The URL can be used to link to this page

461, Permit for reconstruction of a, Correspondence(310) 544-6222 • ,ROLLW2G� Lft. Community Ugi4.Oaiallon JJ of -Rane'zo Patoa (VEzdea No. 1 PORTUGUESE BEND RD. • ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 ROLLING HILLS CALIFORNIA TO: CRAIG NEALIS, CITY MANAGER LOLA UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER FROM: PEGGY MINOR, MANAGER DATE: NOVEMBER 18, 1994 RE: DR. MOHAN W. BHASKER, 42 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ILLEGAL TENNIS COURT CONSTRUCTION The Board of Directors and Architectural Committee appreciate very much the fine work done by the City Staff in continuing to pursue the above violation to its completion. The Association is grateful for your diligence in the preservation of the integrity of the Association's easements, as well as emphasing the rural character we strive for in the community. do Cuy oMolfn9 -Iva October 3, 1994 Dr. Mohan W. Bhasker 42 Portuguese Bend 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: ILLEGAL RECREATIONAL GAME COURT AND ILLEGAL WALL IN THE SIDE YARD SETBACK AT 42 PORTUGESE BEND ROAD (LOT 120-RH), ROLLING HILLS, CA Dear Dr. Bhasker: The City has approved the attached plan that essentially shows: 1. The removal of the 5,760 square foot illegal recreational game court, 2. The burial or removal of the 4 foot high, 118 foot long illegal wall in the side yard setback, and 3. The restoration to natural state of the hillside. As you may recall, at the meeting with you and Mr. John Bax, Deputy District Attorney on June 15, 1994, once the plans were approved by the City a reasonable time would be set to complete the restoration of the hillside to natural state. That time limit requires that you restore the hillside within the next six weeks (by Monday, November 14, 1994). If the hillside is not restored by that date, we will have no choice but to advise the District Attorney of the status of this case and allow him to proceed with prosecution. ®Printed on Recycled Paper. PAGE 2 Feel free to call me if you have any questions regarding this matter at (310) 377-1521). Sincere (/‘. 11144d'iLr LOLA M. UNGAR PRINCIPAL PLANNER cc: Members of the City Council Members of the Planning Commission Mr. Craig Nealis, City Manager Mr. Michael Jenkins, City Attorney Mr. Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney Ms. Joan Manley, Deputy District Attorney Ms. Peggy Minor, Rolling Hills Community Association Ms. Julie Heinsheimer, Landscaping Consultant Mr. Rick Hilliard, Peninsula Landscaping Mr. Douglas McHattie, South Bay Engineering Mrs. Rashmila Mohan Bhasker Ms. Lynn Ramsdell, real estate sales e) . f‘ tal.ON / VY COVEle ''' '''''' ........ - x (,) O. RES/01."4" PI".4ZZ. OC.417Z,- JI",••74. 2 Ivy • • e:115./ `ER/LvivAi . Reb- " • ...... ••• • •••••... •••••• — Cht-irsiow /16"07#15 TEPrelts (3) CAKC frig•Le7cTer ...,. ................. ......... .... • B4fKAR Res Dek2cE PembuguLA LANDsc4piA16- -7" • t, 6 .) t• J V r dixotor.vm .•••••• ••••4. • itottioAs60, r ••• FtrrISReuft Vt./001.4170m '(2) t E. . __.... .... ..... __ . ........ 13---.R..- 6s- 1. 1--------- - - -CITY—OF ROWNG HILLS "7PIANAPPRIv'46VAL7. -°-:..... S.if).111:!94 - .. ...... ITY OCR D:1411141t04131 ---- AP' r6, oF rioi.LIN6 HILLS r R E E s DATE ....„ • • September 29, 1994 TO: ATTENTION: FROM: MEMORANDUM Lola Ungar, Principal Planner #2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 Craig Nealis, City Manager Julie Heinsheimer SUBJECT: Bhasker Sports Court 42 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California • The second landscape plan submitted by Peninsula Landscaping indicates a slope change of 6 feet, adequate to conceal the illegal retaining wall. The plant material is drought tolerant and in keeping with neighboring properties. A 4 foot rubble wall crosses the court at the toe of the slope to provide usable level land. Plan is approved as submitted. /9R / V &" h/A "1". --..............„., i..t.t.v:: x -.. . t.4. tr- i*(1:-; RE-41o.e-X/57- • •- Cy‘ r-, - ;4--; ;'•• St • ' ••- (-I. • - " . ittiCti44 --• • • f r jErzf.:3-f:)1.- Y/5/, .frirrIL. s-- e in Eft NY OTocmil, 094:_g • . " •-• BKKIIR gC1P61,-)c--C • """ fl ardioorn0S- Oaultit,6 Affei L31 _ cmoviE CREEPek Ctic. Agtuti i Pe-1J 1 2 LA LA A) P-CC4P.406- .317-4b8e1 k !tel.tr5 ()" .47 I /)V3 iNt ieL CardWiLnut -; ,'1 /1 , . _ -_-.....-2 :- ---:----...„- -. --,_..- - -1- 1 ......-- _ firrtS101.).4 titt-)0.7t,A1Weit) • - SEP-1 9_1994 " CITY-. Of ROLLIIiG HILLS • • C1iy oy RO/A July 20, 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: LANDSCAPING PLAN PREPARED TO COMPLY WITH DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S REQUIREMENTS FOR 42 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD. Dear Julie: Attached are plans for your review that were presented to us in response to the request by Mr. John Bax, Deputy District Attorney to legalize the property at 42 Portuguese Bend Road after an illegal sports court was constructed. Mr. and Mrs. Mohan W. Bhasker were to provide Landscaping plans (2 sets) by July 18, 1994 showing: 1. The removal of the 5,760 square foot illegal recreational game court, 2. The burial or removal of the 4 foot high, 118 foot long illegal wall in the side yard setback, and 3. The restoration to natural state of the hillside. Please let me know if there is anything else that you need from the applicants or their Landscape Architect. Since lyy, LOLA M. UNGAR PRINCIPAL PLANNER Printed on Recycled Paper. �O- ISGAL IAPfhOLEPsiS • P/1JK LAW 41. C3 - —0 8- SCAL. Boasoloit!LLEA CaAL Pt. u41B4 o �.-. A05EmARY PRO ,rF ATA oR SAzAsBA ORDdAn) covet 8- S%AL. , etaiA )VJLLE4 6-S6AL. PI risPoRcvw Au DAM J U L 1 41994 WYQF Holtjrlq JiiU.S � . BAS R RESlre.A1C-E • 42 P 8.Zv. SCALE: /• 20i DATE: 7/ /2 /0 APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY !'7•.n REVISED PEAMVSOLA LAijfSCAA/i€ - R.HrtL1Aetk 377- 4689 IDRAWING NUMBER 11 X 17 PRINTED ON NO. 1000H CLEARPRINT • SOUTH BRENGINEERING COMPA 304 TEJON PLACE PALOS VERDES ESTATES, CA 90274 (310) 375-2556 IN LA. (213) 772-1555 FAX (310) 378-3816 TO. eiX ,0/4qt/Aif 4,41//_c • Attention: SUBJECT. 822 HAMPSHIRE ROAD, SUITE H WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CA 91361 (805) 494-4499 FAX (805) 494-4211 _.ems .5as,h'r psi ae �� ,6 r)se,r//?9 4°r_olketh r✓�� We are sending you: ❑ Tentative Map ❑ Tract Map ❑ Parcel Map ❑ Topographic Map These are: Herewith ❑ Under separate cover ❑ Grading Plans ❑ Street Plans ❑ Sewer Plans ❑ Structural Plans ❑ As noted jg As requested X For your approval J U L_ 14 1994 CITY OF ROLLING 1-1ILL$ TRANSMITTAL SBEC JOB NO. 7-h938 5- DATE 7`iq Via: ❑ For your files M. For your use ❑ For your information Messenger ❑ UPS ❑ Mail ❑ Picked up ❑ Other 1g1 Prints of 2 ❑ Transparencies of ❑ Originals of ❑ Copies of ig Other ❑ Please return ❑ Other Remarks / M/3 ,, %n %?o_LK. /e/ ,�'�'lD2•c? /i-C .s ee,i1 as /7ro , j SC1 1�.��1C' 7.j9 1 Aat/ c9� c4 Mf/ /�%c.(�' 6� Copy to: Very truly yours, SOUTH BAY ENGINEERING COMPANY By AI C414 461-72, q10 IIOS 20- /Ss tL RAFIROLEPS! • ;mug LAbV 8• S4AL.8oO6AWV!LLEA mom 40 - f ‘AL. PTA NA O o f wow mom CaAL Pt UMPA O t go$EM'SY PRoorRara olt s zM)M >-Rnvuss CDvEZ. g• Ss�G_ jet 0004W.1LLEA 6- Solt. P1rrisreRr t (? N DAL.A90101 SCALE: Pg g-IS GAL PLOMBAird $'A / Zoe DATE: 9j/2P)4� ENDSULA LAA1DSCAPIA)E - {.RILLIAeb DRAWING NUMBER APPROVED BY: MITT JUL 141994 CITY Of RQLUNQ HILLS DRAWN BY SCA REVISED 377- «a 8g 11 X 17 PRINTED ON NO. 1000N CLEARPRINT • Ca O/ k'0f/n ig INCORPORATED JANUA'R 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 August 31, 1994 Dr. Mohan W. Bhasker 42 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: ILLEGAL RECREATIONAL GAME COURT AND ILLEGAL WALL IN THE SIDE YARD SETBACK AT 42 PORTUGESE BEND ROAD (LOT 120-RH), ROLLING HILLS, CA Dear Dr. Bhasker: At our last meeting with you, Ms. Julie Heinsheimer, Mr. Rick Hilliard, Mr. Douglas McHattie and myself in July, 1994, Mr. Hilliard was to revise the submitted landscape plans immediately and return them for review by Ms. Heinsheimer. No plans have been revised nor has there been any communication from you. In our attempts to reach Mr. Hilliard, we were informed that he is on vacation. Therefore, we must now insist that plans be provided within 15 days (by September 15, 1994) for review by our Landscape Consultant or we will have no choice but to advise the District Attorney of the status of this case and allow him to proceed with prosecution. The landscaping plans should show: 1. The removal of the 5,760 square foot illegal recreational game court, 2. The burial or removal of the 4 foot high, 118 foot long illegal wall in the side yard setback, and 3. The restoration to natural state of the hillside. :a Printed on Recycled Paper. PAGE 2 Feel free to call me if you have any questions regarding this matter at (310) 377-1521). Sincerely, LOLA M. UNGAR PRINCIPAL PLANNER cc: Members of the City Council Members of the Planning Commission Mr. Craig Nealis, City Manager Mr. Michael Jenkins, City Attorney Mr. Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney Mr. John W. Bax, Deputy District Attorney Ms. Peggy Minor, Rolling Hills Community Association Ms. Julie Heinsheimer, Landscaping Consultant Mr. Rick Hilliard, Peninsula Landscaping Mr. Douglas McHattie, South Bay Engineering Mrs. Rashmila Mohan Bhasker Ms. Lynn Ramsdell, real estate sales City o f leo`lin y JUL INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 -a- July 20, 1994 Ms. Julie Heinsheimer 7 Johns Canyon Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 • (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 SUBJECT: LANDSCAPING PLAN PREPARED TO COMPLY WITH DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S REQUIREMENTS FOR 42 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD. Dear Julie: Attached are plans for your review that were presented to us in response to the request by Mr. John Bax, Deputy District Attorney to legalize the property at 42 Portuguese Bend Road after an illegal sports court was constructed. Mr. and Mrs. Mohan W. Bhasker were to provide Landscaping plans (2 sets) by July 18, 1994 showing: 1. The removal of the 5,760 square foot illegal recreational game court, 2. The burial or removal of the 4 foot high, 118 foot long illegal wall in the side yard setback, and 3. The restoration to natural state of the hillside. Please let me know if there is anything else that you need from the applicants or their Landscape Architect. Sincere L i LA M. UNGAR PRINCIPAL PLANNER 416 444 Printed on Recycled Paper. i C14 0/ R0f/ June 21, 1994 Mrs. Lynn Ramsdell 8 Williamsburg Lane 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: ILLEGAL RECREATIONAL GAME COURT AND ILLEGAL WALL IN THE SIDE YARD SETBACK AT 42 PORTUGESE BEND ROAD (LOT 120-RH) Dear Mrs. Ramsdell: As the real estate agent representing Dr. and Mrs. Mohan W. Bhasker in the sale of their property, this letter is to formally inform you that the City has requested the aid of the District Attorney in resolving the subject violations. At a meeting on June 15, 1994 with Dr. Mohan W. Bhasker; his wife, Mrs. Rashmila Mohan Bhasker; Mr. John Bax, Deputy District Attorney; Mr. Craig Nealis, Rolling Hills City Manager; and myself; Mr. Bax explained courses that must taken to legalize the property. As a result of the meeting, it was determined that the Bhaskers must provide Landscaping plans (2 sets) within 30 days (by July 18, 1994) showing: 1. The removal of the 5,760 square foot illegal recreational game court, 2. The burial or removal of the 4 foot high, 118 foot long illegal wall in the side yard setback, and 3. The restoration to natural state of the hillside. Once the Landscaping plans are approved, the City will set a reasonable time to complete the restoration of the hillside to natural state. Printed on Recycled Paper. PAGE 2 Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincere LOLA M. UNGA PRINCIPAL PLANNER cc: Mr. Craig Nealis, City Manager Mr. Michael Jenkins, City Attorney Mr. Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney • Ci4f o/ RO//L Jh/'/' CERTIFIED MAIL June 16, 1994 Dr. Mohan W. Bhasker 42 Portuguese Bend 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: ILLEGAL RECREATIONAL GAME COURT AND ILLEGAL WALL IN THE SIDE YARD SETBACK AT 42 PORTUGESE BEND ROAD (LOT 120-RH) Dear Dr. Bhasker: At the meeting on June 15, 1994 that we had with you and your wife, Mrs. Rashmila Mohan Bhasker; Mr. John Bax, Deputy District Attorney; Mr. Craig Nealis, Rolling Hills City Manager; and myself; Mr. Bax explained courses that you must take to legalize your property. Since that meeting, we have determined that under Section 17.54.060(D) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, the action of the City Council is final and conclusive. Therefore, as discussed with Mr. Bax, you must provide Landscaping plans (2 sets) within 30 days (by July 18, 1994) showing: 1. The removal of the 5,760 square foot illegal recreational game court, 2. The burial or removal of the 4 foot high, 118 foot long illegal wall in the side yard setback, and 3. The restoration to natural state of the hillside. Then, as discussed with Mr. Bax, once the Landscaping plans are approved the City will set a reasonable time to complete the restoration of the hillside to natural state. ®Printed on Recycled Paper PAGE 2 Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, t% LOLA M. UNGAR PRINCIPAL PLANNER cc: Members of the City Council Members of the Planning Commission Mr. Craig Nealis, City Manager Mr. Michael Jenkins, City Attorney Mr. Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney Ms. Peggy Minor, Rolling Hills Community Association Ms. Lynn Ramsdell, real estate sales • P 852 865 117 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (See Reverse) Street and, No. I,tegt° . t to and 41 _ C de /i�� /s;, _ 7c 7p' Postage Certified Fee /r !Vb Special Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee Return Receipt showing to whom and Date Delivered `,00 u7 rn Return Receipt showing to whom, .- Date, and Address of Delivery m 3 TOTAL Postage and Fes r'"•,C":""/ ° oPostmark or Date tf) E O LL N a J,,'' SENDER: • Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services. • Complete items 3, and 4a & b. - • Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can return 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 Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date delivered. 3. Article Addressed to: 1 Dr . m2bja�-) l'has ker y VV• %a��- �i 9 � )0006e Lu cc ! 0 /r `/i`/�5 Cc . 91M7(77 0 cc • 5. w w Signature (Addressee) ')All 4f3 cc 6. $igratgent) rn PS Form 3811, December 1991 U.S.G.P.O.:1992-307-530 I also wish to receive the following services (for an extra fee): 1. ❑ Addressee's Address 2. ❑ Restricted Delivery Consult postmaster for fee. 4a. Article Number r g SAs 1/7 4b. Service Type Registered ❑ Insured Certified El COD ❑ Express Mail ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise 7. Date of Delivery 8. Addressee's Address (Only if requested and fee is paid) DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT x ai 0 d N a) t0 a) U- y 4- 0 co F- • C14 o/ R0ft CERTIFIED MAIL June 16, 1994 Mrs. Rashmila Mohan Bhasker 42 Portuguese Bend 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: ILLEGAL RECREATIONAL GAME COURT AND ILLEGAL WALL IN THE SIDE YARD SETBACK AT 42 PORTUGESE BEND ROAD (LOT 120-RH) Dear Mrs. Bhasker: At the meeting on June 15, 1994 that we had with you and your husband, Mrs. Rashmila Mohan Bhasker; Mr. John Bax, Deputy District Attorney; Mr. Craig Nealis, Rolling Hills City Manager; and myself; Mr. Bax explained courses that you must take to legalize your property. Since that meeting, we have determined that under Section 17.54.060(D) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, the action of the City Council is final and conclusive. Therefore, as discussed with Mr. Bax, you must provide Landscaping plans (2 sets) within 30 days (by July 18, 1994) showing: 1. The removal of the 5,760 square foot illegal recreational game court, 2. The burial or removal of the 4 foot high, 118 foot long illegal wall in the side yard setback, and 3. The restoration to natural state of the hillside. Then, as discussed with Mr. Bax, once the Landscaping plans are approved the City will set a reasonable time to complete the restoration of the hillside to natural state. Printed on Recycled Paper. • • PAGE 2 Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Since y, /eGl th LOLA M. UNGAR PRINCIPAL PLANNER cc: Members of the City Council Members of the Planning Commission Mr. Craig Nealis, City Manager Mr. Michael Jenkins, City Attorney Mr. Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney Ms. Peggy Minor, Rolling Hills Community Association Ms. Lynn Ramsdell, real estate sales ;; SENDER: tf m N m s C 00 ▪ 3. Article Addressed to: J>• -1 r5 , Ra31-2/77; / ha s ka, PS Form 3800, June 1985 P 852 865 118 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (See Reverse) Sent to �p TS, 1Q /0.710— l4sk treet an P State aI • C de nd Pik" Postage Certified Fee Special Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee 2, J`a,27f.‘ Sb' / /, 06 Return Receipt showing to whom and Date Delivered `. 0 0 Return Receipt showing to whom, Date, and Address.ot'Dehvery TOTAL Ppigag, and Fees S 9 Postm rk'tir Date • r_ ` • Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services. • Complete items 3, and 4a & b. • Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can return 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 Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date delivered. I also wish to receive the following services (for an extra fee): 1. ❑ Addressee's Address 2. ❑ Restricted Delivery Consult postmaster for fee. 4a. Article Number P 85-a g'6s I/S 4b. Service Type c Pd� c- �2Do� ❑Registered ❑Insured y� u to Certified 000D ��JS/ ❑ Express Mail ❑ Returnndise Receipt for en 7. Date of Delivery 7 H PS Form 3811, December 1991 it U.S.G.P.O.:1992-307:530 , DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT 4. 77 8 Addressee's Address (Only if requested . and fee is paid) for using Return F eceipt Service: 5 Signatt, re (Addressee) YN.V0,-QAAXX:=Y 6. Signat lrel(gent) C to .t I— ACCMCT PET MI LSON. COv.r nor STATE 0/ CALIFORNIA • $ ATE ANO CONSUMER SERVICES S•.TE J'CA. .OaN • /` T O[ou...I NT Y caw LONG BEACH DISTRICT OFFICE CA VET MEMORIAL BLDG 245 W BROADWAY H 145 LONG BEACH CA 90802 (310)590-5331 FILE NO: S J93022142 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 2 <PORTUGUESE BEND RD. ROLLING HILLS CA 90274 R STATE LICENSE BOAS'^ (i : ;.R1I \i.,)/ ipi cci APR 2 1994 .._, /0(44 DATE: 04/07/1994 CITY OF ROLLING HILLSCONTRACTOR: By RANCHOS VERDES NURSERY Li�ENSE NUMBER: LIC 554036 PROJECT ADDRESS: 20 OUTRIDER RD & 42 PORTUGUESE BEN ROLLING HILLS CA We have received your request for an investigation by this agency. If your contractor is licensed by•this agency, we have notified him/her of your complaint. This may result in a solution to your problem prior to further action by the Contractors State License Board. After you have been contacted by the contractor or after seven (7) days from the receipt of this letter, please provide the information requested below and return the form to us as soon as possible. Sincerely, ANGELITO L. FLORES CONSUMER SERVICES REPRESENTATIVE CONTRACTORS STATE LICENSE BOARD The following information is requested from both the contractor and the complainant. Please retain your file number above for future reference. Settlement was agreed to and will be complied with on (explain settlement agreement below) (Date) Settlement offered, but it was not accepted. (explain below) No contact from the contractor within the aforementioned seven day contact period. If the complaint has not been resolved and if you have not already done so please send a copy of your contract or written declaration of oral contract and proof of payment. (A COPY OF FRONT AND BACK OF PERSONAL CHECKS AND CONTRACT IS NECESSARY) Remarks: Signed: y ,6' . 7 /-1-6 Date: File no: ,T9 j022/42 17t'71 (II/871 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—STATE AND CONS' SRVICES AGENCY k„•, CONTRACTORS STATE LICENSE Bi"iARO cemeosnourry r Consul ner :Ulhirs INFORMATION TO COMPLAINANT PETE WILSON. Governor You have recently filed a complaint against a contractor over a construction dispute. If the contractor is licensed in California, has no record of prior violations, and the factual circumstance surrounding your complaint meet certain criteria, you may qualify to participate in an arbitration program implemented by the Contractors State License Board (CSLB). The arbitration program works as follows: Upon receipt of a complaint, a letter is sent to both the complainant and the contractor informing them that the complaint has been received by the CSLB. The complaint is then given to a Consumer Services Representative (CSR) who will attempt to resolve the dispute and/or gather evidence which will aid in determining the next step to be taken. If your complaint cannot be resolved by the CSR but meets the criteria for the CSLB arbitration program, you will be asked to consider arbitration as a means of resolving your complaint. You will both be sent an arbitration brochure and a form to sign which the CSLB will use to refer your complaint to the American Arbitration Association for scheduling of a hearing. The CSLB will pay for the arbitrator, one expert witness and the arbitration hearing. Listed below are some of the advantages of arbitration: • Arbitration is fast. (It takes approximately 120 days to resolve a dispute.) • Arbitration provides an informal setting to resolve a dispute. • Arbitrators hearing the cases are experts trained in construction matters. • Arbitration is binding. • An award may be enforced through Superior Court. Advantages for the consumer: • If the contractor fails to comply with the award, the contractor's license will be suspended or revoked. Advantages for the contractor: • Under current complaint disclosure laws and policy, a complaint filed against a contractor will not be disclosed to the public unless the contractor fails to comply with the award. • A contractor's license will not be suspended or revoked on an allegation involved in a complaint that is referred to arbitration unless he or she fails to comply with the arbitrator's award. In closing, we strongly recommend the CSLB arbitration program as a means of resolving your construction dispute. ASK YOUR CSR FOR MORE INFORMATION 131-33(1191) •City 0/ Rolling _AIL March 17, 1994 Mr. Albert Young District Office Supervisor State Contractors License Board 245 W. Broadway, Suite 145 Long Beach, CA 90802 • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 SUBJECT: LICENSED LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR C27-554036 MR. JIM DYKZEUL RANCHOS VERDES NURSERY 2253 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, LOMITA, CA 90717 Dear Mr. Young: We would like to inform you of two incidents of illegal construction of a sports court without a Conditional Use Permit by the subject contractor in the City of Rolling Hills. The two properties where the sports courts were constructed are at 20 Outrider 'Road (Mr. and Mrs. John Rich) andc42__PorIuguese'Bend Road -(Dr: and-Mrs_.- c.Mohan"Bhasker)., • The property owners were in violation of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 15.04.010 and Los Angeles County Building Code Section 301(a) (Permits Required) and Section 17.16.210(A)(7)(Conditional use permit uses) which requires a Conditional Use Permit for a sports court providing the court complies with certain minimum conditions. We have attached a letter from Mr. John Rich stating that Mr. Dykzeul suggested and built the illegal sports court without permits on his property and the minutes of the March 1, 1994 City Council meeting where it was stated by Dr. Bhasker that Mr. Dykzeul suggested and built the illegal sports court without permits on his property. Printed on Recycled Paper. • • PAGE 2 we will be happy to provide assistance. We would also appreciate a response regarding the disposition of this matter. You may call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Your cooperation is appreciated. LOLA UNGAR PRINCIPAL PLANNER cc: Mr. Craig Nealis, City Manager Mr. Michael Jenkins, City Attorney Ms. Peggy Minor, Rolling Hills Community Association Manager Ms. Lata Thakar and Mr. Rafael Bernal, L.A. County Department of Public Works, Building and Safety Division • March 1, 1994 City of Rollin Hills Lola Ungar, Principal Planner 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California 90274- • 'MAR '0 4 1994 CITY OF ROLLING /HILLS @q..�..........._...... _.. _.... Dear Ms Ungar: Per my telephone conversation with you, I am sending this letter regarding my sports court at 20 Outrider Road. When I first talked to my landscape architect Jim Dyksel, the upper portion of my property was going to be all grass creek for parking. Jim suggested that I install a sports court. I thought this was an excellent idea for our grandchildren to play on. At this time, I mentioned to Jim that I thought that a sorts court was against the rules of Rolling Hills. Jim told me that a tennis court would probably not be allowed but there would be no problem putting in a sports court and so I did. Everything was okay I thought until I received your letter of notification that in fact a permit had not been obtained by Jim Dyksel. Unfortunately I fired Jim a few months before I received your notice and I have had no contact with him since. I hope this explanation will clarify my position in this matter. Cordially, W. Rich MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE ClilliOUNCIL OF CITY OF ROLLING HILLS MARCH 1, 1994 CALL TO ORDER An adjourned regular meeting of the City Council of Rolling Hills was called to order by Mayor Murdock at 7:36 p.m. on Tuesday, March 1, 1994, in the City Council Chambers at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. ROLL CALI, Councilmembers Present: Swanson, Pernell, Mayor Pro Tern Leeuwenburgh and Mayor Murdock. Councilmembers Absent: Heinsheimer. Others Present: Craig R. Nealis, City Manager. Michael Jenkins, City Attorney. Lola Ungar, Principal Planner. Larry Courtright, City Treasurer. Marilyn Kern, Deputy City Clerk. Li Roop, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, Lomita Station. CONSENT CALENDAR Matters which may be acted upon by the City Council in a single motion. Any Councilmember may request removal of any item from the Consent Calendar causing it to be considered under Council Actions. a. Minutes • Meeting of February 14, 1994. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. b. Payment of Bills. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. c. Financial Statement, Month of January, 1994. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. d. Budget Calendar for FY 1994-95 RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. f. Correspondence from Browning -Ferris Industries regarding the Christmas tree collection and recycling program results. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. g. Correspondence from Browning -Ferris Industries regarding recovered recyclable material. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. Mayor Pro Tern Leeuwenburgh requested that item 3-e be pulled from the Consent Calendar for the purpose of discussion and moved approval of the recommendations contained in the remaining Consent Calendar items. Councilmember Pernell seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Hearing no objection, Mayor Murdock so ordered. e. Correspondence from Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project regarding an update on status of Bay restoration plan and schedule for completion. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file/provide direction. After discussion and hearing no objection, Mayor Murdock ordered staff to prepare correspondence to the Project Director of the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project indicating that the City Council took formal action to announce their awareness of and support for the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project and the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Plan. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS None. Minutes City Council Meeting 03/01/94 -1- TRAFFIC COMMISSION ITEM$ • PUBLIC HEARINGS A. ZONING CASE NO. 450. SUBDIVISION NO. R4. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2148¢ DR. AND MRS. RAMON CUKINGNAN, 16 PINE TREE LANE (LOT 81-RH) RESOLUTION 94-4: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 21486, SUBDIVISION NO. 84, A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE A 6.07 ACRE EXISTING LOT THAT HAS ONE RESIDENTIAL UNIT INTO 2 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS FRONTING THE NORTHERN TERMINUS OF PINE TREE LANE IN ZONING CASE NO. 450. City Manager Nealis presented the staff report and outlined the Traffic Commission recommendations that were established at their meeting held on February 25, 1994, which was held after agenda materials were prepared. Mayor Murdock opened the public hearing and called for testimony. • Mr. William Hassoldt, 10 Pine Tree Lane, presented to the City Council his concerns regarding the Cukingnan subdivision. He stated that he objects to the roadway being designed partially on his property easement, grading and the fact that there is no agreement to provide for a cost breakdown to construct the roadway, and his approval for the improvements to be done on his property in connection with roadway improvements. He further explained the Rolling Hilts Community Association's recommendation that all parties involved in subdividing on Pine Tree Lane must agree on the roadway design before they will approve any roadway improvements. • Dr. Ramon Cukingnan, 16 Pine Tree Lane, provided a brief history of this case and reported on the County of Los Angeles review of his subdivision to the City Council. Mr. Cukingnan also explained the cul-de-sac design that is proposed on his property which will benefit all parties subdividing on Pine Tree Lane. He further stated that many attempts were made to form an agreement regarding the roadway with the parties subdividing on Pine Tree Lane and that Mr. and Mrs. Hassoldt would not agree because they felt that the grading in conjunction with the roadway improvements would affect certain trees on their property. • Mr. Doug McHattie, South Bay Engineering, addressed the City Council regarding the engineering and design of the roadway and cul-de-sac. Mr. McHattie reported that the roadway was designed to Los Angeles County Fire Protection engineering standards. Discussion then ensued regarding the subdivision on Dr. Cukingnan's property and the reconfiguration of the front and side yard setbacks created by the cul-de-sac. City Manager Nealis explained that this reconfiguration was created so as to not create a non -conforming condition on the lot. Councilmembers discussed the widening of the roadway and concurred that the improvements proposed in conjunction with this subdivision would benefit all residents on Pine Tree Lane, making it more accessible to emergency equipment. Mayor Pro Tern Leeuwenburgh reported that the Traffic Commission and the Traffic Engineer agree that the widening of Pine Tree Lane would enhance the safety of the residents in that area. Mr. Hassoldt stated that he feels that the cul-de-sac would benefit all parties involved and that he has no objections to the improvements that are proposed on Dr. Cukingnan's property in conjunction with his subdivision. He also stated that he requested a postponement of one year for Planning Commission review of his subdivision and that he has forwarded a request that the Planning Commission to place consideration of his own subdivision on their agenda in April, 1994. Councilmembers discussed Mr. Hassoldt's concerns regarding the roadway, easements and lack of agreement between those property owners subdividing on Pine Tree Lane. City Attorney Mike Jenkins explained that it is his understanding that all of the roadway improvements along the Minutes City Council Meeting 03/01/94 -2- Hassoldt property are within the easements and that the Rolling Hills Community Association controls those easements and must give their approval to the improvements. He also explained' Wat since the roadways and easements in Rollinuris are private and under the jurisdictir�nnf the olling Hills Community Association, the City cly approve and condition the subdivision itself and has no jurisdiction over the roadway other than it provides access to the subdivision which is part of the approval process for a subdivision. In response to Councilmember Swanson's