANIEL P. TORRES TNOMAB M. JIMBO MICHELE BEAL BAONERIB ROBERT C. CECCON PAMELA A. ALBERS BAYRE WEAVER KEVIN O. ENNIS ROBIN D. HARRIS MICHELL ESTRADA EFRAT M. CODAN LAURENCE S. WIENER DAVID P. WAITE CHRISTI MOWN STEVEN R. ORR DEBORAH R. HAKMAN SCOTT K BHINTANI MICHEEL O. COLANTUONO KENNETH T. FONG JACK B. BHOLKOFF DAVID A. SUCHEN B. TILDEN KIM DARYL T. TESHIMA RANDOLPH P. MCORORTY CHRISTINA R. MELTZER BIROIT A. HUBER B. ALAN RAY JUUET F. IRELAND RUBIN D. WEINER RICHARDS, WATSON ATTORNEYS AT A PROFESSIONAL in 13 AUG 2 0 1991 RICHARD RICHARDS (1a16.1988) CITY OF ROLLING HILLS THIRTY-EIGHTH FLOOR 333 SOUTH HOPE STREET By. ...... »..»..»...... w..»...I1LOWANIBELES. CAUFORNIA 00071.1469 (213) 626-8484 August 19, 1991 TELECOPtER (213) 626-0078 Richard L. Stone, Esq. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton 333 South Hope Street 48th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071 Re: City of Rolling Hills, Application by for Site Plan Review Dear Mr. Stone: Colyear 1680616 OUR FILE NUMBER R6980-303 In your letter of August 9, 1991, you indicated the general outlines of a proposed project that Mr. Colyear requests the City informally review. The project would require approval of the previous lot line adjustment request which would result in a lot of approximately 2.35 acres. Mr. Colyear proposes a 16,000 square foot building pad with a 5,750 square foot single family dwelling on it. Ingress and egress to the lot would be the same as the currently pending proposal for manufactured housing. Weare also informed by City staff that Mr. Montenegro, on behalf of Colyear Development, has submitted a formal application for site plan review approval. We understand that this proposal utilizes existing lot lines and would not require the lot line adjustment. However, the omission of certain property lines, easements and distances from various setback points caused the application to be deemed incomplete by Principal Planner Lola Ungar on August 2, 1991. We are understandably confused as to what Mr. Colyear is currently proposing. Is he proposing a project with or without the lot line adjustment? Is he proposing manufactured housing or standard construction for the residential structure? Does Mr. Colyear want formal Planning Commission review and approval or does he want informal review by the Planning staff without an official approval by the City? RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHCiN • August 19, 1991 Page 2 We look forward to obtaining clarification on these issues. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact Michael Jenkins or myself. Very truly yours, 7Ze.e.t Kevin G. Ennis Assistant City Attorney KGE:eeh cc: Craig Nealis, City Manager Lola Ungar, Principal Planner 1680616 Cuy o/ A Pf,.9 Jh// August 2, 1991 Mr. H..Alexander Montenegro Executive Vice President Colyear Development Corporation 11100 Valley Boulevard, Suite 333 El Monte, CA 91734-1425 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 SUBJECT: STATUS OF APPLICATION FOR ZONING CASE NO. 458, 18 JOHNS CANYON ROAD (LOT 241-A-1) RESUBMITTED ON JULY 8, 1991 FROM MR. RICHARD COLYEAR: A REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF,A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND A GARAGE. Dear Mr. Montenegro: After resubmittal of the subject application, further preliminary review has been completed by the City's staff and pursuant to state law we find that the information submitted is: X Not Complete. The application has been held in abeyance because certain information is missing, you failed to comply with certain requirements, or both. The information needed to complete the application is listed below, and must be supplied before the application can be deemed complete. Additional Information/Requirements: 1. The plot plan drawing is poorly drawn and not clear. Apparently, you propose to build a retaining wall on adjacent property, perhaps in a neighbor's setback, to gain access to the project site. This would require a separate Variance. 2. Property lines of neighboring properties are not shown or called out. 3. Easements and who they belong to are not shown on the large map or the vicinity map and are not labeled. Is there a deed of easement or is it noted on the property tract map? Does. Mr. Colyear have an easement for driveway purposes? PAGE 2 Please call me at (213) 377-1521 if you have any questions about the application process. Sincerely, LOLA M. UNGAR PRINCIPAL PLANNER cc: Mr. Richard Colyear Mr. Douglas McHattie, South Bay Engineering [ow COLYEAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATI AUG 5 1991 H. Alexander Montenegro Executive Vice President Ms. Lola Ungar Principal Planner CITY OF ROLLING HILLS No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 Re: 18 John's Canyon Road Rolling Hills, California Dear Ms. Ungar: By City Of Rolling Hills August 2, 1991 After discussing the latest developments with Doug McHattie, I find it necessary to summarize the events that have taken place regarding the Application for Site Plan Review for the aforementioned property. 07-08-91 After picking -up the requested additional information from South Bay Engineering, I met with you to deliver said information. You had indicated that what I had presented represented a complete package. 07-31-91 I had phoned you upon my return from vacation to determine what had transpired in my absence. You indicated that you had sent the package to the City's attorney, a Mr. Kevin Ennis for his review. You stated that you would call me as soon as you heard from Mr. Ennis regarding any deficiencies in the package. 