Loading...
none, , Staff Reports• (31❑) 544-6222 S?OL'L n9 c:7111in Community cJf &i oe1a,tLon of eRanefio aLOs (Vezdes No. 1 PORTUGUESE BEND RD. • ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 ROLLING HILLS Memorandum CALIFORNIA NOV 1 6 2004 CITY OF ROLL NG HILLS By To: Craig Nealis, City Manager From: Peggy R. Minor, Association Manager,-4- Date: November 15, 2004 Re: Torres Letter dated October 24, 2004 (310) 544-6766 FAX Attached is a letter RHCA received back in October from Mr. Rafael Torres. Rolling Hills Community Association Board of Directors reviewed it at it's meeting on November 4th, but wanted the letter forward to the City and to the Tsai's for their information. Thank you very much and sorry for the delay. PRM:jr cc: Albert Tsai RH CITY - NEALIS - re: Torres Letter • • MEMORANDUM DATE: March 24, 2003 TO: Craig R. Nealis, City Manager FROM: Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director SUBJECT: Request for driver license and property information for Mr. and Mrs. Tsai, 8 Bowie Road. The code enforcement case pertaining to 8 Bowie Road is scheduled to be forwarded to the District Attorney's Office for resolution. Mr. John Bax, the District Attorney for the South Bay cities requested that a summary letter of city's actions pertaining to this case be submitted to him for initial review. He also requested that driver license information on Mr. and Mrs. Albert and Debra Tsai, as well as property information to show the ownership of the property be submitted to his office. Please provide me with this information, so that if could be forwarded to the District Attorney's office. TRANSMITTAL TO: MIKE JENKINS, CITY ATTORNEY FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, DATE: December 12, 2002 SUBJECT: 8 Bowie Lane, Tones Vs. Tsai This is the latest correspondence we received from Mr. Torres. I just spoke to his son, Ralph to determine if NEW construction (above 6 feet) is going on there. He said he didn't write this letter, his younger brother did upon his dad's insistence, and that nothing new has been done on this property since the meeting. This is a way for Mr. Torres to vent his frustration. The photo that came with this has really nothing to do with the drainage device/wall in question. Mr. Torres has until Dec. 20 to contact us to let us know which of the options he'll comply with, (we gave him 3 choices). More to follow. OCTOBER 24, 2002 MEMORANDUM TO FILE: 8 Bowie Road, Mr. and Mrs. Tsai On October 24, 2002, Yolanta Schwartz measured the retaining wall/drainage device at intervals of 8-10 feet apart. The wall measures between 15" at the start of the wall (entrance to the Tsai property) to 58 inches at the back of the driveway, past the large tree. The wall varies in height from 15" to 36" for the first 72 feet and then varies from 38" to 58" for the next 62 feet. Mrs. Tsai was on the site and informed me that her husband is away on business and will be in town for a few days at a time between now and the end of the year, and will not have time to meet with all parties. She said that her husband would be agreeable to either reducing the remaining portion of the wall to 36 inches, or if the City so desires will remove the entire wall. She also indicated that if the wall is removed, she and her husband do not want to be responsible for what happens with the slope behind their property (where the wall/drainage device is constructed now) and will not answer to the neighbor's future • complaints about the drainage. She reiterated that the only reason they built this was to answer to Mr. Torres's complaints about the water coming onto his property from their property and his suggestion that they built a retaining device in a form of a wall. JULY 17, 2002 MEMORANDUM TO FILE: SUBJECT: Drainage device between properties located at 8 Bowie Road and 10 Bowie Road, Rolling Hills On July 17, 2002 a meeting was held between property owners to discuss the drainage between the two properties and the location of the drainage device. Present at the meeting were: Mr. and Mrs. Tsai Mr. Rafael Torres Mr. Ralph Torres, son of Mr. Rafael Torres Mr. William Beverly, attorney for Mr. Torres Rafael Bernal, County District Engineering Associate Craig Nealis, City Manager Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director Mr. Ralph Torres summarized his parents' concerns pertaining to the wall, which was constructed by Mr. Tsai between the properties. He stated that he and his parents are uncertain if the wall was constructed on their property or on Mr. Tsai's property, and whether the wall is structurally sound. He further stated that Mr. Tsai is continually working on his property and that his parents would like to know what exactly he is proposing to do. He stated that Mr. Tsai removed the brush and debris from the westerly corner of his property, which exposed a slope, and that his parents are concerned that the slope will fail and be eroded onto their property. Mr. Tsai responded by giving a history. He stated that it was Mr. Torres who requested that a wall be built to correct the drainage between the properties, and that when Mr. Tsai was in the midst of constructing the wall, Mr. Torres started complaining about the wall. Mr. Tsai stated that before he started the construction, he showed Mr. Torres a survey of the property, and that Mr. Torres at that time had no problems with the construction of the wall in its current location. Mr. Tsai stated that he will not show the survey to Mr. Torres, and that if Mr. Torres is questioning the location of the property line between the properties, then he should have a survey done. Mr. Beverly encouraged Mr. Tsai to share the information. Rafael Bernal stated that a building permit is not required for a wall which is less than 3 feet high and which retains less than 3 feet of dirt. He