577, Encroach into the north side y, Application111
Nov 19B
,1 # R0Ll w., HILLS
1r
Record:r'44: 7n! 'u,^'Fi C( Tk;1n1• ..r
Please record this form with the Registrar`=Recorder's.. Office and return to y"' .-jr0:r�i,
City of Rolling Rills, 2 Portuguese Bend' :Road, Rolling ThH , CA :90274.
(The Registrar -Recorder's Office requires that the fojm be notarized'before ecordation)1
AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FOR1YI.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) - .....
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
ZONING CASE NO.552
SITE PLAN REVIEW
VARIANCE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT a
f(We) the undersigned state:
Mr (We are) the owner(s) of the real property described as follows:
31 CHUCKWAGON ROAD (LOT 16-CF). ROLLING HILLS
This property is the subject of the above numbered case.
We (We are) aware of, and accept, all the stated conditions in said
ZONING CASE NO. 552 SITE PLAN REVIEW
VARIANCE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
ie(We).,certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Print • 9 Print
Owner ` L Owner $7f f►- Z aN T ' G /L L-
Name y��y"»
� Name
Signature i t Signature'�L
/ /
Address 3 ,� h L /G 6.! rA % y' 2v(I d
,..city/State fdll i r161 41 //S , CA- 19. (4...7f•
J /
Signatures must be acknowledged by a notary public.
State of California )
County of Los Angeles )
On
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND MAIL TO:
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
(310) 377-7288 FAX
(f
Address 3 / ('7 tic /� wR . /44 d
,
City/State A i/4
i /-ells . Gh- v z 7 f—
before me, �� ,t e 1-0CGJ , 110•471 r y (j 6 19 I `c--
personally appeared Lam-! !n n • 1 1 , vvk S }qi, rt3
[ ] Personally known to me -OR- [ ] proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose
name(s) redsubscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that hefshe/et�7executed the same in
-hi31hcr/authorized capacity(ies) and that by-hisfhcf/theu`'signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity
upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
Witness by hand and official seal.
Signature of Notary
GALE LOGO See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof
Commission # 119
Plate Public - California
Los Angeles County
My Comm. Eames Aug 17,2002
•
"64/-fe (T 4 k
RESOLUTION NO. 98-12
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO
THE NORTH SIDE YARD SETBACK TO AUTHORIZE THE RETENTION
WITH MODIFICATIONS OF PREVIOUSLY ILLEGALLY CONSTRUCTED
RETAINING WALLS AND APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH
INTO THE SOUTH SIDE YARD SETBACK TO AUTHORIZE THE
RETENTION WITH MODIFICATIONS OF PREVIOUSLY ILLEGALLY
CONSTRUCTED RETAINING WALLS AT A SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 577.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES
HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Applications were duly filed by Dr. and Mrs. Lynn Gill with
respect to real property located at 31 Chuckwagon Road (Lot 16-CF), Rolling Hills,
requesting a Variance to authorize the retention of existing illegally constructed
retaining walls that encroach into the north side yard setback, requesting a Variance
to authorize the retention of existing illegally constructed retaining walls and a
barbecue that encroach into the south side yard setback and requesting a Variance to
authorize the construction of a trellis that will encroach into the front yard setback.
During the hearing process, the request for the trellis that would encroach into the
front yard setback was withdrawn.
Section 2. In October, 1997, it came to the attention of the City that
retaining walls were being constructed on the subject property without benefit of
building permits and the City called Dr. Lynn Gill. On October 24, 1997, Dr. Gill
visited City Hall to review 1988 plans for the site. On Monday, October 30, 1997, Mr.
Rafael Bernal, District Engineering Associate, issued a "Stop Work Order" regarding
the retaining walls that required engineering and ordered the work stopped.
On November 17, 1997, staff received a letter from Dr. Gill describing the
sequence of events that prompted him to build the illegally constructed retaining
walls and wherein the Gills concluded that in order for the former owners Mr. and
Mrs. Michele Migliaccio to have been issued a building permit in 1988, all City and
County requirements for retaining walls would have had to be met and therefore,
they did not pursue the matter further with the City or the County and requested
guidance regarding the necessary documents to file in order to be in compliance
with the regulations of the City, Community Association and the County. On
December 1, 1997, Mr. John O. Schuricht, Structural Engineer, Palos Verdes
Engineering, informed the City of the rationale for the design of the retaining walls
due to slope failure.
The City notified the Gills by letter on December 29, 1997, that the new
retaining walls were constructed illegally and subject to review by the Planning
RESOLUTION NO. 98-12
PAGE 1 OF 7
• •
Commission because Variance approvals expire within one year from the effective
date of approval, the illegally constructed retaining walls encroach into the side yard
setbacks and that a Variance and a building permit are required.
On January 20, 1998, staff received a letter from Dr. Gill regarding his
understanding of the Variance and building permit requirements. On February 5,
1998, staff informed Dr. and Mrs: Gill of the need for an application and plans for
the retaining walls. The Gills submitted a Variance application on March 9, 1998.
Section 3. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public
hearing to consider the applications on March 17, 1998, April , 21, 1998, and May 19,
1998, and at a field trip visit on March 28, 1998. The applicant was notified of the
public hearing in writing by first class mail and through the City's newsletter.
Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said
project, from all persons protesting the same, and from members of the City staff
and the Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed and studied said project.
Concerns expressed by Commissioners, concerned residents and the applicants
focused on the unauthorized construction of the retaining walls, the unauthorized
completion of the retaining walls, the walls surrounding the pool equipment area,
and the heights, appearance, and locations of the retaining walls.
Section 4. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a
Class 5 Exemption [State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15305 (Minor Alterations to
Land Use Limitations)] and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental
review under the California Environmental Quality Act.
