256, Construct a SFR within the fro, Correspondence• •
Oct. 18, 1980
Gentlepersons,
This letter is, in response to a statement made
by a member of -the. Planning 'Commission on ,Sept.., 30,. „1980. .
The issues at hand are the variances ±equiested. in favor
of Martin Goldberg and Lot 92-2-RH, Pine Tree Lane.
The statement made was, in effect,. that the
responsibility lies with the prospective buyer to research
a property before purchasing the real estate. The 'assumption,
made by the commission member was that we, the interested
party, had not undertaken the required research. This was
not a correct assumption.
We began making inquiries about the property
during, the early part of 1976. The property met all of
our personal requirements with the exception of the ,lots
inclination. We then began intensive research into the
possibility of building on the hill and yet, meeting the
requirements of Rolling Hills.
We were presented with a three dimensional model
of the lot with a level pad which the city used to agree
to the subdivision. The approval of the subdivision
indicated to us that this was a.buildable lot. We were
also able to obtain a topographical and geological report,
which were used at the subdivision presentation. We
presented all of our information to Mr. Jack Gray, an
architect, who had designed rnany homes in Rolling Hills
and who was very familiar with the Rolling Hills building
codes.
• •
. After reviewing our information, and visiting
the site he told us we could build the house'with minimal
difficulty.
Wishing a second opinion, we asked Mr. Carl
Campbell, a builder for whom we,have a great deal of
respect, to visit the site. He also told us the site was
buildable, with minimal grading difficulty. •
• •• ••
• At that time we submitted our bid, The owner
of the property responded to our bid by raising the asking
price. This indicated to us that he was not seriously
interested in selling the property.
We'continued to search out other properties in
. . .
Rolling Hills. Almost a year later, early in 1977, the
property was available again. Our agent began negotiating
with the owner. This negotiation took several months.
During this time we were not advised by the City
or the,seller that there was a possibility the building
codes would change. No one at any time mentioned the words
"marginal property" in relation to the lot. There was no
reason nor any way for us to have guessed this might
happen. We finally took possesion of the property in
November, 1977.
The delay in building was due to our desire to
be completely ready toundertake a project soimportant
to our future lives.
We have taken our time in selecting our architect
and we have now spent over a year with our architects,
•
. Neil,Stanton Palmer.and,Mr...:Keith Palmer.
,y My husband Marty and T are greatly looking..
forward to living in Rolling dills and we ask your kind
consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
STEPHEN J. KOONCE
COUNTY ENGINEER
RAYMOND W. LOOMIS
CHIEF DEPUTY
• •
COUf1TY OF LOS Af1GELES
DEPARTMEf1T OF COUf1TY EflGIfIEER-FACILITIES
550 SOUTH VEAmOAT, LOS Af1GELES, CA 90020
(213) 738-2011
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
February 25, 1981
Mrs. Teena Clifton, City Manager 6/7/'�' `` *, , i)
City of Rolling Hills '..,,, 6=:4�f;
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, California 90274
Dear Mrs. Clifton:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
PETER F. SCHABARUM
KENNETH HAHN
EDMUND D. EDELMAN
DEANE DANA
MICHAEL D. ANTONOVICH
CONSULTANT'S REPORT BY LOCKWOOD-SINGH & ASSOCIATES FOR
#4 PINE TREE (LOT2 OF TRACT 28594)
Your letter of February 11, 1981 requested a review of a geologic
report by Lockwood -Singh & Associates, dated February 5, 1981,
for the purpose of advising the Council regarding ratification of
the issuance of a building permit.
We find the report to be acceptable for the Council's needs. It
is presumed the report will eventually be submitted to the County
for official review. Therefore, the report and pertinent review
sheets by Mr. Bob Smith are returned.
Apparently, the lot in question has already been approved by the
Geology Section, as Lot 2 of Tract 28594. I presume therefore
that "ratification" by the Council means final approval for a
permit.
The Geology Section has not reviewed any site specific plans
for permit issuance. This might he desired by the Council.
Very truly yours,
STEPHEN J. KOONCE
County Engineer
A. G. Keene
County Geologist
Environmental Development Division
AGK:kc 25
Enclosure
February 11, 1981
Mr. Arthur Keene, County Geologist
Environmental Development Division
Department of County Engineer
550 South Vermont
Los Angeles, California 90020
Dear Art,
Enclosed is a copy of a Report of Geo;t.echnical Investigation,
Proposed Residential Construction Lot 2, Tract 28594, Pine Tree
Lane, Rolling Hills, prepared by Lockwood --Singh and Associates,
for Dr. Martin Goldberg, owner of the property.
The Rolling Hills Planning Commission approved a request
for a variance of grading requirements and front yard setback
for construction of the residence. Before ratifying the approval
the City Council has requested that you review Mr. Lockwood's
report and comment in writing to the Council on the advisability
of issuing a building permit.
The matter will be placed on the City Council's hold agenda
until we hear from you. In view of other problems in the City
we hesitate to ask you to give this priority, but we would ap-
preciate anything that can be done to avoid unnecessary delay,
since Dr. Goldberg's request is being considered by other
commissions, and he is anxious to proceed.
Very truly yours,
Teena Clifton
City Manager
TC/jc
Architecture 672 Silver Spur Road Neil Stanton Palmer
Planning Palos Verdes Peninsula Member
Engineering �'alifornia 90274 American Institute
Telephone (213) 377-6976 of Architects
Neil Stanton Palmer Architect, A.I.A. Incorporated
February 2, 1981
Honorable Mayor and Members of the
Rolling Hills City Council
Rolling Hills City Hall
Rolling Hills, California 90274
Members of the Council
Re: Goldberg Residence/Owner compromises to meet Art Jury and
Planning Commission recommendations
The Goldbergs have made extensive compromises in their planning
in an effort to achieve harmony between the Art Jury and the
Planning Commission and we feel that the plan agreed upon by all
parties is a much better plan for the city and for the Goldbergs.
However, it has increased the construction cost by approximately
$125,000.
The following list covers the major compromises made:
1. The cut and fill has been balanced as requested
by the Art Jury thus eliminating 3,000 cubic feet
of imported fill.
2. They have provided increased flat pad area around
the house including play yard and terraces per
Planning Commission's desires.
3. The Goldbergs have completely rearranged their floor
plan several times in order to accomodate the Art
Jury and the Planning Commission's desires.
4. The overall size of the house has been reduced.
5. The Goldbergs have accepted a two car garage door
with tandem parking rather than the three car garage
previously planned for.
6. The house has been separated into two wings in order
to allow for a pool patio on the pad level of the house.
•
February 2, 1981
Page 2.
7. The house is stepped two and one half feet vertically
across their 34' width in order to follow the terrain
of land as much as possible.
8. The terrace level has been lowered one and one half feet
below the living level of the house, to follow the terrain
of the land and help balance the cut and fill.
9. The Goldbergs are providing for a vegetation screen
between the house and Pine Tree Lane.
10. The terraces follow the shape of the allowable proposed
grading in a manner that keeps the wall height on the
terrace side to an average of two and one half feet high.
Respectfully submitted,
Neil Stanton almer, AIA
Principal Architect
NSP/as