527, Addition to SFR, Staff Reports• •
City ie0m
MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 9,1995
TO:
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX: (310) 377-7288
Agenda Item No.: 4A
Mtg. Date: 10/9/95
HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY
COUNCIL
ATTENTION: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER
FROM: LOLA M. UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 95-13: A RESOLUTION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
APPROVING A REQUEST FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
GUEST HOUSE AND APPROVING A REQUEST FOR SITE
PLAN REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONS TO A SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE AND GRADING FOR A FUTURE STABLE AND
CORRAL IN ZONING CASE NO. 527.
Mr. and Mrs. Richard Hilliard, 6 Meadowlark Lane (Lot 20-RH)
APPLICATION NO.
SI'Ih LOCATION:
ZONING & SIZE:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
REOUEST
ZONING CASE NO. 527
6 MEADOWLARK LANE (LOT 20-RH)
RA-S-1, 1.742 ACRES
MR. AND MRS. RICHARD HILLIARD
MR. DOUGLAS MCHATTIE, SOUTH BAY ENGINEERING
Request for a Conditional Use Permit to permit construction of a guest house;
request for Site Plan Review for the construction of substantial additions to an
existing single family residence; and request for Site Plan Review to permit grading
for a future stable and corral.
BACKGROUND
1. The Planning Commission approved the attached resolution on Sep tember
30, 1995.
2. The Planning Commission viewed silhouettes and stakings of the proposed
project on August 5, 1995 and September 30, 1995. During the hearing process,
the Planning Commission reviewed the close proximity of the proposed
project and the adjacent property's garage at 3 Meadowlark Lane, the height of
the existing recreation court fencing, the building pad coverages, and
driveway coverage in the side yard. The applicants revised their plans by
reducing the size of the garage and will removing the existing recreation
court and chain link fencing and reoriented the guest house.
Plans show 589 square foot garage that is 29 feet from the property line, and 36
feet from the Gibson's garage at 3 Meadowlark Lane. The applicants propose
to remove the existing recreation court lighting and chain link fencing and
request Conditional Use Permit approval for a reoriented 800 square foot
guest house. They propose to cut the height of the recreation court retaining
wall parallel with the slope and construct a new guard rail above the cut wall.
Structural coverage on the second building pad will be 14.3%.
Staff researched building permits for the garage at 3 Meadowlark Lane that is
6.5 feet from the property line. The residence and garage were built in 1941,
with a 418 square foot dining room added in 1953, and a 325 square foot
bedroom added in 1958. In 1962, alterations and repairs were done to the
dwelling.
Staff also calculated the driveway coverage in the side yard and determined
that as proposed it is 19.5%, less than the maximum 20% permitted.
3. Attached are previous letters from the applicants; Mr. & Mrs. Richard B.
Gibson, 3 Meadowlark Lane; Mrs. Hazel S. Banta, 6 Portuguese Bend Road;
Mr. & Mrs. Brent F. Howell, 2 Saddleback Road; Mr. & Mrs. Samuel A. Keesal,
Jr., 4 Portuguese Bend Road; Mr. & Mrs. Sahab Sanjar, 1 Meadowlark Lane;
and Mr. & Mrs. Edward H. Swart, 2 Meadowlark Lane.
4. The applicants also request Site Plan Review for the construction of
substantial additions to the existing residence. The existing residence is 1,865
square feet with a 373 square foot garage. The new residence will be 3,653
square feet with a 589 square foot garage.
In addition, the applicants request Site Plan Review to grade the lower
portion of the lot for the future construction of a 450 square foot stable and a
945 square foot corral.
RESOLUTION NO. 95-12
PAGE 2
• !
5. The structural lot coverage proposed is 6,118 square feet or 9.7% (20%
permitted) and the total lot coverage proposed is 13,276 square feet or 21.0%
(35% permitted).
6. The building pad coverage proposed for the 11,608 square foot residential
building pad is 37.4%, building pad coverage proposed for the 4,684 square
foot pad that contains a pool and guest house will be 14.3%, and the building
pad coverage proposed for the 1,395 square foot pad for the future stable and
corral pad is 32.3%. The total building pad coverage (all three pads) will be
28.0%.
7. The existing house and attached garage were built in 1951. The retaining wall
and recreation court were built in 1953, and the swimming pool was
constructed in 1959.
8. Grading for the project site will require 920 cubic yards of cut soil and 920
cubic yards of fill soil.
9. Disturbed area of the lot will be 17,237 square feet or 27.3%. The Zoning Code
permits 40% maximum disturbed area; defined as any graded building pad
area, any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist and any planned
landscaped areas.
10. Attached are 3 tables that show the Code Requirements for a Guest House,
Criteria & Major Impacts, and Adjacent Properties.
11. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council receive and file Resolution No. 95-13.
RESOLUTION NO. 95-12
PAGE 3
CODE REQUIREMENTS
FOR GUEST HOUSE
a. Requires all guest or servant
quarters on same recorded lot as
main house
b. Maximum 800 sq.ft. floor area
c. No kitchen or other cooking
facilities permitted
d. Develop and maintain in
substantial conformance with site
plan
e. No vehicular access or paved
parking area permitted to be
developed within 50' of proposed
guest house or servant quarters
f. No guest may remain in occupancy
more than 30 days in any 6 month
period
g. Renting of guest house is prohibited
h. Comply with all requirements
i. Preliminary landscaping plan
required
CRITERIA .
. & MAJOR IMPACTS
RA-S-1 Zone Setbacks:
Front: 50 ft. from front easement line
Side: 20 ft. from property line
Rear: 50 ft. from property line
Structures
RESOLUTION NO. 95-12
PAGE 4
PROPOSED
Proposed
Proposed
Required condition
Required condition
Required condition
Required condition
Required condition
Required condition
Required condition
EXISTING
Does not encroach into setbacks.
Residence 1,865
Garage 373
Swim Pool 530
Recreat'n Court 1,928
Service Yard 96
TOTAL 4,792 sq.ft.
PROPOSED.
Will not encroach into setbacks.
Residence
Garage
Swim Pool
Service Yard
Guest House
Future Stable
Future Corral
550
TOTAL
3,653
589
530
96
800
450
6,118 sq.ft.
• •
Grading N/A 920 cubic yards cut soil
920 cubic yards fill soil
Disturbed Area
(40% maximum; any graded building
pad area, any nongraded area where
impervious surfaces exist and any
planned landscaped areas) N/A 27.3%
Structural Lot Coverage
(20%maximum) 7.6% (4,792 sq.ft.) 9.7%(6,118 sq.ft.)
Total Lot Coverage
(35% maximum) 14.3%(9,046 sq.ft.) 21.0%(13,276 sq.ft.)
Residential Building Pad Coverage
(30 to 35% recommended) 19.3% of 11,608 sq.ft. building pad 37.4% of 11,608 sq.ft. building pad
Second Building Pad Coverage 52.5% of 4,684 sq.ft.. building pad 14.3% of 4,684 sq.ft. building
(includes pool & court) pad(includes pool & guest house)
Third Building Pad Coverage N/A 32.3% of 1,395 sq.ft. building pad
Total Building Pad Coverage N/A 28.0%
Roadway Access Existing Existing
Access to Stable and Corral
(Accessibility and maximum 4:1
(25%) slope required ONLY for new
residence or additions that require
Site Plan Review). N/A 12.5 to 20%
Preserve Views N/A Planning Commission review
Preserve Plants and Animals N/A Planning Commission review.
RESOLUTION NO. 95-12
PAGE 5
ADJACENT PROPERTIES
LOT SIZE
ADDRESS OWNED RESIDENCE (SO.FT.1 ACRES(NET)
2 Saddleback Road HOWELL 3,645 1.05
6 Saddleback Road REITER 3,840 3.44
2 Meadowlark Lane SWART 3,007 1.20
6 Meadowlark Lane HILLIARD 1,865 (Existing) 1.45
3 Meadowlark Lane GIBSON 2,197 1.53
1 Meadowlark Lane ISHKHANIAN 2,308 1.01
4 Portuguese Bend Rd. KEESAL 4,726 2.28
6 Portuguese Bend Rd. BANTA 1,887 1.20
AVERAGE I 2,934 I 1.64
PROPOSED I 3,653 I 1.45
RESOLUTION NO. 95-12
PAGE 6
• •
RESOLUTION NO. 95-13
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A REQUEST FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A GUEST HOUSE AND APPROVING A
REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONS TO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
AND GRADING FOR A FUTURE STABLE AND CORRAL IN
ZONING CASE NO. 527.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY
FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Applications were duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. Richard Hilliard
with respect to real property at 6 Meadowlark Lane, Rolling Hills (Lot 20-RH)
requesting a Conditional Use Permit to permit construction of a guest house,
request for Site Plan Review for the construction of substantial additions to an
existing single family residence and grading for a future stable and corral.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public
hearing to consider the applications on July 18, 1995, August 15, 1995, and September
19, 1995, and at field trip visits on August 5, 1995 and September 30, 1995.
Section 3. During the hearing process, the Planning Commission reviewed
the close proximity of the proposed project and the adjacent property's garage at 3
Meadowlark Lane, building permits for the existing garage at 3 Meadowlark Lane,
the height of the existing recreation court fencing, the building pad coverages, and
driveway coverage in the side yard. The applicants revised their plans by reducing
the size of the garage and removing the existing recreation court and chain link
fencing and reoriented the guest house.
Section 4. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a
Class 1 Exemption (State CEQA. Guidelines, Section 15301(e)) and is therefore
categorically exempt from environmental review under the California
Environmental Quality Act.
Section 5. Sections 17.16.210(A)(5) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code
permits approval of a Guest House under certain conditions. The applicants are
requesting to construct a 800 square foot guest house at the central portion of the lot.
With respect to this request for a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission
finds as follows:
A. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a
guest house would be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning
Ordinance and General Plan and will be desirable for the public convenience and
welfare because the use is consistent with similar uses in the community, and the
RESOLUTION NO. 95-13
PAGE 1
• •
area proposed for the guest house would be located in an area on the property where
such use will not change the existing configuration of structures on the lot.
B. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings,
and structures have been considered, and the construction of a guest house will not
adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, buildings, or
structures because the proposed guest house will be constructed on a portion of the
secondary building pad and is a sufficient distance from nearby residences so that the
guest house will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors.
C. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural
terrain, and surrounding residences because the guest house will comply with the
low profile residential development pattern of the community and is located on a
1.742 acre parcel of property that is adequate in size, shape and topography to
accommodate such use.
D. The proposed conditional use complies with all applicable
development standards of the zone district because the 800 square foot size of the
guest house equals the 800 square foot maximum permitted and the guest house
does not encroach into any setback areas.
E. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the portions of the Los
Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting
criteria for hazardous waste facilities because the project site is not listed on the
current State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List.
F. The proposed conditional use observes the spirit and intent of Title 17
of the Zoning Code because there is a future stable structure and corral proposed for
the lot.
Section 6. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission
hereby approves a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of an 800 square foot
guest house in accordance with the Development Plan dated September 14, 1995 and
marked Exhibit A in Zoning Case No. 527 subject to the conditions contained in
Section 9 of this resolution.
Section 7. Section 17.46.020 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code requires a
development plan to be submitted for site plan review and approval before any
grading requiring a grading permit and any building or structure may be constructed
or any expansion, addition, alteration or repair to existing buildings may be made
which involve changes to grading or an increase to the size of the building or
structure by at least 1,000 square feet and has the effect of increasing the size of the
building or structure by more than twenty-five percent (25%) in any thirty-six
month period. The applicants request Site Plan Review for the construction of
substantial additions to an existing single family residence, an attached garage, guest
house, swimming pool, and a stable and corral that requires grading. With respect
RESOLUTION NO. 95-13
PAGE 2
• •
to the Site Plan Review application, the Planning Commission makes the following
findings of fact:
A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan, the
Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses because the proposed structures comply
with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low density residential
development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. The
project conforms to Zoning Code setback and lot coverage requirements with the
Conditional Use Permit for a guest house approved in Section 6 of this Resolution.
The lot has a net square foot area of 63,163 square feet. The proposed residence (3,653
sq.ft.), attached garage (589 sq.ft.), guest house (800 sq.ft.), pool (530 sq.ft.), future stable
(450 sq.ft.), service yard (96 sq.ft.) will have 6,118 square feet which constitutes 9.7%
of the lot which is within the maximum 20% structural lot coverage requirement.
The total lot coverage including paved areas and driveway will be 11,317 square feet
which equals 17.9% of the lot, which is within the 35% maximum overall lot
coverage requirement. The proposed project is on a relatively large lot with most of
the proposed structures located below and away from the road so as to reduce the
visual impact of the development. The building pad coverage proposed for the
11,608 square foot residential building pad is 37.4%, building pad coverage proposed
for the 4,684 square foot pad that contains a pool and guest house will be 14.3%, and
the building pad coverage proposed for the 1,395 square foot pad for the future stable
and corral pad is 32.3%. The total building pad coverage (all three pads) will be
28.0%.
B. The proposed development preserves and integrates into the site
design, to the maximum extent feasible, existing natural topographic features of the
lot including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses, and
land forms (such as hillsides and knolls) because a minimum amount of grading is
proposed and will only be done to provide approved drainage that will flow away
from the proposed residence and existing neighboring residences.
