Loading...
783, Remodel stable and construct a, Correspondence• • C;t June 30, 2010 Mr. John Walter Ms. Julie Walter 92 Crest Road East Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Re: Your appeal of 76 Eastfield Drive Zone Clearance Dear Mr"and Mter, INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377.7288 At its meting of June 28,'2010, the City Council conducted a public hearing on your appeal of the zone clearance approved for 76 Eastfield Drive and approved Resolution 1087 upholding Resolution 2010-09 of the Planning Commission and City staff's "zone clearance" approval of the stable at 76 Eastfield Drive and denied your appeal. The Council's action upheld the following conditions of approval: 1. The utility lines for the stable must be undergrounded. 2. Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA) Architectural Commission approval is required. 3. Los Angeles County building permits must be obtained to bring the interior and exterior of the structure up to current building code standards. 4. The structure may only be used for stable uses. The City Council's decision is final. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me or Yolanta Schwartz. Sincer Dahlerbruch City Manager AD:hl 06-29-1 0AppealWal ter.docx c: Andrew Kienle, Esq. Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director cis Printed on Recycled Paper • City al leollinp „AU June 30, 2010 Dr. Stephanie Culver Mr. Victor George 76 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Deer and Mr. Age, INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 At its meeting of June 28, 2010, the City Council conducted a public hearing and approved Resolution 1087 upholding Resolution 2010-09 of the Planning Commission and City staff's "zone clearance" approval of your stable and denied the Walters' appeal. Per the submitted and approved plans, construction may commence based on the following conditions of approval: 1. The utility lines for the stable must be undergrounded. 2. Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA) Architectural Committee approval is required. 3. Los Angeles County building permits must be obtained to bring the interior and exterior of the structure up to current building code standards. 4. The structure may only be used for stable uses. Please note that a failure to comply with these requirements will result in the commencement of code enforcement procedures. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me or Yolanta Schwartz. Sincer y, ahlerbruch Cianager AD:hl 06-29-10AppealGeorge.docx c: Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director Printed on Recycled Paper Stephanie Culver, M.D. Victor L. George 76 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 June 25, 2010 The City Council of Rolling Hills c/o City of Rolling Hills 2 Portugese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 t� .per E JUN 2 8 2010 City of Rolling Hills By Re: Julie Walters Latest Appeal re Planning Commission's Rejection of Appeal Re: City's Approval of Barn Plans at 76 Eastfield Drive Dear Members of the City Council and Mr. Dahlerbruch: Our family has done everything and jumped through every hoop that the HOA Board, the Architectural Committee, the City of Rolling Hills and Planning Commission have asked us to do to make our barn a legal conforming structure, yet Julie Walters' quixotic battle continues. I have digested the entirety of the latest materials provided by the Walters' regarding their now third of four appeals, their attorney's (Mr. Kienle) June 24, 2010 letter, surplus documentation from an alleged "real estate appraiser," and e-mails between Julie and Tony Dahlerbruch. This third Walters' Appeal is identical to the Walters' City Planning Commission Appeal from last month (May 15, 2010) which also included a similar: (1) long Kienle attorney letter; (2) a real estate appraiser letters; and (3) Julie Walter's writings. The Walter's lost that appeal unanimously (5-0) on May 15, 2010 before the Planning Commission and last week (June 17, 2010,) the second Walters' Appeal v. the Architectural Committee before the HOA Board. The Walters' again unanimously lost (4-0). WALTERS' CURRENT (3RD) APPEAL We were surprised to receive on June 16, 2010 a correspondence from the City re: a third appeal from the Walters, which appeals the appeal the Walters lost (unanimously 5-0) to the planning commission on May 15, 2010. This third Walters appeal, as written by their attorney Mr. Kienle is now set for June 28, 2010 at City Hall, which third appeal simply attacks (1) Tony Dahlerbruch and (2) Yolanta Schwartz for their alleged dishonesty, "blatant factual misrepresentations" and "misinformation provided by the City staff" (Mr. Dahlerbruch and Ms. Schwartz) and (3) attacks the Planning Commission for being "tainted." More insults, yet still no truth from the Walters or their attorney, Mr. Kienle. Julie's latest City Council vs Planning Commission appeal is, at best, disjointed and Stephanie Culver, M.D. Victor L. George The City Council of Rolling Hills c/o City of Rolling Hills June 25, 2010 Page 2 untrue, as the appeal is just a frontal attack of insults against Tony Dahlerbruch, Yalanta Schwartz and the Planning Commission. Just last week (June 17, 2010) the same parties were before the HOA re: the HOA appeal to the Architectural Committee's approval of our barn (3-1,) which appeal was upheld 4-0, the other HOA Board which HOA Walters' appeal was just another insult laden attack on Sid Croft, Esq., Kristen Raig, my family, and the "yes" voting architectural committee members (Roger North, Gordon Enman, and George Sweeny) from the 3-1 "yea" vote. Regarding the architectural committee members that voted to approve the Georges properly stamped and approved plans, the Walters appeal states: "we also feel we were treated unfairly by certain members of the architectural committee. They came to our house and did not even listen to us and the facts. They seemed blind, rude and totally biased (except for Bill Rogers), they appeared to have already made up their mind before even seeing the situation." Much like the baseless insults against Tony Dahlerbruch and Yolanta Schwartz, these purely speculative insults are demeaning to the members of the City staff and the architectural committee that work to assist in these communities much like the HOA Board members. Never before the Walters' HOA appeal was there any allegation by Julie or her attorney of the architectural committee being "blind, rude and totally biased," etc., like this week end Planning Commission appeal, the Walters move forward with appeals of sour grape, rooted in defamatory accusations of all these persons. In Mr. Kienle's HOA appeal letter he indicates at page 2 that the architectural committee members who "voted to approve the plans are not Rolling Hills residents and have no desire to maintain the unique character of the community." Both Mr. Sweeney and Mr. North are longtime architects in the community and interestingly, Mr. Sweeney actually built the Walters' home and testified at the June 17, 2010 appeal why our barn should have been and was approved. To accuse Mr. Sweeney and Mr. North of being uncaring, with "no desire to maintain the unique character of the community", is uncalled for, as the Walters' attorney seems to slander any and all persons that do not totally acquiesce to each of Julie's whims and delusions. RECENT HISTORY We purchased our home (and barn) as is in March, 2005 and have never done any work whatsoever on the barn. Previous owners had made the barn as it is now. Our family hopes to now enjoy the community's equestrian lifestyle. On April 13, 2010, there was a special HOA Board meeting with the Walters, the Stephanie Culver, M.D. Victor L. George The City Council of Rolling Hills c/o City of Rolling Hills June 25, 2010 Page 3 Georges, the Walters' attorney, the entire Board of Directors and HOA staff. A motion passed unanimously that gave the Georges 45 days to have stamped and approved barn plans from the City of Rolling Hills, which stamped plans would then require architectural committee approval within that 45 day window. As promised, the Georges acted immediately and the plans were approved and stamped by the City within a few days, and after architectural committee meetings and field visits to the property, etc., the architectural committee voted to approve the plans 3-1, with only Bill Rogers voting no. All this occurred within 25 days, well within the 45 day time limit. The Georges have done everything we could to meet all the rules and requirements of both of the public entities, (the City of Rolling Hills and the HOA). Once our plans were stamped by Yolanta Schwartz of the City, Julie Walters that day filed an appeal, to the City's planning commission, which continues on in this additional appeal of their lost appeal. WALTERS CHANGING THEORIES Interestingly, Julie has now shifted her crusade from making our barn "legal" in earlier correspondence to the Board when she indicated "horses make good neighbors", and "all she wants is the barn to become converted legal", but now that the barn has plans and modifications stamped and approved, the architectural committee endorsing such plans, and the Walters having unanimously (5-0) lost their planning commission appeal, Julie's current position is that even if the barn is legal and nonconforming it is still not to her liking, as she indicates that " ...horses smell, noises, and flies would totally ruin our living space..." She also states in a different portion of her letter that if we are allowed to have a corral that ". . .it would create a nuisance with smells and noises. .."from a horse(s). As this is a horse community, and an equestrian lifestyle is encouraged behind the gates, it seems unconscionable for Julie Walters to go from "horses make good neighbors" and "we just want their barn to be legal" to they still shouldn't be entitled to a barn as domestic animals will "smell, make noises and attract flies." Mr. Kienle's letter states that if we were allowed to have a barn that "smells will emanate from our property," but the argument that horse(s) may someday smell, is not grounds to overturn the Planning Commission's rejection of their appeal. I recognize Julie's frustration at having lost unanimously at both the planning commission on May 15, 2010, and HOA Board on June 17, 2010, having no real grounds of winning this appeal against the Planning Commission. Regardless of Julie's repeating her constant threats (See her June 8, 2010 e-mail to Mr. Dahlerbruch "... you are putting the City at risk for legal action...") her attorney and she will have no legs to stand on in any Stephanie Culver, M.D. Victor L. George The City Council of Rolling Hills c/o City of Rolling Hills June 25, 2010 Page 4 court of law, as both the HOA (and Architectural Committee) and the City (and Planning Commission) have jumped through every hoop for Julie, in attempting to acquiesce to her every demand. CONTINUED MISTRUTHS Both Mr. Kienle and Julie Walters continue advocating an untrue story. Kienle states at page 2 of his appeal that on January 7, 2010 the prior HOA Board ruled in favor of the Walters, etc. This is absolutely untrue. At the April 13, 2010 special meeting, former Board member Ray Ferris explained in front of all (Walters, Kienle, etc.) that there was never any motion to permanently cover all the windows in the barn. That was not only clearly explained at the April 13, 2010 meeting, but was again read (by Nedra) from the January 7, 2010 minutes, so for both the Walters' attorney and Julie to continue writing this mistruth, is simply untrue and goes to the credibility of those two persons. Sid Croft, Esq.'s February 16, 2010 letter to Mr. Kienle clearly explains that there was never any "appeal" by the Georges and that the Board did not require any permanent closing of the windows, etc. For the Walters to succeed in this third appeal, they would need to prove that somehow Tony Dahlerbruch, Yalanta Schwartz, the Planning Commission, Nedra Trask, Sid Croft, Esq., Kristen Rieg and Ray Ferris were all involved in some giant conspiracy to lie and upset Julie Walters. HOUSE FOR SALE Each of Julie's appeals suggest that her father's property (of which she is a non -owner) will lose value if there is a barn nearby. Such economic theories and speculations are irrelevant to this appellate resolution #1087, the relevant City 3-page resolution re: this third appeal. It is our understanding from members of the Board and the community that John Walters is soon selling his home, and Leslie Stenson (a former HOA Board member) is the realtor that will handle the sale (of the Walters home). It appears that prior to putting the house on the listing service that the Walters prefer no barn be there. The Walters allege that the barn may somehow decrease the home's potential sale value. Issues such as effect on sales price are all speculative and irrelevant to this appeal. They additionally suggest: "we feel they may someday use the barn inappropriately by being loud...," etc. This City Council/Planning Commission appeal is not the appropriate Stephanie Culver, M.D. Victor L. George The City Council of Rolling Hills c/o City of Rolling Hills June 25, 2010 Page 5 place for Julie's unsubstantiated opinions that the barn may someday (after being constructed) become "noisy" or "draw flies" and/or become a "nuisance." The Walters attorney has been milking this "cash cow" for over one year now, yet states in his June 24, 2010 letter at page 7 "that additional evidence will to submitted" at this appeal. What more? And why not yet? We now know that regardless of how this City Council appeal concludes, that our family continues traveling the next Walters appellate avenue (July 20, 2010 at City Hall) as stranger, the Walters and Mr. Kienle have a fourth appeal already scheduled for July 20, 2010 before the Planning Commission re: having public hearings, etc., re: our barn. This fourth appeal will go forward to the Planning Commission even as Julie unanimously loses every appeal. We respectfully request that this Walters third appeal is also unanimously denied at Monday's, June 28, 2010 appeal. Thank you for your time. Very truly yours, The Georges Stephanie Culver, M.D. and Victor L. George imrb "'1,4 op x.litratallii i. HART, KING & COLDREN June 24, 2010 VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL City of Rolling Hills, City Council attn: Anton Dahlerbruch, City Manager No.2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Andrew C. Kienle aklenie@hkclaw.com Our File Number: 38175.001/4827-9412-0454v.1 Re: Appeal to City Council of aooroval of clan at 76 Eastfield Dr. JUN 24 2010 City of Rolling Hills By Dear Members of the City Council: As stated in my prior correspondence, pursuant to Section 17.54.010, et. seq. of the City of Rolling Hills Municipal Code ("Municipal Code") our clients, John and Julie Walter (the "Walters"), respectfully appeal the May 18, 2010, decision of the planning commission affirming the approval of certain plans submitted by Victor George and Stephanie Culver (collectively "the Georges") relating to their illegal barn conversion/renovation. I. Overview. The planning commission's affirmation of the approval of the Georges plans is riddled with inaccuracies, fails to consider all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code and is premised on blatant factual misstatements. The bases of the Walters appeal is two -fold: First, the planning commission erred in failing to: (1) consider all of the "objective criteria" as mandated by Section 17.44.010 of the Municipal Code and (2) conclude that the approval of the proposed plans submitted by the Georges should be revoked. Second, the planning commission based Its affirmation of the approval of the Georges plans on misinformation provided to them by city staff at the May 18, 2010 hearing. In short, based on the evidence presented herein and at the hearing on this appeal, the Walters submit that a de novo review of the matter pursuant to Section 17.54.015(E) of the Municipal Code requires this City Council to overturn the planning commission's affirmation of the approval of the Georges plans. It is critical to note that the Walters have been more than reasonable, patient and accommodating throughout this entire arduous process. All they are asking for is a solution which takes their serious and justified concerns into account and ensures that there is no negative impact on their property. The approval of the subject plans via an "over the counter" process was totally unjust and unacceptable and must not stand, The very nature of the "over the counter" process (as compared with the process required for all other structural alterations or construction) effectively promotes abuse and the deprivation of the legal property rights of adjacent homeowners. The Walters should not be punished because of the ongoing significant debate within the City as to what should be considered "legal" uses of structures such as this. Indeed, what is considered "legal" is in a great state of flux given the planning commission's recent resolution on the subject and ongoing public hearings concerning possible changes to the Municipal Code relating to barn usage. As set forth in detail below, the George's structure does not meet the "objective criteria" in place in the Municipal Codes now. However, in an effort to resolve this matter once and for all, the Walters are willing to wait until the Municipal Code A Professional Law Corporation 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor, Santa Ana, California 92707 Ph 714.432.8700 I www.hkclaw.com I Fx 714.546.7457 • . HART. KII'IG d:: COLDREN June 24, 2010 Page 2 changes on stables/barns go into effect so that this matter (as well as all others relating to barn usage) can be handled in a cohesive and uniform manner. 1[. History of Dispute • On September 13, 2009, the Walters formally sent a complaint to the City regarding the Georges' illegal use of their property and the structures thereon and the excessive and unreasonable noise and other offensive conduct which is in violation of the City of Rolling Hills Municipal Code, as well as the Rolling Hills Community Association Rules. To date (and although it has responded to various inquiries directly from the Walters), the City has not officially responded to or addressed these serious concerns. • In or about August of 2009, the Walters also formally sent a complaint to the Rolling Hills Community Association ("RHCA") regarding the same conduct which also violated the RHCA governing documents (i.e. ARTICLE I, Section 12 - Approval of Plans and Section 13 - General Requirements as to Architecture; ARTICLE 111, Section 2 - Character of Use; Section 5 - Alterations and Change in Occupancy and Section 6 - Building Permits; ARTICLE IV, Section 5 - Violation of Conditions and Section 6 - Violation Constitutes Nuisance; ARTICLE V, Section 2 - Easements and Rights of Way). • On January 7, 2010, the RCHA Board ruled in favor of the Walters and required the Georges to permanently close all of the windows contained In the illegal structure by February 28, 2010. Not surprisingly, the Georges "appealed" the January 7, 2010 decision, despite the fact that both Sid Croft and Kristen Raig agreed and confirmed in writing that the January 7, 2010 ruling was indeed a final ruling and that there was no "appeal" process available to the Georges on the "motion passed by the Board". • In a bizarre twist of events, and despite the fact that it had no legal or factual basis for doing so, the Board ultimately considered the Georges' "appeal" at the April 13, 2010 special meeting in violation of their obligations pursuant to the Davis -Stirling Act. At that hearing, the Board again ordered the Georges to permanently close the windows and breezeway within the illegal barn within 60 days of the special meeting unless an approved plan was in place within 45 days of the special meeting. • In an attempt to utilize a loophole in the Municipal Code, the Georges apparently obtained an "over the counter" approval of their plans to modify/reconfigure their "barn". Based on our clients' brief inspection of the plans (the City will not provide copies of the plans), it appears that an "L-shaped" corral is proposed behind the Georges' barn (the corral goes down approximately 17 feet on the side of the barn facing the Walters and then wraps around, near the Walters' garage). The very configuration of the corral is designed to maximize the impact and detrimental effect on the Walters. It also appears that that windows and now doors are slightly reconfigured in the back in a manner which will maximize the harm to the Walters. 38175.001 /4827-9412-0454v.1 • • I -TART. KING LS,• C❑LDREN June 24, 2010 Page 3 III. The plannina commission and city staff erred in failing to consider all of the "obiective criteria" as mandated by Section 17.44.010 of the Municipal Code. It is evident that approval of the Georges' plans was given without any regard for the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code and more importantly, without any regard for the compelling interests of the Walters. The "over the counter" approval process utilized by the Georges (the zone clearance process set forth in Section 17.44.010) purportedly requires review of proposed plans to ensure that the proposed use or structure satisfies the obiective criteria set forth in the Municipal Code. The City's decision to approve the Georges' plans, in and of itself, violates numerous provisions of the Municipal Code and is not based on the objective criteria set forth in the Municipal Code. Furthermore, the planning commission erred in affirming the approval of the plans as they too, did not consider the obiective criteria set forth in the Municipal Code. A. The obiective criteria which must be considered. As expressly stated in Section 17.44.010 of the Municipal Code the purpose of the zone clearance process is to "ensure that the proposed use or structure satisfies the objective criteria set forth in this title and other provisions of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code." [Emphasis added.] "This title" necessarily includes all Chapters within Title 17-Zoning (Chapters 17.04- 17.58). It is the various Chapters within Title 17-Zoning which confirm that the plans should have never been approved and that the city staff and planning commission erred in doing so. Sections 17.04.020, 17.04.030 and 17.16.010 confirm that the City's intention in establishing certain uses for the zones throughout the City is to: (1) conserve property values; (2) guarantee the most appropriate use of land throughout the City; (3) plan the use of the land in accordance with the General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills' and (4) promote development of high quality that does not adversely impact adjacent properties. As discussed in detail below, the proposed modification will create a significant decrease in the value of the Walters home and have a major negative impact on it. Furthermore, Section 17.16.200(A)(5) of the Municipal Code provides that barns shall be used for the exclusive purpose of keeping domestic animals. Based on the City's own staff report, the structure is admittedly being used for "recreation and hobby activities" in violation of the City's Municipal Code. Section 17.16.210(A)(2)(a) and (b) and (A)(8)(a) and (b) provide that neither a recreation room nor hobby shop shall be located in any setback or exceed eight hundred sq.ft. in size. As the staff report indicates, this structure is located within the rear setback and far exceeds 800 sq.ft. in size. The plans should never have been approved on this basis alone. I The General PIan of The City is referred to as the "constitution" of the City and sets forth the goals of: (a) ensuring compatibility with adjacent properties, (b) requiring lighting of residential properties not adversely affecting adjacent residences and (c) preserving the quiet atmosphere, mitigating noise generating uses, requiring the public and private recreational activities to limit the noise impact on adjacent residences and requiring the location of animal holding areas to minimize spillover onto surrounding properties. 38175.001 /4827-9412-0454v.1 K. HART, KING & COLDI:EN June 24, 2010 Page 4 Pursuant to Section 17.24.030(A) and (B), nonconforming uses may be continued, so long as no new use is established on that lot and provided that no structural alterations to the building are made. Pursuant to Section 17.24.020, illegal uses or structures shall have no such rights. Furthermore, pursuant to 17.58.010 (A)(2),(3) and (4), revocation of status of a legal non -conforming use or structure is warranted if that status is being or recently has been exercised contrary to or in violation of the terms or conditions of such approval; or is being or recently has been exercised in violation of any statute, law or regulation; or 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. In the staff report, the Planning Director recognized that the "1,344 square foot stable was legally constructed with permits in 1963 at 76 Eastfield Drive, The structure has not been used as a stable for many years. Subsequent property owners remodeled a portion of the stable structure to a recreation room use without the benefit of City's approval and no building permits were obtained for the renovations. The current property owners use this structure for recreation and hobby activities." The staff report itself confirms that the status of the subject structure is now illegal non - confirming since: (1) it was originally constructed as a stable; (2) it has not been used as a stable for many years; (3) was remodeled to a recreation room without approval or permits and (4) is currently being used for recreation and hobby activities. The staff report itself also confirms that the structure encroaches more than is permitted into the rear setback and therefore can never be a "conforming" structure or use. Nonetheless, the City's staff report summarily concludes that the proposed structure would not violate Section 17.24.040 of the Municipal Code concerning "limits on structures nonconforming due to standards." The City's staff report in this regard is of great concern and is a blatant example of the lack of consideration of or adherence to the requisite "objective criteria". The offending structure was originally approved in the 1960's as a working barn and stable. Martha Tuffli (the former owner of the Georges property) has confirmed in a letter (to be submitted separately before the appeal hearing) that as recently as 2001, when she sold the property, the structure was a fully functionina barn and had dirt floors. multiple stalls and a hayloft. The structure is now unquestionably used as everything but a fully functioning barn. The use of this structure by the Georges (as a recreation room and hobby shop) was never approved and has continued for an extended period of time in a mariner which actually increases