Section 5. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Rolling Hills
Municipal Code permit approval of a Variance from the standards and
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances applicable to the property and not applicable to other similar
properties in the same zone prevent the owner from making use of a parcel of
property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties in the same vicinity.
Section 17.16.120(A) requires a side yard setback for every residential parcel in the
RA-S-1 zone to be twenty (20) feet. The applicant is requesting a Variance to
authorize an encroachment into the north side yard setback to allow the retention
and modification of two existing illegally constructed retaining walls that encroach
up to ten (10) feet into the twenty (20) foot side yard setback. The two walls are of
variable height, 3 feet maximum, and conjoin at the lower level of the side yard
setback. The upper wall is 105 feet long and the lower wall is 75 feet long. With
respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows:
A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions
applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the
other property or class of use in the same zone because the lot is irregular in shape
and the previously constructed illegal retaining walls are located on a hillside slope
at the rear of the lot and away from the street.
RESOLUTION NO. 98-12
PAGE 2 OF 7
B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone,
but which is denied to the property in question. The Variance is necessary because
there was minimum grading to construct the previously constructed- illegal
retaining walls on this irregular shaped lot, drainage will be controlled on the
property, and there will not be any greater incursion into the side yard than what
already exists on other properties in the same vicinity.
C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to
the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity
and zone in which the property is located. The existing retaining walls will allow
drainage on the property to be controlled as it flows to the .canyon to the east inside
the applicants' property, -the height of the walls will be reduced, the uneven tops of
the walls will be smoothed, and a substantial portion of the lot will remain
undeveloped.
Section 6. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission
hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 577 to allow an encroachment
into the north side yard setback to authorize the retention of two existing illegally
constructed retaining walls that encroach up to ten (10) feet into the twenty (20) foot
side yard setback, as indicated on the development plan submitted with this
application and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A, dated June 5, 1998,
subject to the conditions specified in Section 9 of this Resolution.
Section 7. The applicant is requesting a Variance to permit an
encroachment into the south side yard setback to authorize the retention and
modification of two existing illegally constructed retaining walls that encroach up to
twenty (20) feet and a proposed brick barbecue to encroach up to seven (7) feet into
the twenty (20) foot side yard setback. The two walls are of variable height, 5 feet
maximum. The upper wall is 30 feet long and the lower wall is 43 feet long, 30 feet
of which runs along the southern property line. With respect to this request for a
Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows:
A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions
applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the
other property or class of use in the same zone because the lot is irregular in shape
and the existing retaining wall is located on a hillside slope at the rear of the lot and
away from the street.
B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone,
but which is denied to the property in question. The Variance is necessary because
there was minimum grading to construct the previously constructed illegal
retaining walls on this irregular shaped lot and drainage will be controlled on the
property,
RESOLUTION NO. 98-12
PAGE 3 OF 7
C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to
the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity
and zone in which the property -is located. The modified retaining wall will allow
drainage on the property to be controlled as it flows to the canyon to the east within
the applicants' property, the height of the walls will be reduced, the uneven tops of
the walls will be smoothed, arid a substantial portion of the lot will .remain
undeveloped.
Section 8. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission
hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 577 to allow the retention and
modification of two existing illegally constructed retaining walls that encroach up to
twenty (20) feet and a proposed brick barbecue to encroach up to seven (7) feet into
the twenty (20) foot side yard setback as indicated on the development plan
submitted with this application and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A,
dated June 5, 1998, subject to the conditions specified in Section 9 of this Resolution.
Section 9. The Variance to allow an encroachment into the north side yard
setback to authorize the retention of two existing illegally constructed retaining
walls that encroach into the side yard setback approved in Section 6 and the
Variance to allow an encroachment into the south side yard setback to authorize the
retention and modification of two existing illegally constructed retaining walls and a
proposed brick barbecue to encroach into the side yard setback approved in Section 8
as indicated on the Development Plan attached hereto and incorporated herein as
Exhibit A dated June 5, 1998, are subject to the following conditions:
A. The Variance approvals shall expire within one year from the effective
date of approval as defined in Sections 17.38.070.
B. It is declared and made a condition of the Variance approvals that if
any conditions thereof are violated, the Permit shall be suspended and the
privileges granted thereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicant has been
given written notice to cease such violation and has failed to do so for a period of
thirty (30) days.
C. All requirements of the Building and Construction Ordinance, the
Zoning Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be
complied with unless otherwise approved by Variance.
D. Any retaining walls shall not exceed 5 feet in height, averaging no
more than 2-1/2 feet.
E. The uneven top upper edge of all retaining walls shall be a continuous
smooth line and without jagged inclines or declines along the length of the wall.
F. The east and south pool equipment walls shall be removed.
RESOLUTION NO. 98-12
PAGE 4 OF 7
G. The uneven top line of the southernmost retaining walls shall be
modified so as to reduce the wall and be parallel to the slope and slightly below the
topmost fence rail of the neighbor's adjacent 3-rail .fence.
H. Plans .shall be modified to reflect the requirements of Paragraphs D, E,
F, and G of this Section.
I. The existing topography, flora and natural features of the lot shall be
retained to the greatest extent feasible.
J. Additional landscape screening shall be planted to obscure the eastern
faces of the retaining walls and the pool equipment area.
K. Landscape screening for the eastern faces of the retaining walls and the
pool equipment area shall be maintained so as not to obstruct views of neighboring
properties but to obscure the retaining walls and the pool equipment area.
L. A landscape plan must be submitted to and approved by the City of
Rolling Hills Planning Department staff prior to the issuance of any grading and
building permit. The landscaping plan submitted must comply with the purpose
and intent of the Site Plan Review Ordinance, shall incorporate existing mature
trees and native vegetation, and shall utilize to the maximum extent feasible, plants
that are native to the area and/or consistent with the rural character of the
community.