C. The development plan follows natural contours of the site to
minimize grading and the natural drainage courses will continue to the canyons at
the northern side (rear) of this lot.
D. The development plan incorporates existing large trees and native
vegetation to the maximum extent feasible. Specifically, the development plan
preserves several mature trees and shrubs.
E. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and
undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage because the new
structures will not cause the structural and total lot coverage to be exceeded. Further,
the proposed project is designed to minimize grading. Significant portions of the lot
will be left undeveloped so as to maintain scenic vistas across the northerly portions
of the property.
RESOLUTION NO. 95-13
PAGE 3
• •
F. The proposed development, as conditioned, is harmonious in scale
and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences. As indicated
in Paragraph A, the lot coverage maximum will not be exceeded and the proposed
project is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood when compared to this
irregular -shaped lot. Grading shall be permitted only to restore the natural slope of
the property.
G. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the
convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the
proposed project will utilize the same driveway to Meadowlark Lane for access.
H. The project conforms with the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act and is categorically exempt from environmental
review.
Section 8. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission
hereby approves the Site Plan Review for the construction of substantial additions
to an existing single family residence, an attached garage, guest house, swimming
pool, service yard, and a stable and corral that requires grading, as indicated on the
Development Plan dated September 14, 1995 and marked Exhibit A, subject to the
conditions specified in Section 9.
Section 9. The Conditional Use Permit for a guest house approved in
Section 6 and the Site Plan Review approved in Section 8 of this Resolution are
subject to the following conditions:
A. The Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review approvals shall
expire within one year from the effective date of approval as defined in Sections 17.
42.070 and 17.46.080.
B. It is declared and made a condition of the Conditional Use Permit and
Site Plan Review approvals, that if any conditions thereof are violated, this
approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted thereunder shall lapse;
provided that the applicant has been given written notice to cease such violation
and has failed to do so for a period of thirty (30) days.
C. All requirements of the Buildings and Construction Ordinance, the
Zoning Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be
complied with unless otherwise set forth in the Permit, or shown otherwise on an
approved plan.
D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance
with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A, except as otherwise provided in these
conditions.
RESOLUTION NO. 95-13
PAGE 4
• •
E. The existing recreation court lighting and surrounding fence shall be
removed prior to construction of the guest house.
F. The height of the retaining wall below the residence at the north shall
be cut parallel with the slope and a new guard rail shall be constructed above the cut
wall.
G. No kitchen or other cooking facilities shall be provided within the
guest house.
H. No vehicular access or paved parking area shall be developed within 50
feet of the guest house.
I. Occupancy of the guest house shall be limited to persons employed on
the premises and their immediate family or by the temporary guest of the occupants
of the main residence. No guest may remain in occupancy for more than 30 days in
any six month period.
J. Renting of the guest house is prohibited.
K. All retaining walls incorporated into the project shall not be greater
than 5 feet in height at any one point.
L. Residential building pad coverage shall not exceed 37.4%, the pool and
guest house pad coverage shall not exceed 14.3%, and the building pad coverage for
the stable and corral pad shall not exceed 32.3%. The total building pad coverage (all
three pads) shall not exceed 28.0%.
M. Grading for the proposed stable and corral shall not exceed 920 cubic
yards of cut soil and 920 cubic yards of fill soil.
N. Landscaping shall be provided to obscure the residential and pool and
guest house pads from neighboring residences, to the maximum extent feasible.
O. Landscaping shall incorporate and preserve, to the maximum extent
feasible, the existing mature trees and shrubs and the natural landscape screening
surrounding the proposed building pad.
P. Two copies of a landscape plan must be submitted for review by the
Planning Department and include native drought -resistant vegetation that will not
disrupt the impact of the views of neighboring properties prior to the issuance of
any building or grading permit. The landscaping plan submitted must comply with
the purpose and intent of the Site Plan Review Ordinance, shall incorporate existing
mature trees and native vegetation, and shall utilize to the maximum extent
feasible, plants that are native to the area and/or consistent with the rural character
of the community.
RESOLUTION NO. 95-13
PAGE 5
A bond in the amount of the cost estimate of the implementation of the landscaping
plan plus 15% shall be required to be posted prior to issuance of a grading and
building permit and shall be retained with the City for not less than two years after
landscape installation. The retained bond will be released by the City Manager after
the City Manager determines that the landscaping was installed pursuant to the
landscaping plan as approved, and that such landscaping is properly established and
in good condition.
Q. Prior to the submittal of an applicable final grading plan to the County
of Los Angeles for plan check, a detailed grading and drainage plan with related
geology, soils and hydrology reports that conform to the development plan as
approved by the Planning Commission must be submitted to the Rolling Hills
Planning Department staff for their review. Cut and fill slopes shall not exceed a
steepness of a 2 to 1 slope ratio.
R. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills
Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of
any building or grading permit.
S. Notwithstanding Section 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code,
any modifications to the project which would constitute additional development
shall require the filing of a new application for Site Plan Review approval by the
Planning Commission.
T. The applicants shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all
conditions of this Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review, pursuant to
Section 17.42.060, or the approval shall not be effective.
U. All conditions of these Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review
approvals must be complied with prior to the issuance of a building or grading
permit from the County of Los Angeles.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON THE 30 PAY TEMBER, 1995.
ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
RESOLUTION NO. 95-13
PAGE 6
• •
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 95-13 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A REQUEST FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A GUEST HOUSE AND APPROVING A
REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONS TO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
AND GRADING FOR A FUTURE STABLE AND CORRAL IN
ZONING CASE NO. 527.
was approved and adopted at an adjourned regular meeting of the Planning
Commission on September 30, 1995 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Frost, Hankins, Witte, and Chairman Roberts
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Raine
ABSTAIN: None
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices
MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
RESOLUTION NO. 95-13
PAGE 7
•
July 28, 1995
Lola Ungar
Principal Planner
Planning Commission
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Subject: Zoning Case No 527
Mr. & Mrs. Richard Hilliard, 6 Meadowlark Lane (Lot 20-RH)
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a guest house, request
for Site Plan Review for the construction of substantial additions;
and request for Site Plan Review for grading for a future stable
and corral.
Dear Planning Commission:
AUG[THEOVEa
o 2 1995
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
By
At the last Planning Commission meeting on July 18, 1995 we were
very upset by the comments made by our neighbors. While we fully
understand everyone's right to come to public meetings and voice
their opinions, their comments seemed completely out of place and
contained many false allegations. After thinking about their comments,
we feel it is necessary and our right to respond and have our opinion
voiced for the record.
The Planning Commission as we understand it, follows a set of written
rules, regulations and City guidelines to determine whether plans for
a remodel, guest house or stable can be built on a property in Rolling
Hills. Over this past year, we have hired professionals including Keith
Ehlert, a licensed geologist, South Bay Engineering for the site plan and
Robinson/North Architects to help design our project. All three firms
have worked on homes in Rolling Hills and are very familiar with the
regulations. It has been a long process to come up with a plan that we
feel we can live with and that meets City and Association requirements.
South Bay Engineering and our architect attended the July 18 Planning
Commission meeting so that, if there were any questions about
the plan, we would have experts there that could answer any questions.
• •
Page two
However, at that meeting, our neighbors chose to speak about issues
which have no relation to our remodel or had any valid objections to the
permits requested. Nevertheless, our response to their comments are:
1. Peninsula Landscaping does not operate out of our home and
has not since October, 1994. Our equipment and trucks are stored in three
locations in San Pedro, workers meet at the job site everyday, materials are
drop shipped at the customer's and customers never come to our property --
Rick meets them at their property to discuss job and give estimates.
Peninsula Landscaping workers do come to our property once a week
to do the gardening and they come here to clear brush, trim trees, etc.
on an as needed basis. We cherish our privacy from our business as much
as our neighbors do. We don't want our workers at our home for any reason
other than to do specific work on the property. This week and next, our
workers will be on our property clearing out the lower pads for the Field
inspection.
2. We respect that our neighbor has a 4 year old. We love kids
and don't want anything to happen to anyone's child. But when a young
child runs out into the street, we can only hope that whoever is driving
on the street will be able to stop in time. It is our recommendation that
the Sanjars trim the hedge surrounding their driveway or put up a
mirror to the street, so that people driving on the street can see kids
in their driveway. It would also help the Sanjar's when they are
backing out of their driveway, as they have almost run us over twice.
3. If the Keesals or any other neighbor sees anyone walking through
their property, we ask that they call the police. Those people are
trespassing and we, too, feel the need for more security. During times
when we were cleaning off our property, including our lower hillside, we
found evidence of transients living in the canyon. This is one
reason we look forward to landscaping and cleaning up this part of our
property. It is a constant source of worry about who's living down there.
4. Dr. Gibson is worried about the steepness of the canyon for
the future stable. The area is so overgrown with trees and brush, it
is difficult for him to see, but there is a lower pad which is perfect for
a barn and corral. He needs to refer to the site plan and geology report.
• •
Page three
5. Mr. Swart voiced his concerns about the fact that we come and
go a lot from our house. This seems to be his biggest contention against
us. We didn't know there was a rule that limits you to how many times
you can come and go from your own home or how many times you
can drive on the street. This is his problem and probably stems from
the fact that his house sits right on the street with no set back. We
are being required to set our house back 50' from the street.
It seems to us that our neighbors are grasping at straws to prevent
us from remodeling, but they really have not had what we would
call relevant objections to our plans and request for permits. We
understand remodeling causes disruption in the neighborhood for a
while but it is absolutely necessary and in accordance with our property
rights to seek the permits. Our house is 44 years old and was not
kept up over the last 15 years. The plumbing, electrical and heating is
not operational at many times and we need to get our project moving
before any of these items go out completely.
We look forward to the field inspection by the Commission on August
5, 1995. We will again have South Bay Engineering and our architect at
the property for any questions. Our hope is that you will look at
the project objectively and base your decision on its own merits.
Sincerly,
faxi cot," Pa
Rick and Pat Hilliard
Owners of 6 Meadowlark Lane
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
(310)377-4689
cc: Rolling Hills Community Association
•
Planning Commission
City of Rolling Hills
No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, California
ilEgEOVE1
AUG 0 91995
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
By
3 Meadow Lark Lane
Rolling Hills, Ca.
August 7, 1995
REQUEST: On site view to the left of No. 3 Meadow Lark Lane(side of garage).
The map shown at the "on site" review, Sat. Aug. 5, did not show the entrance
to the proposed garage on lot No. 20. Mrs. Hilliard informed us that the
architect plans a circular drive with the entrance facing the side toward
No. 3 Meadow Lark. Is this permissible with the current available land and
easement?*
IWe will be away from August 10 - Sept. 17, and plan to move the metal storage
building off the property line when we return.
Sincerely yours,
Virginia F. Gibson
Richard B. Gibson
* See stake at the top of the hill - the next stake is almost level with the
proposed guest house.
•
q,,,z//p6e4,4012 x/e./
'IgEOVEg
JUL 181995
7;t4O ROLLING HILLS
g� ��i7 J
A-1444 /(416
dav
/9,O 0-77x, /(4_,f-a-;c4-oL/ /Viz
j1
pa-rizecae/P-e-,--/ziwtx_ /-dvaee.
1 � &te 4t.'t .
"let,//tv 1-(--fid(ai etie-ck, 76e-0-/Arte/
02ellerff c
er77' O'Gi/ '� - � � �,r.�:� i at-7
A4,71 ,-te4-7 4 )Ae4--e:N-72,7 eez-V.
/.#-,,e/-rx,c/14-i/AKe_ez-vert/Ze.,
e X/a/-
- 15(s-pc, e77( 0.2-7:9-72,<)•
•
ee).2p,t7
o2P Gifra-4 47'"
I
et
/2,2,00"
•xLO
vk
LAN 07Y1Ca$
KZESAL, Your* & LOOAN
saxUat L. KsSaLL. JL
•Tara,XX IC/QM
Joasat L LOOrJI
KIC9.*IL X. Ou•S
S. sovTJX
S OOTY t. MAZY
TIMMT 10••
JOIN D. OUITIN
WILLIAM R. COLLU*L Ja.
* ODaaT D. 7L10KXaa
Nina. A.. Kc L*OD
NIAL S. toss
ant *OTIS
• Tara IS C. Cu7POaD
a. SCOTT DOUOLAS
JosaP* S. SC*O051NT
SILO -SNOW L. Mc DOUOLLD$
WILLLAK 1. xc DOXNIIL. Ja.
KICKAIL A. T*O*XLX
Dais II. $C*OCK
TIXOTIT JL MILL
LLDZ*T Z. TIAC.00K III •
CA -SORROW STOUT
J0701/ L LOF US
DAVID X. ItL*THOLOKZW
JS17*lT D.MA*a*X
aODINT J. STZXLaa
USA X. alumni
JAX$t X. SIXXOX•
a0asat 4. *Ocaot
DOVOLA$ L LLCM••
ZLUZ.SIT* A. KENDRJCK
LIXDA A. LOFTUS
WIWIIL/ R. IRON
suzADSTI T. SEAWAY
KWIC X. •MITT
11013a31t A. 3LXJcH ZI
? VL J. IcaVXLCREI
DRJLN L. ZAOOX
O*IOO*T 1. corm -Lip
OF COUX•IL
NICIIA*L a. MOODILL•
IL'TAYLOR. Ja.