question, City Attorney Jenkins explained that should the Rolling Hills Community Association not approve the roadway access to the subdivision, the applicant must file for an amendment to the tentative parcel map. After discussion, Councilmembers concurred that they would like to view the site of the subdivision and also view the roadway improvements demonstrating access to the subdivision. Mayor Pro Tern Leeuwenburgh suggested that the roadway be staked at its narrowest portion. Hearing no objection, Mayor Murdock continued the public hearing to Thursday, March 10, 1994 at 7:30 a.m. for the purpose of conducting a field trip to 16 Pine Tree Lane. OPEN AGENDA APPROXIMATELY 8:00 P.M, PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME • Mrs. Catherine Partridge, 69 Portuguese Bend Road, spoke to the City Council regarding City Council/Rolling Hills Community Association Board and staffs exchange of information regarding each entities policies and procedures. She suggested that a seminar be arranged to accomplish this exchange of information. Mrs. Partridge also reported on overgrown weeds on properties in the Flying Triangle area. She reported that she feels that these overgrown weeds are a fire hazard. Councilmembers thanked Mrs. Partridge for her comments and suggestions. Mayor Murdock explained that she will be meeting with the Rolling Hills Community Association Board President to further encourage the communication between the City and the Community Association. In response to Mrs. Partridge's concerns regarding weed abatement in the Flying Triangle area, City Manager Nealis explained that he has spoken with the Los Angeles County Fire Department representatives at Rolling Hills Station No. 56 who have indicated that these properties are in compliance with the City's policy on weed abatement. He further explained the weed abatement process and noted that the City of Rolling Hills has the most stringent weed abatement policy on the Peninsula. PUBLIC HEARINGS B. ZONING CASE NO: 461 DR. AND MRS. MOHAN BHASKER, 42 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD (LOT 120-RH) AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REVOKED PERMIT FOR A VARIANCE FOR THE ENCROACHMENT OF RETAINING WALLS IN THE SIDE YARD SETBACK AND A PLANNING COMMISSION REVOKED PERMIT FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECONSTRUCT ED CLAY SPORTS COURT. Principal Planner Ungar presented the staff report outlining the Planning Commission's findings relative to the revocations in this zoning case and directed the Council's attention to the chronology of events she prepared relating to this case. Mayor Murdock opened the public hearing and called for testimony. • Mr. Doug McHattie, South Bay Engineering, indicated to the City Council that he first became aware of the problems related to the sports court was when he was asked to do a survey of the area for Dr. Bhasker as required by the City and the Rolling Hills Community Association. He explained the configurations of the sports court, driveway, and planter area. • Dr. Mohan Bhasker, applicant, explained to the Council that he agrees that the court is larger than was approved and explained that when he began to grade for his project that he did not realize the impact the planter and driveway had creating the court causing him to grade more than was anticipated. Minutes City Council Meeting 03/01/94 -3- Councilmembers discussed the sports court and Councilmember Pernell expressed concern that the owlicant did not return to the City Council when discovered that he would have to grade out re of an area than was approved. In respons Mayor Pro Tem Leeuwenburgh's question, Principal Planner Ungar reported that the origina illegally constructed court was built prior to November, 1990. In response to Mayor Murdock's question, Dr. Bhasker reported that Mr. Jim Dykzeul had constructed the court. Mayor Murdock closed the public hearing. Councilmember Pernell moved that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission revocation of a permit for a Variance for the encroachment of retaining walls in the side yard setback and the Planning Commission revocation of a permit for a Conditional Use Permit for a reconstructed clay sports court. Councilmember Swanson seconded the motion which carried by the following vote: AYES: Councilmember Swanson, Pernell, Mayor Pro Tern Leeuwenburgh and Mayor Murdock. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilmember Heinsheimer. ABSTAIN: None. Hearing no objection, Mayor Murdock so ordered. Staff was directed to prepare a Resolution memorializing the City Council's action for the next regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council. City Manager Nealis reported that staff is investigating the contractor that constructed this illegal court 'as well as another one in the City and that correspondence to the State Contractors Licensing Board would be forwarded regarding this illegal activity of this contractor in the City. City Attorney Jenkins explained to the applicant that by the Council's action of upholding the Planning Commission's revocation of the Variance and Conditional Use Permit for a sports court, that the permits are no longer valid and the area must be restored to their original condition. City Manager Nealis stated that in the Resolution prepared by staff, a time frame would be included for the restoration of the property to its original state. OLD BUSINESa A. CONSIDERATION OF REDESIGN OF GATES FOR THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS VOLUNTARY RECYCLING CENTER. City Manager Nealis presented the staff report and drawings depicting the proposed new gate design. Councilmembers discussed the staggered gate design and concurred that it would allow residents to utilize the recycling center without having to open a gate and also be convenient for the City's waste service provider to access the area. Hearing no objection, Mayor Murdock directed staff to submit the redesign of the gates for the City of Rolling Hills Voluntary Recycling Center to the Rolling Hills Community Association for review by the Architectural Review Committee and proceed with the work upon approval of the Architectural Review Committee. B. ZONING CASE NO. 48Q DR. AND MRS. BARTON WACHS, 6 OUTRIDER ROAD (LOT 72-A-EF) RESOLUTION NO. 728: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A PORTION OF A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE TO ENCROACH INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK IN ZONING CASE NO. 480. Councilmember Swanson moved that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 728 granting a Variance to permit a portion of a residential structure to encroach into the side yard setback in Zoning Case No. 480. Councilmember Pernell seconded the motion which carried by the following vote: AYES: Councilmember Swanson, Pernell and Mayor Murdock. NOES: Mayor Pro Tern Leeuwenburgh. ABSENT: Councilmember Heinsheimer. ABSTAIN: None. Minutes City Council Meeting 03/01/94 -4. C. ZONING CASE NO. 498 MR. AND MRS. DOMENIQUE CLAESSENS, 7 STORM HILL LANE (LOT 169- B-MS) RESOLUTION NO. 729: A RE UTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 498. Councilmember Swanson moved that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 729 granting site plan review approval for a new single family residence in Zoning Case No. 498. Councilmember Pernell seconded the motion which carried by the following vote: AYES: Councilmember Swanson, Pernell, Mayor Pro Tem Leeuwenburgh and Mayor Murdock. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilmember Heinsheimer. ABSTAIN: None. Councilmember Swanson requested that staff discuss with the applicant the possibility of providing an access to the City lot in conjunction with this project. NEW BUSINESS A. RESOLUTION NO. 731: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING FOR THE CONDUCT OF A SPECIAL RUNOFF ELECTION FOR ELECTIVE OFFICES IN THE EVENT OF A TIE VOTE AT ANY MUNICIPAL ELECTION. Mayor Pro Tern Leeuwenburgh moved that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 731 providing for the conduct of a special runoff election for elective offices in the event of a tie vote at any Municipal Election. Councilmember Swanson seconded the motion which carried by the following vote: AYES: Councilmember Swanson, Pernell, Mayor Pro Tern Leeuwenburgh and Mayor Murdock. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilmember Heinsheimer. ABSTAIN: None. B. ORDINANCE NO. 247: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AMENDING SECTION 6.24.020 OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE ENTITLED "CITY MANAGER INVESTIGATIONS -ACTION -WHEN DOG ATTACKS ANIMAL". City Manager Nealis presented the staff report. Councilmembers discussed the Ordinance and whether it should contain provisions for a third or subsequent attack. City Manager Nealis reported that a stipulation was inserted into a hold harmless agreement on the case just reviewed by the Council that should a third attack occur that the dog would be required to be removed from the City. Mayor Pro Tern Leeuwenburgh moved that the City Council waive first reading in full and introduce Ordinance No. 247 amending Section 6.24.020 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code entitled "City Manager Investigations -Action -When Dog Attacks Animal" as presented. Councilmember Swanson seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Staff was directed to return Ordinance No. 247 to the next regularly scheduled meeting for second reading and adoption. MATTERS FROM MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL • Mayor Pro Tern Leeuwenburgh reported on the progress of the survey being prepared by the Open Space Advisory Committee. She indicated that a second draft for Council review will be placed in Council mailboxes for delivery with weekly packets. • Mayor Murdock reported that Councilmembers have received a brochure outlining the Youth Summit Conference And Symposium at California State University, Dominguez Hills Minutes City Council Meeting 03/01/94 • on December 16, 1993. She requested that the brochures be forwarded to Hannah Cannom and Jennifer Saar who represented the Cioiling Hills at the conference. • Councilmember Swanson reported that she has been named division chair for the American Red Cross South Bay District's annual fund raising drive and requested that a note be placed in the Citywide newsletter regarding the efforts of the Red Cross. Mayor Pro Tern Leeuwenburgh indicated that she objects to the placement of such an article in the Citywide Newsletter noting that it would set a precedent that the Newsletter was not intended to provide. Councilmember Pernell suggested that an article including a simple announcement of Councilmember Swanson's appointment. and indicate that anyone wishing to have information or help her in her efforts could contact her. MATTERS FROM STAFF • City Manager Nealis reported that he will be attending the Women's Club meeting on Wednesday, March 9,1994, with Area G Emergency Preparedness Coordinator Casey Chel. He indicated that Joyce Robertson, President of the Women's Club contacted City Hall and requested a speaker on Emergency Preparedness and earthquakes for their March luncheon. • City Manager Nealis also reported that the Lennartz real estate transaction with Congresswoman Jane Harman has become final. He further reported that the Lennartzes are scheduled to move out over the next weekend and the Harmans will begin construction on the improvements to the residence soon thereafter. MATTERS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY None. CLOSED SESSION None. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further business before the City Council, Mayor Murdock adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m. in memory of long time Rolling Hills resident Dr. Paul Saffo and Palos Verdes Estates Police Department Officers Captain Mike Tracy and Sergeant Tom Vanderpool. The meeting was adjourned to an adjourned regular meeting of the City Council to be held on Thursday, March, 10, 1994 at 7:30 a.m. at 16 Pine Tree Lane for the purpose of conducting a continued public hearing in the field. Marilyn L."Kern Deputy City Clerk Minutes .City Council Meeting 03/01/94 Approved: I HEREBY CERTIFY THIS DOCUMENT TO BE A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL. Deputy CITY LERK OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. •City ol Rotting -AIL CERTIFIED MAIL March 17, 1994 Dr. and Mrs. Mohan W. Bhasker 42 Portuguese Bend 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: APPEAL DENIED IN REVOCATION OF PERMITS ZONING CASE NO.461 42 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD (LOT 120-RH) Dear Dr. and Mrs. Bhasker: This letter shall serve as official notification that the appeal in Zoning Case No. 461 was DENIED by the City Council on March 14, 1994 regarding the revocation of a previously approved request for a Variance to permit encroachment into the side yard setback to construct a retaining wall and a previously approved request for a Conditional Use Permit to permit the reconstruction of a sports court for property at 42 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA; more precisely, Lot 120-RH. Pursuant to Resolution No. 732 (attached) and Section 17.54.060(D) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code the decision of the City Council is final and conclusive. At this time you are required to remove the sports court and all retaining walls and restore the hillside to its natural state. If you do not acquire the proper permits and restore the property within sixty (60) days, by May 16, 1994, we will begin code enforcement procedures with the District Attorney. ®Panted on Recycled Paper • • PAGE 2 Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerel &pin- LOLA M. UNGAR PRINCIPAL PLANNER cc: Mr. Craig Nealis, City Manager Mr. Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Manager Ms. Peggy Minor, Rolling Hills Community Association Manager Ms. Lata Thakar, District Engineer, L.A. County Public Works Mr. Rafael Bernal, Sr. Building Engineering Inspector Mr. Douglas McHattie, South Bay Engineering Members of the City Council Members of the Planning Commission • • RESOLUTION NO. 732 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS REVOKING A VARIANCE FOR THE ENCROACHMENT OF RETAINING WALLS INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK AND REVOKING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECONSTRUCTED CLAY SPORTS COURT IN ZONING CASE NO. 461. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. In 1991,'applications were duly, filed by Dr. and Mrs. Mohan Bhasker with respect to real property located at 42 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills (Lot 120-RH) requesting a Variance for the continued encroachment of retaining walls into the side yard setback and a Conditional Use Permit for the reconstruction of a previously constructed clay sports court on the subject property. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application for a Variance into the side yard setback and a Conditional Use Permit on August 20, 1991, September 17, 1991, October 22, 1991, and at a field trip visit on September 5, 1991. Section 3. The Commission approved Resolution No. 91-27 in Zoning Case No. 461 on November 2, 1991. The City Council took the subject zoning case under jurisdiction on November 12, 1991 and conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal of the applications on November 24, 1991, and at a field trip visit on December 4, 1991. The City Council remanded the subject zoning case back to the Planning Commission to review a corrected version of the Development Plan on December 4, 1991. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on January 21, 1992 to consider the corrected version of the Development Plan and approved Resolution No. 92-7 in Zoning Case No. 461 on February 1, 1992. Section 4. Subsequently, the City Council took the subject case under jurisdiction on February 10, 1992. The City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on February 24, 1992, March 9, 1992, March 23, 1992, April 13, 1992, April 27, 1992, May 11, 1992, and field trip visits on March 2, 1992, March 16, 1992 and April 18, 1992. At the hearings, the City Council considered the modification of the Development Plan, the noise decibel level of a bouncing tennis ball and conversation on this court, and the concerns of neighbors were taken into account, related to they applications for a Variance into the side yard setback and a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a clay sports court. Section 5. On May 26, 1992, the City Council approved the applications in Zoning Case No. 461 pursuant to Resolution No. 679. In 1993, the City was informed that the retaining wall and sports court that were reconstructed were not built according to plan. RESOLUTION NO. 732 PAGE 2 The approved plans show a 100 foot long 4-foot high retaining wall and a 2,550 square foot court, whereas, the "as built" retaining wall is 118 feet long and the sports court is 5,760 square feet. On September 17, 1993, the City requested that the property owner reduce the size of the sports court to 2,550 square feet or make application for a modification to the approved Variance and Conditional Use Permits. The property owners did not comply. Section 6. On November 9, 1993, the City sent a notice of a hearing set by the City to consider the revocation or modification of the Variance and Conditional Use Permit to the applicants. This notice was sent by first class mail. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider revocation or modification of the Variance and Conditional Use Permit on November 16, 1993 and December 21, 1993,. and at a field trip visit on December 11, 1993. The applicant was present at these three hearings. Section 7. On January 15, 1994, the Planning Commission revoked the permits in Zoning Case No. 461 pursuant to Resolution No. 94-1. Section 8. On February 14, 1994, the applicants filed an appeal regarding the revocation to the City Council. On February 18, 1994, the' City sent a notice of a hearing set by the City to consider the appeal of the revocation of the Variance and Conditional Use Permit to the applicants. This notice was sent by first class mail. The City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal of the revocation of the Variance and Conditional Use Permit on March 1, 1994. The applicant was present at the hearing. Section 9. Section 17.58.010 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code 'permits a revocation or modification of a Variance, Conditional Use Permit, or Site Plan Review on one or more of the following grounds: (1) that the approval was obtained by fraud, or that the applicant made a materially false representation on the subject application; or (2) that the Variance, Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan Review approval, or legal nonconforming status is being or recently has been exercised contrary to or in violation of the terms or conditions of such approval or other authorization; or (3) that the Variance, Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan, or legal nonconforming status is- being or recently has been exercised in violation of any statute, law, or regulation; or (4) that the use for which approval was granted, or other use(s) not directly related, is exercised in a manner detrimental to the public health and safety or in a manner which constitutes a nuisance. • • RESOLUTION NO. 732 PAGE 3 Section 10. Pursuant to Section 17.58.010(A)(2), the City Council finds that the Variance and Conditional Use Permits were exercised contrary to and in violation of the following conditions of approval: A. Condition F, Section 11 of City Council Resolution No. 679 requires that the structural lot coverage not exceed 8,663 square feet or 4.9% and that the total lot coverage not exceed 22,905. square feet or 12.9%. After reconstruction of the court, the structural lot coverage is 11,873 square feet or 6.71% and the total lot coverage is 14.7% exceeding structural and total lot coverage requirements and in violation of Condition F. B. Condition H, Section 11 requires that the area graded for the court not exceed 2,550 square feet (rectangular in shape and 30 feet wide by 100 feet long, according to the Development Plan). The area graded for the court is 5,760 square feet, of irregular shape, and up to 49 feet wide by up to 133 feet long exceeding. the approved plans by 3,210 square feet in violation of Condition H. C. Condition I, Section 11 requires that any grading for the court preserve the existing topography, flora and natural features to the greatest extent possible. Excessive retaining wall construction and excessive grading that more than doubles the size of the approved court is in violation of Condition I. D. The approvals permit the encroachment of a 100 foot long, 4-foot high retaining wall ten (10) feet into the thirty-five (35) foot side yard setback. The "as built" retaining wall is 118 feet long, 18 feet longer than the wall approved and in violation of Condition V of City Council Resolution No. 679. E. The "as built" sports court violates policies of the Land Use Element (Page 16) and the Open Space and Conservation Element (Page 15) of the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance (Section 17.46.010) to maintain strict grading practices and to preserve existing mature vegetation in that grading for the court was excessive. Section 11. Based upon the foregoing findings, the City Council hereby revokes the Variance to permit the reconstruction of a 100 foot long, 4-foot high retaining wall that will encroach into the side yard setback to a maximum of 10 feet and the Conditional Use Permit for a 2,550 square foot sports court. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 1994. 411( 'MU JOD OCK MAYOR RESOLUTION NO. 71 PAGE 4 ATTEST: g_ MARILYN K N, DEPUTY CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) ss I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 732 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS REVOKING A VARIANCE FOR THE ENCROACHMENT OF RETAINING WALLS INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK AND REVOKING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECONSTRUCTED CLAY SPORTS COURT IN ZONING CASE NO. 461. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on March 14, 1994 by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Swanson, Pernell, Mayor Pro Tem Leeuwenburgh and Mayor Murdock None AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmember Heinsheiner ABSTAIN:None and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices DEPUTY CITY CLERK • • City ol ieii, wee March 4, 1994 Dr. and Mrs. Mohan W. Bhasker 42 Portuguese Bend 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: ZONING CASE NO. 461: 42 Portuguese Bend Road (Lot 120-RH) An appeal of a Planning Commission revoked permit for a Variance for the encroachment of retaining walls in the side yard setback and a Planning Commission revoked permit for a Conditional Use Permit for a reconstructed clay sports court. Dear Dr. and Mrs. Bhasker: This letter shall serve as official notification that the City Council UPHELD THE REVOCATION by the Planning Commission of the Variance and Conditional Use Permit for retaining walls and a reconstructed sports court at the Council's adjourned regular meeting on March 1, 1994. The final Resolution of Revocation will be forwarded to you after it is signed by the City Council and City Clerk. Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, LOLA M. UNG PRINCIPAL PLANNER cc: Mr. Douglas McHattie, South Bay Engineering Printed on Recycled Paper. • • (.1.%v City ol Rolling NOTIFICATION LETTER February 17, 1994 Dr. and Mrs. Mohan W. Bhasker 42 Portuguese Bend 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: APPEAL OF REVOCATION OF PERMITS IN ZONING CASE NO.461 42 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD (LOT 120-RH) Dear Dr. and Mrs. Bhasker: Your appeal of a Planning Commission revoked permit for a Variance for the encroachment of retaining walls in the side yard setback and a Planning Commission revoked permit for a Conditional Use Permit for a reconstructed clay sports court in Zoning Case No. 461 has been set for public hearing consideration by the City Council at their meeting on Monday, February 28, 1994. 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, February 25, 1994. Please arrange to pick up the staff report to preview it prior to the hearing. Please call me at (213) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Sincerely, LOLA M. UNGA PRINCIPAL PLANNER Printed on Recycled Paper. • • ".O' eily Oi RoilingL�>L� INCORPORATED JANUARY 2A, 1957 O NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS,' CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377.7288 CERTIFIED MAIL February 8, 1994 Dr. and Mrs. Mohan W. Bhasker 42 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: REVOKED PERMITS IN ZONING CASE NO.461 42 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD (LOT 120-RH) Dear Dr. and Mrs. Bhasker: This letter is to inform you about enforcement of Municipal Code Sections 1.08.010 and 1.08.020 which describes general penalties for violation of provisions of the requirements of ordinances of the City as a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment not to exceed six months, or by both a fine and imprisonment. As you are no doubt aware, the permits for encroachment into the side yard setback to construct a retaining wall and reconstruct a sports court for your property were revoked by the Planning Commission at its adjourned regular meeting on January 15, 1994. The revocation by the Planning Commission memorialized in Resolution No. 94-1 was received and filed by the City Council on January 24, 1994. At this time, these are the options open to you to resolve the issues in this case: 1. Appeal the case to the City Council on or before February 14, 1994, after which the revocation will be final, or 2. Remove the sports court and all retaining walls and restore the hillside to its natural state. If you do not file an appeal by February 14, or, in the alternative commence to restore your property and proceed diligantly with such restoration, we will begin code enforcement procedures with the District Attorney. Printed on Recycled Paper. PAGE 2 Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, LOLA M. UNGAR PRINCIPAL PLANNER ENCLOSURE: Certified letter to the Bhaskers from the City, dated January 18, 1994. cc: Mr. Douglas McHattie, South Bay Engineering Mr. Michael Jenkins, City Attorney Mayor Murdock and Members of the City Council 411 Ci4 oMo!!•nS Jh/t CERTIFIED MAIL January 18, 1994 Dr. and Mrs. Mohan W. Bhasker 42 Portuguese Bend 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: ZONING CASE NO. 461, 42 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD (LOT 120-RH) APPEAL PERIOD - RESOLUTION NO. 94-1 Dear Dr. and Mrs. Bhasker: This letter is to inform you that the Planning Commission's decision to revoke the subject permit will be reported to the City Council at their meeting on January 24, 1994. The revocation will become effective thirty (30) days after adoption of the Planning Commission's resolution if no appeals are filed within that time period (Section 17.54.010(B) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code attached). We have enclosed a copy of RESOLUTION NO. 94-1, specifying the findings for the revocation set forth by the Planning Commission and the revoked site plan to keep for your files. You may call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. SINCERELY, PRINCIPAL PLANNER ENCLOSURES: RESOLUTION NO. 94-1, Revoked Site Plan, and Appeal Section of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. cc: Mr. Douglas McHattie ®Printed or: Recvc:e Pen,.• • Ci1y opn eens �r�e CERTIFIED MAIL January 18, 1994 Dr. and Mrs. Mohan W. Bhasker 42 Portuguese Bend 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: ZONING CASE NO. 461, 42 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD (LOT 120-RH) APPEAL PERIOD - RESOLUTION NO. 94-1 Dear Dr. and Mrs. Bhasker: This letter is to inform you that the Planning Commission's decision to revoke the subject permit will be reported to the City Council at their meeting on January 24, 1994. The revocation will become effective thirty (30) days after adoption of the Planning Commission''s resolution if no appeals are filed within that time period (Section 17.54.010(B) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code attached). We have enclosed a copy of RESOLUTION NO. 94-1, specifying the findings for the revocation set forth by the Planning Commission and the revoked site plan to keep for your files. You may call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. SINCERELY, PRINCIPAL PLANNER ENCLOSURES: RESOLUTION NO. 94-1, Revoked Site Plan, and Appeal Section of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. cc: Mr. Douglas McHattie Printed on Recycled Paper. • RESOLUTION NO. 94-1 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS REVOKING A VARIANCE FOR THE ENCROACHMENT OF RETAINING WALLS INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK AND REVOKING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECONSTRUCTED CLAY SPORTS COURT IN ZONING CASE NO. 461. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. In 1991, applications were duly filed by Dr. and Mrs. Mohan Bhasker with respect to real property located at 42 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills (Lot 120-RH) requesting a Variance for the continued encroachment of retaining walls into the side yard setback and a Conditional Use Permit for the reconstruction of a previously constructed clay sports court on the subject property. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application for a Variance into the side yard setback and a Conditional Use Permit on August 20, 1991, September 17, 1991, October 22, 1991, and at a field trip visit on September 5, 1991. Section 3. The Commission approved Resolution No. 91-27 in Zoning Case No. 461 on November 2, 1991. The City Council took the subject zoning case under jurisdiction on November 12, 1991 and conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal of the applications on November 24, 1991, and at a field trip visit on December 4, 1991. The City Council remanded the subject zoning case back to the Planning Commission to review a corrected version of the Development Plan on December 4, 1991. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on January 21, 1992 to consider the corrected version of the Development Plan and approved Resolution No. 92-7 in Zoning Case No. 461 on February 1, 1992. Section 4. Subsequently, the City Council took the subject case under jurisdiction on February 10, 1992. The City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on February 24, 1992, March 9, 1992, March 23, 1992, April 13, 1992, April 27, 1992, May 11, 1992, and field trip visits on March 2, 1992, March 16, 1992 and April 18, 1992. At the hearings, the City Council considered the modification of the Development Plan, the noise decibel level of a bouncing tennis ball and conversation on this court, and the concerns of neighbors were taken into account, related to the applications for a Variance into the side yard setback and a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a clay sports court. Section 5. On May 26, 1992, the City Council approved the applications in Zoning Case No. 461 pursuant to Resolution No. 679. In 1993 the City was informed that the retaining wall and sports court that were reconstructed were not built according to plan. • RESOLUTION NO. 94-1 PAGE 2 The approved plans show a 100 foot long 4-foot high retaining wall and a 2,550 square foot court, whereas, the "as built" retaining wall is 118 feet long and the sports court is 5,760 square feet. On September 17, 1993, the City requested that the property owner reduce the size of the sports court to 2,550 square feet or make application for a modification to the approved Variance and Conditional Use Permits. The property owners did not comply. Section 6. On November 9, 1993, the City sent a notice of a hearing set by the City to consider the revocation or modification of the Variance and Conditional Use Permit to the applicants. This notice was sent by first class mail. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider revocation or modification of the Variance and Conditional Use Permit on November 16, 1993 and December 21, 1993, and at a field trip visit on December 11, 1993. The applicant was present at these three hearings. Section 7. Section 17.58.010 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permits a revocation or modification of a Variance, Conditional Use Permit, or Site Plan Review on one or more of the following grounds: (1) that the approval was obtained by fraud, or that the applicant made a materially false representation on the subject application; or (2) that the Variance, Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan Review approval, or legal nonconforming status is being or recently has been exercised contrary to or in violation of the terms or conditions of such approval or other authorization; or (3) that the Variance, Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan, or legal nonconforming status is being or recently has been exercised in violation of any statute, law, or regulation; or (4) that the use for which approval was granted, or other use(s) not directly related, is exercised in a manner detrimental to the public health and safety or in a manner which constitutes a nuisance. Section 8. Pursuant to Section 17.58.010(A)(2), the Planning Commission finds that the Variance and Conditional Use Permits were exercised contrary to and in violation of the following conditions of approval: A. Condition F, Section 11 of City Council Resolution No. 679 requires that the structural lot coverage not exceed 8,663 square feet or 4.9% and that the total lot coverage not exceed 22,905 square feet or 12.9%. After reconstruction of the court, the structural lot coverage is 11,873 square feet or 6.71% and the total lot coverage is 14.7% exceeding structural and total lot coverage requirements and in violation of Condition F. B. Condition H, Section 11 requires that the area graded for the court not exceed 2,550 square feet (rectangular in shape and 30 feet wide by 100 feet long, according to the Development Plan). The area graded for the court is 5,760 square feet, of irregular • • RESOLUTION NO. 94-1 PAGE 3 shape, and up to 49 feet wide by up to 133 feet long exceeding the approved plans by 3,210 square feet in violation of Condition H. C. Condition I, Section 11 requires that any grading for the court preserve the existing topography, flora and natural features to the greatest extent possible. Excessive retaining wall construction and excessive grading that more than doubles the size of the approved court is in violation of Condition I. D. The approvals permit the encroachment of a 100 foot long, 4-foot high retaining wall ten (10) feet into the thirty-five (35) foot side yard setback. The "as built" retaining wall is 118 feet long, 18 feet longer than the wall approved and in violation of Condition V of City Council Resolution No. 679. E. The "as built" sports court violates policies of the Land Use Element (Page 16) and the Open Space and Conservation Element (Page 15) of the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance (Section 17.46.010) to maintain strict grading practices and to preserve existing mature vegetation in that grading for the court was excessive. Section 9. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby revokes the Variance to permit the reconstruction of a 100 foot long, 4-foot high retaining wall that will encroach into the side yard setback to a maximum of 10 feet and the Conditional Use Permit for a 2,550 square foot sports court. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 15H DAY OF JANUARY, 1994. ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ss I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 94-1 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS REVOKING A VARIANCE FOR THE ENCROACHMENT OF RETAINING WALLS INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK AND REVOKING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECONSTRUCTED CLAY SPORTS COURT IN ZONING CASE NO. 461. RESOLUTION NO. 94-1 PAGE 4 was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on January 15, 1994 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Hankins, Lay and Chairman Roberts NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Frost and Raine ABSTAIN: None and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices EPUTY CITY CLERK 17.54.010 17.54 . APPEALS 17.54.010 lime 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 u, 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 1734 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. The Council shall 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 2A, 1993 P 852 865 1D5 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (See Reverse) Sits f ah 60hask,, 7oCet ayNNo Pedate and Ailpiee Postage S Certified Fee Special Delivery Fee Restriotecj.Delivery Fee ):Return Receipt showing L�} to whom and Date Delivered ' Q rn Return e �l'�ho`wing to whom, *-• Date d,A�idress otyDelvery a) PPP"",- S3 . / g TIL PostP"ge a-4i'Fegs1,,, IT -, c,�� \-J- .9-,7 o Ppsttmark or.if/ati� ;� tF -'1. to a SENDER: • Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services. • Complete items 3, and 4a & b. • Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can return 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 n b I also wish to receive the following services (for an extra fee): 1. ❑ Addressee's Address um er. 2. ❑ Restricted Delivery • The Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date delivered. 3. Article Addressed to: rbr• F Mr-5 ` l 29O1i ', 6GJ►a S /l ,v, g; I [S� - G 2�.No,L/4/ cc 5. Sig ature (Addressee) cc • 6. Signature (Agent) 0 0 PS Form 3811, December 1991 Consult postmaster for fee. 4a. Article Number ASS?-B��S—/OS 4b. Service Type ❑ Re istered, '' ❑ Insured Certified ❑ COD ❑ Express Mail ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise 7. Date of Deliver // 8! Addressee's Address (Only iffrequestec.,Y and fee is paid) it U.S.G.P.0.:1992-307-530 DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT F- o.. Nll�s j o • Ci1 o/ ie0ii4 December 29, 1993 Dr. and Mrs. Mohan W. Bhasker 42 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 INCORPORATED JANU1,.R1' 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 SUBJECT: REVOCATION OF PERMITS IN ZONING CASE NO.461 42 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD (LOT 120-RH) Dear Dr. and Mrs. Bhasker: This letter shall serve as official notification that a previously approved request for a Variance to permit encroachment into the side yard setback to construct a retaining wall and a previously approved request for a Conditional Use Permit to permit the reconstruction of a sports court for property at 42 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling -Hills, CA; more precisely, Lot 120-RH was revoked by the Planning Commission at their regular meeting on December 21, 1993 The final Resolution will be forwarded to you after it is 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 January 24, 1994. You should also be aware that the decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed within thirty days after adoption of the Plannina Commission's Resolution (Section 17.58.030 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code). Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, '-1 c IG-��, LOLA M. UNGA PRINCIPAL PLANNER cc: Mr. Douglas McHattie, South Bay Engineering vt nntod can hir.:r.Yc.lud • Grp ofi2 PPny JUL November 18, 1993 Dr. and Mrs.. Mohan W. Bhasker 42 Portuguese Bend 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: ZONING CASE NO. 461: Revoke or modify a previously approved request for a Variance to permit encroachment into the side yard setback to construct a retaining wall and an appeal to revoke or modify a previously approved request for a Conditional Use Permit to permit the reconstruction of a sports court for property at 42 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA; more precisely, Lot 120-RH. Dear Dr. and Mrs. Bhasker: We have arranged for the Planning Commission to conduct a field inspection of your property to view a. staking of the existing and approved project on Saturday, December 11, 1993. The Planning Commission will meet at 7:30 AM at your residence. The site must be prepared with property lines, easements and approved sports court staked and flagged. 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. LOLA M. UNGAR PRINCIPAL PLANNER &ey-Kzir cc: Mr. Douglas McHattie, South Bay Engineering Printed on Recycled Paper. City °Moiling -AIL November 9, 1993 Dr. and Mrs. Mohan Bhasker 42 Portuguese Bend 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: ZONING CASE NO. 461, 42 Portuguese Bend Road (Lot 120-RH) Revoke or modify a previously approved request for a Variance to permit encroachment into the side yard setback to construct a retaining wall and an appeal to revoke or modify a previously approved request for a Conditional Use Permit to permit the reconstruction of a sports court. Dear Dr. and Mrs. Bhasker: Yourpreviously approved request for Zoning Case No. 461 has been set for public hearing consideration by the Planning Commission at their meeting on Tuesday, November 16, 1993 for revocation or modification. 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 12, 1993. Please arrange to pick up the staff report to preview it prior to the hearing. Please call me at (31.0) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Sincerely, I LOLA M. UNGAR PRINCIPAL PLANNER cc: Mr. Douglas McHattie, South Bay EngineeringNOTIFLET t. Printed on Recycled Paper. t 010 0 11Ji 0/ /eOff(fl. L>GL� INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 September 17, 1993 Dr. Mohan W. Bhasker 42 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO.461 42 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD (LOT 120-RH) Dear Dr. Bhasker: NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 It has come to the attention of the Planning Department that you have developed a sports court that has not been built according to plan and that is more than twice the size of the court approved by the City Council, Resolution No. 679, May 26, 1992. Condition H, Section 11 of Resolution No. 679 requires that the area, graded for the court shall not exceed 2,550 square feet. Recent survey plans show that the sports court is, in fact, 5,760 square feet. You are formally requested to reduce the size of the sports court to 2,550 square feet or make application for a modification to the Variance and Conditional Use Permit. Please contact this office within the next twenty days (by October 7, 1993) to inform us of any planned action. If you do not contact this office within that time period, the City will take action to revoke the Conditional Use Permit for a sports court under authority of Section 17.58.010 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (attached). You may call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Your cooperation is appreciated. Yours truly, LOLA UNGAR PRINCIPAL PLANNER cc: Mr. Craig Nealis, City Manager Mr. Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney Ms. Peggy Minor, Rolling Hills Community Association Manager ®Printed on Recycled Paper. 17.58.010 17.58 REVOCATIONS 17.58.010 Authority The Planning Commission, or the City Council on appeal, may, after required public hearings have been held and action has been taken in the manner prescribed in this Title, revoke or modify any Variance, Conditional Use Permit, or Site Plan Review, or revoke the status of a legal nonconforming use or structure, on one or more of the following grounds: A. General 1. That the approval was obtained by fraud, or that the applicant made a materially false representation on the subject application; or 2. That the Variance, Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan Review approval, or legal nonconforming status is being or recently has been exercised contrary to or in violation of the terms or conditions of such approval or other authorization; or 3. That the Variance, Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan, or legal nonconforming status is being or recently has been exercised in violation of any statute, law, or regulation; or 4. That the use for which approval was granted, or other use(s) not directly related, is exercised in a manner detrimental to the public health and safety or in a manner which constitutes a nuisance. B. Additional Grounds for Nonconformities In addition to the general grounds for revocation of legal nonconforming status cited in paragraph A above, the legal nonconforming status of a use or structure may be revoked based upon the grounds for termination contained in Chapter 17.24. 79 ROLLING HILLS ZONING MAY 24, 1993 • 1738.010 C. Temporary Manufactured Homes A temporary manufactured home or trailer authorized by Section 17.16.210(B)(6) shall be removed from the property in the event of any of the following: 1. The Commission, or City Council on appeal, declines to approve a time extension for the approval; • 2. The owner resumes occupancy of the primary residence; 3. The property is sold, rented, or leased; or 4. The Commission or the City Council finds that the primary residence is no longer endangered by a landslide. 17.58.020 Proceedings A. Hearing Required The Planning Commission Secretary shall schedule a hearing before the Planning Commission to consider the revocation, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 17.34 of this Title. Noticing shall be required only of the owner or owners of the property affected by the variance, permit, or nonconformity, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 17.34.030. B. Findings Required In acting to revoke a Variance, Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan, or legal nonconforming status of a use or structure, the Planning Commission shall make written findings citing the reasons for the revocation. 17.58.030 Effective Date A. A revocation of a Variance,. Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan Review approval, or legal nonconforming status of a use or structure shall not become effective until the Planning Commission has adopted a resolution revoking such approval or status, and until the time period to appeal the Commission's decision to the City Council has lapsed with no appeal being filed. 80 ROLLING HILLS ZONING MAY 24, 1993 • r . y 17.58.030 B. In the event an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision is appropriately filed, the revocation will become effective which the City Council adopts a resolution revoking such approval or status. C. The City Clerk shall notify the property owner in writing of the Planning Commission's and City Council's action. 17.58.040 Right of Appeal The property owner, applicant, or other interested party may appeal to the City Council a decision of the Planning Commission to revoke or not revoke a Variance, Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan Review approval, or legal nonconforming status of a use or structure. The appeal shall be filed and considered in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 17.54. 81 ROLLING HILLS ZONING MAY 24, 1993 • August 17, 1992 TO: MEMORANDUM Lola Ungar, City Planner 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California FROM: Julie Heinsheimer, Landscape Consultant SUBJECT: Zoning Case No.: 461 Bhasker Residence 42 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California • The plan submitted by Rancho Verdes Landscaping complies with the intent of the Site Review Ordinance in that the proposed plant material is adequate for screening of the sports court. For screening the eastern end of the court the Schinus Molle (California Pepper) is recommended. CMG NI(�, a, 14 City. I Jh/1,g GORDANA SWANSON Mayor JODY MURDOCK Mayor Pro Tern GINNY LEEUWENBURGH Councilwoman THOMAS F. HEINSHEIMER Councilman GODFREY PERNELL Councilman June 1, 1992 Dr. and Mrs. Mohan W. Bhasker 42 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Dr. and Mrs. Bhasker: INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Subject: Zoning Case No. 461 Address: 42 Portuguese Bend Road Affidavit of Acceptance Form This letter shall serve as official notification that Zoning Case No. 461 was APPROVED by the City Council at their regular meeting on May 26, 1992. The approval will become effective after an Affidavit of Acceptance Form and the subject. Resolution are filed by you with the County Recorder (Section 17.32.087). We haveenclosed a copy of Resolution No. 679, specifying the conditions of approval set forth by the City Council 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 Angeles. CA 90012 with a check in the amount of $5.00 for the first nage and $3.00 for each additional naee. The City will notify the Los Angeles County Building and 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 contact this office at (310) 377-1521 if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Diane L. Sawyer Deputy City, Clerk End: cc: Mr. Doug McHattie Printed on Recycled Paper. o RESOLUTION NO. 679 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR THE ENCROACHMENT OF RETAINING WALLS INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK, AND APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF A PREVIOUSLY CONSTRUCTED CLAY SPORTS COURT IN ZONING CASE NO. 461. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING. HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Applications were duly filed by Dr. and Mrs. Mohan Bhasker with respect to real property located at 42 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills (Lot 120-RH) requesting a Variance' for the continued encroachment of retaining walls into the side yard setback and a Conditional Use Permit for the reconstruction of a previously constructed clay sports court on the subject property. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application for a Variance into the side yard setback and a Conditional Use Permit on August 20, 1991. September 17. 1991, October 22, 1991, and at a field trip visit 'on September 5, 1991. Section 3. The Commission approved Resolution No. 91-27 in Zoning Case No. 461 on November 2, 1991. The City Council took the subject zoning case under jurisdiction on November 12. 1991 and conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal of the applications on November 24, 1991, and at a field trip visit on December 4, 1991. The City Council remanded the subject zoning case back to the Planning Commission to review a corrected version of the Development Plan on December 4, 1991. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hear..r.4 on January 21, 1992 to consider the corrected version of the Development Plan and approved Resolution No. 92-7 in Zoning Cast: No. 461 on February 1, 1992. Section 4. Subsequently, the City Council took the subject case under jurisdiction on February 10, 1992. The City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on February 24, 1992, March 9, 1992, March 23, 1992, April 13, 1992, April 27, 1992, May 11, 1992, and field trip visits on March 2, 1992, hatch 16, 1992 and April 18, 1992. At the hearings, the City Council considered the modification of the Development Plan, the noise decibel level of a bouncing tennis ball and conversation on this court, and the concerns of neighbors were taken into account, related to the applications for a Variance into the side yard setback and a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a clay sports court. Section 5. The Planning Commission found 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. • RESOLUTION NO. 679 PAGE 2 Section 6. Sections 17.32.010 through 17.32.030 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. A Variance to Section 17.16.070.A is required to permit the encroachment of 4-foot retaining walls ten (10) feet into the thirty-five (35) foot side yard setback. The sports court will not encroach into the twenty-five (25) foot side yard easement. A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property and the existing use that do not apply generally to the other property in the same vicinity and zone. The Variance is necessary because of the undulating topography of the lot. The only flat area available to site a sports court and accompanying retaining walls is on the proposed relatively flat slope within the side yard setback. 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 the subject property. The Variance is necessary in order to permit the reconstruction of the existing retaininc walls. There will not be any greater incursion into the setback than presently exists. The Variance will also facilitate a reduction in the size and profile of the court. C. Granting this variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located. A sufficient distance remains between the sports court and the uses on the adjacent property. The sports court will be further screened by a sound baffle screen and'existing landscaping as the new court will be lowered and will not be visible from neighboring properties. Engineering of the retaining walls will lower their height to the code required four feet and will keep a substantial portion of the lot open and undeveloped. Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings, the City Council hereby approves the Variance to permit the construction of a retaining wall that will encroach into the side yard setback to a maximum of 10 feet as indicated on the revised Development Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A and dated May 6, 1992 subject to the conditions contained in Section 11. • • RESOLUTION NO. 92-7 PAGE 3 Section 8. The applicant has submitted plans for the use of an existing sports court that will be reduced to 2.550 square feet as shown in Exhibit A. Section 17.16..012.E of the Municipal Code provides for the discretion of the City Council to. grant a Conditional Use Permit for a sports court under certain conditions. Section 9. The City Council 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, the area proposed for the court is already graded and used for such purpose, and the court will be located in an area of the property where such use will be least intrusive to surrounding properties. B. 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 comply with the low profile residential development pattern of the community and is located on a 5 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 and will not be visible from neighboring properties. The sports court will be surrounded by sound baffle screening and existing. landscaping, and the new court will be lowered and not be visible from neighboring properties. Section 10. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves a Conditional Use Permit for a 2,550 square foot sports court in accordance with the revised Development Plan attached hereto dated March 6, 1992 for a sports court in Zoning Case No. 461 subject to the conditions contained in Section 11. Section 11. The Variance to the side yard setback for the continued encroachment of a 4-foot retaining wall, and the Conditional Use Permit for a 2,550 square foot sports court as indicated on the revised Development Plan attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A dated March 6, 1992, and approved in Sections 7 and 10, are subject to the following conditions: I • • RESOLUTION NO. 679 PAGE 4 A. The Variance and Conditional Use Permit shall expire unless used within one year from the effective date of approval as defined in Section 17.32.110 of the Municipal Code. B. It is declared and made a condition of the Variance and Conditional Use Permit approval, 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 Zoning Ordinance and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied 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 marked REVISED Exhibit A dated March 6, 1992 except as otherwise provided in these conditions. E. The property on which the court 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. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 8,663 square feet or 4.9% and total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 22,905 square feet or 12.9%. G. All grading required for the reconstruction of the court shall be balanced, as regards cutting and filling and shall not exceed seven hundred fifty (750) cubic yards. H. The area graded for the court shall not exceed 2,550 square feet in size. I. Any grading shall preserve the existing topography, flora and natural features to the greatest extent possible. J. A drainage system shall be incorporated into the overall plan of the court and landscaping, which drainage system shall be approved by the City Engineer. K. Existing mature shrubs and trees along the east and south side of the sports court shall be retained and maintained during the reconstruction of the court. • • RESOLUTION NO. 679 PAGE 5 L. A sound baffle screen, along with landscape screening, shall, be provided for the sports court and shall be maintained so as not to interfere with the viewscape of the owners of surrounding property, nor shall it interfere with the views of users of community easements. Thr proposed height, design, location and materials used for the sound baffle screen shall be subject to City staff review and approval prior to installation. M. 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 cost 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 good condition. N. Court lighting shall not be permitted. O. All retaining walls incorporated into the court shall not be greater than four feet in height at any point. Exposed exterior retaining walls shall not be permitted. P. Noise from persons using the tennis court shall be kept to a minimum so as not to unreasonably disturb the quiet enjoyment of persons on surrounding properties. Q. Noise from court use shall not create a nuisance to owners of surrounding properties. R. The sports court shall not be used for purposes of providing tennis lessons by a tennis professional to persons outside the immediate family of the owner. S. A building permit shall be obtained for the retaining walls and sports court. RESOLUTION NO. 679 PAGE 6 T. Prior to the submittal of an applicable final grading plan to the County of Los Angeles for plan check, a detailed grading and drainage plan with related geology, soils and hydrology reports that conform to the Development Plan as approved by the Planning Commission must be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their review. Cut and fill slopes must conform to the City of Rolling Hills standard of 2 to 1 slope ratio. U. 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. V. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of Building and Safety for plan check review must conform to the development plan approved with this application. W. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this Variance and Conditional Use Permit to Section 17.32.087, or the approval shall not be effective. X. All conditions of this Variance and Conditional Use Permit approval. except for Condition E. must be complied with prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit from the County of. Los Angeles. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF MAY, 1992. OR GORDANA SWANSON ATTEST: DIANE SA YER, DEPUTY CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 679 PAGE 7 The foregoing Resolution No. 679 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR THE ENCROACHMENT OF RETAINING WALLS INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK, ,AND APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF A PREVIOUSLY CONSTRUCTED CLAY SPORTS COURT IN ZONING CASE NO. 461. was approved and adopted at a regular adjourned meeting of the City Council on May 26, 1992 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Councilmember Pernell, Mayor Pro Tem Murdock and Mayor Swanson. Councilmember Leeuwenburgh. Councilmember lleinsheimer. None. r DEPUTY CITY CLERK , Cay o/ ui/id May 15, 1992 Dr. and Mrs. Mohan W. Bhasker 42 Portuguese Bend 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 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 461: APPROVAL OF SPORTS COURT Dear Dr. and Mrs. Bhasker: This letter shall serve as official notification that Zoning Case No. 461 was APPROVED by the City Council at their regular meeting on May 11, 1992. The final Resolution and conditions of APPROVAL will be forwarded to you after they are signed by the Mayor and City Clerk. Feel free to call me at (213) 377-1521 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, oees LOLA M. UNGAR PRINCIPAL PLANNER cc: Mr. Douglas McHattie April 6, 1992 By R. H. City Council/R.H. Community Association Rolling Hills City Hall 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Sirs: i APR o. 0 iqq? City Or E oUing rules We understand that the owners of 42 Portuguese Bend Road North are requesting a permit to construct a tennis court in the rear of their property facing Georgeff canyon. We do not feel that this permit should be granted. We support the City Council and the Homes Association in their policy to stop construction of tennis courts in the City of Rolling Hills. We feel that the rural like atmosphere should be retained - not converted to a Beverly Hills/Bel Mr type of environment. We object to the noise that it would bring to our side of the canyon. Finally, Mr. and Mrs. Lupo were denied a tennis court permit. It would be manifestly unfair to grant a similar permit to someone located almost adjacent to them. Sincerely yours, Gloria and Fred Fuld, Jr. • • C14 oe!? PPn9 JUL February 25, 1992 Dr. and Mrs. Mohan Bhasker 42 Portuguese Bend 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 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 461.. 42 Portuguese Bend Road (Lot 120-RH) CITY COUNCIL FIELD INSPECTION CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 92-7: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS REAPPROVING A VARIANCE FOR THE ENCROACHMENT OF A RETAINING WALL INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK, REAPPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF A PREVIOUSLY CONSTRUCTED CLAY SPORTS COURT, AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 91-27. Dear Dr. and Mrs. Bhasker: We have arranged for the City Council to conduct a field inspection of your property to view the appealed project on Monday, March 2, 1992 at 7:00 AM. Using tape and/or flags, staking for the project should show the side property line, the side easement line, the side setback line, the new height of the sports court, the new size and location of the sports court, the new access to the sports court, as well as the distance from the new sports court retaining walls to the existing garage and dwelling unit. 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. Douglas McHattie � i Cuy 0/ R0fA y Jh/'/S CERTIFIED MAIL February 7, 1992 Dr. and Mrs. Mohan W. Bhasker 42 Portuguese Bend 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 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 461. 42 Portuguese Bend Road APPEAL PERIOD AND AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM RESOLUTION NO. 92-7 Dear Dr. and Mr. Bhasker: This letter shall serve as official notification that Zoning Case No. 461 was APPROVED by the Planning Commission and the enclosed resolution was approved on February 1, 1992 at an adjourned regular meeting. The Planning Commission's decision will be reported to the City Council at their regular meeting on February 10, 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. 92-7, 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 Angeles. CA 90012 with a check in • • the amount of $ 5.00 for the first nape and $ 2.00 for each additional nape, Page 2 Resolution 92-7 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 (213) 377-1521 if you have questions. SINCERELY, LOLA UNG PRINCIPAL PLANNER ENCLOSURES: RESOLUTION NO. 92-7, EXHIBIT A DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM, AND APPEAL SECTION OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE. CC: Mr. Douglas McHattie ei1y `Ro Rolling January 24, 1992 Dr. and Mrs. Mohan W. Bhasker 42 Portuguese Bend 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 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 461. 42 Portuguese Bend Road (Lot 120-RH) Request for a Variance to permit encroachment into the side yard setback to construct a retaining wall and request for a Conditional Use Permit to permit the reconstruction of a previously constructed clay sports court at an existing single family residence. Dear Dr. and Mrs. Bhasker: This letter shall serve as official notification that Zoning Case No. 4_61 was REAPPROVED by the Planning Commission at their regular meeting on January 21. 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 February 10. 