A bond in the amount of the cost estimate of the implementation of the landscaping
plan plus 15% shall be required to be posted prior to issuance of a grading and
building permit and shall be retained with the City for not less than two years after
landscape installation. The retained bond will be released by the City Manager after
the Planning Commission determines that the landscaping was installed pursuant
to the landscaping plan as approved, and that such landscaping is properly
established and in good condition.
M. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 16.7% and total lot coverage of
structures and paved areas shall not exceed 35.8%.
N. Disturbed area of the lot shall not exceed 35.8%.
O. Review and approval of a site drainage plan by the City Engineer shall
be obtained for the drainage and the retaining walls.
P. A plan that conforms to the development plan as approved by the
Planning Commission must be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department
staff for their review prior to the submittal of an applicable site drainage plan to the
County of Los Angeles for plan check.
RESOLUTION NO. 98-12
PAGE 5 OF 7
Q. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills
Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to approval of the
drainage plan.
R. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of
Building and Safety for site drainage plan review and building permits must
conform to the development plan described at the beginning of this section (Section
9).
S. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions
of these Variance approvals pursuant to Section 17.38.060, or the approval shall not
be effective.
T. All conditions of these Variance approvals must be complied with
prior to approval of the site drainage plan by the County of Los Angeles.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON THE 16 -nY__137LTNE, 1998.
ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
•
MARILYN RN DEPUTY CITY CLERK
RESOLUTION NO. 98-12
PAGE 6 OF 7
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 98-12 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY .OF
ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO
THE NORTH SIDE YARD SETBACK TO AUTHORIZE THE RETENTION
WITH MODIFICATIONS OF PREVIOUSLY ILLEGALLY CONSTRUCTED
RETAINING WALLS AND APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH
INTO THE SOUTH SIDE YARD SETBACK TO AUTHORIZE THE
RETENTION WITH MODIFICATIONS OF PREVIOUSLY ILLEGALLY
CONSTRUCTED RETAINING WALLS AT A SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 577.
was approved and adopted at an adjourned regular meeting of the Planning
Commission on June 16, 1998 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Commissioners Hankins, Margeta, Sommer and
Chairman Roberts.
None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Witte
ABSTAIN: None.
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices
\/\,/u,,A.LA,N
MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
RESOLUTION NO. 98-12
' PAGE 7 OF 7
r
•
J u
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND MAIL TO:
F k t - 1 1999
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
2 PORTUGUESE BENDrijp ll3jF ROLLING HILLS
ROLLING HILLS, CA.90274
(310) 377-1521 Y
(310) 377-7288 FAX
Recorder's Use
RECORDED/FILED IN OFFICIAL REC RO g 1
RECORDER'S OFFICE
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
CALIFORNIA
8:04 AM NOV 03 1998
Please record this form with the Registrar -Recorder's Office and return to: —• ___._,_ ���
City of Rolling Hills, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA 90274
(The Registrar -Recorder's Office requires that the form be notarized before recordation).
AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF WS ANGELES
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
ZONING CASE NO.552
) §§
FEE $ ,2J'• — P
D.A. FEE Code 20 $ 0/P.'
SITE PLAN REVIEW
VARIANCE t
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT a
4(We) the undersigned state:
lir (We are) the owner(s) of the real property described as follows:
31 CHUCKWAGON ROAD (LOT 16-CF). ROLLING HILLS
This property is the subject of the above numbered case.
(We are) aware of, and accept, all the stated conditions in said
ZONING CASE NO.552
SITE PLAN REVIEW
VARIANCE ■
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
i(We) certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Print (. Print
Owner I.�/ F G /a L Owner A-2 oN T /L •-
<- / L - A NameSignature Signature Q d� �%
Name
Address 3 /(C 4 ao / ' u Tv?, (2-,ad Address 3 / (1 yC. WA. S h1 /4/4 d
City/State kali; el Hi III , C/l- 9 U a%94 City/State I? ///i, 5 /-) 11 S , CA
/ /
Signatures must be acknowledged by a notary nublic.
State of California )
County of Los Angeles )
On 111 LiI�Q�
before me, £,I e LOCaza , Vlc>vy 0 01' 1
personally appeared Ly !^ n G I 1 1 4,4 S}ilk r' e 1•
[ ] Personally known to me -OR- [ ] proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose
name(s)subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he{slhe he executed the same in
-his7Literf a thorized capacity(ies) and that bye/t7i�e� signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity
upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
Witness by hand and official seal.
Signature of Notary
=WO
cornmis t 01 is
County
my CommetlitsAug17.
44,
See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof
•
RESOLUTION NO. 98-12
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO
THE NORTH SIDE YARD SETBACK TO AUTHORIZE THE RETENTION
WITH MODIFICATIONS OF PREVIOUSLY ILLEGALLY CONSTRUCTED
RETAINING WALLS AND APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH
INTO THE SOUTH SIDE YARD SETBACK TO AUTHORIZE THE
RETENTION WITH MODIFICATIONS OF PREVIOUSLY ILLEGALLY
CONSTRUCTED RETAINING WALLS AT A SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 577.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES
HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Applications were duly filed by Dr. and Mrs. Lynn Gill with
respect to real property located at 31 Chuckwagon Road (Lot 16-CF), Rolling Hills,
requesting a Variance to authorize the retention of existing illegally constructed
retaining walls that encroach into the north side yard setback, requesting a Variance
to authorize the retention of existing illegally constructed retaining walls and a
barbecue that encroach into the south side yard setback and requesting a Variance to
authorize the construction of a trellis that will encroach into the front yard setback.
