City Council Agenda 08-08-2016CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL AND POSTING
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ss
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
I am a citizen of the United States. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the
within proceeding; my business address is 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California.
On the 4`h day of August, 2016, I serve the within
City Council Meeting - 08/08/2016
a copy of which is annexed hereto and made a part hereof, on the person, or persons, named
below by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully
prepaid, in the United States mail at Rolling Hills, California addressed as follows:
E -MAILED MAILED DropBox
NONE
RH Web site listSery
Interested parties
City Attorney
CouncilMembers
Dieringer, Pieper,
Black, Mirsch and Wilson
DELIVERED
City Manager
City Council
Also posted at City Hall, at www.Rolling-Hills.org and PDF's in DropBox.
1 certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on the 4'" day of August, 2016 at Rolling Hills, California.
Ewa Nikodem
Administrative Assistant
5
ecr, eV Rea, qeea
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
N0. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310)377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288
AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, AUGUST 8, 2016 7:00 P.M.
Next Resolution No. 1187 Next Ordnance No. 347
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. OPEN AGENDA - PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME
This is the appropriate time for members of the public to make comments regarding the items on the
consent calendar or items nut listed on this agenda. Pursuant to the Brown Act, no action will take
place on any items not on the agenda.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
Matters which may be acted upon by the City Council in a single motion. Any Councilmember may
request removal of any item from the Consent Calendar causing it to be considered under Council
Actions.
A. Minutes - Regular Meeting of July 11, 2016.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
B. Payment of Bills.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
C. Financial Statement for the Month of June, 2016.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
D. Allied Recycling Tonnage Report for June, 2016.
RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file.
E. Review and approval of the Planning/Traffic Commission Recruitment/Appointment
Timeline for terms expiring in January 2017.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
F. City of Rolling Hills Conflict of Interest Code Biennial Review.
RECOMMENDATION: No changes. Receive and file.
G. Consideration of a date of December 12, 2016 from 4-7 pm for the 3151 Annual Holiday
Open House
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
H. Consideration of the following claim — CLAIMANT: Rick Edler/Merryweather
Properties, Inc.; DATE OF LOSS: August 5, 2015; DATE FILED: July 15, 2016;
ALLEGATION: Water damage to several units on a property located at 608 Silver Spur
Road, Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274
RECOMMENDATION: Deny claim.
Page 1 of 4
5. COMMISSION ITEMS
A. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-17 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A
SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A SWIMMING POOL/SPA, WALLS, FIRE PIT,
BARBECUE, POOL EQUIPMENT, AND A VARIANCE TO EXCEED 2.5' HIGH
AVERAGE FOR ASSOCIATED WALLS IN ZONING CASE NO. 906 AT 27 CREST
ROAD WEST, (LOT 174 -B -MS), ROLLING HILLS, CA (GOLDENBERG). THE
PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15303, CLASS 3 EXEMPTION
GUIDELINES.
B. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-18 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A
SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE, GARAGE AND A BASEMENT, SWIMMING POOL, VARIOUS
OUTDOOR AMENITIES AND VARIOUS RETAINING WALLS, A NEW
DRIVEWAY AND GRADING; REQUEST FOR VARIANCES TO ENCROACH
WITH THE RESIDENCE, BASEMENT, LIGHT WELLS AND SEVERAL WALLS
INTO SETBACKS, OF WHICH SOME DO NOT AVERAGE OUT TO 2.5' IN
HEIGHT, TO LOCATE THE POOL, POOL EQUIPMENT AND FUTURE STABLE
AND CORRAL IN FRONT YARD AREA, TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM
PERMITTED TOTAL LOT COVERAGE AND DISTURBED AREA, TO EXCEED
THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED COVERAGE OF FRONT SETBACK WITH THE
DRIVEWAY AND TO EXPORT DIRT IN ZONING CASE NO. 895, AT 10 BOWIE
ROAD, (LOT 4-CRA), ROLLING HILLS, CA (PANG JUI YIU). THE PROJECT IS
EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
PURSUANT TO SECTION 15303, CLASS 3 EXEMPTION GUIDELINES.