further stated that in most instances no building permits are required for drainage devices, unless it is a part of a grading project. • Discussion ensued pertaining the need for a survey to determine the location of the wall. Mr. Ralph Torres and Mr. Beverly asked Mr. Tsai to put in writing exactly what he is proposing to do and the time frame. Mr. Tsai responded that he would like to continue the wall in a westerly direction down into the canyon. The wall would not be more than 2 feet high. City Manager informed the parties that they should contact the Rolling Hills Community Association for their approval. He also explained that originally the wall was greater than 3 feet in height. When reported to the City by Mr. Torres, City provided Mr. Tsai with options to reduce the wall to 3 feet or below in height, remove the wall or apply for a variance (above 3 feet in the front yard setback). City Manager commented that the City does not require this wall or drainage device and urged the parties to work together and reach an agreement. Mr. Ralph Torres agreed that continuing the wall would be a good idea, but that the property line question needs to be addressed first. The parties agreed to continue the discussion and to meet in the field to determine the height of the wall. A survey to determine the location of the wall will also be done. No decision was made on whether Mr. Tsai will allow Mr. Torres to look at the existing survey or if Mr. Torres would have to have a new survey done. The parties also agreed to continue the dialogue with each other and to keep the city informed of their discussions. The parties agreed that ultimately, the best solution would be to continue the wall in westerly direction into the canyon. November 14, 2001 MEMO TO FILE: RE: 8 BOWIE LANE, Mr. Albert Tsai, wall along the front property line. City's Building Official, Rafael Bernal and Yolanta Schwartz made an inspection of the wall constructed by Mr. Tsai on Wednesday, November 14, 2001. According to Mr. Tsai: the neighbors below, Mr. & Mrs. Tones have complained about the drainage from the Tsai property onto the Torres' property for many years. Mr. Tsai built a wall along the property line, thinking that he'll pacify the neighbor and alleviate the problem. Mr. Tsai was planning to construct a swale along the wall on his property to further make sure that the water drains on his property down the swale and not onto the Tones' property. Mr. Tsai spoke to the neighbor and told him what his plans are. Mr. Tones did not object. Two courses of wall were removed. The workers informed Mr. Tsai that because the wall was constructed with steel rods and on foundation, it couldn't be removed manually. Special equipment has to be brought in to demo the remaining of the wall. Mr. Tsai would like to keep the wall. Mr. Torres told him that he too would like to keep the wall. Mr. Tsai suggested to plant vine like plants so that in a couple of years the wall on the Tones's property would be covered by the plants. According to Mr. Torres: there always was a drainage problem, because the Tsai's dirt driveway leading into the barn was not compacted. For years Mr. Tones complained to Mr. Tsai and the City about the dirt from the road washing onto his property. Mr. Tsai built the wall without his permission and went onto his (Tones) property to do so. Mr. Tones went away and when he came back, the wall was there. He informed the City about the wall. Before the block wall, there were railroad ties along the driveway - (that were supporting Mr. Tsai's driveway to the barn). Mr. & Mrs. Torres state that through the years Mr. Tsai built-up the dirt driveway by at least 3-4 feet, especially near the barn. They did not compact it. The reason for the wall to be 4-5 feet high on their (Torres's) property is that the driveway was built-up. The railroad ties were never this high, maybe 2-3 tiers only. The railroad ties were rotted and did need replacement. The Torres's never expected the wall to be so high. In addition, Mr. Tones thinks that the Tsai's changed the grade of the other slopes on their property and made is steeper as it meets the driveway to the barn. Mrs. Torres said that she never before was able to see the slope behind the barn driveway. Even though, they think the wall will help with the drainage they would like the following: • 1. Assurance that the wall was engineered properly, (copy of plans and approvals from either City or County) 2. Assurance that the wall will not fall down 3. Assurance (copy of permit) that the wall was constructed legally 4. Acknowledgment that the driveway was built-up and that the City or RHCA knows about it and that it's O.K., since dirt was imported. 5. Assurance that the wall is allowed/permitted to be located on the property line. 6. Assurance that the Tsai's will clean up the brush and debris from the property line and those that go into the canyon. According to Rafael: It does not look like the driveway was built-up by much, maybe 1- 1.5 feet through the years, but as a result of the Torres's complaints that drainage is a problem. If the driveway was built-up more than 1-1.5 feet, there would be a hill near the entrance to the barn. The driveway is pretty much at the same elevation as the existing barn. If a wall does not retain more than 3' of dirt, it does not require building permit. Rafael would consider this wall as a drainage device and no permits would be required. • City ofieolling fidid INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com Agenda Item No.: 5.C. Mtg. Date: 2 / 24 / 97 DATE: FEBRUARY 24, 1997 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ATTENTION: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER FROM: LOLA M. UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 97-6: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A RETAINING WALL AND GRANTING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SAME RETAINING WALL IN ZONING CASE NO. 549. Mr. and Mrs. Albert E. M. Tsai, 8 Bowie Road (Lot 5-CRA) BACKGROUND 1. The Planning Commission approved the attached Resolution of Approval on February 11, 1997 at an adjourned regular meeting. 