During the hearing process, the request for the trellis that would encroach into the
front yard setback was withdrawn.
Section 2. In October, 1997, it came to the attention of the City that
retaining walls were being constructed on the subject property without benefit of
building permits and the City called Dr. Lynn Gill. On October 24, 1997, Dr. Gill
visited City Hall to review 1988 plans for the site. On Monday, October 30, 1997, Mr.
Rafael Bernal, District Engineering Associate, issued a "Stop Work Order" regarding
the retaining walls that required engineering and ordered the work stopped.
On November 17, 1997, staff received a letter from Dr. Gill describing the
sequence of events that prompted him to build the illegally constructed retaining
walls and wherein the Gills concluded that in order for the former owners Mr. and
Mrs. Michele Migliaccio to have been issued a building permit in 1988, all City and
County requirements for retaining walls would have had to be met and therefore,
they did not pursue the matter further with the City or the .County and requested
guidance regarding the necessary documents to file in orderto be in .compliance
with the regulations of the City, Community Association and the County. On
December 1, 1997, Mr. John O. Schuricht, Structural Engineer, Palos Verdes
Engineering, informed the City of the rationale for the design of. the retaining walls
due to slope failure.
The City notified the Gills by letter on December 29, .1997; that the new
retaining walls were constructed illegally and subject .to review by thePlanning
RESOLUTION NO. 98-12
PAGE 1 OF 7
96 2013193
• •
Commission because Variance approvals expire within one year from the effective
date of approval, the illegally constructed retaining walls encroach into the side yard
setbacks and that a Variance and a building permit are required.
On January 20, 1998, staff received a letter from Dr. Gill regarding his
understanding of the Variance and building permit requirements. On February 5,
1998, staff informed Dr. and Mrs. Gill of the need for an application and plans for
the retaining walls. The Gills submitted a Variance application on March 9, 1998.
Section 3. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public
hearing to consider the applications on March 17, 1998, April 21, 1998, and May 19,
1998, and at a field trip visit on March 28, 1998. The applicant was notified of the
public hearing in writing by first class mail and through the City's newsletter.
Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said
project, from all persons protesting the same, and from members of the City staff
and the Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed and studied said project.
Concerns expressed by Commissioners, concerned residents and the applicants
focused on the unauthorized construction of the retaining walls, the unauthorized
completion of the retaining walls, the walls surrounding the pool equipment area,
and the heights, appearance, and locations of the retaining walls.
Section 4. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a
Class 5 Exemption [State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15305 (Minor Alterations to
Land Use Limitations)] and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental
review under the California Environmental Quality Act.
Section 5. Sections 17.38.010 ' through 17.38.050 of the Rolling Hills
Municipal Code permit approval of a Variance from the standards and
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances applicable to the property and not applicable to other similar
properties in the same zone prevent the owner from making use of a parcel of
property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties in the same vicinity.
Section 17.16.120(A) requires a side yard setback for every residential parcel in the
RA-S-1 zone to be twenty (20) feet. The applicant is requesting a Variance to
authorize an encroachment into the north side yard setback to allow the retention
and modification of two existing illegally constructed retaining walls that encroach
up to ten (10) feet into the twenty (20) foot side yard setback. The two walls are of
variable height, 3 feet maximum, and conjoin at the lower level of the side yard
setback. The upper wall is 105 feet long and the lower wall is 75 feet long. With
respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows:
A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions
applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the
other property or class of use in the same zone because the lot is irregular in shape
and the previously constructed illegal retaining walls are located on a hillside slope
at the rear of the lot and away from the street.
RESOLUTION NO. 98-12
PAGE 2 OF 7
cLJ1 2 193
• •
B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone,
but which is denied to the property in question. The Variance is necessary because
there was minimum grading to construct the previously constructed illegal
retaining walls on this irregular shaped lot, drainage will be controlled on the
property, and there will not be any greater incursion into the side yard than what
already exists on other properties in the same vicinity.
C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to
the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity
and zone in which the property is located. The existing retaining walls will allow
drainage on the property to be controlled as it flows to the canyon to the east inside
the applicants' property, the height of the walls will be reduced, the uneven tops of
the walls will be smoothed, and a substantial portion of the lot will remain
undeveloped.
Section 6. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission
hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 577 to allow an encroachment
into the north side yard setback to authorize the retention of two existing illegally
constructed retaining walls that encroach up to ten (10) feet into the twenty (20) foot
side yard setback, as indicated on the development plan submitted with this
application and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A, dated June 5, 1998,
subject to the conditions specified in Section 9 of this Resolution.
Section 7. The applicant is requesting a Variance to permit an
encroachment into the south side yard setback to authorize the retention and
modification of two existing illegally constructed retaining walls that encroach up to
twenty (20) feet and a proposed brick barbecue to encroach up to seven (7) feet into
the twenty (20) foot side yard setback. The two walls are of variable .height, 5 feet
maximum. The upper wall is 30 feet long and the lower wall is 43 feet long, 30 feet
of which runs along the southern property line. With respect to this request for a
Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows:
A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions
applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the
other property or class of use in the same zone because the lot is irregular in shape
and the existing retaining wall is located on a hillside slope at the rear of the lot and
away from the street.
B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone,
but which is denied to the property in question. The Variance. is necessary because
there was minimum grading to construct the previously constructed illegal
retaining walls on this irregular shaped lot and drainage will be controlled on the
property,
RESOLUTION NO. 98-12
PAGE 3 OF 7
98 2013193
• •
C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to
the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity
and zone in which the property is located. The modified retaining wall will allow
drainage on the property to be controlled as it flows to the canyon to the east within
the applicants' property, the height of the walls will be reduced, the uneven tops of
the walls will be smoothed, and a substantial portion of the lot will remain
undeveloped.