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. CONSIDERATION' OF AN APPEAL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION IN ZONING CASE NO. 901 AT 5 PINE
TREE LANE AS REFLECTED IN PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
2016-15:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING
HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR GRADING AND
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENCE WITH A BASEMENT, DETACHED
GARAGES, COVERED PORCHES, STABLE, SWIMMING POOL WITH A SPA,
RETAINING WALLS AND NEW DRIVEWAY; A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
CONSTRUCT A GUEST HOUSE, DETACHED GARAGES, AND STABLE WITH
LOFT; AND VARIANCES TO EXCEED MAXIMUM PERMITTED AVERAGE
HEIGHT OF RETAINING WALLS AND TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM
PERMITTED LOT DISTURBANCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 901 AT 5 PINE TREE
LANE, (LOT 94-RH), (SHARNG). THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO
SECTION 15303, CLASS 3 EXEMPTION GUIDELINES.
City Council Agenda
08/08/16 Page 2 of 4
B. RESOLUTION NO. 1187 — A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA, FINDING THE CITY TO BE IN
CONFORMANCE WITH THE CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (CMP)
AND ADOPTING THE CMP LOCAL DEVELOPMENT REPORT, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65089.
7. OLD BUSINESS
A. REPORT ON STATUS OF RESOLUTION REQUESTED IN ZONING CASE NO. 880
AT 15 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD (LOT 78-RH), ROLLING HILLS CA,
(HASSOLDT).
8. NEW BUSINESS
NONE.
9. MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS
A. DISCUSSION CONCERNING SCHEDULING A JOINT MEETING BETWEEN THE
CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION. (ORAL REPORT)
B. STATUS REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL TREES AND VIEWS AD HOC
COMMITTEE ON ITS EFFORTS TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE AND TO
POSSIBLY BRING FORWARD A BALLOT MEASURE TO MODIFY OR REPEAL
MEASURE B. (ORAL REPORT)
C. DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION TO PURSUE A PROPOSAL TO PURCHASE
BASIC VIDEO EQUIPMENT IN ORDER TO POST IMPORTANT COMMUNITY
PRESENTATIONS ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE. (ORAL REPORT)
D. DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION TO PURSUE A PROPOSAL TO HOST A CITY
TOWN HALL MEETING IN THE NEAR FUTURE. (ORAL REPORT)
10. MATTERS FROM STAFF
A. DISCUSSION AND APPROVAL - PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL FOR
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE TENNIS COURT AREA.
B. CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY WATER BUDGET APPEAL
ASSISTANCE UPDATE. (ORAL REPORT)
11. CLOSED SESSION
NONE.
City Council Agenda
08/08/16 Page 3 of 4
12. ADJOURNMENT
Next meeting: Monday, August 22, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, Rolling Hills City
Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California.
Public Comment is welcome on any item prior to City Council action on the item.
Documents pertaining to an agenda item received after the posting of the agenda are available for
review in the City Clerk's office or at the meeting at which the item will be considered.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to
participate in this meeting due to your disability, please contact the City Clerk at (310) 377-1521 at
least 48 hours prior to the meeting to enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure
accessibility and accommodation for your review of this agenda and attendance at this meeting.
City Council Agenda
08/08/16 Page 4 of 4
DRAFT
Agenda Item No. 4-A
Meeting Date: 08/08/16
MINUTES OF
A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA
MONDAY, JULY 11, 2016
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills was called to order by Mayor Dieringer
at 7:04 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California.
ROLL CALL
Councilmembers Present: Black, Mirsch, Pieper, Wilson and Mayor Dieringer.
Councilmembers Absent: None.
Others Present: Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager.
Mike Jenkins, City Attorney.
Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director.
Terry Shea, Finance Director.
Heidi Luce, City Clerk.
Jill Smith, Former Planning Commissioner.
Hal Light, Attorney (Hassoldt).
Gary Wynn, Wynn Engineering.
Howard Weinberg, Attorney (Nuccion).
Sid Croft, Attorney (RHCA).
Captain Dan Beringer, LASD, Lomita Station.
Sgt. Tony Blanchard, LASD, Lomita Station.
OPEN AGENDA - PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME
None
Arrived at 7:27 p.m.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Matters which may be acted upon by the City Council in a single motion. Any Councilmember may
request removal of any item from the Consent Calendar causing it to be considered under Council Actions.
A. Minutes - Regular Meeting of June 27, 2016.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
B. Payment of Bills.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
Councilmember Wilson moved that the City Council approve the items on the consent calendar as
presented. Councilmember Pieper seconded the motion, which carried without objection.