the "non -conformity" in direct violation of those provisions of the Municipal Code dealing with nonconforming uses and structures. For the City to simply "rubber stamp" the Georges' plans and claim in the staff report that the existing use was previously approved or that the structure is being returned to its former state is preposterous and is a blatant dereliction of the City's obligations. The structure has been radically altered from its original permitted use and is now a nonconforming illegal use which must be abated, The proposed plans do not return the structure to its original permitted use and again, never should have been approved. The only plausible way to return the structure to its original condition would be to remove all hardwood floors, close up the rear windows, reconstruct stables, a hayloft, etc., as was the configuration when the property was owned by 38175.001 /4827-9412-0454v.1 • • H HART. I IN & COI DRC_N June 24, 2010 Page 5 the Tufflis. To merely require minimal cosmetic alterations does nothing to justify the blatant illegality of this structure. Finally, Section 17.16.200(A)(1) of the City's Municipal Code requires that the stable portion of the bam must be a minimum of 450 sq.ft. Here, there is only 301 sq.ft. of stable (the City staff report fails to distinguish between the stable and tack room portions of the structure). Thus, more than 1,000 sq.ft. is "non -stable" in violation of the Municipal Code. B. Equitable concerns which must be considered. The planning commission also erred in affirming the approval of the Georges plans from an equitable and pragmatic perspective as well. The decision to allow the Georges to proceed with their barn conversion/modification destroys the Walters peace and quiet that they deserve and are entitled to under the law and creates a significant diminution in the value of their property. In fact, Jerry Britton, a certified residential real estate appraiser has determined that the very existence of the structure, its windows and open space negatively impact the Walters' property (by creating a negative reputation and requiring disclosure of the nuisance upon listing it for sale) and would result in a lower list price of approximately three to five percent and increase marketing time. (Mr. Britton's letter is attached hereto for your consideration.) It is an axiom of law that one must use his own property in a manner which does not unnecessarily damage the property of others, or diminish their equal right to the full enjoyment thereof. (See Civil Code §3514; Katenkamo v. Union Realty Co. (1936) 6 Cal. 2d 765, 774, 59 P.2d 473.) The very existence of this structure (coupled with the Georges' use of it) is a nuisance in and of itself which must be eliminated in its entirety immediately. This is a serious matter which should have been addressed nearly two years ago so as to provide our clients the comfortable enjoyment of their life and property; a right which is guaranteed by California law and codified in the City's own Municipal Code. Section 8.24.010 of the Municipal Code provides that a nuisance is defined as anything which is injurious to health or safety, or is indecent or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property or injurious to the stability of real property so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property. In reality, the structure proposed by the Georges is not a barn by any stretch of the imagination. Indeed, the very design of the structure (with hardwood floors, finished walls and chandeliers) is simply not conducive to the keeping of animals or animal supplies. Rather, it is clearly a mixed use structure. As such, it must comply with those portions of the Municipal Code dealing with mixed use structures which require a Conditional Use Permit ("CUP") as specified in Sections 17.16.040 and 17.42.050 of the Municipal Code. In considering any request for a CUP, a site review is required as well as a public hearing. Further, Section 17.24.050 requires consideration of the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and that the use proposed with not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent buildings or structures. The Walters deserve to have this mixed use structure go through this process so these issues can be determined. In short, there is simply no valid basis to treat this structure as anything other than a mixed use structure requiring careful scrutiny to prevent over construction and to ensure full consideration of the adjacent uses, buildings and structures of the Walters. 38175.001 /4827.9412-0454v.1 • • s HART. KING &. CCILDREN June 24, 2010 Page 6 The Walters home will be severely and negatively impacted if the Georges are allowed to proceed with their barn conversion/modification. The glazed windows directly facing the Walters' are totally unacceptable. The windows allow sound, Tight and smell to travel into the Walters' bedrooms at all hours of the day and night. The proposed corral configuration is also totally unacceptable. As Mr. Rogers stated at the architectural committee meetings, the proposed configuration of the corral is completely inappropriate in relation to the Walters' property and more importantly in connection with the proper care of horses as it would not be a proper turn out (assuming of course the Georges ever keep horses on their property). The orientation of the barn towards the Walters is also completely unacceptable. The Georges have ample room if the barn were oriented towards their own residence. In viewing other barns/corrals within the community there is not one which has the same illogical configuration as the one proposed by the Georges and is so utterly offensive to neighboring properties. The Walters have one home. Allowing the Georges to proceed per the plans concerning the modification of a secondary structure amounts to a confiscatory taking of the Walters property without due process or just cause in violation of the United States and California constitutions. Based on the Walters' parking area, approach to their front door and the location of the bedrooms in their home, the configuration of the barn and corral as proposed in the subject plans completely defeats the intent and spirit of this unique City and the decades -long goal of maintaining reasonable privacy and space between neighbors. In short, the Georges' "desire" to convert this structure back into a barn with the accompanying corral is highly suspect and nothing more than their latest effort to continue the harassment campaign against the Walters. Unfortunately, based on what has transpired over the last few years, there is every indication that the Georges will merely be emboldened by any approval granted to them and will leave the windows and shutters open, make loud noise late at night and leave lights inside the structure on 24/7. If this is allowed to be converted to a barn and nothing but a barn, there is no valid reason why more than 75% of the structure should be maintained as a large recreation room, filled with furniture, chandeliers, glazed windows, finished walls and hardwood floors. The structure has never been used and never will be used by the Georges as a true barn. It is nothing more than an attempted extension of their residence. The old adage "even if you put lipstick on a pig, it is still a pig" certainly rings true here. To allow the Georges to maintain the windows and construct a corral in such an odd and illogical configuration and location would create a significant burden and nuisance and merely exacerbate the unreasonable noise and smells emanating from the Georges property onto the Walters property. 1V. The planning commission based its affirmation of the approval of the Georges plans on misinformation provided to them by city staff at the May 18, 2010 hearing. By far the most compelling reason that this City Council must overturn the planning commission's decision is the fact that the decision itself is tainted. In response to various questions and concerns posed by planning commission members, the city planning director provided misleading information. For example, Commissioner Smith expressed her concern, as it relates to these plans, and whether they comply with subsection 5 Section 17.16.200(A) of the 38175.001/4827-9412-0454v.1 • • HART. KING L'< COLDP.EN June 24, 2010 Page 7 Municipal Code which provides that barns shall be used for the exclusive aumose of keeping domestic animals. She then pointedly asked Ms. Schwartz whether Ms. Schwartz had considered that section and felt that the plans were nonetheless appropriate. Ms. Schwartz responded by saying that yes, she "put in the condition that it be used as a stable for animal keeping purposes only." In addition, Commissioner DeRoy asked Victor George, as well as the Georges contractor, Mr. Howell, if they understood the code definition of "stable", that the use of the structure (i.e. what actually can go on inside the structure is very limited) is part of the condition of the approval. Both Mr. George and Mr. Howell acknowledged this understanding. Further, Commissioner Smith asked Ms. Schwartz if in fact, after this is all done and finished, it's still the same structure and it is used in the same fashion, then they are not compliant? Ms. Schwartz responded by stating that if the whole thing has chandeliers or floors, then we say we can't final it because it is not a stable. Yet, in an e-mail correspondence between our client and the City Manager, the City Manager states that the Georges will be allowed to keen their recreation/hobby room intact with hardwood floors. finished walls and glazed windows! (See attached June 8-June 10, 2010 e-mail chain between Tony Dahlerbruch and Julie Walter.) The planning commission's decision should be overturned on this basis alone. V. Conclusion/Suggested Resolution Based upon the foregoing and the additional evidence to be submitted at the hearing on this appeal, the Walters respectfully request that the approval of said plans be revoked and that new plans which require the following be approved: (1) no glazed windows facing the Walters property (the Walters do not oppose windows on the side or front of the structure); (2) no corral facing the Walters property constructed in a small space between the Georges barn and their easement fence (the Walters would not oppose a corral constructed in a manner and location similar to the corral which previously existed on the Georges property) and (3) the barn oriented towards the Georges property instead of the Walters property and no expansion of open stall areas facing the Walters and (4) no open area facing the Walters property. These slight modifications to the existing plan have no negative impact on the Georges whatsoever, but ensure that the Walters' property rights are protected. In fact, the Walters are willing to cover the vast majority of the costs to accomplish these simple goals! To allow the Georges to proceed in any other fashion would set a dangerous precedent in this City and undoubtedly lead to continued abuse of the governing documents and legal action. Alternatively, as suggested at the beginning of this letter, so as to ensure uniformity as far as how this offending structure is treated, in comparison to similar structures in the City, the Walters suggest that this City Council "table" a final decision regarding the Georges plans until such time as a final decision is made on the proposed changes to the Municipal Code. Such a strategy will no doubt benefit all parties involved. 38175.00114827-9412-0454v.1 • 9'& K.f....„.,;,.,,„_ HART, KING & t OLDPEN June 24, 2010 Page 8 Thank you for your time and consideration. Very truly yours, HART, KING & COLDREN Andrew C. Kienle cc: Heidi Luce 38175.00114827-9412-0454v.1 • • Fradlcin & Associates Real Estate Appraisers & Consultants 4601 Avenue C Torrance, California 90505 Phone #310.373-5678; Fax #310-943-6346 Email-alan@neilfradkin.com May 13, 2010 Re: 92 Crest Rdad E, Rolling Hilts, California 90274-5280 Dear Mr. Waltell Pursuant to your request I have completed an on -site observation as of May 11, 2010 for the purpose of determining possible external obsolescence which may negatively impact the marketability of your property. The observation found an out building located approximately 71.3 feet west of your residence located on the property known as 76 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hilts, California. Further investigeition found this out building has been converted from a bam into a recreation room Without community association approval and building permits. Since this alteration hags taken place without city and community approval the structure is found to have been altt red in such a way as to pose an invasion of privacy due to the installation of windows within this structure which is located approximately seventy five feet from the subject residence. This proximity is noted to be adjacent to bedrooms, bathroom and other living areas. Furthermore it is my understating that loud noises resonate from this: structure disturbing the Quiet Enjoyment of the residence. The city of Roliinti Hills is a private 24-hour security gated community offering a unique pastoral environrtient with the subdivision of land ranging from one to fourteen acre residential sites. IThis planned community is known for its secluded pastoral atmosphere offering low density housing and privacy which is an inherent positive marketing feature enjoyed by homeowners. These features are preserved by a community association, deed restrictions and strict building codes. It is my experienck3 as a real estate appraiser of thirty-five years the aforementioned marketing factorslpresent themselves in strong demand by the buying market in this upscale communi, y. Disruption of Quiet Enjoyment by nuisance is an external obsolescence trarjtslating to reduced marketability. Considering 1hd subject property is negatively impacted by this non -permitted structure, it is my opinionithat this issue will affect the marketability of the subject property due to negative reputation and the likelihood of having to disclosure this nuisance upon fisting for sale. Withotit the issue rectified this would result in a lower listed price of approximately t iree to five percent and increase marketing time in a market presently decreasing in vplue. Thank for the oipportunity to be of service. Respectfully, Jerry Britton; Cc rtified Residential Real Estate Appraiser Lic. #AR027642; Expires 5/23/2012 rviessage • • Page 1 of 3 Original Message ---- From: Julie Walter [mailto:msjuliewalter@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 4:54 PM To: 'Anton Dahlerbruch' Subject: RE: need some clarification -thanks Tony -I need more clarification 1.When you say that the city does not have any "regulatory oversight of finishes" -then you are saying The Georges's will be allowed to keep this room intact with hardwood floors,finished walls and glazed windows -that has now been approved by the city( all of those would be called "finishes" of surfaces or also in case of windows finished product)This is a yes or no answer I think -but feel free to embellish the answer if needed. 