Section 8. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission
hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 577 to allow the retention and
modification of two existing illegally constructed retaining walls that encroach up to
twenty (20) feet and a proposed brick barbecue to encroach up to seven (7) feet into
the twenty (20) foot side yard setback as indicated on the development plan
submitted with this application and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A,
dated June 5, 1998, subject to the conditions specified in Section 9 of this Resolution.
Section 9. The Variance to allow an encroachment into the north side yard
setback to authorize the retention of two existing illegally constructed retaining
walls that encroach into the side yard setback approved in Section 6 and the
Variance to allow an encroachment into the south side yard setback to authorize the
retention and modification of two existing illegally constructed retaining walls and a
proposed brick barbecue to encroach into the side yard setback approved in Section 8
as indicated on the Development Plan attached hereto and incorporated herein as
Exhibit A dated June 5, 1998, are subject to the following conditions:
A. The Variance approvals shall expire within one year from the effective
date of approval as defined in Sections 17.38.070.
B. It is declared and made a condition of the Variance approvals that if
any conditions thereof are violated, the Permit shall be suspended and the
privileges granted thereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicant has been
given written notice to cease such violation and has failed to do so for a period of
thirty (30) days.
C. All requirements of the Building and Construction Ordinance, the
Zoning Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be
complied with unless otherwise approved by Variance.
D. Any retaining walls shall not exceed 5 feet in height, averaging no
more than 2-1/2 feet.
E. The uneven top upper edge of all retaining walls shall be a continuous
smooth line and without jagged inclines or declines along the length of the wall.
F. The east and south pool equipment walls shall be removed.
RESOLUTION NO. 98-12
PAGE 4 OF 7
G. The uneven top line of the southernmost retaining walls shall be
modified so as to reduce the wall and be parallel to the slope and slightly below the
topmost fence rail of the neighbor's adjacent 3-rail fence.
H. Plans shall be modified to reflect the requirements of Paragraphs D, E,
F, and G of this Section.
I. The existing topography, flora and natural features of the lot shall be
retained to the greatest extent feasible.
J. Additional landscape screening shall be planted to obscure the eastern
faces of the retaining walls and the pool equipment area.
K. Landscape screening for the eastern faces of the retaining walls and the
pool equipment area shall be maintained so as not to obstruct views of neighboring
properties but to obscure the retaining walls and the pool equipment area.
L. A landscape plan must be submitted to and approved by the City of
Rolling Hills Planning Department staff prior to the issuance of any grading and
building permit. The landscaping plan submitted must comply with the purpose
and intent of the Site Plan Review Ordinance, shall incorporate existing mature
trees and native vegetation, and shall utilize to the maximum extent feasible, plants
that are native to the area and/or consistent with the rural character of the
community.
A bond in the amount of the cost estimate of the implementation of the landscaping
plan plus 15% shall be required to be posted prior to issuance of a grading and
building permit and shall be retained with the City for not less than two years after
landscape installation. The retained bond will be released by the City Manager after
the Planning Commission determines that the landscaping was installed pursuant
to the landscaping plan as approved, and that such landscaping is properly
established and in good condition.
M. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 16.7% and total lot coverage of
structures and paved areas shall not exceed 35.8%.
N. Disturbed area of the lot shall not exceed 35.8%.
O. Review and approval of a site drainage plan by the City Engineer shall
be obtained for the drainage and the retaining walls.
P. A plan that conforms to the development plan as approved by the
Planning Commission must be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department
staff for their review prior to the submittal of an applicable site drainage plan to the
County of Los Angeles for plan check.
RESOLUTION NO. 98-12
PAGE 5 OF 7
Oa 2013193
• •
Q. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills
Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to approval of the
drainage plan.
R. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of
Building and Safety for site drainage plan review and building permits must
conform to the development plan described at the beginning of this section (Section
9).
S. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions
of these Variance approvals pursuant to Section 17.38.060, or the approval shall not
be effective.
T. All conditions of these Variance approvals must be complied with
prior to approval of the site drainage plan by the County of Los Angeles.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON THE 16T I-D4OF Z[JNE, 1998.
ATTEST:
• k-th.A,-1
MARILYN RN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
RESOLUTION NO. 98-12
PAGE 6 OF 7
ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN
US 2013193
• •
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 98-12 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO
THE NORTH SIDE YARD SETBACK TO AUTHORIZE THE RETENTION
WITH MODIFICATIONS OF PREVIOUSLY ILLEGALLY CONSTRUCTED
RETAINING WALLS AND APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH
INTO THE SOUTH SIDE YARD SETBACK TO AUTHORIZE THE
RETENTION WITH MODIFICATIONS OF PREVIOUSLY ILLEGALLY
CONSTRUCTED RETAINING WALLS AT A SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 577.
was approved and adopted at an adjourned regular meeting of the Planning
Commission on June 16, 1998 by the following roll call vote:
Commissioners Hankins, Margeta, Sommer and
Chairman Roberts.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
None.
Commissioner Witte
None.
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices
MARILYN KE
RESOLUTION NO. 98-12
PAGE 7 OF 7
Jo-cfr,)
, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
88 201a123
PROPERTY OWNER:
OWNER'S ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE NO.:
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
AGENT'S NAME:
AGENT'S ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE NO.:
VARIANCE APPLICATION
REOUEST FOR HEARING
Dr. and Mrs. Lynn E. Gill
31 Chuckwagon Road, Rolling Hills, CA 90274
(310) 541-3311 voicemail (213) 955-8664 fax (310)541-6948
31 Chuckwagon Road, Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Lot No. 16 Record of survey 73-12-14
ASSESSOR'S BOOK NO.7567 PAGE 006 PARCEL 19
•
Describe in detail the nature of the proposed use, including what aspects of the project
require a Variance.