JOsira L. wALsa U
XIC1L1IL C. LICOSA71
LL11X L. 1101XXSON
OAST a. 01SL•ON
KICLZL L. L1XITLOS
JODI S. COMM
XLIK W. XILSON
palls, a. LKxralsalt
uses X. SULLIVAN
RO•s*T S. salcsoa
assasat R. aaY, JL•
I. SCOTT PALKsa
JILL K. O1Arsox
Jona L TAYLOR
LISA K. DONARUS
STAGILY XTIII
XICKLZL A. SITZXAX
GORDON C. TOUXO
WILLIAX J. D*TDo1N
O1SOO1T A. DOSS
*ICELaD TT. SKILL
PAUL L laXADA
IuzLazTl J. LIXDI
LLUill SAL a0*Dis
PITS* J. 71010AN III
*OD D. xlu.Za
JI7YlZT S. SIMON
KILLS J. MOYNIHAN
*Lu3L D. JANES
SLITADKTX Z. ATLI=
DLNIILJ. PI/MI/ITT
01*1IELLI L HALKIR
Ta ADDEVS I. rAVLt
CEAIO a. DOLDK7
ESTHE* I. KIX
JOHN K. Ma Gill
KIX DI*LY MONO
LV*27 X. PIIX
TE*ESA S. x1CK
IlIC P. DAMON
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, California 90274 By
♦ ra0assSIol4l C01r01LTIOX
CATALINA LLNDINO
310 OOLDEN SHORE
P.O. BOX 1730
LONO BEACH. CALIFORNIA 00801-1730
(310) 43a-61000
Ta1.scorlEI:
(310) 408.7410 • (310) 000-433*
July 17, 1995
AEMIVE
JUL 1 7 1995
Attn: Planning Commission
Dear Planning Commission Members:
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
ILX raLXasco *MCI
SUIT* 1500
POUR iX9- *o1*O ciXtsa
SAX ilaXCIsCO. CA s41U
(418) 304-L000
TSLICOTIsa:
(418) 0s1.77*i • (418) 04••s60i
LNGItOLAOS OPs1C17
SUIT* 460
lOSS Matt 3*D LVIXUI
ANCDOLOL. LLSL 99801.1017
(007) s7o-04si
T I LICOPI as: (007) • IO.483 S
SIAS TLI OTTICI
SUITS •714
1301 stria AVJ:xis
SIATrts. •AIaIXOTOX 98101
(304) 008.0700
TILSCOPISIt:(804) 340-0880
TELtX: 'ELSA?. LOa
836440
•.•OMRTZD IN Al.*JIIA
t ADMITTED IN W *MINOTOM
t •OMITTED IN C.u0.0*N4 f h'ASMINOTON
ALL OMENS AOMRT[D IM CAuroNM1a
I am an adjacent landowner to the Hilliards who, I understand, have requested a
conditional use permit for the construction of a guest house, stable, corral and large parking area, as
well as a substantial additional to their own home. While I am delighted to see anyone improve
their home, I seriously question the purpose and appropriateness of some of these proposed
additions.
It is my understanding that the Hilliards are operating a commercial landscaping
business from their home. I walked by this morning and took some photos which confirm two
trucks, equipment and material were and are in the parking area. My wife and I were dismayed to
see several Latin American workers crossing our property approximately 30 feet from our physical
backyard. It appears they were leaving the Hilliards property by that route to avoid detection after
the Hilliards were warned about running a business from their home.
While we do not know the Hilliards and hope that ultimately their home will be
beautiful and a welcome addition to Rolling Hills, all that seems to have been done so far is to have
cut down landscaping which exposes a view of their home to us. Attached are photos demonstrating
that fact. Prior to that, there were trees and bushes which made our home much more private.
• •
City of Rolling Hills
July 17, 1995
Page 2
I question the wisdom of grading the property for the proposed additions, given the
steepness of the grade. I am also concerned about the adverse affect on our privacy, our view and
our enjoyment of our home.
Thank you for your consideration.
Best regards,
ova Otuo 0,\
SAMUEL A. KEESAL, JR.
SAK/tpf (306683)
Mrs. C. Banta
6 Portuguese Bend Road 410
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
To the Planning Commission of the
City of Rolling Hills,
Dear Sirs,
•
Rolling Hills, 7.16.95
lE@ME-n)
L2i
JUL 1 71995
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
By
I received your notice of a public hearing before the Planning Commission
regarding the zoning case No.527.
The proposed construction of a guest house and grading for future stable
is planned on a very slanted area, which is part of the canyon adjacent
to my property.
I am concerned that these constructions could effect the proper functions
and appearance of this natural canyon.
I would request that the Planning Commission investigates these matters
carefully before approving any permits and plans of this case.
Yours sincerely,
v>"•107-saiu
Mrs. C. Banta.
Ed, H. Swart 411
2 Meadowlark Lane,
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
To the Planning Commission of
the City of Rolling Hills,
Gentlemen,
PAR@IgItT7Pa
c
JUL )l719%
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
By
.July 15,1995
Rolling Hills,
I am writing to oppose the granting of a conditional use
permit in zoning case # 527. My opposition is based on the following:
1. The occupants of the home on the property are operating
a commercial business from their home. They acknowledged
that they were operating a landscaping business from the
property, from the day they moved into the residence.
In fact my wife and I have both witnessed landscaping
laborers coming to the property in the early morning,
picking up equipment and materials, leaving the property,
presumably to do landscaping work elsewhere and returning
in the late afternoon to return trucks, equipment,etc.
After concerns were expressed, the laborers began also
leaving the property via the canyon to Palos Verdes Drive N.
It has come to my attention that the Hilliards likewise
operating a business from their previous home with trucks,
equipment, materials, etc., causing complaints from the
neighbors.
2. I question whether the guest house and its substantial
parking area will, in fact, be used as a "guest house".
Given the information above, I question whether the guest
house would be used as an office for the business with trucks
and equipment being stored in the parking area.
3. I question if the steep sloped land, part of an important
natural canyon, bordering also to my property, is suitable
for all this proposed construction,
Thank you for your attention to this matter,
Sincerely,
Ed.. H. Swart
• i
July 13, 1995
Mr. Craig Nealis
City Manager
City of Rolling Hills
No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, California 90274
RE: Zoning Case No. 527
Dear Mr. Nealis:
V49
JUL 1 7 1995
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
By
The Howell family of 2 Saddleback Road objects to the variance requested by the Hilliard family
of 6 Meadowlark Lane to build a guest house and a stable on the steep grade bordering the
canyon joining Bent Springs Canyon. We feel it would undermine this small hill we share with the
residents of Meadow Lark Lane. Two canyons with running water meet just below this hill of
five homes and we are concerned about any grading and building on this hillside.
We strongly object to this variance for a guest house and grading. We have also noticed the
owners have been running their gardening business, Peninsula Landscaping, from their home and
yard. We fear this expansion of guest house and barn would be used for storage of plants and
equipment and for business purposes, both of which are not permitted in the City of Rolling Hills.
Sincerel
r\r(L'
rent F. Howell
BFH/mh
nowei iis
•
--EgEngE-11
JUL .12199'i
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
By
City of Rolling Hills
Attn: Mr. Craig Nealis
Re: Lot # 20
•
3 Meadow Lark Lane
Rolling Hills, Ca.
July 13, 1995
We understand the necessity of preserving our steep rolling hills,
especially near the canyons, with adequate vegetation to prevent.flooding
and possible landslides.
Our hill to the canyon, as well as lot # 20, is very steep; therefore
we question the feasibility of grading necessary for a future stable on
the lower level of this lot without expert opinion.
We are sorry that we will be unable to attend the hearing on Tuesday,
July 18.
1 8 (
Richard B. Gibson
Virg nia F. Gibson
•
Grp 0/i0f1L4 Jl,•Pf
HEARING DATE: SEPTEMBER 19, 1995
TO:
FROM:
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX: (310) 377-7288
HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
LOLA UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
APPLICATION NO.
SITE LOCATION:
ZONING & SIZE:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PUBLISHED:
REQUEST
ZONING CASE NO. 527
6 MEADOWLARK LANE (LOT 20-RH)
RA-S-1, 1.742 ACRES
MR. AND MRS. RICHARD HILLIARD
MR. DOUGLAS MCHATTIE, SOUTH BAY ENGINEERING
JULY 8,1995
Request for a Conditional Use Permit to permit construction of a guest house;
request for Site Plan Review for the construction of substantial additions to an
existing single family residence; and request for Site Plan Review to permit grading
for a future stable and corral.
BACKGROUND
1. The applicants revised their plans since the last meeting in response to the
Planning Commission's concerns that included the close proximity of the
proposed project and the adjacent property's garage at 3 Meadowlark Lane, the
height of the existing recreation court fencing, the building pad coverages,
and building permits for the existing garage at 3 Meadowlark Lane.
Revised plans show a 31 square foot reduction in the size of the garage (620
square feet to 589 square feet), that is 29 feet from the property line, and 36 feet
from the Gibson's garage at 3 Meadowlark Lane. The applicants proposeto
remove the existing recreation court and chain link fencing and request
Conditional Use Permit approval for a reoriented 800 square foot guest house.
They propose to cut the height of the recreation court retaining wall parallel
with the slope and construct a new guard rail above the cut wall. Thus,
structural coverage on the second building pad will be reduced from 69.5% to
14.3%.
Printed on Recycled Paper.
• •
ZONING CASE NO. 527
PAGE 2
Staff researched building permits for the garage at 3 Meadowlark Lane that is
6.5 feet from the property line. The residence and garage were built in 1941,
with a 418 square foot dining room added in 1953, and a 325 square foot
bedroom added in 1958. In 1962, alterations and repairs were done to the
dwelling.
Staff also calculated the driveway coverage in the side yard and determined
that as proposed it is 19.5% less than the maximum 20% permitted.
2. Attached are previous letters from the applicants; Mr. & Mrs. Richard B.
Gibson, 3 Meadowlark Lane; Mrs. Hazel S. Banta, 6 Portuguese Bend Road;
Mr. & Mrs. Brent F. Howell, 2 Saddleback Road; Mr. & Mrs. Samuel A. Keesal,
Jr., 4 Portuguese Bend Road; Mr. & Mrs. Sahab Sanjar, 1 Meadowlark Lane;
and Mr. & Mrs. Edward H. Swart, 2 Meadowlark Lane.
3. The applicants also request Site Plan Review for the construction of
substantial additions to the existing residence. The existing residence is 1,865
square feet with a 373 square foot garage. The new residence will be 3,653
square feet with a 589 square foot garage.
In addition, the applicants request Site Plan Review to grade the lower
portion of the lot for the future construction of a 450 square foot stable and a
945 square foot corral.
4. The structural lot coverage proposed is 6,118 square feet or 9.7% (20%
permitted) and the total lot coverage proposed is 13,276 square feet or 21.0%
(35% permitted).
5. The building pad coverage proposed for the 11,608 square foot residential
building pad is 37.4%, building pad coverage proposed for the 4,684 square
foot pad that contains a pool and guest house will be 14.3%, and the building
pad coverage proposed for the 1,395 square foot pad for the future stable and
corral pad is 32.3%. The total building pad coverage (all three pads) will be
28.0%.
6. The existing house and attached garage were built in 1951. The retaining wall
and recreation court were built in 1953, and the swimming pool was
constructed in 1959.
7. Grading for the project site will require 920 cubic yards of cut soil and 920
cubic yards of fill soil.
8. Disturbed area of the lot will be 17,237 square feet or 27.3%. The Zoning Code
permits 40% maximum disturbed area; defined as any graded building pad area, any
nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist and any planned landscaped areas.
• •
ZONING CASE NO. 527
PAGE 3
9. Attached are 3 tables that show the Code Requirements for a Guest House,
Criteria & Major Impacts, and Adjacent Properties.
10. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the proposed plans and
take public testimony.
CODE. REQUIREMENTS
FOR GUEST HOUSE
a. Requires all guest or servant
quarters on same recorded lot as
main house
b. Maximum 800 sq.ft. floor area
c. No kitchen or other cooking
facilities permitted
d. Develop and maintain in
substantial conformance with site
plan
e. No vehicular access or paved
parking area permitted to be
developed within 50' of proposed
guest house or servant quarters
f. No guest may remain in occupancy
more than 30 days in any 6 month
period
g. Renting of guest house is prohibited
h. Comply with all requirements
i. Preliminary landscaping plan
required
PROPO
Proposed
Proposed
Required condition
Required condition
Required condition
Required condition
Required condition
Required condition
Required condition
ZONING CASE NO. 527
PAGE 4
CRITERIA
& MAJOR IMPACTS
RA-S-1 Zone Setbacks:
Front: 50 ft. from front easement line
Side: 20 ft. from property line
Rear: 50 ft. from property line
Structures
Grading
Disturbed Area
(40% maximum; any graded building
pad area, any nongraded area where
impervious surfaces exist and any
planned landscaped areas)
Structural Lot Coverage
(20(%0 maximum)
Total Lot Coverage
(35% maximum)
Residential Building Pad Coverage
(30 to 35% recommended)
Second Building Pad Coverage
Third Building Pad Coverage
Total Building Pad Coverage
Roadway Access
Access to Stable and Corral
(Accessibility and maximum 4:1
(25%) slope required ONLY for new
residence or additions that require
Site Plan Review).