2.AIso is the city saying that you are not requiring this large separate room ( with all the above finished surfaces- and what is the majority of the "barn/stables") to be altered in any way from the way it is now? the city is just allowing this room to stay "as is" in the approval process? This is also a yes or no question I think -but embellish with more details is fine. 3.What EXACTLY is it the LA county inspectors required to look at on their behalf to bring the stables/barn up to code for LA County?And what does the city ask them to look for? on your behalf as a barn/stable structure? could you be as detailed as possible in this answer 4.When you say structures to be used for "stable purposes"- do you mean as it says in the municipal codes of the city EXCLUSIVELY for animal keeping purposes? Could you further define what would be "stables purposes"? Thank you I also need these ASAP for our appeal- SORRY to rush you Julie Original Message ----- From: Anton Dahlerbruch[mailto:adahlerbruch@cityofrh.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 9:10 AM To: Julie Walter Cc: 'Yolanta Schwartz' Subject: Re: need some clarification -thanks Julie, in review of your email below, it is my understanding that you are asking if the City's approval was for the structure to be converted back into a stable for stable use. The direct answer is "yes." The conditions for the approval, on the plans themselves, say: • RHCA Architectural Committee approval required • All work to be done within existing footprint • L.A. County building permits required to bring the interior/exterior conversion and remodel to building code standards 6/23/2010 JVIGbbilt G • • rage zori • Structure to be used as stable uses The approval does not address interior finishes of the stable nor, for your information, does the Municipal Code provide the City with regulatory oversight of interior finishes for a stable or any other type of structure in the community. The Municipal Code addresses uses and, it requires that stables be used for animals, tack and feed. Thank you, Tony On 6/8/10 10:46 AM, "Julie Walter" <msiuliewalter(cox.net> wrote: Yolanta and Tony - This email is to ask for clarification on some issues we have concerning the May 18, 2010 planning commission hearing on our appeal of City's over the counter approval of the Georges' plans. We have transcripts of the public hearing on May 18th-and it is very clear that the planning commission upheld the over the counter approval on the basis that the approval was given on condition that this entire structure is to be exclusively a stable/barn (the whole 1344 sq ft or so) and to be used for NOTHING but that ( and a tact room in the municipal codes is EXCLUSIVELY for storing of animal equipment period). The staff report confirms that the structure is currently being used as mainly a recreation room. After the public hearing, when I spoke with everyone who was there- like Bill Rogers, Leslie Stetson, my dad, Andrew our lawyer- they all confirmed what we found in this transcript of the tapes:Yolanta said that they would not be allowed to keep all their hardwood floors- chandeliers etc in this part used as a recreation room - the structure would ONLY be stables -barn. However, this conflicts with the conversation I had with Yolanta on May 19. From what I recall- Yolanta told me the "tack room" ( and you call it erroneously a "tack room" I think so you can skirt the real laws- this is as far from a tact room as possible -)-would remain AS IS: hardwood floors -glazed windows -finished walls -chandeliers -furniture - clearly that is not needed to be used for exclusively animals ( clearly used as a recreation room) and that only the smaller portion of the structure (301 sq.ft.) had to be used for animal keeping. Again -the larger portion of the structure is the recreation room- it is like a room in a house and is double the size of the shed area you call a "stable". Given this conflicting information we have been given (and before we proceed with our appeal of the planning commission's decision) we need you to confirm exactly what the condition of approval really is. Are the Georges required to convert the entire 1344 so.ft. back to a stable with dirt floors,animal keeping facilities, no chandeliers, etc.? so being made what it was before illegally converted ?(and we have proof from the Tufli's -the old owners of this -in fact we are getting a new letter confirming it was basically all dirt floors -multiple stables and a hayloft- that is what a real barn looks like). OR is it as Yolanta 6/23/2010 • • ragei01i stated to me on the phone on May 19, can the Georges keep their recreation room intact and need only convert the 301 sq.ft. back to a stable? If this "barn" is approved as it is with the recreation room intact- this will be grounds for legal action on our part- as it is directly contrary to the information provided to the planning commission and upon which they relied in ultimately upholding the staffs approval of the plans. There is no need for a room of this sort if this is exclusively for animals at all- it will confirm why we appealed in the first place( as this would violate multiple municipal codes)- and this needs to be made clear to everyone involved before this goes any further. We will find out the complete and total truth and if you allow this to go on - you are putting the city at risk for legal action. We need these issues addressed ASAP as our deadline to file an appeal of the planning commission's decision is next week. Julie Anton Dahlerbruch City Manager City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Roiling Hills, CA 90274 310.377.1521 www.rolling-hills.org This is a transmission from the City of Rolling Hills. The information contained in this email pertains to City business and Is intended solely for the use of the Individual or entity to whom It is addressed. If the reader of thls message is not an intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the Intended recipient and you have received this message in•error, please advise the sender by reply email and delete the message. 6/23/2010 a ub... e I a ,J Original Message From: Anton Dahlerbruch[malito:adahlerbruch@cityofrh.net] Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 2:15 PM To: Julie Walter Cc: Yolanta Schwartz Subject: Re: need some clarification -thanks Julie, With regard to #1, the room(s) can be finished in any manner so if they can have wood floors and finished walls, for example. The answer is yes. The room(s), per the Municipal Code, however, must be used for animals, feed, tack and other equestrian related items. With regard to #2, the Municipal Code does not specify how much of a stable is to be used for tack, animals, feed or equestrian related items. Therefore, the answer is yes. As for #3, it is required that the building inspector look at only those items in the building code. Thank you, Tony On 6/10/10 10:18 AM, "Julie Walter" <msiuliewalter(a�cox.net> wrote: Tony - You did not answer my questions #1 and #2-CAN YOU ANSWER THEM YES OR NO -from my original email? Also- does the LA County check that the structure is being in used as a stable for you? YOU DID NOT ANSWER THAT QUESTION REALLY EITHER #3- 1 ASKED WHAT THEY LOOK FOR FOR YOU AS THE CITY - WHAT ARE YOUR REQUIREMENTS FOR THEM TO LOOK FOR WHEN INSPECTING FOR YOU AS THE CITY- YOU HAVE GUIDELINES FOR ALL STRUCTURES- WHAT ARE THEY FOR THE BARNS- STABLES? SORRY BUT WE NEED SPECIFICS FOR OUR APPEAL Julie Original Message From: Anton Dahlerbruch Finailto:adahlerbruch(citvofrh.net7 Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 9:24 AM 6/23/2010 rv'cssa ,c • • ragezoiJ To: Julie Walter Cc: Yolanta Schwartz Subject: Re: need some clarification -thanks Dear Julie, Thank you for your email below with regard to the City's authority relative to barns. In response to your questions #1 and #2, the Municipal Code specifies the allowable uses for barns, not the interior decoration (finishes) of the structure. A barn may only be used for animals, tack, feed and other equestrian related items. Other uses are not permissible. Therefore, a barn can have a concrete floor or dirt floor, for example, as long as it is used for animals, tack, feed and other equestrian related items. Re: #3, when building permits are necessary for construction, the County Building Inspector will inspect the construction to verify the work is in compliance with the County Building Code to verify that the construction work was done properly. For more information about the Building Code and what they inspect relative to construction methods, you can call the County Building and Safety Department at 310.534.3760. You should ask for Wayne Chapman. And, the allowable uses for a stable structure can be seen in Sections 17.12.190 and 17.12.200 of the Municipal Code under the definitions of Stable and Tack Room ( htto://rollinq-hills.ora/DocumentView.aspx? DID=19). Thank you. Tony On 6/9/10 4:53 PM, "Julie Walter" <msiuliewalterecox.net> wrote: Tony -I need more clarification 1.When you say that the city does not have any "regulatory oversight of finishes" -then you are saying The Georges's will be allowed to keep this room intact with hardwood floors,finished walls and glazed windows -that has now been approved by the city( all of those would be called "finishes" of surfaces or also in case of windows finished product)This is a yes or no answer 1 think -but feel free to embellish the answer if needed. 2.Also is the city saying that you are not requiring this large separate room ( with all the above finished surfaces- and what is the majority of the "bam/stables") to be altered in 6/23/2010 message • • • Page 3 of .3 any way from the way it is now? the city is just allowing this room to stay "as is" in the approval process? This is also a yes or no question I think -but embellish with more details is fine. 3.What EXACTLY is it the LA county inspectors required to look at on their behalf to bring the stables/barn up to code for LA County?And what does the city ask them to look for? on your behalf as a barn/stable structure? could you be as detailed as possible in this answer 4.When you say structures to be used for "stable purposes" - do you mean as it says in the municipal codes of the city EXCLUSIVELY for animal keeping purposes? Could you further define what would be "stables purposes"? Thank you I also need these ASAP for our appeal- SORRY to rush you Julie Anton Dahlerbruch City Manager City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 310.377.1521 www.rolling-hills.org This 1s a transmission from the City of Polling Hills. The Information contained In this email pertains to City business and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it Is addressed. If the reader of this message Is not an intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient and you have received this message In error, please advise the sender by reply email and delete the message. Anton Dahlerbruch City Manager City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 310.377.1521 www.rolling-hills.org This Is a transmission from the City of Flailing Hills. The Information contained In this email pertains to City business and is intended solely for the use of the Individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not an Intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient and you have received this message In error, please advise the sender by reply email and delete the message. 6/23/2010 • City June 17, 2010 VIA EMAIL AND US MAIL • cliellin9 „Alio Mr. John Walter Ms. Julie Walter 91 Crest Road East Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear IAA and Ms. IV tom; INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 This lei r acknowledges receipt of your letter on June 16, 2010 requesting that the Planning Commission consider holding a public hearing to consider the revocation of "status of legal non -conforming use/structure" of the barn at 76 Eastfield Drive (Culver - George). Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.58.010, the Planning Commission, not City staff, may schedule a revocation hearing. Therefore your request for a public hearing will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration at its meeting of July 20, 2010. The meeting is scheduled to begin at 6:30pm and, it will be in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA. Any additional information pertaining to your request that is generated or received by the City will be promptly forwarded to you. Should you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director, at 310.377.1521. Sincere AnDahlerbruch City Manager AD:h1 06-17-10Wal terHearingRequcs t.docx c: Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director Andrew C. Kienle, Hart, King and Coldren Printed on Recycled Paper C1t ()Moiling Jh/h r• June 17, 2010 VIA EMAIL and US MAIL Dr. Stephanie Culver and Mr. Victor George 76 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, C274 Dear Wiker and Mr. INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 On June 16, 2010, the City received the attached letter from the residents of 92 Crest Road East (Walter) requesting that the Planning Commission schedule a public hearing to consider the revocation of the "status of legal non -conforming use/structure" of your stable. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.58.010, the Planning Commission, not City staff, can schedule a revocation hearing. Thus, the letter is being forwarded to the Planning Commission for its meeting of July 20, 2010 to consider whether or not to schedule a public hearing. If the Planning Commission determines a public hearing is warranted, the date and time for the public hearing will be scheduled. Any additional itiformation pertaining to the request generated or received by the City will be promptly forwarded to you. Should you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director, at 310.377.1521. Sincer nt6n Dahlerbruch City Manager AD:hl 06-17-10Wa1 terHeari ngReques tGC.docx Enclosure (June 16, 2010 letter from Andrew C. Kienle, Hart, King & Coldren) c: Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director John and Julie Walter (92 Crest Road East) 0 Printed on Recycled Paper HART, KING & CDLDREN June 16, 2010 VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL City of Rolling Hills Planning Commission attn: Anton Dahlerbruch, City Manager No.2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Andrew C. Kienle akienie@hkclaw.com Our Fiie Number. 38175.001/4836-9392-6918v.1 Re: Notice of Request for Public Hearina to Revoke Status of Leaal Non-Conforminq Use/Structure at 76 Eastfield Dr. Dear Members of the Planning Commission: This shall serve as notice pursuant to Section 17.58.010, et seq. of the City of Rolling Hills Municipal Code that our clients, John and Julie Walter (the "Walters"), respectfully request a public hearing pursuant to Section 17.34.020 of the Municipal Code for revocation of the legal non -conforming status of the illegal barn/stable structure located on the property of George and Stephanie Culver (collectively "the Georges"). The bases of the Walters request to revoke are as follows: In preparation for the May 18, 2010 planning commission meeting to consider our clients' appeal of the over-the-counter approval of the Georges plans relating to their illegal barn conversion/renovation, the Planning Director prepared the May 18, 2010 staff report ("staff report"). In the staff report, the Planning Director recognized that the "1,344 square foot stable was legally constructed with permits in 1963 at 76 Eastfield Drive. The structure has not been used as a stable for many years. Subsequent property owners remodeled a portion of the stable structure to a recreation room use without the benefit of City's approval and no building permits were obtained for the renovations. The current property owners use this structure for recreation and hobby activities." Pursuant to Section 17.24.030(A) and (B), nonconforming uses may be continued, so long as no new use is established on that lot and provided that no structural alterations to the building are made. Furthermore, pursuant to 17.58.010 (A)(2),(3) and (4), revocation of status of a legal non -conforming use or structure is warranted if that status is being or recently has been exercised contrary to or in violation of the terms or conditions of such approval; or is being or recently has been exercised in violation of any statute, law or regulation; or 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. The staff report itself confirms that the status of the subject structure as legal non -confirming must be revoked since: (1) it was originally constructed as a stable; (2) it has not been used as a stable for many years; (3) was remodeled to a recreation room without approval or permits and (4) is currently being used for recreation and hobby activities. The staff report itself also confirms that the structure encroaches more than is permitted into the rear setback and therefore can never be a "conforming" structure or use. Thus, based upon the foregoing and A Professional Law Corporation 200 Sandpolnte, Fourth Floor, Santa Ana, California 92707 Ph 714.432.8700 I www.hkclaw.com 1 Fx 714.546.7457 0 r..,rli l'h MART. ICING & COLDREN June 16, 2010 Page 2 the additional evidence to be submitted prior to and at the hearing on this request, the Walters respectfully request that the illegal barn lose all rights/status as legal non -conforming and the appropriate action be taken pursuant to Section 17.24.020 to address the illegal structure. Thank you for your time and consideration. Very truly yours, HART, KING & COLDREN Andrew C. Kienle cc: Heidi Luce 38175.001/4836-9392-6918v,1 i HART, KING & COLDREN June 16, 2010 VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL City of Rolling Hills Planning Commission attn: Anton Dahlerbruch, City Manager No.2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 City of Rolling Hills By.. _ __- .V -- -_ Re: Notice of Reauest for Public Hearing to Revoke Status of Legal Non-Conformina Use/Structure at 76 Eastfield Dr. Andrew C. Kienle aklenle@hkclaw.com Our File Number: 38175.001 /4836-9392-6918v.1 JUN 1 6 2010 Dear Members of the Planning Commission: This shall serve as notice pursuant to Section 17.58.010, et seq. of the City of Rolling Hills Municipal Code that our clients, John and Julie Walter (the "Walters"), respectfully request a public hearing pursuant to Section 17.34.020 of the Municipal Code for revocation of the legal non -conforming status of the illegal barn/stable structure located on the property of George and Stephanie Culver (collectively "the Georges"). The bases of the Walters request to revoke are as follows: In preparation for the May 18, 2010 planning commission meeting to consider our clients' appeal of the over-the-counter approval of the Georges plans relating to their illegal barn conversion/renovation, the Planning Director prepared the May 18, 2010 staff report ("staff report"). In the staff report, the Planning Director recognized that the "1,344 square foot stable was legally constructed with permits in 1963 at 76 Eastfield Drive. The structure has not been used as a stable for many years. Subsequent property owners remodeled a portion of the stable structure to a recreation room use without the benefit of City's approval and no building permits were obtained for the renovations. The current property owners use this structure for recreation and hobby activities." Pursuant to Section 17.24.030(A) and (B), nonconforming uses may be continued, so long as no new use is established on that lot and provided that no structural alterations to the building are made. Furthermore, pursuant to 17.58.010 (A)(2),(3) and (4), revocation of status of a legal non -conforming use or structure is warranted if that status is being or recently has been exercised contrary to or in violation of the terms or conditions of such approval; or is being or recently has been exercised in violation of any statute, law or regulation; or 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. The staff report itself confirms that the status of the subject structure as legal non -confirming must be revoked since: (1) it was originally constructed as a stable; (2) it has not been used as a stable for many years; (3) was remodeled to a recreation room without approval or permits and (4) is currently being used for recreation and hobby activities. The staff report itself also confirms that the structure encroaches more than is permitted into the rear setback and therefore can never be a "conforming" structure or use. Thus, based upon the foregoing and A Professional Law Corporation 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor, Santa Ana, Callfomia 92707 Ph 714.432.8700 I www.hkclaw.com I Fx 714.546.7457 HART. FLING & C01_DREN June 16, 2010 Page 2 the additional evidence to be submitted prior to and at the hearing on this request, the Walters respectfully request that the illegal barn lose all rights/status as legal non -conforming and the appropriate action be taken pursuant to Section 17.24.020 to address the illegal structure. Thank you for your time and consideration. Very truly yours, HART, KING & COLDREN Andrew C. Kienle cc: Heidi Luce 38175.00114836-9392-691 Bv.1 June 16, 2010 VIA EMAIL AND US MAIL Mr. John Walter Ms. Julie Walter 91 Crest Road East Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear M and Ms ter, • ile0/ inv iiiildINCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 This lettd# acknowledges receipt of your letter and email on June 15, 2010 filing an appeal to the May 18, 2010 decision of the Planning Commission and advising the City of your intent to request a hearing for the revocation of the "legal non -conforming status" of the barn at 76 Eastfield Drive (Culver -George). Please be advised, per Municipal Code Section 17.54.050, the City Council hearing of your appeal is scheduled at the regular City Council meeting of June 28, 2010 at 7:30pm. The meeting will be held in the City Hall Council Chambers at 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA. Per Municipal Code Section 17.34.030, notice of the hearing is being published in the local newspaper and is being mailed to property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject property. Any additional information pertaining to the appeal generated or received by the City will be promptly forwarded to you. Should you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me or Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director, at 310.377.1521. Sincely, on Dahlerbruch City Manager AD:hl 06-16-10Wal terAppenl.docx c: Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director Andrew C. Kienle 0 Printed on Recycled Paper • City aMo elin9 J/i//, June 16, 2010 VIA EMAIL and US MAIL Dr: Stephanie Culver and Mr. Victor George 76 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, C90274 Dear D Wer and Mrti'ge, • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377.7288 On June 15, 2010, the City received the attached letter and a message from 92 Crest Road East (Walter) filing an appeal to the May 18, 2010 decision of the Planning Commission and advising of their intent to request a hearing for the revocation of the "legal non -conforming status" of your stable structure. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.54.050, the appeal hearing must be held within 20 days of the filing of the appeal. As such, the appeal will be heard by the City Council at its regular scheduled meeting on June 28, 2010. The meeting will take place at 7:30pm in the City Hall Council Chambers, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA. Per Municipal Code Section 17.34.030, notice of the hearing is being published in the local newspaper and mailed to property owners within 1,000 feet of your property. Any additional information pertaining to the appeal or the request for a hearing generated or received by the City will be promptly forwarded to you. Should you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me or Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director, at 310.377.1521. Sincere A n Dahlerbruch City Manager AD:hi 06-16-10Cul verGeorgeAppeal.docx Enclosure (June 15, 2010 letter from Andrew C. Kienle, Hart, King & Coldren) c: Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director John and Julie Walter (92 Crest Road East) •3 Printed on Recycled Paper • Off' 'x ��� k ,,. HART, KING & COLDREN June 15, 2010 VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL City of Rolling Hills, City Council attn: Anton Dahlerbruch, City Manager No.2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Andrew C. Kienle akienle@hkclaw.com Our File Number. 