The primary objective of the proposed landscaping plan is to:
1. Reduce total flatwork from the existing 6,075 sq. ft. to approximately 4,260 sq. ft. and replace it
with new landscaping to beautify the property. Percent total coverage is proposed to be reduced
from 42.5% to 35.8%.
2. Provide retention for an unsupported existing building pad and existing slope, and remedy
existing soil failure and slumping of the slope, and related cracking of the patio slab and pool.
Proposed Construction in the Front Yard Setback
We propose to:
1. reduce the amount of driveway paving by removing the current asphalt paving and installing
new concrete paving and landscaping
2. remove the second entry to the driveway and replace it with new landscaping
3. remove a garden wall and trees in the roadway easement and replace it with parking and horse
path
4. construct. new PV stone steps and walkway from the street to the front door to replace existing
non-functional brick steps
5. replace the uncovered masonry stoop at the front door with a new uncovered masonry stoop
6. remove some of the concrete paving in the service yard and replace with landscaping
7. remove asphalt paving north of the residence and replace with a PV stone walkway and
landscaping
8. complete the existing trellis by adding cross members
Walkways, steps, porch (stoop) and driveways are permitted within the setback area (17.16.150).
No grading will be required to complete this work. A Variance is required for the proposed
improvement to the existing trellis.
Proposed Construction in the Side Yard Setback Areas
We have installed:
1. garden walls and retaining walls in the south side yard setback to retain the existing unsupported
building pad #1, and to remedy soil failure on the existing unsupported slope and related patio
and pool cracking.
2. garden walls and retaining walls in the north side yard setback to retain the existing unsupported
building pad #1,
3. new brick faced steps leading from the upper pad #1 to the lower pad #2, to replace existing
wooden steps located adjacent to the southern boundary of the property
4. a new brick walkway from the brick patio to the steps
5. garden walls around the existing pool equipment enclosure to replace existing wooden walls.
No grading was required to complete this work.
The steps and walkways are permitted within the setback area (17.16.150) and do not require a
Variance. The retaining walls and garden walls in the north and south side yard setbacks
require a Variance.
We propose the following additional improvements:
1. demolish the existing brick barbecue in the south side yard setback and replace it with a new
brick barbecue and brick walk surface in the south side yard setback
2. demolish a portion of the cement paving currently in the south side yard setback and replace it
with landscaping
3. demolish the asphalt paving in the north side yard and replace it with a narrower PV stone
walkway and landscaping.
Removal of paving and construction of walkways are permitted within the side yard setbacks
(17.16.250). A Variance is required for construction of a new barbeque in the south side yard
setback.
Criteria to be satisfied for grant of Variance
Such change is based upon the following described exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances or conditions that do not apply generally to other property in the same
vicinity and zone:
The property is a non -conforming lot of 33,695 sq. ft. with a net lot area of 23,561 sq. ft. The lot
has a non -conforming front yard setback of 20'. The property has a non -conforming lot width of
122' and non -conforming side yard setbacks of 15'. As shown on Vicinity Map, because of the
hilly terrain and relatively small lot sizes in this parcel, all of the residences in the vicinity of the
subject residence encroach into the front yard and side yard setbacks.
The residence and a swimming pool is located on a relatively level pad with 7,650 sq.ft. area adjacent to
Chuckwagon Road ("Pad #1 or upper pad"). A 10' slope descends from the rear margin of the upper
pad on which the house and swimming pool are located to a lower landscaped pad of 3,200 sq. ft. ("pad
#2 or lower pad").
Page 2
• •
A geologic opinion conducted by Keith Ehlert, Consulting Engineering Geologist dated July 27, 1994
noted on page 6, "Essentially bare soil was exposed on portions of the slope that descends from the pad
the house and pool are located on. A minor local soil failure was present along the lowermost portion of
the slope." The area experiencing the soil failure is located in the south side yard setback, immediately
adjacent to the southern property line between our property the Lynn Craig property at 29 Chuckwagon.
A trench had been dug parallel to the southern property line (most likely for the footings of a retaining
wall adjacent to the southern property line which was permitted in 1988 but never completed by the prior
owner). Wooden stairs from the upper pad to the lower pad were constructed in the trench. A 3"
perforated drain had been installed on the surface of the trench from top to bottom of the slope.
The geologist, Keith Ehlert, observed in his report, page 6, "What appears to be a crack was observed in
the swimming pool. The apparent crack was essentially parallel to the slope..." On page 10 he noted,
"As is the case with most hillside area, it is my opinion that the slopes in the site area can be subject to
mud slides, slumps, and other types of local failures. The fill slopes are especially subject to these types
of failures. Such failures generally occur as a result of prolonged periods of heavy rainfall, pipe leaks,
etc." He also noted on page 10, "As previously indicated, a minor local slump has occurred on the
steeper portion of the slope that descends from the pad the house and pool are located on. The
possibility of further failures occurring on the slopes cannot be ruled out. Information in the County of
Los Angeles file indicates that a permit to construct a retaining wall to correct a slump (slope failure)
was issued." He is referring to a permit for construction of retaining walls issued to the previous owners
in 1988. The permitted wall required to stabilize the slope was never constructed, by the previous owner.
We have observed several new cracks in the brick patio on the upper pad, parallel to the slope. During
the two years we have owned the property we have observed significant quantities of crumbling soil
tumbling down the slope. The brow of the upper pad is eroding away and is undermining the pool and
patio decking.