DRAFT
SPECIAL PRESENTATION
Special Presentation to Jill Smith in recognition of her service
to the community as Member of Planning Commission from 2007-2016
Mayor Dieringer presented a plaque to Jill Smith in appreciation of her service as a member of the
Planning Commission for nearly 10 years and thanked her for her dedication and service to the
Community.
Ms. Smith thanked the City Council for the recognition and stated that she enjoyed serving on the
Planning Commission. She urged the City Council to continue to preserve this special community.
COMMISSION ITEMS
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-15 — A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR
GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENCE WITH A BASEMENT,
DETACHED GARAGES, COVERED PORCHES, STABLE, SWIMMING POOL WITH A SPA,
RETAINING WALLS AND NEW DRIVEWAY; A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
CONSTRUCT A GUEST HOUSE, DETACHED GARAGES, AND STABLE WITH LOFT;
AND VARIANCES TO EXCEED MAXIMUM PERMITTED AVERAGE HEIGHT OF
RETAINING WALLS AND TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED LOT
DISTURBANCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 901 AT 5 PINE TREE LANE, (LOT 94-RH),
(SHARNG) AND CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE TRAFFIC
COMMISSION TO APPROVE A NEW DRIVEWAY APRON
Mayor Dieringer introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz
reviewed the applicant's request to construct a new residence and other amenities at 5 Pine Tree Lane. She
stated that after review and several changes to the original proposal, the Planning Commission approved
the request, which includes a new driveway off of Pine Tree Lane and further to the north than the existing
driveway. She stated that the Traffic Commission reviewed the originally proposed driveway apron as for
sight visibility and traffic safety and recommended approval but the applicant has since revised the
driveway approach in response to comments from a neighbor and in order to retain some existing Pine
trees; but the revisions have not yet been reviewed by the Traffic Commission. She stated that the Traffic
Commission will review the revised driveway apron at its next meeting and its recommendation will be
forwarded to the City Council. She further stated that the existing driveway apron will be retained because
it also serves the property at 3 Pine Tree Lane, but access to the house at 5 Pine Tree from the existing
apron will be eliminated.
She stated that during the proceedings, the Planning Commission heard general objections from the
previous property owner of 3 Pine Tree Lane who was primarily concerned about the impact the
development would have on the common driveway; but that concern was alleviated when it was realized
that access to 3 Pine Tree Lane would remain. There were no further concerns raised by that individual.
She further stated that following the sale of 3 Pine Tree Lane, the new property owner sent an e-mail to
staff, which is included with this staff report, objecting in general to the project and subsequently came to
Minutes
City Council Meeting
07-11-16
DRAFT
City Hall to review the plans. She stated that the property owner at 10 Pine Tree Lane also expressed
concern that the silhouette could be seen from their property and submitted photographs, which are also
included with the staff report. She stated that also included with the staff report is a letter from the
property owner regarding the project and her correspondence and contact with the new property owner at
3 Pine Tree Lane.
She further reviewed the project including the grading and development standards which are all within the
Code requirements with the exception of the walls, which require a variance because they exceed the 2.5
ft. average and the disturbance, which also requires a variance.
In response to Councilmember Mirsch regarding the correspondence from the new property owner at 3
Pine Tree Lane, Planning Director Schwartz stated that is it her understanding that he acquired the
property before the Planning Commission approved the project but did not attend any Planning
Commission meetings. In response to Mayor Dieringer, City Attorney Jenkins stated that the City Council
may not extend its opportunity to take this case under jurisdiction; but if the City Council chooses not to
take this case under jurisdiction, the case may still be appealed.
General discussion ensued concerning the disturbance, the set aside area for the stable and corral and the
driveway access to 3 Pine Tree Lane. Mayor Pro Tem Black arrived and took his place at the dais.
Following discussion, Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council receive and file Planning
Commission Resolution No. 2016-15 granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 901
at 5 Pine Tree Lane and accept the Traffic Commission's recommendation to approve the new driveway
approach. Mayor Pro Tem Black seconded the motion, which carried without objection.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ZONING CASE NO. 880 -REVISED. REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW AND
VARIANCES FOR A 300 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION OF WHICH 61 SQUARE FEET
ENCROACHES UP TO 5.2' INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK, AND THE ROOF
OVERHANG ENCROACHES 3.8' INTO THE SIDE SETBACK BEYOND THE MAXIMUM
OF 5' ENCROACHMENT ALLOWED; TO PROVIDE LESS THAN THE MINIMUM
REQUIRED 4' -WIDE WALKWAY ALONG A PORTION OF THE PERIMETER OF THE
RESIDENCE ADDITION AND TO CONSTRUCT A 6' HIGH RETAINING WALL IN SIDE
SETBACK. PREVIOUS PROPOSAL WAS PUBLICLY REVIEWED AT THE CITY COUNCIL
FIELD TRW MEETING TO THE SITE ON OCTOBER 26, 2015 AND AT THE REGULAR
CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON OCTOBER 26, 2015 AND NOVEMBER 9, 2015. THE
PROJECT IS LOCATED AT 15 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD, (LOT 78-RH), ROLLING
HILLS, CA IN THE RAS-1 ZONING DISTRICT, (HASSOLDT). THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT
FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO
SECTION 15303, CLASS 3 EXEMPTION GUIDELINES.