38175.001/4810-4804-0454v.1 Re: Notice of Aooeal to City Council of approval of plan at 76 Eastfield Dr. Dear Members of the City Council: This shall serve as notice pursuant to Section 17.54.010, et. seq. of the City of Rolling Hills Municipal Code that our clients, John and Julie Walter (the "Walters"), respectfully appeal the May 18, 2010, decision of the Planning Commission affirming the approval of certain plans submitted by Victor George and Stephanie Culver (collectively "the Georges") relating to their illegal barn conversion/renovation. The bases of the Walters appeal are as follows: • The planning commission erred in failing to: (1) consider all of the "objective criteria" as mandated by Section 17.44.010 of the Municipal Code and (2) conclude that the approval of the proposed plans submitted by the Georges should be revoked. Per Section 17.44.010, "objective criteria" necessarily includes all of the provisions of Title 17-Zoning (i.e. Sections 17.04.030, 17.16.010, 17.16.200(A)(5), 17.16.210(A)(2)(a) and (b) and (A)(8)(a) and (b), 17.24.040, 17.24.020, 17.16.200(A)(1), 17.16.040, 17.42.050, and Section 17.24.050), as well as other provisions of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. These sections were in no way considered by the planning commission in affirming the approval of the Georges plans. • The planning commission based its affirmation of the approval of the Georges plans on misinformation provided to them by city staff at the May 18, 2010 hearing. The misinformation provided to the planning commission is confirmed by the audio record of the May 18, 2010 hearing, as compared with statements made by city staff after the May 18, 2010 hearing. In short, the planning commission's affirmation of the approval of the Georges plans is riddled with inaccuracies, fails to consider all applicable provisions of the City Municipal Code and is premised on blatant factual misstatements. Based upon the foregoing and the additional evidence to be submitted prior to and at the hearing on this appeal, the Walters respectfully request that the approval of the Georges plans relating to their illegal barn conversion/renovation be revoked. A Professional Law Corporation 200 Sandpolnte, Fourth Floor, Santa Ana, California 92707 Ph 714.432.8700 I www.hkclaw.com I Fx 714.546.7457 • Lee - HART, KING E: COLDREN June 15, 2010 Page 2 Thank you for your time and consideration. Very truly yours, HART, KING & COLDREN Andrew C. Kienle cc: Heidi Luce 35175.001 /4810-4804-0454v.1 HART, KING & =LDREN June 15, 2010 VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL City of Rolling Hills, City Council attn: Anton Dahlerbruch, City Manager No.2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Re: Notice of Appeal to City Council Andrew C. Kienle akienle@hkciaw.com Our File Number. 38175.001/4810-4804-0454v.1 Cry' 1 \/ JUN 15 2010 City of Rolling Hills BY of approval of plan at 76 Eastfleld Dr. Dear Members of the City Council: This shall serve as notice pursuant to Section 17.54.010, et. seq. of the City of Rolling Hills Municipal Code that our clients, John and Julie Walter (the "Walters"), respectfully appeal the May 18, 2010, decision of the Planning Commission affirming the approval of certain plans submitted by Victor George and Stephanie Culver (collectively "the Georges") relating to their illegal barn conversion/renovation. The bases of the Walters appeal are as follows: • The planning commission erred in failing to: (1) consider all of the "objective criteria" as mandated by Section 17.44.010 of the Municipal Code and (2) conclude that the approval of the proposed plans submitted by the Georges should be revoked. Per Section 17.44.010, "objective criteria" necessarily includes all of the provisions of Title 17-Zoning (i.e. Sections 17.04.030, 17.16.010, 17.16.200(A)(5), 17.16.210(A)(2)(a) and (b) and (A)(8)(a) and (b), 17.24.040, 17.24.020, 17.16.200(A)(1), 17.16.040, 17.42.050, and Section 17.24.050), as well as other provisions of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. These sections were in no way considered by the planning commission in affirming the approval of the Georges plans. • The planning commission based its affirmation of the approval of the Georges plans on misinformation provided to them by city staff at the May 18, 2010 hearing. The misinformation provided to the planning commission is confirmed by the audio record of the May 18, 2010 hearing, as compared with statements made by city staff after the May 18, 2010 hearing. In short, the planning commission's affirmation of the approval of the Georges plans is riddled with inaccuracies, fails to consider all applicable provisions of the City Municipal Code and is premised on blatant factual misstatements. Based upon the foregoing and the additional evidence to be submitted prior to and at the hearing on this appeal, the Walters respectfully request that the approval of the Georges plans relating to their illegal barn conversion/renovation be revoked. A Professional Law Corporation 200 Sandpolnte, Fourth Floor, Santa Ana, California 92707 Ph 714.432.8700 1 www.hkclaw.com 1 Fx 714.546.7457 • • HART, KING & COLDREN June 15, 2010 Page 2 Thank you for your time and consideration. Very truly yours, HART, KING & COLDREN Andrew C. Kienle cc: Heidi Luce 38175.001 /4810-4804-0454v.1 Board of Directors Rolling Hills Community Association 1 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 .JUno 11, 2010 Dear Directors: L7,1 (,) JUN Z!i 2010 City of Rolling Hills By have been a resident of Rolling Hills for the past 19 years. understand. that John Walter's neighbor has illegally converted a barn with windows that face their property, Unfortunately, John and his neighbor have not been able to resolve this lack of privacy. would like to express my opinion that it is not right to have a converted barn with windows in close proximity to a neighbor 1 hope the Community Association and the City of Rolling Hills will make the correct decisions to stop this interference with the Walter's privacy. Yours truly, ch/mpa coRPoriAte OFFICE 2601 East Willow Signal H111, California 90755 .(562).596-0200 (60) 4*0460 FAX www,hofshiltaitn, IfF D 1111:nu ni :n. HART, KING & COLDREN May 18, 2010 VIA EMAIL City of Rolling Hills Planning Commission attn: Anton Dahlerbruch, City Manger No.2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 MAY 18 20i0 City of Rolling Hills By--Andrewre-:iC..4. akienle©hkclaw.com Our File Number: 38175.001 /4835-1059-8918v.1 Re: Notice of Appeal re: approval of plan at 76 Eastfield Dr. Dear Members of the Planning Commission: As stated in my prior correspondence, pursuant to Section 17.44.060 of the City of Rolling Hills Municipal Code, our clients, John and Julie Walter (the "Walters"), respectfully appeal the "over the counter" approval of certain plans submitted by Victor George and Stephanie Culver (collectively "the Georges") relating to their illegal barn conversion/renovation. The bases of the Walters appeal include, but are not limited to, the following based upon the information we have received to date on the scope of the Georges' plans: History of Dispute • On September 13, 2009, the Walters formally sent a complaint to the City regarding the Georges' illegal use of their property and the structures thereon and the excessive and unreasonable noise and other offensive conduct which is in violation of the City of Rolling Hills Municipal Code, as well as the Rolling Hills Community Association Rules. To date, the City has not officially responded to or addressed these serious concerns. • In or about August of 2009, the Walters also formally sent a complaint to the Rolling Hills Community Association ("RHCA") regarding the same conduct which also violated the RHCA goveming documents (i.e. ARTICLE I, Section 12 - Approval of Plans and Section 13 - General Requirements as to Architecture; ARTICLE III, Section 2 - Character of Use; Section 5 - Alterations and Change in Occupancy and Section 6 - Building Permits; ARTICLE IV, Section 5 - Violation of Conditions and Section 6 - Violation Constitutes Nuisance; ARTICLE V, Section 2 - Easements and Rights of Way). • On January 7, 2010, the RCHA Board ruled in favor of the Walters and required the Georges to permanently close all of the windows contained in the illegal structure by February 28, 2010. Not surprisingly, the Georges "appealed" the January 7, 2010 decision, despite the fact that both Sid Croft and Kristen Raig agreed and confirmed in writing that the January 7, 2010 ruling was indeed a final ruling and that there was no "appeal" process available to the Georges on the "motion passed by the Board". • In a bizarre twist of events, and despite the fact that it had no legal or factual basis for doing so, the Board ultimately considered the Georges' "appeal" at the April 13, 2010 A Professional Law Corporation 200 Sandpolnte, Fourth Floor, Santa Ana, Califomia 92707 Ph 714.432.8700 I www.hkclaw.com I Fx 714.546.7457 HART. KING & COLDREN May 18, 2010 Page 2 special meeting in violation of their obligations pursuant to the Davis -Stirling Act. At that hearing, the Board again ordered the Georges to permanently close the windows and breezeway within the illegal barn within 60 days of the special meeting unless an approved plan was in place within 45 days of the special meeting. • In an attempt to utilize a loophole in the City's Municipal Code, the Georges apparently obtained an "over the counter" approval of their plans to modify/reconfigure their "barn". Although our clients have never been provided with a copy of the plans submitted to the City, it appears the plans show an "L-shaped" corral that is behind the Georges' barn (the corral goes down approximately 17 feet on the side of the barn facing the Walters and then wraps around, near the Walters' garage). The very configuration of the corral is designed to maximize the impact and detrimental effect on the Walters. It also appears that that windows and now doors are slightly reconfigured in the back in a manner which will maximize the harm to the Walters. Legal Basis for Appeal It is evident that approval of the Georges' plans was given without any regard for the applicable provisions of the City's Municipal Code and more importantly, without any regard for the compelling interests of the Walters. The "over the counter" approval process utilized by the Georges (the zone clearance process set forth in Section 17.44.010) purportedly requires review of proposed plans to ensure that the proposed use or structure satisfies the objective criteria set forth in the City's Municipal Code. The City's decision to approve the Georges' plans, in and of itself, violates numerous provisions of the City's Municipal Code and is not based on the objective criteria set forth in the City's Municipal Code. Specifically, the decision to allow the Georges to proceed with their barn conversion/modification destroys the Walters peace and quiet that they deserve and are entitled to under the law and creates a significant diminution in the value of their property. In fact, Jerry Britton, a certified residential real estate appraiser has determined that the very existence of the structure, its windows and open space negatively impact the Walters' property (by creating a negative reputation and requiring disclosure of the nuisance upon listing it for sale) and would result in a lower list price of approximately three to five oercent and increase marketing time. (Mr. Britton's letter will be presented prior to the hearing on the instant appeal.) It is an axiom of law that one must use his own property in a manner which does not unnecessarily damage the property of others, or diminish their equal right to the full enjoyment thereof. (See Civil Code §3514; Katenkamo v. Union Realty Co. (1936) 6 Cal. 2d 765, 774, 59 P.2d 473.) The very existence of this structure (coupled with the Georges' use of it) is a nuisance in and of itself which must be eliminated in its entirety immediately. This is a serious matter which should have been addressed nearly two years ago so as to provide our clients the comfortable enjoyment of their life and property; a right which is guaranteed by California law and codified in the City's own Municipal Code. Section 8.24.010 of the Municipal Code provides that a nuisance is defined as anything which is injurious to health or safety, or is indecent or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property or injurious to the stability of real property so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property. 