Loading...
508, Modification Pavng of a portio, CorrespondenceJ. W. RICH INVESTMENT CO. 796 WEST NINTH STREET SAN PEDRO, CA 90731 (310) 547.3326 FAX (310) 547-1177 May 17, 1994 Ms. Lola Ungar City of Rolling Hills #2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 RE: Zoning Case 508 Resolution No. 94-6 Dear Lola: ay moo MAY 1 ,8 1994 f CITY OF ,ROLLING 'HILLS qq As per our telephone conversation, I will comply with the Planning Commission's ruling as soon as I resolve the lighting dispute with Rolling Hills Association, which should be within the week. Thank you for your patience. Sincerely, Rich JWR:nv STATE OF CALIFORNIA STATE AND CONSUMER SERVICES AGENCY STATE OF CALIFORNIA _ OEP.NtuENT Of 1Cl PETE WILSON, Governor :NT R STATE LICENSE BOA. LONG BEACH DISTRICT OFFICE CA VET MEMORIAL BLDG 245 W BROADWAY #145 LONG BEACH CA 90802 (310)590-5331 FILE NO: S J 93022142 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 2 <PORTUGUESE BEND RD. ROLLING HILLS CA 90274 " APR y 2 1994 DATE: 04/07/1994 CITY OF ROLLING HILLSCONTRACTOR: By........ ..,. __ RANCHOS VERDES NURSERY ����� w ItrENSE NUMBER: LIC 554036 4/,'q/c74 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: L1 76l tt Yiee-f-e-f-;//c-ild Date: File no: 6/ 9 222//2 I3I- N (II/e71 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—STATE AND CONSR SERVICES AGENCY CONTRACTORS STATE LICENSE BOARD c d "".. Consumer Affairs • 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 beenforced 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 13148 ( 1191) . • e ova efin9 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 w_ here the sports courts were constructed are atT20.Outrider— ,�Road "(Mr. and Mrs. Jolii h): and 42 Portuguese Bend Road (Dr. and Mrs. 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 • MAR `0 4 1994 CITY •OF ROLLING !HILL'S BY City of Rolling. Hills Lola Ungar, Principal Planner 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 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 CITMOUNCIL 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 CALL Councilmembers Present: Swanson, Pernell, Mayor Pro Tem 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. Lt. 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 Tem 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 ITEMS • PUBLIC HEARINGS A. ZONING CASE NO. 450. SUBD!V1STOLNO. 84. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 21486 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 Hills 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 Tem 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 Hassoldt property are within the casements and that the Rolling Hills Community Association controls those easements and must give their approval to the improvements. He also explained' . t since the roadways and easements in Rollinalis are private and under the jurisdiction of the lling Hills Community Association, the City caliery 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 Tem 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 HEARINGa 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 RECONSTRUC1 LD 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 orIicant did not return to the City Council when discovered that he would have to grade out e of an area than was approved. In respons Mayor Pro Tern Leeuwenburgh's question, incipal Planner Ungar reported that the original 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 Tem 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 BUSINESS 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. 480 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 Tem 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 REOUTION 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 Tem 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 Tem 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 Tem 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 Tem 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 Baar who represented the Cit toiling 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 Tem 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 ATTORNEI( 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. t J°CJAB Marilyn L. "Kern Deputy City Clerk Minutes City Council Meeting 03/01/94 -6- Approved: I HEREBY CERTIFY THIS DOCUMENT TO BE A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL. Deputy CITY G`LERK OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. • • March 1, 1994 City of Rollinz Hills Lola Ungar, Principal Planner 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 (4)1li\V/111 MAR a 4 1994 tCITY OF ROLLING HILLS 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 sports 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, i tom... n' W. Rich • • • • z YY-3 oo 91/0- Ar, 439,r, rev- ,64pe • • o ta.