We retained John Schuricht, registered professional structural engineer 2391, of Palos Verdes
Engineering Corporation to inspect the property and provide structural engineering consulting. Palos
Verdes Engineering's design for this problem area is essentially a "structural box" which integrates a 3'
landscape wall running north and south along the perimeter of the upper pad, a retaining wall running
north and south along the foot of the slope which provides retention of the slope as well as screening the
pool equipment, the wall of a new brick stairway running east and west which connects the upper and
lower walls, and a 3' wall running east and west adjacent to the southern property line which also
connects the upper and lower walls and closes the structural box. A portion of this remedial
construction designed to stabilize the slope and prevent further soil failure and slumping is in the south
side yard setback area.
This structural box design provides great structural strength and stability. The upper and lower walls are
tied with rebar steel into the two walls which lead from the base of the slope to the upper pad, forming
the structural box. The mass of the two up -slope side walls braces and anchors the upper and lower
walls firmly in place.
Perforated 3" drains are installed behind the upper and lower walls, wrapped in filter fabric and gravel.
A new 4" solid drain is installed from the upper pad to the lower pad area providing drainage for the
upper pad without perking water into the slope. Solid 4" drains are installed from the upper pad area to
the lower pad area to provide drainage for the upper pad without percolating water into the slope. This
improved drainage will also help stabilize the problem area.
Page 3
A retaining wall running eamind west was constructed in the north Ai yard setback. It is constructed
l0i from the property line .u' lretains the slope between the relativelel upper pad and an existing
inclined 10' wide private horse trail between the upper and lower pads (this trail then continues to the
north-east corner of the property). The upper section of the trail was improved by surfacing it with
decomposed granite. A portion of landscape walls at the brow of the slope and retaining walls at the foot
of the slope are situated in the north side yard setback.
Denn Engineers executed the design and prepared working drawings for the construction. Denn
Engineers also prepared a survey and topography of the property, and checked to make sure that there
were no easements where we intended to do the construction. We reviewed the plans with Lynn Craig,
our neighbor to the south at 29 Chuckwagon Road, to make sure that he was in agreement with the
proposed construction of the retaining wall adjacent to our southern property line.
On August 22, 1997 we brought the plans into the Rolling Hills Community Association offices to
determine what permits and other authorizations were required. We found in the file for our property at
City Hall an approved Variance (Zoning Case No. 365) allowing, among other things, construction of
retaining walls along the south property line. We found in our file at the Community Association office a
building permit for construction of retaining walls dated 11-15-88 issued to the former owners, Mr. and
Mrs. Migliaccio. We also found an approved remedial grading plan prepared by South Bay Engineering
Corporation indicating:
• 3' retaining wall with portions in the north and south side yard setbacks along the base of the
existing slope
• 3' retaining wall in the south side yard setback between the upper pad and the lower pad,
adjacent to the south property line
• 5' high retaining wall from the top of the slope to street level, in the south side yard setback.
The former owner, Mr. Migliaccio, completed construction of the 5' retaining wall permitted in the
south side yard setback in 1988, but did not complete any of the permitted 3' retaining walls in the
south side yard setback that were required to support the upper pad and stabilize the slope.
In the Community Association offices, an annotation was made on our 1997 plans that we were at this
time completing the retaining walls permitted in 1988, and the plans were filed in our property file. We
therefore did not pursue this further with the City or County, believing that we had a valid Variance and
building permit. We later learned that the Variance and building permit for the retaining walls expired
after one year, and that we needed to again apply for the Variance.
Such change will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare nor injurious to the
property or improvements in such vicinity and zone where property is located because
1. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property, namely, the
existing unstable slope condition. The most significant soil failure was in the area of the slope
immediately adjacent to the southern property line, in the south side yard set back.
Construction of retaining walls and improved drainage was for the purpose of remedying this
unstable soil condition and protecting our property from damage due to further slope failure or
mud slides. Exceptionally heavy rainfall was predicted (and has occurred) this season.
2. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of our property rights similar to
properties in the same vicinity and zone, namely the mitigation of an unstable slope condition
that could cause property damage if not remedied. As shown on the Vicinity Map, residences
in the area regularly encroach into the front and side yard set backs due to the hilly topography
and the lot sizes in this parcel. Most have various types of retaining walls to support building
pads and stabilize slopes.
Page 4
• •
3. Granting of such Variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to properties in the vicinity. Construction of the retaining walls and improved slope drainage
contributes favorably to the overall stability of the slope and also benefits the property owner
to the south, who was consulted concerning construction of the retaining walls and installation
of drainage. In addition, water run-off from the neighbor's property to the south (29
Chuckwagon) was improved by installation of coarse gravel upon the retaining wall footings
adjacent to the south side of the retaining wall.
4. In granting this Variance, the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance will be observed, namely
maintaining appropriate distance between residences and a feeling of openness. The retaining
wall along the southern lot boundary that ties together and braces the upper and lower walls is
down -slope of both residences and out of sight lines in an area of corrals. It is constructed of
split face block the same color as the soil of the area, and is entirely hidden behind a three rail
white fence. Plantings are planned to cascade over thewalls so that the walls "disappear." In
addition, access from Chuckwagon Road to the lower pad #2 and thence along the northern
property line to the northeast corner of the property is enhanced due to improvement of a
private l0i wide horse trail, part of which is covered with decomposed granite.
5. The Variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant. As previously stated, as shown
on the Vicinity Map, properties in this area regularly encroach into the front and side yard set
backs due to the hilly terrain and relatively small building pad areas. Most also have various
types of retaining walls to support pads and stabilize slopes.
6. The Variance is consistent with the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste Management
Plan. No hazardous waste is involved.
7. The Variance is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills, as previously
stated.
A filing fee must accompany the application. Make check payable to: THE CITY OF ROLLING
HILLS. Check is attached.