38175.001 /4835-1059-8918v.1 H''' '' '''''''''' HART, KING & C❑LDREN May 18, 2010 Page 3 In addition, Sections 17,04.030 and 17.16.010 confirm that the City's intention in establishing certain uses for the zones throughout the City is to: (1) conserve property values; (2) guarantee the most appropriate use of land throughout the City and (3) promote development of high quality that does not adversely impact adjacent properties. As set forth above, the proposed modification will create a significant decrease in the value of the Walters home and have a major negative impact on it. Furthermore, Section 17.16.200(A)(5) of the Municipal Code provides that barns shall be used for the exclusive purpose of keeping domestic animals. Curiously, the City staff report dated May 18, 2010 fails to reference subsection 5 at all. The staff report does conveniently reference subsections 1 through 4, all of which are purportedly "satisfied" by the Georges' plans. This failure/omission speaks volumes as to the City's "objective" review of the Georges' plans. Moreover, based on the City's own staff report, the structure is admittedly being used for "recreation and hobby activities" in violation of the City's Municipal Code. Section 17.16.210(A)(2)(a) and (b) and (A)(8)(a) and (b) provide that neither a recreation room nor hobby shop shall be located in any setback or exceed eight hundred sq.ft. in size. As the staff report indicates, this structure is located within the rear setback and far exceeds 800 sq.ft. in size. The plans should never have been approved on this basis alone. It is also important to note that the City's staff report concludes that the proposed structure would not violate Section 17.24.040 of the Municipal Code concerning "limits on structures nonconforming due to standards." The City's staff report in this regard is of great concern as the use of this structure by the Georges (as a recreation room and hobby shop) was never approved. Pursuant to Section 17.24.020, nonconforming uses and structures may continue to be used and maintained in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. Illegal uses or structures shall have no such rights and shall be made conforming or shall be removed. Martha Tuffli (the former owner of the Georges property) has confirmed in a letter (to be submitted at the appeal hearing) that at the time she sold the property in 2001, the structure was a fully functioning barn. The structure is now unquestionably used as everything but a fully functioning barn. For the City to simply "rubber stamp" the Georges' plans and claim in the staff report that the existing use was previously approved is a blatant dereliction of the City's obligations. The structure has been radically altered from its original permitted use and is now a nonconforming illegal use which must be abated. The proposed plans do not return the structure to its original permitted use and again, never should have been approved. Finally, Section 17.16.200(A)(1) of the City's Municipal Code requires that the stable portion of the barn must be a minimum of 450 sq.ft. Here, there is only 301 sq.ft. of stable (the City staff report fails to distinguish between the stable and tack room portions of the structure). Thus, more than 1,000 sq.ft. is "non -stable" in violation of the Municipal Code. In reality, the structure proposed by the Georges is not a barn by any stretch of the imagination. Rather, it is clearly a mixed use structure. As such, it must comply with those portions of the Municipal Code dealing with mixed use structures which require a Conditional Use Permit ("CUP") as specified in Sections 17.16.040 and 17.42.050 of the Municipal Code. In considering any request for a CUP, a site review is required as well as a public hearing. 38175.001 /4835-1059-8918v.1 • . HART, KING & CDLDPE1•1 May 18, 2010 Page 4 Further, Section 17.24.050 requires consideration of the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and that the use proposed with not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent buildings or structures. The Walters deserve to have this mixed use structure go through this process so these issues can be determined. in short, there is simply no valid basis to treat this structure as anything other than a mixed use structure requiring careful scrutiny to prevent over construction and to ensure full consideration of the adjacent uses, buildings and structures of the Walters. Factual Basis for Appeal The Walters home will be severely and negatively impacted if the Georges are allowed to proceed with their barn conversion/modification. The glazed windows directly facing the Walters' are totally unacceptable. The windows allow sound, light and smell to travel into the Walters' bedrooms at all hours of the day and night. The proposed corral configuration is also totally unacceptable. As Mr. Rogers stated at the architectural committee meetings, the proposed configuration of the corral is completely inappropriate in relation to the Walters' property and more importantly in connection with the proper care of horses as it would not be a proper turn out (assuming of course the Georges ever keep horses on their property). The orientation of the barn towards the Walters is also completely unacceptable. The Georges have ample room if the bam were oriented towards their own residence. In viewing other barns/corrals within the community there is not one which has the same illogical configuration as the one proposed by the Georges and is so utterly offensive to neighboring properties. Based on the Walters' parking area, approach to their front door and the location of the bedrooms in their home, the configuration of the barn and corral as proposed in the subject plans completely defeats the intent and spirit of this unique City and the decades -long goal of maintaining reasonable privacy and space between neighbors. The Walters have one home. Allowing the Georges to proceed per the plans concerning the modification of a secondary structure amounts to a confiscatory taking of the Walters property without due process or just cause in violation of the United States and California constitutions. in short, the Georges' "desire" to convert this structure back into a barn with the accompanying corral is highly suspect and nothing more than their latest effort to continue the harassment campaign against the Walters. Unfortunately, based on what has transpired over the last few years, there is every indication that the Georges will merely be emboldened by any approval granted to them and will leave the windows and shutters open, make loud noise late at night and leave lights inside the structure on 24/7. If this is allowed to be converted to a barn and nothing but a barn, there is no valid reason why more than 75% of the structure should be maintained as a large recreation room, filled with furniture, chandeliers, glazed windows, finished walls and hardwood floors. The structure has never been used and never will be used by the Georges as a true bam. It is nothing more than an attempted extension of their residence. The old adage "even if you put lipstick on a pig, it is still a pig" certainly rings true here. To allow the Georges to maintain the windows and construct a corral in such an odd and illogical configuration and location would create a significant burden and nuisance and merely exacerbate the unreasonable noise and smells emanating from the 38175.001/4835-1059-8918v.1 • K„:„.,,,„„, _ E HART, KING & COLDRCN May 18, 2010 Page 5 Georges property onto the Walters property. More importantly, allowing the Georges to proceed as outlined in the approved plans would run contrary to the final decisions of the RHCA Board on January 10, 2010 and April 13, 2010. Conclusion/Suqqested Resolution In conclusion, it is critical to note that the Walters have been more than reasonable, patient and accommodating throughout this entire arduous process. All they are asking for is a solution which takes their serious and justified concerns into account and ensures that there is no negative impact on their property. The approval of the subject plans via an 'over the counter" process was totally unjust and unacceptable and must not stand. The very nature of the "over the counter" process (as compared with the process required for all other structural alterations or construction) effectively promotes abuse and the deprivation of the legal property rights of adjacent homeowners. Based upon the foregoing and the additional evidence to be submitted at the hearing on this appeal, the Walters respectfully request that the approval of said plans be revoked and that new plans which require the following be approved: (1) no glazed windows facing the Walters property (the Walters do not oppose windows on the side or front of the structure); (2) no corral facing the Walters property constructed in a small space between the Georges barn and their easement fence (the Walters would not oppose a corral constructed in a manner and location similar to the corral which previously existed on the Georges property) and (3) the barn oriented towards the Georges property instead of the Walters property and no expansion of open stall areas facing the Walters and (4) no open area facing the Walters property. These slight modifications to the existing plan have no negative impact on the Georges whatsoever, but ensure that the Walters' property rights are protected. To allow the Georges to proceed in any other fashion would set a dangerous precedent in this City and undoubtedly lead to continued abuse of the governing documents and legal action. Thank you for your time and consideration. Very truly yours, HART, KING & COLDREN Andrew C. Kienle cc: Yolanta Schwartz 38175.001 /4835-1059-B918v.1 HART, KING & CDLDREN May 5, 2010 VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL City of Rolling Hills Planning Commission attn: Anton Dahlerbruch, City Manger No.2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Andrew C. Kienle akienle@hkclaw.com Our File Number: 38175.001/4811-2731-3158v.1 MAY 0 6 2010 City of lru ling Hills Re: Notice of Appeal re: approval of plan at 76 Eastfield Dr. By Dear Members of the Planning Commission: It has come to our attention that Victor George and Stephanie Culver (collectively "the Georges") recently submitted amended/revised plans relating to their illegal barn conversion/renovation and that said plans were approved by the City. This shall confirm that pursuant to Section 17.44.060 of the City of Rolling Hills Municipal Code, our clients, John and Julie Walter (the "Walters"), intend to proceed with their appeal of the approval of the amended/revised plans submitted by the Georges. The bases of the Walters appeal are set forth in my April 23, 2010 letter to you, as well as the additional evidence to be submitted prior to and at the planning commission hearing on this appeal. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. Very truly yours, HART, KING & COLDREN Andrew C. Kienle cc: Yolanta Schwartz A Professional Law Corporation 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor, Santa Ana, California 92707 Ph 714.432.8700 I www.hkclaw.com I Fx 714.546.7457 HART, KING & COLDREN Andrew C. Kienle akienle@hkclaw.com April 23, 2010 Our File Number: 38175.001/4840-8324-2246v.1 VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL City of Rolling Hills Planning Commission attn: Anton Dahlerbruch, City Manger No.2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Re: Notice of Aaoeal re: approval of plan at 76 Eastfield Dr. Dear Members of the Planning Commission: RECEIVE APR 2 b 2010 City of Rolling Hills By This shall confirm that pursuant to Section 17.44.060 of the City of Rolling Hills Municipal Code, our clients, John and Julie Walter (the "Walters"), respectfully appeal the April 15, 2010, approval of certain plans submitted by Victor George and Stephanie Culver (collectively "the Georges") relating to their illegal barn conversion/renovation. The bases of the Walters appeal include, but are not limited to, the following based upon the information we have received to date on the scope of the Georges' plans: • It appears the plans show an "L-shaped" corral that is behind the Georges' barn (the corral goes down approximately 20 feet on the side of the barn facing the Walters and then wraps around, near the Walters' garage). The very configuration of the corral is designed to maximize the impact and detrimental effect on the Walters. • It also appears that all of the illegal openings (i.e. windows and breezeway) are left on this plan. Per the Rolling Hills Community Association April 13, 2010 ruling, if the Georges do not have plans approved by the architectural committee in place by May 28, 2010 (which is highly unlikely given the architectural committee's conservative approach to rejecting requests for windows in barns), they must completely close up these windows and breezeway by June 14, 2010. The decision was based on the fact that the exterior of the barn violates the governing documents. In short, the Georges' "decision" to convert this structure back into a barn with the accompanying corral is highly suspect and nothing more than their latest effort to continue the harassment campaign against the Walters. To allow the Georges to construct a corral in such an odd and illogical configuration and location would create a significant burden and nuisance and merely exacerbate the unreasonable noise and smells emanating from the Georges property onto the Walters property. The Georges have a large and expansive property with many other areas far better suited for the construction of a corral. There is no compelling need for the corral to be constructed as close to the Walters property as possible. A Professional Law Corporation 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor, Santa Ana, California 92707 Ph 714.432.8700 I www.hkclaw.com I Fx 714.546.7457 HART, KING & COLDREN April 23, 2010 Page 2 Based upon the foregoing and the additional evidence to be submitted prior to and at the planning commission hearing on this appeal, the Walters respectfully request that the approval of said plans be revoked. Thank you for your time and consideration. Very truly yours, HART, KING & COLDREN Andrew C. Kienle cc: Yolanta Schwartz 38175.001/4840-8324-2246v.1 • June 22, 2010 Martha Tuffli 1412 Paseo La Cresta Palos Verdes Estates,CA 90274 To Whom It May Concern: rpc,> JUN 2 ' 2010 City of Rolling Hills By am writing on behalf of The Walters who reside at 92 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills. My husband and I were their next door neighbors at 76 Eastfield Drive for close to 10 years. We lived, at this address in Rolling Hills from 1976-2001. I am writing today to state the barn/stables adjacent to and butting up to The Walters property ( butting up to their driveway and their house next to the driveway) was a fully functioning stables when we sold it in 2001. The stables had multiple stalls, a tack room, a hay loft and other accommodations appropriate for the living of animals. It had dirt floors and the walls were not finished. It was not a large recreation room -as we are told it is now. We tried to legally convert these