�'' aly O AllinyINCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 CERTIFIED MAIL February 15, 1994 Mr. and Mrs. John Rich 20 Outrider Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377.7288 SUBJECT: APPEAL PERIOD AND AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM, ZONING CASE NO. 508, 20 OUTRIDER ROAD (LOT 78-EF & 95-B-EF) RESOLUTION NO. 94-6 Dear Mr.. and Mrs. Rich: This letter shall serve as official notification that Zoning Case No. 508 was APPROVED by the Planning Commission and the enclosed resolution was approved on February 5, 1994 at an adjourned regular meeting. The Planning Commission's decision was reported to the City Council at their regular meeting on February 14, 1994. The approval will become effective: (1) 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), AND (2) An Affidavit of Acceptance Form and the subject resolution must be filed by you with the County Recorder. We have enclosed a copy of RESOLUTION NO. 94-6, 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 the completed form and the Resolution to: Los Angeles County Registrar -Recorder Real Estate Records Section 12400 East Imperial Highway Norwalk, CA 90650 Include a check in the amount of $5.00 for the first page and $3.00 for each additional page. Note that Section 9 of the Resolution requires 7 conditions to be completed within three months of the approval of the Resolution, on May 5, 1994. ®Printed on F'v . Ieri PaoNr. PAGE 2 Please feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 when you have completed the requirements or if you have any questions. SIN RELY, LOLA UNG PRINCIPAL PLANNER ENCLOSURES: RESOLUTION NO.94-6, EXHIBIT A DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM, AND APPEAL SECTION OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE. cc: Mr. Douglas McHattie • • -,t-`r i!6,'7 N4 RESOLUTION NO. 94-6 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL TO A REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW MODIFICATION TO PERMIT A PREVIOUSLY AND ILLEGALLY CONSTRUCTED SPORTS COURT TO BE MODIFIED INTO A PARKING AREA IN THE FRONT YARD AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 508. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. John Rich with respect to real property located at 20 Outrider Road, Rolling Hills (Lot 78-EF & 95-B-EF) requesting a modification to the previously approved site plan to permit a previously and illegally constructed sports court to be modified to be a parking area in the front yard at an existing single family residence. Section 2. In April, 1989, a Certificate of Compliance for a Lot Line Adjustment to merge two lots into one buildable lot and Site Plan Review for a new single family residence were approved by the Planning Commission. Section 3. In April, 1991, a Variance to develop a driveway in the side yard setback exceeding the 20% yard coverage requirement, a Variance to encroach into the front yard setback to construct a retaining wall, and a Variance to encroach within the side yard setback to construct a retaining wall were approved by the Planning Commission. The driveway was cut prior to the application and for the purpose of access to a new residence at 24 Outrider Road (Lot 96-SK). Proper grading permits were approved on December 14, 1990. Section 4. On January 4, 1994, applications requesting a Variance to permit encroachment into the front yard for a previously constructed sports court, and requesting a Conditional Use Permit for a previously constructed sports court were withdrawn following duly noticed public hearings on August 17, 1993, September 21, 1993, October 26, 1993, November 16, 1993, and December 21, 1993, and at a field trip visit on September 7, 1993. Thereafter, an application for Site Plan Review Modification was submitted by the applicant. Section 5. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the subject application on January 18, 1994. Section 6. Section 17.46.070 authorizes subsequent modification of an approved Site Plan Review application. Modification of the approved plans and/or any conditions imposed, including additions or deletions, may be considered. The decision on the modification of plans and/or conditions shall be in the same RESOLUTION NO. 94-6 PAGE 2 manner as set forth in Sections 17.46.030 and 17.46.040 of the Municipal Code. Section 7. The Planning Commission finds that previous findings contained within the approved Resolution No. 89-9-A, dated April 18, 1989, can be restated as the findings for this approval with the exception that Paragraph A of Section 7 is restated to read as follows: "A. The proposed residential structure is compatible with the low density, rural character requirements of the General Plan. This project is compatible with the Zoning Ordinance because the project is within minimum setbacks and complies with the Zoning Ordinance lot coverage requirements. The net square footage of the two combined lots is approximately 152,378 square feet. The proposed structures equal 8,856 square feet which represents 5.81% structural lot coverage, which is within the 20% of coverage maximum that is permitted. The total lot coverage is approximately 19,137 square feet which represents a proposed total lot coverage of 12.56%, which is within the 35% of coverage maximum that is permitted. The proposed project includes a residence, swimming pool, aviary and proposed future stable, which structures are similar to surrounding residential land use patterns." Section 8. Based upon the preceding findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the request for modification for Zoning