209, Fill Slope, CorrespondenceMay 16, 1978
Planning Commission'
City of Rolling Hills ,
.2..Portuguese'Bend Road
Rolling Hills, California 90274
Dear Members:
This has reference to Zoning Case No 209 - W'.: Jack:, Rode, Lot 1-CRB,
5 Chuckwagon Road, requesting your approval fora-Variance'from grad-
ing requirements:
As a nearby resident and a member•of. ,the Architectural Committee,
I am very interested in maintaining the esthetic values of the land-
scape and the residences, not only on Chuckwagon Road, but also
forall over our City,and like all of you, I devote considerable
hours each month trying to accomplish the preservation of these values.
This letter is to respectfully urge that the Planning Commission
steadfastly uphold our City, Ordinance that provides that grades
should notbe less than 2:1. This Ordinanceis the expressed wish
of the resident's and should be adhered to and,if necessary, defended
by the Planning Commission, City Council, Community Association and
any of their several Committees who have some degree of responsibility
for the esthetics, safety and general welfare of our community.
Specifically, here are only a few of the reasons why this variance
request from 2:1 to 1.1/2:1 .should be denied:
1. It is only a matter of months that 1 1/2:1 grading was per-
mitted at 3 Chuckwagon Road which required cutting away
the vast base of canyon slope to build a verysmall pad
relative to the size of the building and further requiring
two very long stark_ whiteretaining walls --all of which
is an esthetic scar on the landscape.
In addition,.the -cut was so close to Chuckwagon Road which
is our only outlet, that many residents still feel it
endangers our safety in case of landslide. The residents
expressed much concern to the Council who'then;adopted the•
necessary revisions to grading requirements so that 2:1.
grade should be maintained on future construction.
2. 5 Chuckwagon is just across the canyon and riding trail from
3 Chuckwagon and any -variance to'the .2:1 grade will result
in a repeat and the further destruction of our esthetic
and safety values. It woulddouble the negative esthetic
effect in that area.
Planning Commission.'
City of .Rolling Hill's
1/.2:1 gr.adeto.: make the pad ;requires the movement of
entirely ,too much soil away from the Chuckwagon side of
the trail and canyon side of the lot.. It is just changing
the face of the earth to accomplish something that the
owner wants and the community has already ,stated. by Ordinance
that it doesn't want.
Moreand more, as lots get scarcer, more requests for
variances will come to you and each variance that you
approve now will only be a precedent and stepping stone
for the next.: This further creates, more complex and some
time` unsolvable problems for 'the Boards and Committees who
later. must try : and salvage the existing landscape, build_ .'
ings, esthetic values and :'safety features'. of our City..
Thanks 'foryour
mes E. Hawtho ne
2 Chuckwagon Road:
oiling .Hills, Caliofrnia 90274
2.
fockwood-Singh & Associates
A CORPORATION
Consulting Foundation Engineers and Geologists
9977 Jefferson Boulevard • Culver City, California 90230
Telephone :(213)870-7335;(213)836-5431
R. BRUCE LOCKWOOD, R.E.G.
AWTAR SINGH. C.E.
Project Ref. 839-72
February 13, 1978
.Mr. W. J. Rode
20 Empty Saddle Lane
Rolling Hills Estates, California 90274
:SUBJECT: REVIEW OF PROPOSED GRADING PLAN
LOT 1, TRACT 23103
5 CHUCKWAGON ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA
Dear Mr. Rode:
'In accordance with your request we have made a review of the proposed
• :grading plan prepared by South Bay Engineering, dated 11/18/77, for
the above referenced lot.
It is our professional opinion that the proposed grading is technically
feasible from the standpoint of engineering geology and soil
engineering. A report giving our recommendations for grading will
follow.
Very truly yours,
LOCKWOOD-SINGH & AS SO IATES
Bruce Lockwood
CEG 204
RBL/RH:so