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. Sincerely, LOLA M. UNGAR PRINCIPAL PLANNER cc: Mr. Douglas McHattie FL_ Cii RO fiiin JUL INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 GODFREY PERNELL Mayor GORDANA SWANSON Mayor Pro Tern GINNY LEEUWENBURGH Councilwoman JODY MURDOCK Councilwoman THOMAS F. HEINSHEIMER Councilman January 16, 1992 William T. Brandlin Attorney at Law Union Bank Tower, Suite 1290 21515 Hawthorne Boulevard Torrance, CA 90503 Dear Mr. Brandlin: .. /(. / NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 With reference to your letter dated December 20, 1991. Please find enclosed the certified documents requested in your correspondence. Please accept my apologies for the delay in the provision of these documents. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Diane Sawyer Deputy City Clerk :ds End: Printed on Recycled Paper. • o` l2 llin9 Jhfh GODFREY PERNELL Mayor GORDANA SWANSON Mayor Pro Tern GINNY LEEUWENBURGH Councilwoman JODY MURDOCK Councilwoman THOMAS F. HEINSHEIMER Councilman December 6, 1991 Mr. Doug McHattie South Bay Engineering 304 Via Tejon Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274 Dear Mr. McHattie: INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 Subject: Zoning Case No. 461 Address: 42 Portuguese Bend Road (Lot 120-RH) Owner: Dr. and Mrs. Mohan Basker As you are no doubt aware, members of the Rolling Hills City Council conducted an adjourned regular meeting at 7:30 a.m. on December 4, 1991 for consideration of the appeal of the following Planning Commission Resolution: RESOLUTION NO. 91-27 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A PERMIT FOR THE ENCROACHMENT OF A RETAINING WALL IN THE SIDE YARD SETBACK AND GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF A PREVIOUSLY CONSTRUCTED SPORTS COURT IN ZONING CASE NO. 461. At that meeting, this item was remanded back to the Planning Commission so that they may reconsider the proposed reconstructed sports court with the most updated plans depicting the residential structure on the property as it actually exists. �1r Printed on Recycled Paper. • • Mr. Doug McHattie December 6, 1991 Page Two The new plans, prepared by you or representatives of South Bay Engineering, and presented to the City Council and City staff for the first time on the morning of Wednesday, December 4, identify an existing residential structure at 42 Portuguese Bend which differs from that indicated on plans previously considered by the City Council at their public hearing held Monday, November 25, 1991 or the Planning Commission. We appreciate you bringing the discrepancy in the new plans to our attention at 4:30 p.m. on Tuesday, December 3, 1991,E We must, however, communicate to you our firm expectations to receive accurate plans at the beginning of the land use review process. Although you may feel, and quite adequately expressed following the conclusion of the Wednesday, December 4 field trip, that the existing footprint of the house differs only slightly from the previously submitted plans, it is not the intention of this office to predetermine what may or may not affect Planning Commission or City Council review of, a particular project. Comments made by you during the public hearing on Wednesday, December 4, indicating that "No one would know had these more accurate plans never been submitted" not only casts doubts on your credibility but reinforces the need for strict procedures and safeguards in reviewing all zoning cases. Although you may feel you should not have alerted City staff or the City Council to this discrepancy in the plans, we request that all plans be more carefully reviewed so that accurate plans are submitted at the time the case is received by City staff. Again, you must understand that our responsibility is to provide analysis based upon plans submitted. When discrepancies in those plans, however minor, are identified, these discrepancies will be highlighted in order to measure their impacts on the proposal. Should you wish to discuss this issue further, please do not hesitate to call. Your cooperation in the future will certainly be appreciated. Sincerely, Craig R. Nealis City Manager CN:ds cc: City Council Mr. Raymond Quigley Mr. Mohan Basker (amity 0/ ie0ii _JUL INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 November 26, 1991 Dr. and Mrs. Mohan Bhasker 42 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 461, 42 Portuguese Bend Road (Lot 120-RH) CITY COUNCIL FIELD INSPECTION APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 91-27: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE FOR THE ENCROACHMENT OF A RETAINING WALL IN THE SIDE YARD SETBACK, AND GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF A PREVIOUSLY CONSTRUCTED CLAY SPORTS COURT. Dear Dr. and Mrs. Bhasker: We have arranged for the City Council to conduct a field inspection of your property to view the appealed project on Wednesday, December 4, 1991 at 7:30 AM. Using tape and/or flags, staking for the project should show the side property line, the side easement line, the side setback line, the new height of the sports court, the new size and location of the sports court, the new access to the sports court, as well as the distance from the new sports court retaining walls to the existing garage and dwelling unit. 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. LOLA M. UNGAR PRINCIPAL PLANNER cc: Mr. Douglas McHattie • i Ci4 /E'J/L Jh/'/' APPEAL NOTIFICATION November 13, 1991 Dr. and Mrs. Mohan Bhasker 42 Portuguese Bend 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 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 91-27: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE FOR THE ENCROACHMENT OF A RETAINING WALL IN THE SIDE YARD SETBACK, AND GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF A PREVIOUSLY CONSTRUCTED CLAY SPORTS COURT IN ZONING CASE NO. 461. Dear Dr. and Mrs. Bhasker: This letter is to inform you that on Monday, November 12, 1991, the City Council took the subject case under jurisdiction and will hold a public hearing for an appeal. The hearing will take place on Monday, November 25, 1991 at 7:30 PM at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA. You or your designated representative must attend to present your project and to answer questions. Please call me at (213) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Sincerely, LOLA M. UNGAR PRINCIPAL PLANNER cc: Mr. Douglas McHattie C.; Xe., G-0 Grp 0/2 FP>,a JJ.fP, CERTIFIED MAIL November 12, 1991 Dr. and Mrs. Mohan Bhasker 42 Portuguese Bend 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 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 461. 42 Portuguese Bend Road (Lot 120-RH) APPEAL PERIOD AND AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM Resolution No. 91-27: A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Rolling Hills granting a Variance for the encroachment of a retaining wall in the side yard setback, and granting a Conditional Use Permit for the reconstruction of a previously constructed clay sports court. Dear Dr. and Mrs. Bhasker: This letter is to inform you that the City Council, at their meeting on Tuesday, November 12, 1991, will be notified of the Planning Commission's APPROVAL of Resolution No. 91-27 in the subject case. The approval will become effective: (1) Twenty days after the receipt of this letter if no appeals are filed within that time period (Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 17.32.140 attached), AND (2) An Affidavit of Acceptance Form and the subject Resolution must be filed by you with the County Recorder (Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 17.32.087). We have enclosed a copy of RESOLUTION NO. 91-27, 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 Angeles, CA 90012 with a check in the amount of $ 5.00 for the first page and $ 3.00 for each additional page. 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. ZONING CASE NO. 461 PAGE 2 Please feel free to call me at (213) 377-1521 if you have any questions. SINCERELY, LOLA UNGAR PRINCIPAL PLANNER ENCLOSURES: RESOLUTION NO. 91-27, EXHIBIT A DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM, AND APPEAL SECTION OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE. cc: MR. DOUGLAS MCHATTIE 5n" eirei% oPr RESOLUTION NO. 91-27 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE FOR THE CONTINUED ENCROACHMENT OF A RETAINING WALL INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK, AND GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF A PREVIOUSLY CONSTRUCTED CLAY SPORTS COURT IN ZONING CASE NO. 461. 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 Dr. and Mrs. Mohan Bhasker with respect to .real property located at 42 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills (Lot 120-RH) requesting a Variance for the continued encroachment of a retaining wall into the side yard setback and a Conditional Use Permit for the reconstruction of a previously constructed clay sports court at a single family residence. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application for a Variance into the side yard setback and a Conditional Use Permit on August 20, 1991, September 17, 1991, and October 22, 1991 and at a field trip visit on September 5, 1991. Section 3. 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 4. Sections 17.32.010 through 17.32.030 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. A Variance to Section 17.16.070.A is required to permit the encroachment of a 4-foot retaining wall ten (10) feet into the thirty-five (35) foot side yard setback. The sports court will not encroach into the twenty-five (25) side yard easement. A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property and the existing use that do not apply generally to the other property in the same vicinity and zone. The Variance is necessary because of the undulating topography of the lot. The only flat area available to site a sports court and accompanying retaining walls is on the proposed relatively flat slope within the side yard setback. RESOLUTION NO. 91-27 PAGE 2 a 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 the subject property. The Variance is necessary in order to permit the reconstruction of the existing retaining walls. There will not be any greater incursion into the setback than presently exists. The Variance will also facilitate a reduction in the size and profile of the court. C. Granting this variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the propertyis located. A sufficient distance remains between the sports court and the uses on the adjacent property. The sports court will be further screened by existing landscaping as the new court will be lowered and will not be visible from neighboring properties. Engineering of the retaining walls will lower their height to the code required four feet and will keep a substantial portion of the lot open and undeveloped. Section 5. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance to encroach into the side yard setback to a maximum of 10 feet as indicated on the Development Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A subject to the conditions contained in Section 8. Section 6. The applicant has submitted plans for the use of an existing sports court that will be reduced to 2,550 square feet as shown in Exhibit A. Section 17.16.012.E of the Municipal Code provides for the discretion of the Planning Commission to grant a Conditional Use Permit for a sports court under certain conditions. Section 7. 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, the area proposed for the court is already graded and used for such purpose, and the court will be located in an area of the property where such use will be least intrusive to surrounding properties. B. 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 comply with the low profile residential development pattern of the community and is located on a 5 acre parcel of property that is adequate in size, shape and topography to accommodate such use. RESOLUTION NO. 91-27 PAGE 3 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 and will not be visible from neighboring properties. The sports court will be screened by existing landscaping and the new court will be lowered and not be visible from neighboring properties. Section 8. , Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves a Conditional Use Permit for a 2,550 square foot sports court in accordance with the Development Plan attached hereto for a sports court in Zoning Case No. 461 subject to the conditions contained in Section 8. Section 9. The Variance to the side yard setback for the continued encroachment of a 4-foot retaining wall, and the Conditional Use Permit for a 2,550 square foot sports court as indicated on the Development Plan attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A, and approved in Sections 4 and 7, are subject to the following conditions: A. The Variance and Conditional Use Permit shall expire unless used within one year from the effective date of -approval as defined in Section 17.32.110 of the Municipal Code. B. It is declared and made a condition of the Variance and Conditional Use Permit approval, 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 Zoning Ordinance and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied 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 marked Exhibit A except as otherwise provided in these conditions. E. The property on which the court 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. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 8,663 square feet or 4.9% and total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 22,905 square feet or 12.9%. RESOLUTION NO. 91-27 PAGE 4 G. All grading required for the reconstruction of the court shall be balanced, as regards cutting and filling and shall not exceed seven hundred fifty (750) cubic yards. H. The area graded for the court shall not exceed 2,550 square feet in size. I. Any grading shall preserve the existing topography, flora and natural features to the greatest extent possible. J. A drainage system shall be incorporated into the overall plan of the court and landscaping, which drainage system shall be approved by the City Engineer. K. The existing landscaping shall be maintained and shall not interfere with the viewscape of the owners of surrounding property, nor shall it interfere with the views of users of community easements. L. Court lighting shall not be permitted. M. All retaining walls incorporated into the court shall not be greater than four feet in height at any point. Exposed exterior retaining walls shall not be permitted. N. Noise from court use shall not constitute a nuisance to owners of surrounding properties. 0. A building permit shall be obtained for the retaining wall and sports court. P. Prior to the submittal of an applicable final grading plan to the County of Los Angeles for plan check, a detailed grading and drainage plan with related geology, soils and hydrology reports that conform to the Development Plan as approved by the Planning Commission must be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their review. Cut and fill slopes must conform to the City of Rolling Hills standard of 2 to 1 slope ratio. Q. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit. R. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of Building and Safety for plan check review must conform to the development plan approved with this application. RESOLUTION NO. 91-27 PAGE 5 S. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this Variance and Conditional Use Permit to Section 17.32.087, or the approval shall not be effective. T. All conditions of this Variance and Conditional Use Permit approval, except for Conditions B, must be complied with prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit from the County of Los Angeles. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 2ND OF NOVEMBER, 1991. ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: DIANE SAW ER, DEPUTY UtTY CLERK The foregoing Resolution No. 91-27 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE FOR THE CONTINUED ENCROACHMENT OF A RETAINING WALL INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK, AND GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF A PREVIOUSLY CONSTRUCTED CLAY SPORTS COURT IN ZONING CASE NO. 461. was approved and adopted at a regular adjourned meeting of the Planning Commission on November 2, 1991 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Frost, Hankins, Raine and Chairman Roberts NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Lay ABSTAIN: None DEPUTYJCITY CLERK RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND MAIL TO: Recorder's Use CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 Please record this fora: 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 CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ss ZONING CASE NO. 46 / SITE PLAN REVIEW VARIANCE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT _X I--('W') the undersigned state:, I am (We are) the owner(s) of the real property described as follows: 12 /Oor7ugvese .�-e‘s / (/ /zo_,e,v) 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. 46/ SITE PLAN REVIEW VARIANCE >< CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT �C 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. /�L"L"rt".P1 J./JJJJ State of County of VVV� SS. On this the day of the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared 19_, before me, E • personally known to me E proved tome on the basisof satisfactory evidence • to be the person(s) whose name(s) subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged that executed it. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary's Signature See Exhibit "A" attached. .hereto and made a part hereof 17.)2.140-•17.32.160 17.32.140 Appeal --Persons authorized. The action by the Planning Commission in matters described in this chapter shall be by majority vote and shall be final, con - elusive and effective twenty calendar days after the filing rr of notice, as provided in Section 17.32.090, unless within J said twenty -day period an appeal in writing is filed with the City Clerk by any of the following: A. The applicant; B. 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 54, 1978: Ord. 33 $6.14, 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 S6.15, 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 56.16, 1960). 215 (Rolling Hills 8/83) 17.32.170-•17.32,300 17.32.170 City_Council to be Board of toning Ad ustment anti 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 $6.17, 1960). 17.32.180 Appeal--Hearing--Notice--Basis for decision. The City Clerk shall set a nearing be:ore the City Council 4. as t ar Zoning Adjustment and Zoning Appeal not less tha after the receipt of said appeal or request for review. The hearing shall be on at lest t da a prior written notice to the applicant, 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. 188(part), 1981: Ord. 33 56.19, 1960) . 17.32.200 Appeal --New hearing --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 $6.20, 1960) . 216 (Rolling Hills 8/83) 1 7. I2. 210--17. 3i.010 17.32.210 Appeal --Notice. Upon the tiling of such an appeal, the City Clerk shall give notice of the filing of said notice to: A. Applicant; 8. 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 $6.21, 1960). 17.32.220 Appeal--Hearing--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 $6.22, 1960) . 4111 City o/ /?0f/tfl INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX (213) 377-7288 October 25, 1991 Dr. and Mrs. Mohan Bhasker 42 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 461 42 Portuguese Bend Road (Lot 120-RH) A request for a Variance to permit encroachment into the side yard setback to construct a retaining wall and a request for a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a sports court. Dear Dr. and Mrs. Bhasker: This letter shall serve as official notification that Zoning Case No. 461 was APPROVED by the Plannning Commission at their regular meeting on Tuesday, October 22, 1991. 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 Monday, November 11, 1991). 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. PRINCIPAL PLANNER cc: Mr. Douglas McHattie, South Bay Engineering • City O/ /E'O/ftfl -Willa INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 August 22, 1991 Dr. and Mrs. Mohan Bhasker 42 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 461 42 Portuguese Bend Road (Lot 120-RH) A request for a Variance to permit encroachment into the side yard setback to construct a retaining wall and a request for a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a sports court. Dear Dr. and Mrs. Bhasker: We have arranged for the Planning Commission to conduct a field inspection of your property to view the subject project on Thursday. Sevtember 5, 1991 at 5:30 PM. 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. Douglas McHattie/Ms. Carol Jones FLDTRP/LMU S S City 0/ PO/ling Jh INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 ., STATUS OF APPLICATION NOTIFICATION LETTER August 5, 1991 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 Dr. and Mrs. Mohan W. Bhasker 42 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: Zoning Case No. 461, 42 Portuguese Bend Road (Lot 120-RH) A request for a Variance to permit encroachment into the side yard setback to construct a retaining wall and a request for a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a sports court. Dear Dr. and Mrs. Bhasker: 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 complete as of the date indicated above to allow the application to be processed. Please note that the City may require further information in order to clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise supplement the application. If the City requires such additional information, it is strongly suggested that you supply that informatin promptly to avoid any delay in the processing of the application. Your application for Zoning Case No. 461 has been set for public hearing consideration by the Planning Commission at their meeting on Tuesday, August 20. 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, August 16, 1991. Please arrange to pick up the staff report to preview it prior to the hearing. Feel freeto call me at (213) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Sincerely, LOLA M. UNGA PRINCIPAL PLANNER cc: Mr. Douglas McHattie, South Bay Engineering Corporation i Ci o/ R0ff4 Jh/'f June 28, 1991 Dr. and Mrs. Mohan W. Bhasker 42 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: SPORTS COURT AND RETAINING WALL Dear Dr. and Mrs. Bhasker: INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 On June 3, 1991, Mrs. Bhasker and Mr. Douglas McHattie of South Bay Engineering met with Mr. Ed Acosta, District Engineering Associate, and myself to inspect your sports court and retaining wall. We found the retaining wall to be sagging. On November 25, 1990, you were notified by the Building and Safety Division that grading and retaining wall permits were required and responded on November 27, 1990 that you were hiring South Bay Engineering to prepare plans. Section 17.16.012 (E) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code states that a sports court is permitted only after a Conditional Use Permit has been granted. A survey will be needed to determine whether the retaining wall is within the side yard setback which would require a Variance. Further, Section 17.16.012 (E) (4) states that "Cou'rts shall not be located within fifty feet of any road or street easement line;" Section 17.16.012 (E) (11) states that "Retaining walls incorporated as a part of the overall plan of the court shall not be greater than four feet in height;" and Section 17.16.012 (7) states that "All grading required for the construction of the court shall be balanced, as regards cutting and filling and shall not exceed seven hundred fifty cubic yards." If any of these items are true or exceeded, then they, too, require a variance. Enclosed is the Conditional Use Permit Form and the Variance Application Form and Section 17.16.012 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, We will expedite the discretionary hearing process for the Conditional Use Permit and Variance as soon as we receive the necessary documents from you. The application fee for the Conditional Use Permit is $1,500 and $625 for the Variance (the sum of the largest fee, plus 50% of the basic fee for multiple. applications). PAGE 2 We would appreciate hearing from you within the next ten days. Feel free to call me at (213) 377-1521 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, LOLA M. UNGAR PRINCIPAL PLANNER cc: Mr. Douglas McHattie, South Bay Engineering • • LOS ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE BUREAU OF SPECIAL OPERATIONS • CONTRACT CITIES SECTION GIL GARCETTI • District Attorney SANDRA L. BUTTITTA • Chief Deputy District Attorney R. DAN MURPHY • Assistant District Attorney June 3, 1994 Dr. Mohan William Bhasker 42 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Dr. Bhasker: MICHAEL TRANBARGER • Director JUN 06 .j CITY OF ROLLING HILLS It has come to the attention of the District Attorney's Office that you and your wife, Rashmila Mohan Bhasker, as the landowners of record, are in violation of several sections of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code at the property..that you own located at 42 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA due to the fact that both an illegal recreational game court and an illegal wall in the side yard setback presently exist on that property without the necessary valid Variance and valid Conditional Use Permit required by the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. Please be advised that every day that any such criminal violation of law continues to exist constitutes a new and separate crime with an additional and separate penalty. Prior to the possible filing of a criminal.complaint against you and your wife for your failure to comply with the law (conviction could result in a penalty of 6 months in jail and a $1,000 fine for each separate crime), an office conference has been set up to discuss this matter. The office conference will be held on Wednesday, June 15, 1994 at 2:00 PM in the Torrance District Attorney's Office located at 825 Maple Avenue, Room 190,, Torrance, CA. I look forward to meeting with both of you at that time. Very truly yours, GIL GARCETTI District Attorney JOHN W. BAX, Deputy -in -Charge Contract Cities Section It c: Lola M. Ungar, Principal Planner City of Rolling Hills (310) 377-1521 11234 E. Valley Blvd. Room 110 El Monte, CA 91731 (818) 575-4285 LOS ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE BUREAU OF SPECIAL OPERATIONS • CONTRACT CITIES SECTION GIL GARCETTI • District Attorney SANDRA L. BUTTITTA • Chief Deputy District Attorney R. DAN MURPHY • Assistant District Attorney June 3, 1994 Ms. Rashmila Mohan Bhasker 42 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Ms. Bhasker: MICHAEL TRANBARGER • Director CITY OF ROLLING HILLS It has come to the attention of the District Attorney's Office that you and your husband, Mohan William Bhasker, as the landowners of record, are in violation of several sections of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code at the property that you own located at 42 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA due to the fact that both an illegal recreational game court and an illegal wall in the side yard setback presently exist on that property without the necessary valid Variance and valid Conditional Use Permit required by the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. Please be advised that every day that any such criminal violation of law continues to exist constitutes a new and separate crime with an additional and separate penalty. Prior to the possible filing of a criminal complaint against you and your husband for your failure to comply with the law (conviction could result in a penalty of 6 months in jail and a $1,000 fine for each separate crime), an office conference has been set up to discuss this matter. The office conference will be held on Wednesday, June 15, 1994 at 2:00 PM in the Torrance District Attorney's Office located at 825 Maple Avenue, Room 190, Torrance, CA. I look forward to meeting with both of you at that time. Very truly yours, GIL GARCETTI District Attorney JOHN W. BAX, Deputy -in -Charge Contract Cities Section It c: Lola M. Ungar, Principal Planner City of Rolling Hills (310) 377-1521 11234 E. Valley Blvd. Room 110 El Monte, CA 91731 (818) 575-4285 A STATE OF CALIFORNIA - STATE AND CONSUMERVICES AGENCY PETE WILSON. Governor STATEOFCALIFORNIA C�"RACTORS STATE LICENSE BOAR CASK OFR4RTMENT OF LONG BEACH DISTRICT OFFICE CA VET MEMORIAL BLDG 245 W BROADWAY #145 LONG BEACH CA 90802 it (310)590-5331 FILE NO: S J 93022142 -)1)1,V1 APR 1 2 1994 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 2 <PORTUGUESE BEND RD. ROLLING HILLS CA 90274 DATE: 04/07/1994 NTRACTOR: RANCHOS VERDES NURSERY LICENSE NUMBER: LIC 554036 ti PROJECT ADDRESS: 20 OUTRIDER RD & 42 PORTUGUESE BEN ROLLING HILLS CA We have received your request for an investigation by this agency. If your contractor is licensed by this agency, we have notified him/her of your complaint. This may result in a solution to your problem prior to further action by the Contractors State License Board. After you have been contacted by the contractor or after seven (7) days from the receipt of this letter, please provide the information requested below and return the form to us as soon as possible. Sincerely, ANGELITO L. FLORES CONSUMER SERVICES REPRESENTATIVE CONTRACTORS STATE LICENSE BOARD The following information is requested from both the contractor and the complainant. Please retain your file number above for future reference. Settlement was agreed to and will be complied with on (explain settlement agreement below) (Date) Settlement offered, but it was not accepted. (explain below) No contact from the contractor within the aforementioned seven day contact period. If the complaint has not been resolved and if you have not already done so please send a copy of your contract or written declaration of oral contract and proof of payment. (A COPY OF FRONT AND BACK OF PERSONAL CHECKS AND CONTRACT IS NECESSARY) Remarks: Signed: Date: File no: 131.39 (1I/87) IIST TE C CAUFORNIA—STATE AND CONSUM RVICES AGENCY PETE WILSON. Governor CA�—a CONTRACTORS STATE LICENSE BOARD wa.r+..,r a Con uiner Affairs INFORMATION TO COMPLAINANT You have recently filed a complaint against a contractor over a construction dispute. If the contractor is licensed in California, has no record of prior violations, and the factual circumstance surrounding your complaint meet certain criteria, you may qualify to participate in an arbitration program implemented by the Contractors State License Board (CSLB). The arbitration program works as follows: Upon receipt of a complaint, a letter is sent to both the complainant and the contractor informing them that the complaint has been received by the CSLB. The complaint is then given to a Consumer Services Representative (CSR) who will attempt to resolve the dispute and/or gather evidence which will aid in determining the next step to be taken. If your complaint cannot be resolved by the CSR but meets the criteria for the CSLB arbitration program, you will be asked to consider arbitration as a means of resolving your complaint. You will both be sent an arbitration brochure and a form to sign which the CSLB will use to refer your complaint to the American Arbitration Association for scheduling of a hearing. The CSLB will pay for the arbitrator, one expert witness and the arbitration hearing. Listed below are some of the advantages of arbitration: • Arbitration is fast. (It takes approximately 120 days to resolve a dispute.) • Arbitration provides an informal setting to resolve a dispute. • Arbitrators hearing the cases are experts trained in construction matters. • Arbitration is binding. • An award may be enforced through Superior Court. Advantages for the consumer. • If the contractor fails to comply with the award, the contractor's license will be suspended or revoked. Advantages for the contractor. • Under current complaint disclosure laws and policy, a complaint filed against a contractor will not be disclosed to the public unless the contractor fails to comply with the award. • A contractor's license will not be suspended or revoked on an allegation involved in a complaint that is referred to arbitration unless he or she fails to comply with the arbitrator's award. In closing, we strongly recommend the CSLB arbitration program as a means of resolving your construction dispute. ASK YOUR CSR FOR MORE INFORMATION 131-38(1j911