2. The Building Inspector stopped work at the site when it was brought to the attention of the City that a retaining wall was being constructed without permits at the site. The applicants are requesting a Variance to construct a retaining wall that will be up to 5 feet in height and 152 feet long at the western portion of their lot to preserve a hillside slope. The retaining wall will encroach 50 feet into the 50 foot front yard setback. The retaining wall will encroach from 20 feet up to 28 feet into the 35 foot side yard setback. The applicants propose to connect the retaining wall to an existing retaining wall at 10 Bowie Road at the northwest. 3. Mr. Ron Bishop, 12 Bowie Road, expressed concern about the appearance of the proposed retaining wall, however, these concerns were addressed at the field trip. Printed on Recycled Paper. • 4. There will not be any grading done for the project. 5. County building permits show that the original residence was built in 1967. The swimming pool was constructed in 1968. Other County building permits are for a retaining. wall built in 1967 and a barn built in 1976. There are also an existing green house and an existing tennis court for which there are n o permits. The Community Association records show that the tennis court was approved on August 1, 1966 and the greenhouse was approved on August 1, 1975 along with some interior remodeling. Rolling Hills Municipal Code Ordinance No. 150 requiring a Conditional Use Permit for a tennis court but, no specific conditions was adopted on April 25, 1977 and Ordinance No. 215 requiring fourteen (14) specific conditions for a tennis court was adopted on June 6, 1987. County building permits for a shear pin design at the pool and new underpinnings for the tennis court expired in 1985. In 1984, after determination that it was a geological necessity, a County building permit was issued to construct a retaining wall at the adjacent property at 10 Bowie Road following drainage and grading studies by Breiholz Engineering,. 6. Structural lot coverage and total lot coverage will remain the same. Structural lot coverage is 14,218 square feet and 14.7% of the net lot area (20% maximum permitted). Total lot coverage is 16,958 square feet and 17.6% of the net lot area (35% maximum permitted). 7. The disturbed area of the lot is 16,958 square feet or 17.6% of the net lot area (40% maximum) and will not change. 8. The existing driveway access at the northeastern portion of the lot in the easement from Bowie Road will not be disturbed. 9. 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. 97-6. CRITERIA' & MAJOR IMPACTS RA -S-1 Zone Setbacks: Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 35 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from property line Structures (Site Plan Review required if size of structure increases by at least 1,000 sq.ft. and has the effect of increasing the size of the structure by more than 25% in a 36-month period). Structural Lot Coverage (20% maximum) Total Lot Coverage (35% maximum) Grading Disturbed Area (40% maximum; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading temporary disturbance), graded slopes and building pad areas, any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist.) Residential Building Pad Coverage (Guideline maximum of 30%) 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]. Preserve Views Preserve Plants and Animals EXISTING No encroachments Residence Garage Swim Pool Stable Tennis Court Green House TOTAL 14.7% 17.6% N/A 17.6% No change 4,742 sq.ft. 972 sq.ft. 560 sq.ft. 600 sq.ft. 7,200 sq.ft. 144 sq.ft. 14,218 sq.ft. Existing at northeast of property off Bowie Road Existing stable access N/A N/A PROPOSED Requesting Variance to encroach 50feet into front yard setback for retaining wall Requesting Variance to encroach 28 feet into the side yard setback for retaining wall. Residence 4,742 sq.ft. Garage 972 sq.ft. Swim Pool 560 sq.ft. Stable 600 sq.ft. 3Fennis Court 7,200 sq.ft reen House 144 sq.ft. TOTAL 14,218 sq.ft. 14.7% 17.6% None 17.6% No change Existing at northeast of property off Bowie Road Existing stable access Planning Commission will review Planning Commission will review • • VARIANCE REQUIRED FINDINGS A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone; and B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied the property in question; and C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; and E. That the variance does not grant special privilege; F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; and G. That the variance request is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills. • • RESOLUTION NO. 97-6 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A RETAINING WALL AND GRANTING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SAME RETAINING WALL IN ZONING CASE NO. 549. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. Albert E. M. Tsai with respect to real property located at 8 Bowie Road (Lot 5-CRA)) requesting a Variance to encroach into the front yard setback to construct a retaining wall and requesting a Variance to encroach into the side yard setback to construct the same retaining wall at a single family residence for erosion control. Section 2. The Department of Building and Safety stopped work at the site when it was brought to the attention of the City that a retaining wall was being constructed without permits. The applicants propose to connect the proposed retaining wall to an existing retaining wall at 10 Bowie Road at the northwest. Section 3. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the applications on January 21, 1997 and February 11, 1997, and at a field trip visit on February 8, 1997. 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 17.38.010 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 17.16.110 requires a front yard setback for every residential parcel in the RA- S Zone to be 50 feet from the front easement line. The applicant is requesting to permit the construction of a retaining wall that will encroach into the front yard setback to preserve the integrity of a downhill slope. The retaining wall will be up to 5 feet in height and 152 feet long at the western portion of the lot. The retaining wall will encroach a maximum of 50 feet into the 50 foot front yard setback. 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 and the building pads are located close to a hillside drainage channel. The sloping northwest portion of the lot is currently eroding into the drainage channel. The retaining wall is necessary to protect the integrity of the existing building pad. 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 of the steep slope on the lot which necessitates a retaining wall to control erosion and to support the slope bank for the tennis court area and green house area. 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 proposed retaining wall, as conditioned, will be screened from view by landscaping. In addition, except for the retaining wall, a substantial portion of that 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. 549 to permit the construction of a retaining wall that will not exceed 5 feet in height to encroach a maximum of fifty (50) feet into the front yard setback to preserve the integrity of a downhill slope, as indicated on the development plan submitted with this application and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A, subject to the conditions specified in Section 9 of this Resolution. Section 7. Section 17.16.120(B) requires a side yard setback for every residential parcel in the RAE-S-2 Zone to be 35 feet. The applicant is requesting to permit the construction of a retaining wall that will encroach into the side yard setback to preserve the integrity of a downhill slope. The retaining wall will be up to 5 feet in height and 152 feet long at the western portion of the lot. The retaining wall will encroach a maximum of 28 feet into the 35 foot side yard setback. 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 and the building pads are located close to a hillside drainage channel. The sloping northwest portion of the lot is currently eroding into the drainage channel. The retaining wall is necessary to protect the integrity of the existing building pad. RESOLUTION NO. 97-6 PAGE 2 L:J • 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 of the steep slope on the lot which necessitates a retaining wall to control erosion and to support the slope bank for the tennis court area and green house area. 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 proposed retaining wall, as conditioned, will be screened from view by landscaping. In addition, except for the retaining wall, a substantial portion of that 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. 549 to permit the construction of a retaining wall that will not exceed 5 feet in height to encroach a maximum of twenty-eight (28) feet into the side yard setback to preserve the integrity of a downhill slope, as indicated on the development plan submitted with this application and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A, subject to the conditions specified in Section 9 of this Resolution. Section 9. The Variance to the front yard setback approved in Section 6 and the Variance to the side yard setback approved in Section 8 of this Resolution are subject to the following conditions: A. The Variance approvals shall expire within one year from the effective date of approval as defined in Section 17.38.070. B. It is declare& and made a condition of the Variance 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 dated January 6, 1997 and marked Exhibit A, except as otherwise provided in these conditions. E. The retaining wall shall not exceed 5 feet in height. RESOLUTION NO. 97-6 PAGE 3 • • F. Landscaping shall be provided and maintained to obscure the retaining wall from the views of adjacent properties. The landscaping shall be planted within 1 month of the completion of the retaining wall. G. Two sets of a preliminary 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 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 adjacent canyon 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 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. H. No grading shall take place on the construction site. I. 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. J. 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. K. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of these Variance approvals, or the approvals shall not be effective. L. All conditions of these Variance approvals must be complied with prior to the issuance of a building permit from the County of Los Angeles. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1997. RESOLUTION NO. 97-6 PAGE 4 co lU �� ALLAN ROBE TS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS §§ I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 97-6 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A RETAINING WALL AND GRANTING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SAME RETAINING WALL IN ZONING CASE NO. 549. was approved and adopted at an adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission on February 11, 1997 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. DEPUTY CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 97-6 PAGE 5