Case No. 508 to permit a previously and illegally constructed sports court to be modified to be a parking area in the front yard at an existing single family residence, as indicated on the development plan attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A. Section 9. Except as herein amended, the terms and conditions of Resolution No. 89-9-A, adopted on April 18, 1989 as amended by this Resolution adopted on February 5, 1994, shall be in full force and effect. In addition, the following further requirements are imposed as conditions of approval of this Site Plan Review Modification and shall be completed within three months of the approval of this Resolution: A. The entire "as built" parking area shall not be used as a sports court. B. The entire "as built" parking area shall be painted green. C. The net post holes shall be filled and sealed. D. The number of parking area lights shall be reduced from 9 light standards to 5 standards. • • RESOLUTION NO. 94-6 PAGE 3 E. The height of the parking area lights shall be a maximum of 33 inches. F. The parking area lighting shall be masked from above and directed downwards. G. The lamps for lighting the parking area shall not exceed a maximum wattage of 26 watts. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 5TH D Y OF ATTEST: RU RY, 1994. ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN =1-;--1%g'; DEPUTY CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) ss I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 94-6 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL TO A REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW MODIFICATION TO PERMIT A PREVIOUSLY AND ILLEGALLY CONSTRUCTED SPORTS COURT TO BE MODIFIED INTO A PARKING AREA IN THE FRONT YARD AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 508. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on February 5, 1994 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Hankins, Raine and Chairman Roberts NOES: Commissioner Frost ABSENT: Commissioner Lay ABSTAIN:None and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative,Offices DEPUTY CI CLERK 1754.010 17.54 APPEALS 17.54.010 Time for Filing Appeals A. All actions of the Planning Commission authorized by this Title may be appealed to the City Council. All appeals shall be filed in writing with the City Clerk. B. All appeals must be filed on or before the 30th calendar day after adoption of the Planning Commission's resolution on the project or application. Application fees shall be paid as required by Section 1730.030 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 24, 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 1730.030 of this Title. In addition, the following parties shall be noticed: 1. The applicant of the proposal being appealed; 2. The appellant; and 3. Any person who provided oral testimony or written comments to the Planning Commission during or as part of the public hearing on the project. B. Hearing The City Council shall conduct a public hearing pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 17.34 of this Title. The Council shall consider all information in the record, as well as additional information presented at the appeal hearing, before taking action on the appeal. 77 ROLLING HILLS ZONING MAY 24, 1993 • • 17.54.060 C. Action The Council may act to uphold, overturn, or otherwise modify the Planning Commission's original action on the proposal, or the Council may remand the application back to the Planning Commission for further review and direction. 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 24, 1993 • • RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND MAIL TO: Recorder's Use CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 Please record this form with the Registrar -Recorder's Office and return to: City of Rolling Hills, 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 (The Registrar -Recorder's Office requires that the form be notarized before recordation). ACCEPTANCE FORM STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss ZONING CASE NO. 508 SITE PLAN REVIEW . VARIANCE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT I (We) the undersigned state: I am (We are) the owner(s) of the real property described as follows: 20 Outrider Road (Lot 78-EF and 95-B-EF) Rolling Hills, CA 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. 508 SITE PLAN REVIEW X VARIANCE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT I (We) certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Print Print Owner Owner Name Name Signature Signature Address Address City/State City/State Signatures must be acknowledged by a notary public. }SS. On this the day of the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared E personally known to me proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) within instrument, and acknowledged that WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary's Signature 19_, before me, subscribed to the executed it. See Exhibit "A" attached PS Form 3800, June 1985 P 852 865. 111 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (See Reverse) Sent to 'A^ // Street and No. Certified Fee Special Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee P.