EXISTING
Does not encroach into setbacks.
Residence
Garage
Swim Pool
Recreat'n Court
Service Yard
TOTAL
N/A
1,865
373
530
1,928
96
4,792 sq.ft.
N/A
7.6% (4,792 sq.ft.)
14.3%(9,046 sq.ft.)
19.3% of 11,608 sq.ft. building pad
52.5% of 4,684 sq.ft.. building pad
(includes pool & court)
N/A
N/A
Existing
N/A
PROPOSED;
Will not encroach into setbacks.
Residence
Garage
Swim Pool
Service Yard
Guest House
Future Stable
Future Corral
550
3,653
589
530
96
800
450
TOTAL 6,118 sq.ft.
920 cubic yards cut soil
920 cubic yards fill soil
27.3%
9.7%(6,118 sq.ft.)
21.0%(13,276 sq.ft.)
37.4% of 11,608 sq.ft. building pad
14.3% of 4,684 sq.ft. building
pad(includes pool & guest house)
32.3% of 1,395 sq.ft. building pad
28.0%
Existing
12.5 to 20%
• •
Preserve Views N/A
Preserve Plants and Animals N/A
ZONING CASE NO. 527
PAGE 5
ADDRESS
ADJACENT PROPERTIES
OWNER
2 Saddleback Road HOWELL
6 Saddleback Road REITER
2 Meadowlark Lane SWART
6 Meadowlark Lane HILLIARD
3 Meadowlark Lane GIBSON
1 Meadowlark Lane ISHKHANIAN
4 Portuguese Bend Rd. KEESAL
6 Portuguese Bend Rd. BANTA
Planning Commission review
Planning Commission review.
RESIDENCE (SO.FT.)
3,645
3,840
3,007
1,865 (Existing)
2,197
2,308
4,726
1,887
AVERAGE 2,934
PROPOSED 3,653
LOT SIZE
ACRES(NET)
1.05
3.44
1.20
1.45
1.53
1.01
2.28
1.20
1.64
1.45
•
July 28, 1995
Lola Ungar
Principal Planner
Planning Commission
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
•
t]E@MIE-n)
AUG 0 2 1995
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
By
Subject: Zoning Case No 527
Mr. & Mrs. Richard Hilliard, 6 Meadowlark Lane (Lot 20-RH)
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a guest house, request
for Site Plan Review for the construction of substantial additions;
and request for Site Plan Review for grading for a future stable
and corral.
Dear Planning Commission:
At the last Planning Commission meeting on July 18, 1995 we were
very upset by the comments made by our neighbors. While we fully
understand everyone's right to come to public meetings and voice
their opinions, their comments seemed completely out of place and
contained many false allegations. After thinking about their comments,
we feel it is necessary and our right to respond and have our opinion
voiced for the record.
The Planning Commission as we understand it, follows a set of written
rules, regulations and City guidelines to determine whether plans for
a remodel, guest house or stable can be built on a property in Rolling
Hills. Over this past year, we have hired professionals including Keith
Ehlert, a licensed geologist, South Bay Engineering for the site plan and
Robinson/North Architects to help design our project. All three firms
have worked on homes in Rolling Hills and are very familiar with the
regulations. It has been a long process to come up with a plan that we
feel we can live with and that meets City and Association requirements.
South Bay Engineering and our architect attended the July 18 Planning
Commission meeting so that, if there were any questions about
the plan, we would have experts there that could answer any questions.
Page two
However, at that meeting, our neighbors chose to speak about issues
which have no relation to our remodel or had any valid objections to the
permits requested. Nevertheless, our response to their comments are:
1. Peninsula Landscaping does not operate out of our home and
has not since October, 1994. Our equipment and trucks are stored in three
locations in San Pedro, workers meet at the job site everyday, materials are
drop shipped at the customer's and customers never come to our property --
Rick meets them at their property to discuss job and give estimates.
Peninsula Landscaping workers do come to our property once a week
to do the gardening and they come here to clear brush, trim trees, etc.
on an as needed basis. We cherish our privacy from our business as much
as our neighbors do. We don't want our workers at our home for any reason
other than to do specific work on the property. This week and next, our
workers will be on our property clearing out the lower pads for the Field
inspection.
2. We respect that our neighbor has a 4 year old. We love kids
and don't want anything to happen to anyone's child. But when a young
child runs out into the street, we can only hope that whoever is driving
on the street will be able to stop in time. It is our recommendation that
the Sanjars trim the hedge surrounding their driveway or put up a
mirror to the street, so that people driving on the street can see kids
in their driveway. It would also help the Sanjar's when they are
backing out of their driveway, as they have almost run us over twice.
3. If the Keesals or any other neighbor sees anyone walking through
their property, we ask that they call the police. Those people are
trespassing and we, too, feel the need for more security. During times
when we were cleaning off our property, including our lower hillside, we
found evidence of transients living in the canyon. This is one
reason we look forward to landscaping and cleaning up this part of our
property. It is a constant source of worry about who's living down there.
4. Dr. Gibson is worried about the steepness of the canyon for
the future stable. The area is so overgrown with trees and brush, it
is difficult for him to see, but there is a lower pad which is perfect for
a barn and corral. He needs to refer to the site plan and geology report.
Page three
5. Mr. Swart voiced his concerns about the fact that we come and
go a lot from our house. This seems to be his biggest contention against
us. We didn't know there was a rule that limits you to how many times
you can come and go from your own home or how many times you
can drive on the street. This is his problem and probably stems from
the fact that his house sits right on the street with no set back. We
are being required to set our house back 50' from the street.
It seems to us that our neighbors are grasping at straws to prevent
us from remodeling, but they really have not had what we would
call relevant objections to our plans and request for permits. We
understand remodeling causes disruption in the neighborhood for a
while but it is absolutely necessary and in accordance with our property
rights to seek the permits. Our house is 44 years old and was not
kept up over the last 15 years. The plumbing, electrical and heating is
not operational at many times and we need to get our project moving
before any of these items go out completely.
We look forward to the field inspection by the Commission on August
5, 1995. We will again have South Bay Engineering and our architect at
the property for any questions. Our hope is that you will look at
the project objectively and base your decision on its own merits.
Sincerly,
� am4( Pay ,.,i,
Rick and Pat Hilliard
Owners of 6 Meadowlark Lane
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
(310)377-4689
cc: • Rolling Hills Community Association
�{- • oO6EOd14
/(4/ 1 8 1995
re-t-rn C)32
td2/1,z1.
/�zGviC� ln�. !J
CITY Of ROLLING HILLS
Ie.* . 95
S
•
.0e*
al /Vt. Cji. •
/7 te711
4711' r7A4) 4404AP< i6t 0/11J
" Pow fxPiP
tk, 0414 vo a'kij
40/ .evi i91//'
/1744m,
l'14-1 • afAd r tf-*
ibry7-7
r42,9t jaaf' it/1J-
07-
7)4-`
Arid-w
4
6,111-J-
AUGDeENE1
p q 1995
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
By
3 Meadow Lark Lane
Rolling Hills, Ca.
August 7, 1995
Planning Commission
City of Rolling Hills
No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, California
•
REQUEST: On site view to the left of No. 3 Meadow Lark Lane(side of garage).
The map shown at the "on site" review, Sat. Aug. 5, did not show the entrance
to the proposed garage on lot No. 20. Mrs. Hilliard informed us that the
architect plans a circular drive with the entrance facing the side toward
No. 3 Meadow Lark. Is this permissible with the current available land and
easement?*
IWe will be away from August 10 - Sept. 17, and plan to move the metal storage
building off the property line when we return.
Sincerely yours,
Virginia F. Gibson,
Richard B. Gibson
* See stake at the top of the hill - the next stake is almost level with the
proposed guest house.
EAXOIL A. SESSAL. Ja
S TEPHEN ToUNO
SODENT U. LOGAN
IOC/AIL X. ()LESS
PETER L ROUTIN
SCOTT L PRATT
TRENT NOSS
JOHN D. OITPD1
WILLIAM R. COLLIER. JR.
ROBERT D. TEIOHNE!
P HILIP A. Mc LEOD
NEAL S. ROBS
BEN sUTES
STEPS EN C. CLIFFORD
E. SCOTT DOOOLE
JOSSPS S. SCHDCHERT
SHANNON L. XcD0004LDI
WILLIAX S. Xc DONNELL. JL
XICL4SL A. THURMAJI
DAWN X. SCHOCE
TIXOTHT P. WTLL
ALBERT E. PEACOCK III•
CAXERON STOUT
JOHX a LOFTUS
DAVID It. BARTHOLOMEW
JEFFREY D. wARHEN
!ODE=T J. STEXLES
LISA X. BaaLAIN
JANET X. SIXXOXS
Boaz=T J. DOCEot
DOVOLaS a Davis•
ELIZABETH A. KENDEICZ
LINDA A. LOPTUS
MICHELE R. PEON
ELIZADETH P. DEAZLET
ERIC R. SWETT
10BERT A.. $LEICHE!
PAm.J.SCHUMACHER
BRIAN L. ZAOOII
ORR0011T R. COPELAND
OP COUNSEL
MICHAEL H. W00DELL•
H. TAILOR, Ja
JOS UM A. WALSH u
XICHAEL C. LICOsaT1
MAXIM L. ROBINSON
GANT R. OLSASON
XICRAEL L. ARMITAGE
JODI S. COUP
MARK W. NELSON
?HILIr a IaxrIIEEE!
LESLIE X. SULLIVAN
ROBERT D. ERICSON
EERBENT H. RAT, Ja•
E. SCOTT TALKER
JILL E. OLO7soN
JULIE L. TAYLOR
LISA E. DONAHUE
STACEY XTERS OA/MITT
XICHaEL A. SITE WAX
008DON C. TOUNO
WILLIAM J. DRIDOEN
OREOORY A. DOSS
RICHARD W. SKIRLS
PAUL I. RAXADA
ELIZABETH J. LINDH
LAUREN SAL FORBES
PETER J. XOROAN III
atop D. XILLER
JEFFREY S. SIXON
KELLY J. MOYNIHAN
ALISSA a JANES
ELIZADETN S. ATLEE
DANIEL J. FINNERTY
GABRIELLE L. WALEER
THADDEUS T. PAULI
CRa10 E. HOLDEN
ESTHER S. SIX
JOHN X. wHELAN
KIXBERLT WONO
LAUREN N. FEIN
TERESA S. MACE
ERIC P. DAXON
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, California 90274 By
Law OFFICES
KSESAL, YOUNG & LOGAN
• PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
CATALINA LANDING
310 ()OLDEN SHORE
R.O. BOX 1730
LONO BEACH, CALIFORNIA 00801-1730
(310) 438-2000
TELECOPIEH:
(310) 436-7410 • (310) 600.8338
July 17, 1995
THEOVE_Iij
JUL 1 71995
Attn: Planning Commission
Dear Planning Commission Members:
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
SAN 7SAXCISCO OPTICS
SLATE 1600
700E EXDARCADERO CENTER
SAN Fi1ANeiSCO, CA 04111
(415) 3911.0000
TELSCOPISR:
(418) 081.778E • (416) 380•5631
ANCHOLOE OPTICS
SUITE 080
1020 WEST 3RD AVENUE
ANCHOEAOE. ALASL 90501-1017
(007) 270.08011
TELECOMS!: (007) 070.4939
SEATTLE OFFICE
SUITE s71•
2001 FIFTH avENUE
SEATTLE, WasKINOTON 08101
(900) 0E0.0100
TELECOPIER: (906) 343-0629
TELEX: KEES4L LOB
856460
• ADMITTED IN ALASKA
t ADNAT(O IN WASHINGTON
t ADNITT(O IN CA NTORNIA & WAENINGTON
ALL OTN(NS ADNRT(O IN CALIFORNIA
I am an adjacent landowner to the Hilliards who, I understand, have requested a
conditional use permit for the construction of a guest house, stable, corral and large parking area, as
well as a substantial additional to their own home. While I am delighted to see anyone improve
their home, I seriously question the purpose and appropriateness of some of these proposed
additions.
It is my understanding that the Hilliards are operating a commercial landscaping
business from their home. I walked by this morning and took some photos which confirm two
trucks, equipment and material were and are in the parking area. My wife and I were dismayed to
see several Latin American workers crossing our property approximately 30 feet from our physical
backyard. It appears they were leaving the Hilliards property by that route to avoid detection after
the Hilliards were warned about running a business from their home.
While we do not know the Hilliards and hope that ultimately their home will be
beautiful and a welcome addition to Rolling Hills, all that seems to have been done so far is to have
cut down landscaping which exposes a view of their home to us. Attached are photos demonstrating
that fact. Prior to that, there were trees and bushes which made our home much more private.
City of Rolling Hills
July 17, 1995
Page 2
I question the wisdom of grading the property for the proposed additions, given the
steepness of the grade. I am also concerned about the adverse affect on our privacy, our view and
our enjoyment of our home.
Thank you for your consideration.
Best regards,
Nukok ObociA k
SAMUEL A. KEESAL, JR.
SAKhpf (306683)
Mrs. ‘ C. Banta
6 Portuguese Bend Road
'Rolling Hills, CA 90274
•
•
To the Planning Commission of the
City of Rolling Hills,
Dear Sirs,
Rolling Hills, 7.16.95
lECEIVE13
JUL 171995
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
By
I received your notice of a public hearing before the Planning Commission
regarding the zoning case No.527.