08-02-91 You phoned me to state that now, after two (2) weeks, some deficiencies were noted and were reflected in your correspondence dated August 2, 1991. I understand that the City has thirty (30) days in which to review the preliminary package, however, given my attempts to contact you in order to assist in the correction of any deficiencies, perhaps, a more genuine effort could have been given this matter. This letter requires no response but is my written record of events that have taken place regarding this transaction. Si H. lexander Montenegr Executive Vice President cc: Mr. Richard C. Colyear Mr. Doug McHattie 11100 Valley Boulevard • Suite 333 • Post Office Box 5425 • El Monte, California 91734-1425 (213) 686-0617 FAX (818) 350-9239 (818) 444-8203 • KEITI W. Bi fL • T Consulting Engineering Geologist July 3, 1991 Project No. 2748-91 Mr. Richard C. Colyear c/o Colyear Development Corp. Suite 333-B ATTN: H. Alexander Montenegro 11100 Valley Boulevard El Monte, CA 91731 SUBJECT: GEOLOGIC REVIEW OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 35 Crest Road West Rolling Hills, CA Dear Mr. Colyear: Pursuant to your verbal request, a geologic review of the subject site has been performed. It is understood you propose to develop the site with a single-family residential dwelling. Our review included a site visit, research of geologic maps and review of aerial photographs. Information obtained during our site geologic review indicates that no major geologic hazards underlie the site. No landslides are shown on published maps as underlying the site. From a geologic standpoint, the site appears to be buildable. However, as is the case with any hillside property, a complete geotechnical investigation, including subsurface exploration, should be performed to confirm that the site is geologically suitable for development. If you have any questions regarding the information presented in this letter, please call my office. : OW 5n. 4all �,�ttECRINC„‘„, eew.EI ctfully S tt=d qinp . 1242 By ql „ 8 19g1 t ty fit Mt MUl$ 316 Tejon Place • Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274 • (213) 378-4146 City `ieiit,.5 June 25, 1991 GODFREY PERNELL Mayor GORDANA SWANSON Mayor Pro Tem GINNY LEEUWENBURGH Councilwoman JODY MURDOCK Councilwoman THOMAS F1,.,t HEINS IM Councilmarp.r A 1 exander Montenegro Executive Vice President Colyear Development Corporation 11100 Valley Boulevard, Suite 333 El Monte, CA 91734-1425 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 SUBJECT: STATUS OF APPLICATION FOR ZONING CASE NO. 458, 18 JOHNS CANYON ROAD (LOT 241-A-1) RECEIVED JUNE 17, 1991 FROM MR. RICHARD COLYEAR: A REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND A DETACHED GARAGE. Dear Mr. Montenegro: A preliminary review of the application noted above has been completed by the City's staff and pursuant to state law we find that the information submitted is: X Not Complete. The application has been held in abeyance because certain information is missing, you failed to comply with certain requirements, or both. The information needed to complete the application is listed below, and must be supplied before the application can be deemed complete. Additional Information/Requirements 1. Application for a Conditional Use Permit for a detached garage is required under Section 17.16.012 (K) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. The application form is enclosed. 2. The front, side and rear yard setbacks are not shown on the submitted plan. 3. The legal lot description is not shown on the submitted plan. 4. The computation of lot coverage and building pad coverage is not shown on the submitted plan (Pages 6-8 of the Site Plan Review Application). 5. A current survey and grading plan, with related soils, geology. hvdroloav/drainaae reports. showing all structures on the Property. with their distance from the property lines delineated, will be required because there will be significant Printed on Recycled Paper. PAGE 2 grading on the property. I am informed by the City Attorney that you will be submitting two different plans to the City for informal review, one of which is a 'revised version of the plan already submitted. Feel free to call me at (213) 377-1521 if you have any questions about the application process. Sincerely, LOLA M. UNGAR PRINCIPAL PLANNER cc: Mr. Richard Colyear Mr. Douglas McHattie, South Bay Engineering H. Alexander Montenegro Executive Vice President COLYEAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATI June 19, 1991 Ms. Lola Ungar Principal Planner CITY OF ROLLING HILLS No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 Re: 18 John's Canyon Road Rollina Hills. California Dear Ms. Ungar: ©21:(Wkj JUN 20 1991 CITY OF ROLLING HlL.l. Syr .......................... �.,• I understand that Mr. Colyear has submitted to you an Application for Site Plan Review for the above referenced property. We believe the submission to be complete with the exception of some additional maps to be supplied by South Bay Engineering. If you find that there is any information you require that was not included or to correct what was submitted, please notify either myself or Doug McHattie at South Bay no later than July 1, 1991. This should provide sufficient time to obtain or correct that information prior to the July 8, 1991 Filing Deadline for the August 20, 1991 Planning Commission Meeting. Thank you in advance for any assistance extended in this matter. Since e H. Alexander Montenegro Executive Vice Presid nt cc: Doug McHattie 11100 Valley Boulevard • Suite 333 • Post Office Box 5425 • El Monte, California 91734-1425 (213) 686-0617 FAX (818) 350-9239 (818) 444-8203