none, "For grading and ""as-built"" , Correspondence•
C1t olielli..g
May 25, 2010
Dr. James Black
36 Saddleback Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Subject: 2 Appaloosa Lane
Dear Council Member Black,
•
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF 90274
(310) 377.1521
FAX: (310) 377-7288
Last month, the Los Angeles County Building and Safety Department observed the
unauthorized fill dirt and grading on the lower part of your property at 2
Appaloosa Lane. In bringing this situation to the City's attention, the inspectors
expressed concern that the project area might be within the jurisdiction of State
Fish and Game Department as a natural drainage course. In addition, any grading
to create a pad requires Site Plan approval by the City's Planning Commission.
As such, a stop work order was issued.
If you intend to build a pad at this site, it is necessary that you submit an
application and plans for the Planning Commission's consideration. Alternatively,
you must restore the site to its original condition. To do so, it will be necessary
that you submit a drainage and restoration plan to the Building and Safety
Department for approval. For all work, permits are necessary.
Furthermore, in our conversation on May 19, 2010, you stated your intent to build
a soccer field with the new pad. For a sports field, if that is the plan being
developed, and if additional dirt would be required, please be aware that
Planning Commission approval of a Variance for import of dirt is necessary.
It is requested that you submit a new grading and drainage plan and application
to the City, or if you plan to restore the area a grading and drainage plan for
restoration to the Building and Safety Department by July 15, 2010. In addition,
should you decide to built a sports field you would be responsible for all
appropriate application and permitting fees including $1,000 as the penalty for
unauthorized grading.
If you have any questions, please call me at 310.377.1521.
Printed on Recycled Paper
• •
Sincerely
1 f
Yollinta Schwartz
Planning Director
cc: Anton Dahlerbruch, City Manager
Wayne Chatman, Inspector, L.A. County Building and Safety
GERALD T. RAYDON
2 Appaloosa Lane
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
(310) 541-2508
May 26, 1992
Ms. Lola Unger
City Rolling Hills
Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Dear Ms. Unger,
ggl.)1Wkij
MAY 2 71992
CITY OF HILLS
Rn�/'j�-/1LIIIN`�/IG •
By
This letter is to correct various statements made by Mr. Robert
Sollima in his letter to you dated May 18, 1992, setting forth his
attempted justification of grading an unpermitted road through his
property to, on, and along our property. The fact remains that the
extensive erosion and drainage problems referred to in my letter do
exist. If the "sawtooth cuts" were ever made, they certainly were
not in place through last winter when water from the hillside
drained directly off the hill onto and then down.the road, cutting
the road deeper and then discharging onto our property and onto
Appaloosa Lane. Note also that the fire department report, which
cannot be used as the justification for making a non -permitted
road, refers only to buildings at #4 Appaloosa Lane, which is not
our property. It was unnecessary to build such a road in any case
as Mr. Sollima would have been readily granted permission for
temporary access across our properties to clear any brush that he
was ordered to remove.
With respect to the large amount of fill dumped in the canyon
adjacent to the Glory Trail, an inspection of the site will clearly
show that there has been no slide or slumping of debris into the
canyon. It will also reveal that Mr. Sollima has cut a road
through brush for over 150 yards from his stables to the Glory
Trail. He removed an extensive area of the hillside and large
amounts of brush, which have been pushed into the canyon, filling
it up to the trail level. You will note that both above and below
this fill point, the stream bed lies 15-25 feet or more below the
level of the trail. Some recent grading by the party working on
the trail has added to the amount of loose dirt filling the canyon
which will be eroded and washed down the canyon and then deposited
onto Appaloosa Lane. It would appear that the grading done on the
trail will have to be corrected in order to avoid the dumping of
loose dirt into places where it can be readily eroded and washed
away.
Ms. Lola Unger
May 26, 1992
Page Two
Mr. Sollima may have re -graded the area to remove any evidence of
overflow and erosion of the dirt piled there, but the fact remains
that we saw the large area of erosion and suffered the deposition
of the mud carried down the canyon onto Appaloosa Lane. The
erosion caused by Dr. Jin's grading caused an erosion problem in
previous years, but the area has since stabilized and is covered
with vegetation.
I am not claiming an easement on any area in fact dedicated to the
Community Association, but am on the area of Mr. Sollima's property
to the south and west of the easement. The sketch as submitted by
him with his letter purports to show the outline of our fence but
is quite inaccurate.
I again request that the City and County take appropriate steps to
remove the illegal cuts, fills and roadway constructed by him which
are causing damage to our property and a public nuisance.
Very truly yours,
Gerald T. Rayclon
c: Robert Sollima
George Schaffenberger
�E�KE LLY & GRAHAM
Rvrtncr9//i c/-u &Swrafony
PHILLIP KELLY'
LOWELL GRAHAM'
'A LAW CORPORATION
May 20,.1992
Mr. Gerald Raydon
#2 Appaloosa Lane
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
117
SUIT£'1130 JtI1oJ BANK TOWER
DEL AMC FINANCIAL CENTER
21515 HAWTHORNE 8O'LJL VARD
TORRANCE, C`A'i1FOaN1. 90503
TEL,EFHONE (310) 371-35 _5.„._.,_-
'FF.X"r310) 53-2305
Dear Mr. Raydon:
This office has been retained by Mr. and Mrs. Robert Sollima
in connection with the apparent property dispute regarding an
alleged prescriptive easement.
I have reviewed the correspondence that the two of you have
directed to each other and to the City of Rolling Hills. I have
also reviewed an engineering schematic setting forth the property
lines, the 25-foot dedicated easement, and the proposed or alleged
prescriptive easement which you claim. It is apparent from the
engineering schematic that 95 percent or more of the claimed or
alleged prescriptive easement lies on the surface of the dedicated
easement, which is held by the Homeowners' Association for the City
of Rolling Hills. I am sure that you are aware that a prescriptive
right cannot be acquired on real property in which a city, county,
irrigation district, or public or municipal corporation owns an
interest. I would invite your attention to Civil Code §1007, and
more particularly to the case of People vs.'Shirokow (1980) 26 Cal.
3d 301, 162 Cal. Rptr. 30, 605 P.2d 859. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, it is my client's position and my opinion that in no
event have you acquired an easement by prescription or by adverse
possession. Having reviewed the facts of this matter, it is my
opinion that my client was well within his rights to remove the
fence and provide access to his subdivided lot, which is adjacent
to your property. I would further add that I have spoken to Ms.
Ungar of the Planning Department of the City of Rolling Hills, who
joins in my opinion that you cannot acquire a prescriptive right
over a dedicated easement in which the city or public or municipal
corporation owns an interest.
Upon your review of this matter, I trust that either you or
your attorney will contact me at your earliest convenience. I
remain,
Very truly yours,
PHILLIP KELLY
PK: acr
cc: Robert Sollima