•., State and ZIP Code/ Postage do G �//S /,00 Return Receipt showing to whom and Date Delivered Return Receipt showfog ta.Whori?/ Date, and AddresKol;DeIf y_S ,,A TOTAL Postagete4,'. ` 48 Postmark or Dat'Cs'? -700,e;, JA 1, o o STICK POSTAGE STAMPS TO ARTICLE TO COVER FIRST CLASS POSTAGE, CERTIFIED MAIL FEE, AND CHARGES FOR ANY SELECTED OPTIONAL SERVICES. (see front) 1. If you want this receipt postmarked, stick the gummed stub to the right of the return address leaving the receipt attached and present the article at a post office service window or hand it to your rural carrier. (no extra charge) 2. If you do not want this receipt postmarked, stick the gummed stub to the right of the return address of the article, date, detach and retain the receipt, and mail the article. 3. If you want a return receipt, write the certified mail number and your name and address on a return receipt card, Form 3811, and attach it to the front of the article by means of the gummed ends if space per- mits. Otherwise, affix to back of article. Endorse front of article RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED adjacent to the number. 4. If you want.delivery restricted to the addressee, or to an authorized agent of the addressee, endorse RESTRICTED DELIVERY on the front of the article. 5. Enter fees for the services requested in the appropriate spaces on the front of this receipt. If return receipt is requested, check the applicable blocks in item 1 of Form 3811. 6. Save this receipt and present it if you make inquiry. U.S.G.P.O. 1987-197-722 ^' SENDER: m a• Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services. I also wish to receive the H • Complete items 3, and 4a & b. following services (for an extra m y • Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can fee): '� return this card to you. m m > •• Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece, or on the back if space 1. ❑ Addressee's Address coE does not permit. ,cr.• Write "Return Receipt Requested" on the mailpiece below the article number. 2. ❑ Restricted Delivery Q +� • The Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date a o • delivered. Consult postmaster for fee. s • 3. Article Addressed to: 4a. Article Number co t 2-5a 30 S /l/ • -7" in IS • J bon l �jv 4b. Service Type cc ❑ Registered ❑Insured ca PaCertified ❑ COD 5 CC P0Lj,i•-,� ,'¢%I3, .r_ - 9 Z7,1' ❑ Express Mail . El Return Receipt for c Merchandise CI 41-5 o 7. Date of Delivery a v7' �� 0 Z >, CC 5. Si natu�� ( ssee) 8. Addressee's Address (Only if requested R 1 1/r� and fee is paid) _ 11J�1 H glature (Agent) 0 .— = PS Form 3811, December 1991 * U.S.G.P.O. : 1992-307-530 DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE--- 1-' PM 7 Business �" CD --- PENALTY FOR PRIVATE c. FE USE TO AVOID PAYMENT - OF -POSTAGE, $300=-- f 0) Q 1 _z c--, J 4. 0 Q i I CC r C-:: Print your name, address and ZIP Code here r • d CITY OF ROLLING HILLS raz' #2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 • CO Lin a6 O /0//Lfl L INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 January 21, 1994 Mr. and Mrs. John Rich 20 Outrider Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Rich: SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 508: Request for a Site Plan Review Modification to .permit a previously and illegally constructed sports court to be modified to be a parking area in the front yard at an existing single family residence for property at 20 Outrider Road, Rolling Hills, CA; more precisely Lot 78-EF & 95-B-EF. Dear Mr. and Mrs. Rich: This letter shall serve as official notification that Zoning Case No. 508 was APPROVED by the Planning Commission at their regular meeting on January 18, 1994. 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 8, 1994. You should also be aware that the decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed within thirty days after adoption of the Planning Commission's Resolution (Section 17.54.010(B) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code). Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, LOLA M. UNGAR: PRINCIPAL PLAID' cc: Mr. Douglas McHattie Printed on Recycled Paper. •City ol Roiling -Alio NOTIFICATION LETTER January 5, 1994 Mr. and Mrs. John Rich 20 Outrider Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Rich: • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377.7288 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 508: Request for a Site Plan Review Modification to permit a previously and illegally constructed sports court to be modified to be a parking area in the front yard at an existing single family residence for property at 20 Outrider Road, Rolling Hills, CA; more precisely Lot 78-EF & 95-B-EF. Dear Mr. and Mrs. Rich: Your application for Zoning Case No. 508 has been set for public hearing consideration by the Planning Commissionat their meeting on Tuesday, January 18, 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, January 14, 1994. Please arrange to pick up the staff report to preview it prior to the hearing. Please call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. LOLA M. UNGA PRINCIPAL PLANNER cc: Mr. Douglas McHattie, South Bay Engineering '1, Printed on Recycled Paper.