Page 5
Sheetl
t
ROAD EASEMENT
PAD
GROSS PAD
EXCLUSIONS:
ROAD EASEMENT
FRONT YARD SETBACK
N SIDEYARD SETBACK
S SIDEYARD SETBACK
TOTAL EXCLUSIONS
BUILDABLE AREA -PAD 1
PAD 2 FROM TOPO 78 TO TOPO 73
GROSS PAD
EXCLUSIONS:
N SIDEYARD SETBACK
S SIDEYARD SETBACK
TOTAL EXCLUSIONS
BUILDABLE AREA -PAD 2
TOTAL BUILDABLE AREA PADS 1 AND 2
COMPUTATION OF BUILDABLE AREA AND COVERAGE THEREOF
DATE 3/7/98
ZONING CASE NO. 577
ADDRESS: 31 CHUCKWAGON ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
APPLICANT DR. AND MRS. LYNN E. GILL
LOT SIZE
NET LOT AREA
0.774 ACRE
0.541 ACRE
33694.5 SQ FT
23561 SQ FT
CALCULATION OF BUILDING PAD AREAS
PAD 1 FROM W PROPERTY LINE TO TOPO 87
North
122
122
East EXISTING
25 3050 SQ FT
125 15250
18300 SQ FT
3050 SQ FT
122 50 6100
10 75 750
10 75 750
10650 SQ FT
7650 SQ FT
100
40 4000 SQ FT
10 40 400
10 40 400
800 SQ FT
3200
10850 SQ FT
CALCULATION OF LOT COVERAGE
BUILDING AREAS
NET LOT AREA
BUILDING PADS
RESIDENCE
LAUNDRY/KITCHEN/FAMILY
LIVING ROOM
BEDROOM/BATHS
TOTAL RESIDENCE
GARAGE
POOL
TOTAL STRUCTURES
% STRUCTURAL COVERAGE
EXISTING PROPOSED TOTAL
23561
10850
NORTH
25
30
3
34
-3
24
23561
10850
EAST TOTAL
29 719 SQ FT
34 1013
20 50
40 1350
10 -25
3106 SQ FT
20 475
350
3931 SQ FT
16.7%
(Per Denn Engineers)
(Per Denn Engineers)
-\ (I .: s ;'
t
L.
MAR _: 3 1998
Page 1
Sheet'
• TOTAL PAD COVERAGE 36.2%
FLATWORK NORTH EAST EXISTING PROPOSED kI; ? )C f) 0(.1
DRIVEWAY 30 50 1500 800
45 20 900 700 — 260
WALKWAYS
SE CORNER HOUSE 25 15 375 200
S OF HOUSE 10 100 1000 400 -ZOO
N OF HOUSE 8 50 400 100
PATIO 30 35 1050 1050
30 10 300 300
30 5 150 150
POOLDECK (80' PERIMETERX5') 400 160
TOTAL EXISTING FLATWORK 6075 3860
• FLATWORK COVERAGE 25.8%
NEW STAIRS AND BRK WALK 6 24 144
NEW BRICK WALK 6 18 108
PROPOSED FLATWORK 4112
• FLATWORK PROPOSED 17.5%
TOTAL STRUCTURAL AND FLATWORK
• TOTAL COVERAGE
10006 8043
42.5% 34.1%
Page 2
OWNER'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Property development in Rolling Hills is governed by ordinances of . the CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS ("City") and by private deed restrictions enforced by the ROLLING HILLS
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION ("RHCA").
The land development permit process of the City and the RHCA are completely
independent and separate. Both must be satisfied and approval given by both the City and the
RHCA to develop property in Rolling Hills. An approval by either the City or the RHCA does not
mean or imply or ensure approval by the other.
The suggested sequence of property development is to obtain City approvals first.
We, the undersigned, acknowledge that the above statement has been fully read and its admonition
is completely understood.
Executed at 31 Chuckwagon Road, Rolling Hill, California
this 7 day of March , 1998
By:
By:
Address:
31 Chuckwaaon Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Page 6
OWNER'S DECLARATION
We declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed at Rolling Hill, California,
this 7th day of March 1998
By:
By:
Address:
31 Chuckwagon Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
NOTE: The Owner's Declaration can only be used if this application is signed in California. If this
application is signed outside of California, the applicant should acknowledge before a Notary Public
of the State where the signature is fixed, or before another officer of that State authorized by its
laws to take acknowledgments, that he (it) owns the property described herein, and that the
information accompanying this application is true to the best of his (its) knowledge and belief.
Attach appropriate acl-nowledgment here.
APPLICANT: Dr.Lynn E. and Sharon J. Gill
REPRESENTATIVE:
FEE:
COMPANY NAME:
COMPANY ADDRESS:
BY:
COMPANY PHONE NO. ( )
PROJECT ADDRESS: 31 Chuckwaaon Road
Rollins Hills, CA 90274
DATE FILED March 9. 1998
RECEIPT NO: 6 67 rfr
ZONING CASE NO: 577
TENTATIVE HEARING DATE:
March 17. 1998 at 7:30 PM
Page 7
• •
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
ZONING CASE
CERTIFIED PROPERTY OWNER'S LIST
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
) ss
I, Lynn E. Gill, declare under penalty of perjury that the attached list contains the names
and addresses of all persons to whom all property is assessed as they appear on the latest available
assessment roll of the County within the area described and for a distance of one thousand (1,000)
feet from the exterior boundaries of property legally described as:
Lot No.16 Record of Survey 73-12-14
Assessors'Book No. 7567 Page 006 Parcel 19
Executed at Rolling Hills, California, this 7th day of March, 1998.
Conditional Use Permit
Variance
Site Plan Review
Zone Change
Page 8