The proposed construction of a guest house and grading for future stable
is planned on a very slanted area, which is part of the canyon adjacent
to my property.
I am concerned that these constructions could effect the proper functions
and appearance of this natural canyon.
I would request that the Planning Commission investigates these matters
carefully before approving any permits and plans of this case.
Yours sincerely,
11,07.01u&,,t,
Mrs. C. Banta.
Ed, H. Swart
2 Meadowlark Lane,
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
To the Planning Commission of
the City of Rolling Hills,
Gentlemen,
1111§@EFIR
�J
JUL 171995
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
By
July 15,1995
Rolling Hills,
I am writing to oppose the granting of a conditional use
permit in zoning case # 527. My opposition is based on the following:
1. The occupants of the home on the property are operating
a commercial business from their home. They acknowledged
that they were operating a landscaping business from the
property, from the day they moved into the residence.
In fact my wife and I have both witnessed landscaping
laborers coming to the property in the early morning,
picking up equipment and materials, leaving the property,
presumably to do landscaping work elsewhere and returning
in the late afternoon to return trucks, equipment,etc.
After concerns were expressed, the laborers began also
leaving the property via the canyon to Palos Verdes Drive N.
It has come to my attention that the Hilliards likewise
operating a business from their previous home with trucks,
equipment, materials, etc., causing complaints from the
neighbors.
2. I question whether the guest house and its substantial
parking area will, in fact, be used as a "guest house".
Given the information above, I question whether the guest
house would be used as an office for the business with trucks
and equipment being stored in the parking area.
3. I question if the steep sloped land, part of an important
natural canyon, bordering also to my property, is suitable
for all this proposed construction,
Thank you for your attention to this matter,
Sincerely,
Ed. H. Swart
•
July 13, 1995
Mr. Craig Nealis
City Manager
City of Rolling Hills
No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, California 90274
RE: Zoning Case No. 527
Dear Mr. Nealis:
1.7.] E
JUL I71995
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
By
The Howell family of 2 Saddleback Road objects to the variance requested by the Hilliard family
of 6 Meadowlark Lane to build a guest house and a stable on the steep grade bordering the
canyon joining Bent Springs Canyon. We feel it would undermine this small hill we share with the
residents of Meadow Lark Lane. Two canyons with running water meet just below this hill of
five homes and we are concerned about any grading and building on this hillside.
We strongly object to this variance for a guest house and grading. We have also noticed the
owners have been running their gardening business, Peninsula Landscaping, from their home and
yard. We fear this expansion of guest house and barn would be used for storage of plants and
equipment and for business purposes, both of which are not permitted in the City of Rolling Hills.
Sincerel
i )
WILL
rent F. Howell
BFH/mh
howell\nealis
S
lE@En#E1
JUL. 121995
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
By
City of Rolling Hills
Attn: Mr. Craig Nealis
Re: Lot # 20
•
3 Meadow Lark Lane
Rolling Hills, Ca.
July 13, 1995
We understand the necessity of preserving our steep rolling hills,
especially near the canyons, with adequate vegetation to prevent_flooding
and possible landslides.
Our hill to the canyon, as well as lot # 20, is very steep; therefore
we question the feasibility of grading necessary for a future stable on
the lower level of this lot without expert opinion.
We are sorry that we will be unable to attend the hearing on Tuesday,
July 18.
Richard B. Gibson �►i
-6,4 h7i
VirgG'nia F. Gibson
•
C14 o/ ie0fA4 Jhff
HEARING DATE: AUGUST 15, 1995
TO:
FROM:
•
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX: (310) 377-7288
HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
LOLA UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
APPLICATION NO.
SITE LOCATION:
ZONING & SIZE:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PUBLISHED:
REOUEST
ZONING CASE NO. 527
6 MEADOWLARK LANE (LOT 20-RH)
RA-S-1, 1.742 ACRES
MR. AND MRS. RICHARD HILLIARD
MR. DOUGLAS MCHATTIE, SOUTH BAY ENGINEERING
JULY 8,1995
Request for a Conditional Use Permit to permit construction of a guest house;
request for Site Plan Review for the construction of substantial additions to an
existing single family residence; and request for Site Plan Review to permit grading
for a future stable and corral.
BACKGROUND
1. The Planning Commission viewed silhouettes and stakings of the proposed
project on August 5, 1995. Commission concerns included: the close
proximity of the proposed project and the adjacent property's garage at 3
Meadowlark Lane, the height of the existing recreation court fencing, and
building pad coverages.
2. A letter from the applicants to the Commission, received August 2, 1995, is
attached. Following the field trip, we received a second letter from Mr. &
Mrs. Richard B. Gibson, 3 Meadowlark Lane that is attached. Mrs. Gibson said
that she would be away from August 10 to September 17, 1995. She left a
message saying that she would like the Commission to do a field trip from
her home to see the property from her perspective. She is concerned with the
proposed garage. Also, we included six letters from the following nearby
property owners: Mrs. Hazel S. Banta, 6 Portuguese Bend Road; Mr. & Mrs.
Gibson; Mr. & Mrs. Brent F. Howell, 2 Saddleback Road; Mr. & Mrs. Samuel
A. Keesal, Jr., 4 Portuguese Bend Road; Mr. & Mrs. Sahab Sanjar, 1
Meadowlark Lane; and Mr. & Mrs. Edward H. Swart, 2 Meadowlark Lane.
Printed on Recycled Paper.
• •
ZONING CASE NO. 527
PAGE 2
3. The applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to construct an 800
square foot guest house to be located at the central portion of the lot where
there is a pool and a recreation court.
They also request Site Plan Review for the construction of substantial
additions to the existing residence. The existing residence is 1,865 square feet
with a 373 square foot garage. The new residence will be 3,653 square feet with
a 620 square foot garage.
In addition, the applicants request Site Plan Review to grade the lower
portion of the lot for the future construction of a 450 square foot stable and a
945 square foot corral.
4. The structural lot coverage proposed is 4,792 square feet or 7.6% (20%
permitted) and the total lot coverage proposed is 13,276 square feet or 21.0%
(35% permitted).
5. The building pad coverage proposed for the 11,608 square foot residential
building pad is 36.8%, building pad coverage proposed for the 4,684 square
foot pad that contains a pool, recreation court and guest house is 69.56%, and
the building pad coverage proposed for the 1,395 square foot pad for the future
stable and corral pad is 32.3%. The total building pad coverage (all three pads)
will be 37.0%.
6. The existing house and attached garage were built in 1951. The retaining wall
and tennis court were built in 1953, and a swimming pool was constructed in
1959.
7. Grading for the project site will require 920 cubic yards of cut soil and 920
cubic yards of fill soil.
8. Disturbed area of the lot will be 17,237 square feet or 27.3%. The Zoning Code
permits 40% maximum disturbed area; defined as any graded building pad
area, any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist and any planned
landscaped areas.
9. Attached are 3 tables that show the Code Requirements for a Guest House,
Criteria & Major Impacts, and Adjacent Properties.
10. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the proposed plans and
take public testimony.
• •
ZONING CASE NO. 527
PAGE 3
CODE REQUIREMENTS
FOR GUEST HOUSE
a. Requires all guest or servant
quarters on same recorded lot as
main house
b. Maximum 800 sq.ft. floor area
c. No kitchen or other cooking
facilities permitted
d. Develop and maintain in
substantial conformance with site
plan
e. No vehicular access or paved
parking area permitted to be
developed within 50' of proposed
guest house or servant quarters
f. No guest may remain in occupancy
more than 30 days in any 6 month
period
PROPOSED
Proposed
Proposed
Required condition
Required condition
Required condition
Required condition
g. Renting of guest house is prohibited Required condition
h. Comply with all requirements
i. Preliminary landscaping plan
required
Required condition
Required condition
ZONING CASE NO. 527
PAGE 4
CRITERIA
& 1bMAJOR IMPACTS
RA-S-1 Zone Setbacks:
Front: 50 ft. from front easement line
Side: 20 ft. from property line
Rear: 50 ft. from property line
Structures
Grading
Disturbed Area
(40% maximum; any graded building
pad area, any nongraded area where
impervious surfaces exist and any
planned landscaped areas)
Structural Lot Coverage
(20% maximum)
Total Lot Coverage
(35% maximum)
Residential Building Pad Coverage
(30 to 35% recommended)
Second Building Pad Coverage
Third Building Pad Coverage
Total Building Pad Coverage
Roadway Access
EXISTING
Does not encroach into setbacks.
Residence
Garage
Swim Pool
Recreat'n Court
Service Yard
TOTAL
N/A
1,865
373
530
1,928
96
4,792 sq.ft.
N/A
7.6% (4,792 sq.ft.)
14.3%(9,046 sq.ft.)
19.3% of 11,608 sq.ft. building pad
52.5% of 4,684 sq.ft.. building pad
(includes pool Sr court)
N/A
N/A
Existing
PROPOSED
Will not encroach into setbacks.
Residence
Garage
Swim Pool
Recreat'n Court
Service Yard
Guest House
Future Stable
Future Corral
550
TOTAL
3,653
620
530
1,928
96
800
450
8,077sq.ft.
920 cubic yards cut soil
920 cubic yards fill soil
27.3%
12.8%(8,077 sq.ft.)
21.0%(13,276 sq.ft.)
36.8% of 11,608 sq.ft. building pad
69.56% of 4,684 sq.ft. building
pad(includes pool, recreation court &
guest house)
32.3% of 1,395 sq.ft. building pad
37.0%
Existing
Access to Stable and Corral
(Accessibility and maximum 4:1
(25%) slope required ONLY for new
residence or additions that require
Site Plan Review).
Preserve Views
Preserve Plants and Animals
ZONING CASE NO. 527
PAGE 5
2 Saddleback Road
6 Saddleback Road
2 Meadowlark Lane
6 Meadowlark Lane
3 Meadowlark Lane
1 Meadowlark Lane
4 Portuguese Bend Rd.
6 Portuguese Bend Rd.
N/A
N/A
N/A
ADJACENT PROPERTIES
OWNER,
HOWELL
REITER
SWART
HILLIARD
GIBSON
ISHKHANIAN
KEESAL
BANTA
AVERAGE
PROPOSED
12.5 to 20% (But, ONLY applies for
new residence or additions that
require Site Plan Review).
Planning Commission will field trip.
Planning Commission will field trip.
RESIDENCE (SO.FT.).
3,645
3,840
3,007
1,865 (Existing)
2,197
2,308
4,726
1,887
2,934
3,653
LOT SIZE
ACRES(\NETI
1.05
3.44
1.20
1.45
1.53
1.01
2.28
1.20
1.64
1.45
July 28, 1995
Lola Ungar
Principal Planner
Planning Commission
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
•
IyHM9
AUG 0 2 1995
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
By
Subject: Zoning Case No 527
Mr. & Mrs. Richard Hilliard, 6 Meadowlark Lane (Lot 20-RH)
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a guest house, request
for Site Plan Review for the construction of substantial additions;
and request for Site Plan Review for grading for a future stable
and corral.
Dear Planning Commission:
At the last Planning Commission meeting on July 18, 1995 we were
very upset by the comments made by our neighbors. While we fully
understand everyone's right to come to public meetings and voice
their opinions, their comments seemed completely out of place and
contained many false allegations. After thinking about their comments,
we feel it is necessary and our right to respond and have our opinion
voiced for the record.
The Planning Commission as we understand it, follows a set of written
rules, regulations and City guidelines to determine whether plans for
a remodel, guest house or stable can be built on a property in Rolling
Hills. Over this past year, we have hired professionals including Keith
Ehlert, a licensed geologist, South Bay Engineering for the site plan and
Robinson/North Architects to help design our project. All three firms
have worked on homes in Rolling Hills and are very familiar with the
regulations. It has been a long process to come up with a plan that we
feel we can live with and that meets City and Association requirements.
South Bay Engineering and our architect attended the July 18 Planning
Commission meeting so that, if there were any questions about
the plan, we would have experts there that could answer any questions.
Page two
However, at that meeting, our neighbors chose to speak about issues
which have no relation to our remodel or had any valid objections to the
permits requested. Nevertheless, our response to their comments are:
1. Peninsula Landscaping does not operate out of our home and
has not since October, 1994. Our equipment and trucks are stored in three
locations in San Pedro, workers meet at the job site everyday, materials are
drop shipped at the customer's and customers never come to our property --
Rick meets them at their property to discuss job and give estimates.
Peninsula Landscaping workers do come to our property once a week
to do the gardening and they come here to clear brush, trim trees, etc.
on an as needed basis. We cherish our privacy from our business as much
as our neighbors do. We don't want our workers at our home for any reason
other than to do specific work on the property. This week and next, our
workers will be on our property clearing out the lower pads for the Field
inspection.
2. We respect that our neighbor has a 4 year old. We love kids
and don't want anything to happen to anyone's child. But when a young
child runs out into the street, we can only hope that whoever is driving
on the street will be able to stop in time. It is our recommendation that
the Sanjars trim the hedge surrounding their driveway or put up a
mirror to the street, so that people driving on the street can see kids
in their driveway. It would also help the Sanjar's when they are
backing out of their driveway, as they have almost run us over twice.