stables and were rejected by the city's planning commission. It is one of the reasons we moved from Rolling Hills to an adjacent town. In the past when we lived there- horses had lived in our stables- but at the time The Walters were our neighbor it was mainly just an unused stable structure ( that is why we tried to convert it - but did not -as could not). There was a large coral and riding rink facing the Eastfield Road side and not behind the barn. We have been told it has been converted now ( the majority of structure) in to a couple of rooms with hardwood floors,finished drywall walls, multiple chandeliers and 8 glazed windows in the back of stables( facing the Walters property). It was not like that when we sold it.We confirmed for The Walters that the stables were about 1350 sq foot -and from what they have told us( from plans The Walters have seen) about 250-300 sq foot is a shed part and the 1050 or so left ( at this time) is either a series of house like rooms with hardwood floors or the porch.Again- it was a real and fully functioning stable -again with dirt floors and proper stalls and a tack room etc when we left it in 2001.This is the description we have from The Walters of how our former stables are now - we have not seen it in person or inside- but have had it described to us ( and we have seen one picture of the back of the former stables from The Walters). Sincerely, Martha Tuffli . • City a/Rolling Jilt% April 19, 2010 Dr. Stephanie Culver Mr. Victor George 76 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Dr. Culver and Mr. George: INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377 7288 On April 15, 2010 staff administratively approved a plan for update and renovation of the existing structure previously approved and constructed as a stable on your property. An appeal of staffs approval has been received from the Walters at 92 Crest Road East and is tentatively scheduled to be considered by the Planning Commission at their meeting on May 18, 2010. Staffs approval of your project must therefore be held in abeyance until the matter is resolved and no work can commence on the structure. Pursuant to Sections 17.44.060 any person can file an appeal. An appeal of staff's decision must be filed within ten days of such decision. We have requested additional information and documentation from the Walter's as to the reason for the appeal. A staff report regarding this matter will be mailed to you a few days prior to the Planning Commission meeting and you will be provided the opportunity to address the Commission. Meanwhile, please do not commence any work on your stable structure. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at 310 377-1521 or by email at ys@cityofrh.net. Si •-rely o : nta Schwartz P1. ning Director cc: Anton Dahlerbruch, City Manager Elizabeth Calciano, Assistant City Attorney Julie Walter, 92 Crest Rd. E Printed on Recycled Paper •eitv opeom.9 April 19, 2010 Ms. Julie Walter 92 Crest Road East Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Ms. Walter: • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310)377.1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 The City received your two emails dated, April 15 and April 16, 2010 submitting an appeal to staff's approval of stable update and renovation at 76 Eastfield Drive. Please feel free to provide any additional information regarding your reasons for appealing staff's position and any supporting documentation. In addition, please provide address labels of property owners within 1,000 feet of subject property (76 Eastfield), so that we may notice the neighbors of the hearing on the appeal. We must receive such additional information, including the address labels, by April 28, 2010 for the matter to be presented to the Planning Commission as a public hearing at their regularly scheduled meeting on May 18, 2010. The April 15, 2010 over-the-counter approval is to: • Update and renovate the existing stable structure • Utility lines to be undergrounded • RHCA Architectural Committee review required • All work to be done within the existing footprint • L.A. County building permit required to bring the interior conversion to building code compliance Pursuant to Chapter 17.44 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, administrative approval is granted for projects which are not subject to a Site Plan Review and which do not require other discretionary review, i.e. variance or conditional use permit. The purpose of the zone clearance is to ensure that the project meets the criteria and requirements of Title 17 Zoning and other provisions of the Municipal Code. Chapter 17.46 of the Municipal Code lists projects that are subject to a Site Plan Review. The Rolling Hills Architectural Committee independently reviews projects in the City for architectural features and aesthetics. The City does not and has never addressed the architectural aspects of structures such as location of doors or windows. Pursuant to Sections 17.44.060 any person can file an appeal. An appeal of staff's decision must be filed within ten days of such decision. The City does not have an appeal form, therefore a written request for an appeal suffices. Printed on Recycled Paper • Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at 310 377-1521 or by email at vs@citvofrh.net. S; ce-ply lanta Schwartz lanning Director cc: Anton Dahlerbruch, City Manager Elizabeth Calciano, Assistant City Attorney 4, HART, KING & COLDREN April 16, 2010 ViA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL Sidney F. Croft, Esq, 3858 W Carson St Ste 127 Torrance, CA 90503 Re: Walter/Georae Dispute Dear Mr. Croft: Andrew C. Kienle aklenle@hkclaw.com Our File Number: 38175.001/4839-0760-0646v.1 The "actions" taken by the Rolling Hills Community Association ("RHCA") Board at the special meeting on April 13, 2010 were illegal and in direct violation of the obligations as set forth in the Davis -Stirling Act and the RHCA governing documents. As I have pointed out in numerous prior correspondence, there is nothing contained within the RHCA governing documents which would allow the Georges to "appeal" the Board's January 7, 2010 ruling or give the Board the authority to hear such an "appeal". In addition, there is no inherent power granted to the Board by caselaw or statute which would give them the ability to hear an "appeal". The minutes from the January 7, 2010 meeting clearly indicate that the ruling was indeed a final ruling in our clients' favor which required the Georges to return the barn to its original condition per the approved plans. That ruling did not give the Georges the option of returning the barn to its original condition, Furthermore, both you and Kristen Raig agreed and confirmed in writing that the January 7, 2010 ruling was indeed a final ruling and that there was no "appeal" process available to the Georges on the "motion passed by the Board", (See for example, your February 16, 2010 letter and Ms. Raig's January 18 and 28, 2010 letters.) Query, if the decision of January 7, 2010 truly gave the Georges the option of returning the barn to its original condition, why would the discussion of an "appeal" ever take place between the Georges and Ms. Raig? The Board's actions were illegal, despite what was an apparent concerted effort on the part of both the new Board and certain of its prior members to "explain" what was really meant by the unequivocal January 7, 2010 ruling in favor of the Walters. While some Board members might contend that the decision made at the April 13, 2010 special meeting relative to the Georges' barn has the same effect as the January 7, 2010 ruling, nothing could be farther from the truth. The Board's latest action effectively ensures that our clients will never have the peace and quiet that they deserve and are entitled to under the law. The Georges can now obtain an over the counter approval of their illegal barn from the City of Rolling Hills and may even be allowed to retain the offending windows and open area in the barn when their application/plan is considered by the RHCA architectural committee. A Professional Law Corporation 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor, Santa Ana, California 92707 Ph 714.432.8700 I www.hkclaw.com I Fx 714.546.7457 • -ART. KING COLDREN April 16, 2010 Page 2 It is truly unfortunate that such politics and blatant favoritism exist in the RHCA. Please let me know if you are authorized to accept service of process on behalf of the RHCA should my clients make the decision to proceed with litigation. Very truly yours, HART, KING & COLDREN Andrew C. Kienle cc: Kristen Raig (via e-mail) 38175.00114839-0760-0646v.1 • • Monday, April 26, 2010 7:28 AM Subject: RE: Walter/George Dispute Date: Monday, April 19, 2010 5:56 PM From: Julie Walter <msjuliewalter@cox.net> To: Anton Dahlerbruch_City of Rolling Hills <adahlerbruch@cityofrh.net> Cc: 'Yolanta Schwartz' <ys@cityofrh.net> Tony and Yolanta-Our lawyer will be writing you a letter on Wednesday when he is back ( gone today and tomorrow) -on what appears to be a series of retaliatory type behaorior towards us I have proof of. THE LATEST BEING THAT THEY ARE NOW TRYING TO PUT A CORRAL BEHIND THE BARN LIKE WHERE ALL THE OTHER ANIMAL PENS WERE ILLEGALLY IN THE EASEMENT. IT MAKES ZERO SENSE TO DO SO - UNLESS YOU ARE TRYING TO RUIN OUR HOUSE -it is unbelievable. So they have two acres but in a barren plot BEHIND their barn where they only have about 10 foot ( they have the fence in 10 feet illegally and we graciously were not opposing that -and look what they do). the horses would never be seen and they would get no sun and they would directly face our house and our driveways- and the Georges would not even see them. They have caused me so much stress- so much money and so much time- it is really very evil I cannot believe you cannot see this -when you saw this plan And you think it is just a-ok to send everything over the counter Why have you not responded to us on the appeal- like you said you would today? Julie Original Message From: Anton Dahlerbruch [mailto:adahlerbruch@cityofrh.net] Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 4:56 PM To: Julie Walter Cc: 'Yolanta Schwartz' Subject: Re: Walter/George Dispute Thank you for a copy of the letter. Tony On 4/19/10 2:52 PM, "Julie Walter" <msjuliewalter@cox.net> wrote: > THIS IS LETTER FROM OUR LAWYER ON FRIDAY- YOU ARE BRIEFLY MENTIONED IN > IT -THE CITY Original Message > From: Gail Bressert [mailto:gbressert@hkclaw.com] > Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 4:22 PM > To: kraig@rhca.net > Subject: Walter/George Dispute > > Kristen: > Please see the attached correspondence from Andrew Kienle regarding > the above -referenced matter. > Thank you. > Gail A. Bressert, Legal Assistant to > William R. Hart and Andrew C. Kienle > Hart, King & Coldren, a PLC > 200 Sandpointe, 4th Floor > Santa Ana, CA 92707 > gbressert@hkclaw.com > www.hkclaw.com Page 1 of 2 • > Bus: (714) 432-8700 > Fax: (714) 546-7457 > This message is intended for the person to whom it was addressed. If > you have received this message in error please return it to sender. In > addition, please be aware that this message is from an employee of the > law firm of Hart King & Coldren ("the Firm") sent using the Firm's > e-mail system and computer equipment. You are hereby advised that all > such e-mail belong to the Firm and that the Firm's e-mail and internet > policy states that any electronic mail being received from or sent to > any employee of the Firm using the Firm's e-mail system may be > monitored by someone other than the recipient and that each employee > of the Firm has acknowledged a "no confidentiality, and privacy" waiver > for such e-mail in this regard. Anton Dahlerbruch City Manager City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 310.377.1521 www.rolling-hills.org This is a transmission from the City of Rolling Hills. The information contained in this email pertains to City business and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient and you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply email and delete the message. Page 2 of 2 Monday, April 26, 2010 7:30 AM Subject: RE: our lawyer will be appealing Date: Friday, April 16, 2010 5:24 PM From: Julie Walter <msjuliewalter@cox.net> To: Anton Dahlerbruch_City of Rolling Hills <adahlerbruch@cityofrh.net> Cc: 'Yolanta Schwartz' <ys@cityofrh.net> Tony -Thank You for contacting me- I tried to call you and I know it is your day off. Our lawyer says clearly there is an appeal. I hope you don't try to get our of this -this will just add to the endless travesties of justice to us- and will actually make it easier for us when we must file an action. I am letting you know - I will not accept a denial of our rights. I will not accept it -and I will take action. Yolanta also told me at least a few times we could appeal.) am sorry- but we have been thru hell and back Julie Original Message From: Anton Dahlerbruch [mailto:adahlerbruch@cityofrh.net] Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 1:52 PM To: Julie Walter; Yolanta Schwartz Subject: RE: our lawyer will be appealing Julie, I just want to acknowledge receipt of your email yesterday and today as well as acknowledge your telephone calls about the situation. We will be responding more formally to you on Monday regarding the appeal you have filed that we have received. Thank you, Tony Anton (Tony) Dahlerbruch City Manager City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 310.377.1521 www.rolling-hills.org Page 1 of 6