3. If the Keesals or any other neighbor sees anyone walking through
their property, we ask that they call the police. Those people are
trespassing and we, too, feel the need for more security. During times
when we were cleaning off our property, including our lower hillside, we
found evidence of transients living in the canyon. This is one
reason we look forward to landscaping and cleaning up this part of our
property. It is a constant source of worry about who's living down there.
4. Dr. Gibson is worried about the steepness of the canyon for
the future stable. The area is so overgrown with trees and brush, it
is difficult for him to see, but there is a lower pad which is perfect for
a barn and corral. He needs to refer to the site plan and geology report.
• •
Page three
5. Mr. Swart voiced his concerns about the fact that we come and
go a lot from our house. This seems to be his biggest contention against
us. We didn't know there was a rule that limits you to how many times
you can come and go from your own home or how many times you
can drive on the street. This is his problem and probably stems from
the fact that his house sits right on the street with no set back. We
are being required to set our house back 50' from the street.
It seems to us that our neighbors are grasping at straws to prevent
us from remodeling, but they really have not had what we would
call relevant objections to our plans and request for permits. We
understand remodeling causes disruption in the neighborhood for a
while but it is absolutely necessary and in accordance with our property
rights to seek the permits. Our house is 44 years old and was not
kept up over the last 15 years. The plumbing, electrical and heating is
not operational at many times and we need to get our project moving
before any of these items go out completely.
We look forward to the field inspection by the Commission on August
5, 1995. We will again have South Bay Engineering and our architect at
the property for any questions. Our hope is that you will look at
the project objectively and base your decision on its own merits.
Sincerly,
RA:el coil
Rick and Pat Hilliard
Owners of 6 Meadowlark Lane
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
(310)377-4689
cc: Rolling Hills Community Association
•
Planning Commission
City of Rolling Hills
No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, California
AUGNil Wif -6)
0 71995
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
By
3 Meadow Lark Lane
Rolling Hills, Ca.
August 7, 1995
REQUEST: On site view to the left of No. 3 Meadow Lark Lane(side of garage).
The map shown at the "on site" review, Sat. Aug. 5, did not show the entrance
to the proposed garage on lot No. 20. Mrs. Hilliard informed us that the
architect plans a circular drive with the entrance facing the side toward
No. 3 Meadow Lark. Is this permissible with the current available land and
easement?*
IWe will be away from August 10 - Sept. 17, and plan to move the metal storage
building off the property line when we return.
Sincerely yours,
Virginia F. Gibson,
/fit
/ L:c (.�,;Y,�,! r .
Richard B. Gibson
* See stake at the top of the hill - the next stake is almost level with the
proposed guest house.
•ai-Ad:e/fdiev
C))1A2-i er-r)
1cc�ucvx 1 (�v.
IgEodE�
JUL 181995
CITY O ROLLING HILLS
B �� I�� )
v
/Q.a /4_, an. /-/z� n f
; , da
11,
We /i" - ��°/w76v
xt.e61,,5z „f_<2ca--13*.,eA o4t4, /eta-1162-71e/
/22e311
P <<
�yy �.
,4r
404, ,r4°1, ia,oft< rylif
_1 rA
1
im° 01)A. d
4et- j44,e.J/rrif-e--
1511 av-a/
51411.P
t,fro I
ftv 30
* frY1/ 4,4%/if,a /1/1
7,14///r
10A- /41-4-4
r2f,v- thb°
"4- 721('-
oe,d"ft
,gyp/2,2,,r,1;7
040
SAMUEL A. KEESAL, MIL
S TEPHEN YOUNO
ROBERT H. LOOM
MICHAEL M. OLESS
PETER E. DOUTIN
S COTT T. PENT
TERRY ROSS
JORN D. OIFFLN
WILLIAM R. COLLIER, JR.
ROBERT D. PEIOHNEE
PHILIP A. Mc LEOD
NEAL S. ROBB
BEN SUTER
STEPHEN C. CLIFFORD
E. SCOTT D0170LAS
JOSEPH S. SCHUCHERT
SHANNON L. Mc DOUOALDI
WILLIAM E. Mc DONNELL, JR.
MICHAEL A. THURMAN
DAWN M. SCHOCE
TIMOTHY N. WILL
ALBERT E. PEACOCK HI •
CaMERON STOUT
JOHN E. LOFTUS
DAVID M. BARTHOLOMEW
JEFFREY D. WARREN
ROBERT J. STEMLER
USA M. BERTAIN
JANET M. SIMMONS
ROBERT J. BOCKot
DOUGLAS L DAVIS•
ELIZABETH A. KENDRICE
LINDA A. LOFTUS
MICHALE R. PROW
ELIZABETH P. BEAZLEY
ERIC L SWETT
ROBERT A. BLEICHER
PAUL J. SCHUMACHER
BRIAN L. ZAOON
OREOORY 6. COPELAND
OP COUNSEL
MICHAEL H. WOODE LL•
REESE H. TAYLOR. JR.
JOSEPH A. WALSE II
MICHAEL C. LICOSATI
EAREN L. ROBINSON
OARY R. OLEASox
MICHAEL L. ARMITAOE
JODI s. coaax
MARE W. NELSON
PHILIP L LEMPRIEREt
LESLIE X. SULLIVAN
ROBERT B. ERICSON
HERBERT H. RAY, JR.•
E. SCOTT PALMER
JILL E. OLO730W
JULIE L. TAYLOR
LISA E. DONAHUE
STACET MYERS OARRETT
MICHAEL A. SITZMAN
GORDON C. YOUNO
WILLIAM J. BRIDGES
OREOORY A. BOSS
RICHARD W. SMIRL
PAUL I. HAMADA
ELIZABETH J. LINDH
LAUREN SARA FORBES
PETER J. MOROAN III
ROD D. MILLER
JEFFREY S. SIMON
KELLY J. MOYNIHAN
ALISSA B. JANE5
ELIZABETH E. ATLEE
DANIEL J. FINNERTT
OABRIELLE L. WALKER
THADDEUS I. PAULI
CHAIO E. HOLDEN
ESTHER S. KIM
JOHN M. WHELAN
KIMBERLY MONO
LAUREN N. FEIN
TERESA S. MACK
ERIC P. DAMON
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, California 90274 By
LAM OFFICES
KE E SAL, YOUNG Be LOGAN
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
CATALINA. LANDING
310 GOLDEN SHORE
P.O. BOX 1730
LONO BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90801-1730
(310) 438-2000
TELECOPIER:
(310) 436.7416 . (310) 000-8338
July 17, 1995
L]EgliVET)
JUL 1 71995
Attn: Planning Commission
Dear Planning Commission Members:
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
SAX FRANCISCO OFFICE
SUITE 1500
FOUR EMBARCADERO CENTER
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
(415) 008.6000
TELECOPIER:
(418) 081.7729 • (418) 082-8535
ANCHOEAOE OFFICE
SUITE 680
1020 WEST ORD AVENUE
ANCHORAGE, ALAS KA 00801.1917
(907) 279-0808
TELECOPIER: (007) 279-4200
SEATTLE OFFICE
SUITE R71♦
1301 FIFTH AVENUE
SEATTLE, WASHINOTON 08101
(ROS) 030-0700
TELECOPIER: (006) 043-0800
TELEX: KEESAL LOB
656460
*ADMITTED IN ALASKA
}• ADMITTED IN WASHINGTON
♦ ADMITTED IN CALIrORNIA A WASHINGTON
ALL OTHERS ADMITTED IN CALIIOMNIA
I am an adjacent landowner to the Hilliards who, I understand, have requested a
conditional use permit for the construction of a guest house, stable, corral and large parking area, as
well as a substantial additional to their own home. While I am delighted to see anyone improve
their home, I seriously question the purpose and appropriateness of some of these proposed
additions.
It is my understanding that the Hilliards are operating a commercial landscaping
business from their home. I walked by this morning and took some photos which confirm two
trucks, equipment and material were and are in the parking area. My wife and I were dismayed to
see several Latin American workers crossing our property approximately 30 feet from our physical
backyard. It appears they were leaving the Hilliards property by that route to avoid detection after
the Hilliards were warned about running a business from their home.
While we do not know the Hilliards and hope that ultimately their home will be
beautiful and a welcome addition to Rolling Hills, all that seems to have been done so far is to have
cut down landscaping which exposes a view of their home to us. Attached are photos demonstrating
that fact. Prior to that, there were trees and bushes which made our home much more private.
City of Rolling Hills
July 17, 1995
Page 2
I question the wisdom of grading the property for the proposed additions, given the
steepness of the grade. I am also concerned about the adverse affect on our privacy, our view and
our enjoyment of our home.
Thank you for your consideration.
Best regards,
ttuw ockx 0A
SAMUEL A. KEESAL, JR.
SAK/tpf (306683)
Mrs. C. Banta
6 Portuguese Bend Road
'Rolling Hills, CA 90274
• •
To the Planning Commission of the
City of Rolling Hills,
Dear Sirs,
Rolling Hills, 7.16.95
lECEOVE -61
JUL 1 71995
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
By
I received your notice of a public hearing before the Planning Commission
regarding the zoning case No.527.
The proposed construction of a guest house and grading for future stable
is planned on a very slanted area, which is part of the canyon adjacent
to my property.
I am concerned that these constructions could effect the proper functions
and appearance of this natural canyon.
I would request that the Planning Commission investigates these matters
carefully before approving any permits and plans of this case.
Yours sincerely,
Mrs. C. Banta.
Ed, H. Swart
2 Meadowlark Lane,
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
To the Planning Commission of
the City of Rolling Hills,
Gentlemen,
0
I@EFER
JUL 171995
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
By
July 15,1995
Rolling Hills,
I am writing to oppose the granting of a conditional use
permit in zoning case # 527. My opposition is based on the following:
1. The occupants of the home on the property are operating
a commercial business from their home. They acknowledged
that they were operating a landscaping business from the
property, from the day they moved into the residence.
In fact my wife and I have both witnessed landscaping
laborers coming to the property in the early morning,
picking up equipment and materials, leaving the property,
presumably to do landscaping work elsewhere and returning
in the late afternoon to return trucks, equipment,etc.
After concerns were expressed, the laborers began also
leaving the property via the canyon to Palos Verdes Drive N.
It has come to my attention that the Hilliards likewise
operating a business from their previous home with trucks,
equipment, materials, etc., causing complaints from the
neighbors.
2. I question whether the guest house and its substantial
parking area will, in fact, be used as a "guest house".
Given the information above, I question whether the guest
house would be used as an office for the business with trucks
and equipment being stored in the parking area.
3. I question if the steep sloped land, part of an important
natural canyon, bordering also to my property, is suitable
for all this proposed construction,
Thank you for your attention to this matter,
Sincerely,
Ed. H. Swart
• •
July 13, 1995
Mr. Craig Nealis
City Manager
City of Rolling Hills
No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, California 90274
RE: Zoning Case No. 527
Dear Mr. Nealis:
`N
JUL 1 7 1995
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
By
The Howell family of 2 Saddleback Road objects to the variance requested by the Hilliard family
of 6 Meadowlark Lane to build a guest house and a stable on the steep grade bordering the
canyon joining Bent Springs Canyon. We feel it would undermine this small hill we share with the
residents of Meadow Lark Lane. Two canyons with running water meet just below this hill of
five homes and we are concerned about any grading and building on this hillside.
We strongly object to this variance for a guest house and grading. We have also noticed the
owners have been running their gardening business, Peninsula Landscaping, from their home and
yard. We fear this expansion of guest house and barn would be used for storage of plants and
equipment and for business purposes, both of which are not permitted in the City of Rolling Hills.
Sincerel ,
i\r'(_/(Z)
rent F. Howell
BFH/mh
howell\nealis
411
lE@EM1
JUL. 121995
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
By
3 Meadow Lark Lane
Rolling Hills, Ca.
July 13, 1995
City of Rolling Hills
Attn: Mr. Craig Nealis
Re: Lot # 20
We understand the necessity of preserving our steep rolling hills,
especially near the canyons, with adequate vegetation to prevent_flooding
and possible landslides.
Our hill to the canyon, as well as lot # 20, is very steep; therefore
we question the feasibility of grading necessary for a future stable on
the lower level of this lot without expert opinion.
We are sorry that we will be unable to attend the hearing on Tuesday,
July 18.
Z,4 (A-6,
Richard B. Gibson
VirgG'nia F. Gibson
•
Ci1y ofieo llin9
HEARING DATE: AUGUST 5, 1995
TO:
i
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX: (310) 377-7288
HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: LOLA UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
APPLICATION NO.
SITE LOCATION:
ZONING & SIZE:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PUBLISHED:
REOUEST
ZONING CASE NO. 527
6 MEADOWLARK LANE (LOT 20-RH)
RA-S-1, 1.742 ACRES
MR. AND MRS. RICHARD HILLIARD
MR. DOUGLAS MCHATTIE, SOUTH BAY ENGINEERING
JULY 8, 1995
Request for a Conditional Use Permit to permit construction of a guest house,
request for Site Plan Review for the construction of substantial additions to an
existing single family residence; and request for Site Plan Review to permit grading
for a future stable and corral.
BACKGROUND•
1. Staff received the attached letter from the applicants. on August 2, 1995
2. The applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to construct an 800
square foot guest house to be located at the central portion of the lot where
there is a pool and a recreation court.
They also request Site Plan Review for the construction of substantial
additions to the existing residence. The existing residence is 1,865 square feet
with a 373 square foot garage. The new residence will be 3,653 square feet with
a 620 square foot garage.
In addition, the applicants request Site Plan Review to grade the lower
portion of the lot for the future construction of a 450 square foot stable and a
945 square foot corral.
Printed on Recycled Paper.
• •
ZONING CASE NO. 527
PAGE 2
3. The existing house and attached garage were built in 1951. The retaining wall
and tennis court were built in 1953, and a swimming pool was constructed in
1959.
4. Grading for the project site will require 920 cubic yards of cut soil and 920
cubic yards of fill soil.
5. Disturbed area of the lot will be 17,237 square feet or 27.3%. The Zoning Code
permits 40% maximum disturbed area; defined as any graded building pad
area, any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist and any planned
landscaped areas.
6. The structural lot coverage proposed is 4,792 square feet or 7.6% (20%
permitted) and the total lot coverage proposed is 13,276 square feet or 21.0%
(35% permitted).
7. The building pad coverage proposed for the 11,608 square foot residential
building pad is 36.8%, building pad coverage proposed for the 4,684 square
foot pad that contains a pool, recreation court and guest house is 69.56%, and
the building pad coverage proposed for the 1,395 square foot pad for the future
stable and corral pad is 32.3%. The total building pad coverage (all three pads)
will be 37.0%.
8. Attached are six letters from the following nearby property owners: Mrs.
Hazel S. Banta, 6 Portuguese Bend Road; Mr. & Mrs. Richard B. Gibson, 3
Meadowlark Lane; Mr. & Mrs. Brent F. Howell, 2 Saddleback Road; Mr. &
Mrs. Samuel A. Keesal, Jr., 4 Portuguese Bend Road; Mr. & Mrs. Sahab Sanjar,
1 Meadowlark Lane; and Mr. & Mrs. Edward H. Swart, 2 Meadowlark Lane.
9. Attached are 3 tables that show the Code Requirements for a Guest House,
Criteria & Major Impacts, and Adjacent Properties.
10. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the proposed plans and
take public testimony.
• •
ZONING CASE NO. 527
PAGE 3
CODE REQUIREMENTS
FOR GUESTHOUSE
a. Requires all guest or servant
quarters on same recorded lot as
main house
b. Maximum 800 sq.ft. floor area
c. No kitchen or other cooking
facilities permitted
d. Develop and maintain in
substantial conformance with site
plan
e. No vehicular access or paved
parking area permitted to be
developed within 50' of proposed
guest house or servant quarters
f. No guest may remain in occupancy
more than 30 days in any 6 month
period
g. Renting of guest house is prohibited
h. Comply with all requirements
i. Preliminary landscaping plan
required
PROPOSED
Proposed
Proposed
Required condition
Required condition
Required condition
Required condition
Required condition
Required condition
Required condition
ZONING CASE NO. 527
PAGE 4
CRITERIA
& MAJOR IMPACTS
RA-S-1 Zone Setbacks:
Front: 50 ft. from front easement line
Side: 20 ft. from property line
Rear: 50 ft. from property line
Structures
Grading
Disturbed Area
(40% maximum; any graded building
pad area, any nongraded area where
impervious surfaces exist and any
planned landscaped areas)
Structural Lot Coverage
(20% maximum)
Total Lot Coverage
(35% maximum)
Residential Building Pad Coverage
(30 to 35% recommended)
Second Building Pad Coverage
Third Building Pad Coverage
Total Building Pad Coverage
Roadway Access
EXISTING
Does not encroach into setbacks.
Residence
Garage
Swim Pool
Recreat'n Court
Service Yard
TOTAL
N/A
1,865
373
530
1,928
96
4,792 sq.ft.
N/A
7.6% (4,792 sq.ft.)
14.3%(9,046 sq.ft.)
19.3% of 11,608 sq.ft. building pad
52.5% of 4,684 sq.ft.. building pad
(includes pool & court)
N/A
N/A
Existing
PROPOSED
Will not encroach into setbacks.
Residence
Garage
Swim Pool
Recreat'n Court
Service Yard
Guest House
Future Stable
Future Corral
550
3,653
620
530
1,928
96
800
450
TOTAL 8,077sq.ft.
920 cubic yards cut soil
920 cubic yards fill soil
27.3%
12.8%(8,077 sq.ft.)
21.0%(13,276 sq.ft.)
36.8% of 11,608 sq.ft. building pad
69.56% of 4,684 sq.ft. building
pad(includes pool, recreation court &
guest house)
32.3% of 1,395 sq.ft. building pad
37.0%
Existing
Access to Stable and Corral
(Accessibility and maximum 4:1
(25%) slope required ONLY for new
residence or additions that require
Site Plan Review).
Preserve Views
Preserve Plants and Animals
ZONING CASE NO. 527
PAGE 5
ADDRESS
2 Saddleback Road
6 Saddleback Road
2 Meadowlark Lane
6 Meadowlark Lane
3 Meadowlark Lane
1 Meadowlark Lane
N/A
N/A
N/A
ADJACENT PROPERTIES
OWNER
HOWELL
REITER
SWART
HILLIARD
GIBSON
ISHKHANIAN
4 Portuguese Bend Rd. KEESAL
6 Portuguese Bend Rd. BANTA
AVERAGE
PROPOSED
12.5 to 20% (But, ONLY applies for
new residence or additions that
require Site Plan Review).
Planning Commission will field trip.
Planning Commission will field trip.
RESIDENCE (SO.FT.)
3,645
3,840
3,007
1,865 (Existing)
2,197
2,308
4,726
1,887
2,934
3,653
LOT SIZE
ACRES(NET)
1.05
3.44
1.20
1.45
1.53
1.01
2.28
1.20
1.64
1.45
• •
July 28, 1995
Lola Ungar
Principal Planner
Planning Commission
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
1 11 'H
AUG 021995
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
By
Subject: Zoning Case No 527
Mr. & Mrs. Richard Hilliard, 6 Meadowlark Lane (Lot 20-RH)
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a guest house, request
for Site Plan Review for the construction of substantial additions;
and request for Site Plan Review for grading for a future stable
and corral.
Dear Planning Commission:
At the last Planning Commission meeting on July 18, 1995 we were
very upset by the comments made by our neighbors. While we fully
understand everyone's right to come to public meetings and voice
their opinions, their comments seemed completely out of place and
contained many false allegations. After thinking about their comments,
we feel it is necessary and our right to respond and have our opinion
voiced for the record.
The Planning Commission as we understand it, follows a set of written
rules, regulations and City guidelines to determine whether plans for
a remodel, guest house or stable can be built on a property in Rolling
Hills. Over this past year, we have hired professionals including Keith
Ehlert, a licensed geologist, South Bay Engineering for the site plan and
Robinson/North Architects to help design our project. All three firms
have worked on homes in Rolling Hills and are very familiar with the
regulations. It has been a long process to come up with a plan that we
feel we can live with and that meets City and Association requirements.
South Bay Engineering and our architect attended the July 18 Planning
Commission meeting so that, if there were any questions about
the plan, we would have experts there that could answer any questions.
• •
Page two
However, at that meeting, our neighbors chose to speak about issues
which have no relation to our remodel or had any valid objections to the
permits requested. Nevertheless, our response to their comments are:
1. Peninsula Landscaping does not operate out of our home and
has not since October, 1994. Our equipment and trucks are stored in three
locations in San Pedro, workers meet at the job site everyday, materials are
drop shipped at the customer's and customers never come to our property --
Rick meets them at their property to discuss job and give estimates.
Peninsula Landscaping workers do come to our property once a week
to do the gardening and they come here to clear brush, trim trees, etc.
on an as needed basis. We cherish our privacy from our business as much
as our neighbors do. We don't want our workers at our home for any reason
other than to do specific work on the property. This week and next, our
workers will be on our property clearing out the lower pads for the Field
inspection.
2. We respect that our neighbor has a 4 year old. We love kids
and don't want anything to happen to anyone's child. But when a young
child runs out into the street, we can only hope that whoever is driving
on the street will be able to stop in time. It is our recommendation that
the Sanjars trim the hedge surrounding their driveway or put up a
mirror to the street, so that people driving on the street can see kids
in their driveway. It would also help the Sanjar's when they are
backing out of their driveway, as they have almost run us over twice.
3. If the Keesals or any other neighbor sees anyone walking through
their property, we ask that they call the police. Those people are
trespassing and we, too, feel the need for more security. During times
when we were cleaning off our property, including our lower hillside, we
found evidence of transients living in the canyon. This is one
reason we look forward to landscaping and cleaning up this part of our
property. It is a constant source of worry about who's living down there.
4. Dr. Gibson is worried about the steepness of the canyon for
the future stable. The area is so overgrown with trees and brush, it
is difficult for him to see, but there is a lower pad which is perfect for
a barn and corral. He needs to refer to the site plan and geology report.
•
Page three
5. Mr. Swart voiced his concerns about the fact that we come and
go a lot from our house. This seems to be his biggest contention against
us. We didn't know there was a rule that limits you to how many times
you can come and go from your own home or how many times you
can drive on the street. This is his problem and probably stems from
the fact that his house sits right on the street with no set back. We
are being required to set our house back 50' from the street.
It seems to us that our neighbors are grasping at straws to prevent
us from remodeling, but they really have not had what we would
call relevant objections to our plans and request for permits. We
understand remodeling causes disruption in the neighborhood for a
while but it is absolutely necessary and in accordance with our property
rights to seek the permits. Our house is 44 years old and was not
kept up over the last 15 years. The plumbing, electrical and heating is
not operational at many times and we need to get our project moving
before any of these items go out completely.
We look forward to the field inspection by the Commission on August
5, 1995. We will again have South Bay Engineering and our architect at
the property for any questions. Our hope is that you will look at
the project objectively and base your decision on its own merits.
Sincerly,
R a
Rick and Pat Hilliard
Owners of 6 Meadowlark Lane
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
(310)377-4689
cc: Rolling Hills Community Association
• HOU
ad---,04/4/4JUL 1 8 1995
CITY O ROLLING HILLS
0'71 B Ne--471 elVal
. %p `W14 7 cj /nv Ga��
i9..6 g• - c- / , o �4:nfetf
Wei "-%,_ vezec.4-1
Cori .r.
�iL2�,// GG �• Pv� T ��
‘,4e,x) l'eL41 Se-4-d`7,72.7
/4/1/ !,--Zoe,C,••44
77-/a472 - Gt, - �)
i _ t •
�� � Air-et-4
-e
7
ow"1 rA
,'°
fir.I/v rcletv
fc'
ass
v
Gam'r42fit thk°� �' � �1
may,.,
G
We". i,460:7
lig( •
SAMUEL A. KEESAL, JR.
STEPHEN YOUNG
ROBERT H. LOGAN
MICHAEL X. OLESS
PETER R. BOUTIN
SCOTT T. PRATT
TERRY ROSS
JOHN D. OIFFIN
WILLIAM H. COLLIER, JR.
ROBERT D. FEIOHNER
PHILIP A. MCLEOD
NEAL S. ROBB
BEN SITTER
STEPHEN C. CLIFFORD
E. SCOTT DOUGLAS
JOSEPH S. SCHUCHERT
SHANNON L. MCDOUGALDI
WILLIAM E. MC DONNELL, JR.
MICHAEL A. THURMAN
DAWN M. SCROCK
TIMOTHY N. WILL
ALBERT E. PEACOCK III
CAMERON STOUT
JOHN R. LOFTUS
DAVID N. BARTHOLOMEW
JEFFREY D. WARREN
ROBERT J. STEMLER
LISA M. BERTAIN
JANET M. SIMMONS
ROBERT J. SOCKOt
DOUOLAS R. DAVIS*
ELIZABETH A. HENDRICK
LINDA A. LOFTUS
MICHELE R. PEON
ELIZABETH P. DEAZLEY
ERIC R. SWETT
ROBERT A. BLEICHER
PAUL J. SCHUMACHER
BRIAN L. ZAOON
GREGORY E. COPELAND
OP COUNSEL
MICHAEL H. WOODRLL*
REESE H. TAYLOR, JR.
JOSEPH A. WALSH II
MICHAEL C. LICOSATI
EAREN L. ROBINSON
GARY R. OLEASON
MICHAEL L. ARMITAGE
JODI S. COHEN
MARE W. NELSON
PHILIP E. LEMPHIERE 1
LESLIE M. SULLIVAN
ROBERT B. ERICSON
HERBERT H. RAY, JR.*
E. SCOTT PALMER
JILL E. OLOFSON
JULIE L. TAYLOR
LISA K. DONAHUE
STACEY MYERS OARRETT
MICHAEL A. SITZMAN
GORDON C. YOUNG
WILLIAM J. BRIDGEN
GREGORY A. BOSS
RICHARD W. SMIRL
PAUL I. HAMADA
ELIZABETH J. LINDH
LAUREN SARA FORBES
PETER J. MORGAN III
ROD D. MILLER
JEFFREY S. SIMON
KELLY J. MOYNIHAN
ALISSA B. JANES
ELIZABETH E. ATLEE
DANIEL J. FINNERTY
GABRIELLE L. WALKER
THADDEUS T. PAUL?
CRAIG E. HOLDEN
ESTHER S. KIM
JOHN M. WHELAN
KIMBERLY WONO
LAUREN N. FEIN
TERESA S. MACK
ERIC P. DAMON
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, California 90274 By
LAW OFFICES
KEESAL, YOUNG & LOGAN
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
CATALINA LANDING
310 GOLDEN SHORE
P.O. BOX 1730
LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90801-1730
(310) 436-2000
TELECOPIER:
(310) 436-7416 . (310) 590-8332
July 17, 1995
Attn: Planning Commission
Dear Planning Commission Members:
.V1
JUL 1 7 1995
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE
SUITE 1500
FOUR EMBARCADERO CENTER
SAN FRANCISCO, C.A. 94111
(418) 308-6000
TELECOPIEH:
(415) 981.7729 • (415) 362-0838
ANCHORAGE OFFICE
SUITE 650
1020 WEST ORD AVENUE
ANCHORAGE, ALASEA 09501-1917
(907)279-9696
TELECOPIER: (907) 279-4239
SEATTLE OFFICE
SUITE 2714
1301 FIFTH AVENUE
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
(200) 022-3790
TELECOPIER: (206) 343-9529
TELEX: NEESAL LOB
858480
*ADMITTED IN ALASKA
t ADMITTED IN WASHINGTON
ADMITTED IN CALIFORNIA S WASHINGTON
ALL OTHERS ADMITTED IN CALIFORNIA
I am an adjacent landowner to the Hilliards who, I understand, have requested a
conditional use permit for the construction of a guest house, stable, corral and large parking area, as
well as a substantial additional to their own home. While I am delighted to see anyone improve
their home, I seriously question the purpose and appropriateness of some of these proposed
additions.
It is my understanding that the Hilliards are operating a commercial landscaping
business from their home. I walked by this morning and took some photos which confirm two
trucks, equipment and material were and are in the parking area. My wife and I were dismayed to
see several Latin American workers crossing our property approximately 30 feet from our physical
backyard. It appears they were leaving the Hilliards property by that route to avoid detection after
the Hilliards were warned about running a business from their home.
While we do not know the Hilliards and hope that ultimately their home will be
beautiful and a welcome addition to Rolling Hills, all that seems to have been done so far is to have
cut down landscaping which exposes a view of their home to us. Attached are photos demonstrating
that fact. Prior to that, there were trees and bushes which made our home much more private.
City of Rolling Hills
July 17, 1995
Page 2
I question the wisdom of grading the property for the proposed additions, given the
steepness of the grade. I am also concerned about the adverse affect on our privacy, our view and
our enjoyment of our home.
Thank you for your consideration.
Best regards,
{,k,uu G\tuoaA
SAMUEL A. KEESAL, JR.
SAK/tpf (306683)
Mrs. C. Banta
6 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
To the Planning Commission of the
City of Rolling Hills,
Dear Sirs,
Rolling Hills, 7.16.95
HEIVEJ
JUL 1 7 1995
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
By
I received your notice of a public hearing before the Planning Commission
regarding the zoning case No.527.
The proposed construction of a guest house and grading for future stable
is planned on a very slanted area, which is part of the canyon adjacent
to my property.
I am concerned that these constructions could effect the proper functions
and appearance of this natural canyon.
I would request that the Planning Commission investigates these matters
carefully before approving any permits and plans of this case.
Yours sincerely,
Mrs. C. Banta.
• .
Ed, H. Swart
2 Meadowlark Lane,
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
To the Planning Commission of
the City of Rolling Hills,
Gentlemen,
i
TIT
JUL 171995
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
By
July 15,1995
Rolling Hills,
I am writing to oppose the granting of a conditional use
permit in zoning case # 527. My opposition is based on the following:
1. The occupants of the home on the property are operating
a commercial business from their home. They acknowledged
that they were operating a landscaping business from the
property, from the day they moved into the residence.
In fact my wife and I have both witnessed landscaping
laborers coming to the property in the early morning,
picking up equipment and materials, leaving the property,
presumably to do landscaping work elsewhere and returning
in the late afternoon to return trucks, equipment,etc.
After concerns were expressed, the laborers began also
leaving the property via the canyon to Palos Verdes Drive N.
It has come to my attention that the Hilliards likewise
operating a business from their previous home with trucks,
equipment, materials, etc., causing complaints from the
neighbors.
2. I question whether the guest house and its substantial
parking area will, in fact, be used as a "guest house".
Given the information above, I question whether the guest
house would be used as an office for the business with trucks
and equipment being stored in the parking area.
3. I question if the steep sloped land, part of an important
natural canyon, bordering also to my property, is suitable
for all this proposed construction,
Thank you for your attention to this matter,
Sincerely,
Ed. H. Swart
July 13, 1995
Mr. Craig Nealis
City Manager
City of Rolling Hills
No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, California 90274
RE: Zoning Case No. 527
Dear Mr. Nealis:
11
JUL 1 7 1995
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
By
The Howell family of 2 Saddleback Road objects to the variance requested by the Hilliard family
of 6 Meadowlark Lane to build a guest house and a stable on the steep grade bordering the
canyon joining Bent Springs Canyon. We feel it would undermine this small hill we share with the
residents of Meadow Lark Lane. Two canyons with running water meet just below this hill of
five homes and we are concerned about any grading and building on this hillside.
We strongly object to this variance for a guest house and grading. We have also noticed the
owners have been running their gardening business, Peninsula Landscaping, from their home and
yard. We fear this expansion of guest house and barn would be used for storage of plants and
equipment and for business purposes, both of which are not permitted in the City of Rolling Hills.
Sincerel
rent F. Howell
BFH/mh
howell\nealis
•
JULlEgER-E1
12 1995
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
By
City of Rolling Hills
Attn: Mr. Craig Nealis
Re: Lot # 20
3 Meadow Lark Lane
Rolling Hills, Ca.
July 13, 1995
We understand the necessity of preserving our steep rolling hills,
especially near the canyons, with adequate vegetation to prevent_flooding
and possible landslides.
Our hill to the canyon, as well as lot # 20, is very steep; therefore
we question the feasibility of grading necessary for a future stable on
the lower level of this lot without expert opinion.
We are sorry that we will be unable to attend the hearing on Tuesday,
July 18.
Z-44 8 .?, 4p,
Richard B. Gibson
Virg'nia F. Gibson
•
Ci4f 0/ R0ftL4 Jhff
HEARING DATE: JULY 18, 1995
TO:
•
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX: (310) 377-7288
HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: LOLA UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
APPLICATION NO.
SITE LOCATION:
ZONING & SIZE:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PUBLISHED:
REQUEST
ZONING CASE NO. 527
6 MEADOWLARK LANE (LOT 20-RH)
RA-S-1, 1.742 ACRES
MR. AND MRS. RICHARD HILLIARD
MR. DOUGLAS MCHATTIE, SOUTH BAY ENGINEERING
JULY 8, 1995
Request for a Conditional Use Permit to permit construction of a guest house,
request for Site Plan Review for the construction of substantial additions to an
existing single family residence; and request for Site Plan Review to permit grading
for a future stable and corral.
DISCUSSION
In reviewing the applicants' request under Title 17 (Zoning), staff would identify the
following issues for evaluation:
1. The applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to construct an 800
square foot guest house to be located at the central portion of the lot where
there is a pool and a recreation court.
They also request Site Plan Review for the construction of substantial
additions to the existing residence. The existing residence is 1,865 square feet
with a 373 square foot garage. The new residence will be 3,653 square feet with
a 620 square foot garage.
In addition, the applicants request Site Plan Review to grade the lower
portion of the lot for the future construction of a 450 square foot stable and a
945 square foot corral.
Printed on Recycled Paper.
ZONING CASE NO. 527
PAGE 2
2. The existing house and attached garage were built in 1951. The retaining wall
and tennis court were built in 1953, and a swimming pool was constructed in
1959.
3. Grading for the project site will require 920 cubic yards of cut soil and 920
cubic yards of fill soil.
4. Disturbed area of the lot will be 17,237 square feet or 27.3%. The Zoning Code
permits 40% maximum disturbed area; defined as any graded building pad
area, any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist and any planned
landscaped areas. (A Planning Commission proposed ordinance currently set
for public hearing before the City Council to also include any remedial or
temporary grading within the 40% maximum disturbed area would raise the
percentage on this project to 26,402 square feet or 41.8%).
5. The structural lot coverage proposed is 4,792 square feet or 7.6% (20%
permitted) and the total lot coverage proposed is 13,276 square feet or 21.0%
(35% permitted).
6. The building pad coverage proposed for the 11,608 square foot residential
building pad is 36.8%, building pad coverage proposed for the 4,684 square
foot pad that contains a pool, recreation court and guest house is 69.56%, and
the building pad coverage proposed for the 1,395 square foot pad for the future
stable and corral pad is 32.3%. The total building pad coverage (all three pads)
will be 37.0%.
7. Attached is a letter from Dr. and Mrs. Richard Gibson. Dr. and Mrs. Gibson
and Mr. Edward Swart reviewed the plans at City Hall.
8. Attached are tables that show the Code Requirements for a Guest House,
Criteria & Major Impacts, and Adjacent Properties.
9. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the proposed plans and
take public testimony.
•
ZONING CASE NO. 527
PAGE 3
C EiRgQUIREN1Ff.
FOR GUEST:HO.US
..........................................
a. Requires all guest or servant
quarters on same recorded lot as Proposed
main house
b. Maximum 800 sq.ft. floor area Proposed
c. No kitchen or other cooking Required condition
facilities permitted
d. Develop and maintain in
substantial conformance with site Required condition
plan
e. No vehicular access or paved
parking area permitted to be
developed within 50' of proposed
guest house or servant quarters
f. No guest may remain in occupancy
more than 30 days in any 6 month
period
Required condition
Required condition
g. Renting of guest house is prohibited Required condition
h. Comply with all requirements Required condition
i. Preliminary landscaping plan
required
Required condition
ZONING CASE NO. 527
PAGE 4
RA-S-1 Zone Setbacks:
Front: 50 ft. from front easement line
Side: 20 ft. from property line
Rear: 50 ft. from property line
Structures
Grading
Disturbed Area
(40% maximum; any graded building
pad area, any nongraded area where
impervious surfaces exist and any
planned landscaped areas)
Structural Lot Coverage
(20% maximum)
Total Lot Coverage
(35% maximum)
Residential Building Pad Coverage
(30 to 35% recommended)
Second Building Pad Coverage
Third Building Pad Coverage
Total Building Pad Coverage
Roadway Access
Does not encroach into setbacks.
Residence
Garage
Swim Pool
Recreat'n Court
Service Yard
TOTAL
N/A
1,865
373
530
1,928
96
4,792 sq.ft.
N/A
7.6% (4,792 sq.ft.)
14.3%(9,046 sq.ft.)
19.3% of 11,608 sq.ft. building pad
52.5% of 4,684 sq.ft.. building pad
(includes pool & court)
N/A
N/A
Existing
Will not encroach into setbacks.
Residence
Garage
Swim Pool
Recreat'n Court
Service Yard
Guest House
Future Stable
Future Corral
550
TOTAL
3,653
620
530
1,928
96
800
450
8,077sq.ft.
920 cubic yards cut soil
920 cubic yards fill soil
27.3%
12.8% (8,077 sq.ft.)
21.0% (13,276 sq.ft.)
36.8% of 11,608 sq.ft. building pad
69.56% of 4,684 sq.ft. building
pad(includes pool, recreation court &
guest house)
32.3% of 1,395 sq.ft. building pad
45.67%
Existing
Access to Stable and Corral
(Accessibility and maximum 4:1
(25%) slope required ONLY for new
residence or additions that require
Site Plan Review).
Preserve Views
Preserve Plants and Animals
ZONING CASE NO. 527
PAGE 5
N/A
N/A
N/A
2 Saddleback Road HOWELL
6 Saddleback Road REITER
2 Meadowlark Lane SWART
6 Meadowlark Lane
3 Meadowlark Lane
1 Meadowlark Lane
HILLIARD
GIBSON
ISHKHANIAN
4 Portuguese Bend Rd. KEESAL
6 Portuguese Bend Rd. BANTA
AVERAGE
PROPOSED
12.5 to 20% (But, ONLY applies for
new residence or additions that
require Site Plan Review).
Planning Commission will field trip.
Planning Commission will field trip.
TtESIDENCE €' :S :: P T ' t C PS(NM
3,645
3,840
3,007
1,865 (Existing)
2,197
2,308
4,726
1,887
2,934
3,653
1.05
3.44
1.20
1.45
1.53
1.01
2.28
1.20
1.64
1.45
•
lEgEHE
JUL. •121995
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
By
City of Rolling Hills
Attn: Mr. Craig Nealis
Re: Lot # 20
•
3 Meadow Lark Lane
Rolling Hills, Ca.
July 13, 1995
We understand the necessity of preserving our steep rolling hills,
especially near the canyons, with adequate vegetation to prevent:flooding
and possible landslides.
Our hill to the canyon, as well as lot # 20, is very steep; therefore
we question the feasibility of grading necessary for a future stable on
the lower level of this lot without expert opinion.
We are sorry that we will be unable to attend the hearing on Tuesday,
July 18.
Ze4,40 2ZC>.ot
Richard B. Gibson
4 4444/c... *X"
Virg4'nia F.-Gibson