Councilmember Pieper recused himself from consideration of this case due to the proximity of his
property to the subject property and left the dais. Mayor Dieringer introduced the item and asked for
staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the background on this case stating that this case
was taken under jurisdiction by the City Council following the Planning Commission's approval in
Minutes
City Council Meeting
07-I1-16
DRAFT
September 2015. She stated that the Planning Commission approved the applicant's request for a 300 sq.
ft. addition of which 61 sq. ft. encroaches into the side yard setback and a variance for a 2 ft. access way
with a ramp around the addition. She further reviewed the applicant's request stating that during previous
meeting, the City Council expressed concern regarding the 2 ft. access way and suggested that applicant
address this concern. She stated that since the City Council last heard this matter, several versions of this
project were submitted to staff with submittal of this latest version, the applicant is requesting that the City
Council reconsider its decision to not allow the 2 ft. access way around the addition. She reviewed the
current proposal, which includes a flat 2 ft. walkway around the corner of the addition with a 6 ft. wall,
which is located outside the Association easement but in the setback requires a variance. She stated that
based on the City Council's previous suggestion to create a 4 ft. walkway around the addition, which
would require construction of a wall in the Association easement, the applicant presented the proposal to
the Rolling Hills Community Association. She stated that the proposal was approved by the Association
with conditions, which are unacceptable to the applicant so the applicant is requesting that the City
Council reconsider the mater, and approve the 2 ft. walkway. Planning Director Schwartz noted
corrections to the staff report with regard to the total square footage - addition 342 sq. ft. (not 322); total
residence 3,971 sq. ft (not 3,951); total lot coverage 10,413 sq. ft. (not 10,273) at 28.5% (not 28.2%). She
further reviewed the applicant's request stating that all of the other development standards are within the
Zoning Code requirements.
In response to Councilmember Mirsch regarding the assertion in the letter from the applicant that there is
another property that has a less than 4 ft. walkway around the property, Planning Director Schwartz stated
that staff is unaware of such a condition. Mayor Pro Tem Black commented that since he has been on the
City Council, a less than 4 ft. walkway has never been approved.
Mayor Dieringer called for public comment.
Hal Light, Attorney addressed the City Council on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Light distributed copies of
a photograph of the property at 13 Portuguese Bend Road in support of the assertion that there is another
property where a less than 4 ft. walkway exists. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Black, Mr. Light
commented that he does not know when the wall depicted in the photograph was built. With regard to the
applicant's request for a variance to allow the less than 4 ft. walkway, Mr. Light commented that the City
received an e-mail from a Captain at Fire Station 56 indicating that they were okay with the proposed
access. Mr. Light further expressed concern regarding the amount of time this project has taken and urged
the City Council to approve the current proposal given that the area where access is only 2 ft. in width is
so small and is now flat instead of the ramped configuration.
Gary Wynn, Wynn Engineering addressed the City Council on behalf of the applicant to further explain
the applicant's revised request stating that he believes this is the best solution for this situation. In
response to Mayor Dieringer, Mr. Wynn commented that in his estimation, 5 ft. of the area would have a 2
ft. walkway. In response to Councilmember Wilson and Mayor Dieringer, Mr. Wynn stated that he
surveyed the property in 2012 for consideration of the purchase of the property and explained the type of
survey that was completed at that time.
Howard Weinberg, Attorney addressed the City Council on behalf of the property owner at 18 Portuguese
Bend Road and distributed a letter to the City Council. In response to Mayor Dieringer, Mr. Weinberg
explained that the letter included documents relating to the granting of a license agreement from the
Minutes
City Council Meeting
07-11-16
DRAFT
RHCA that were just obtained from the Association at 2pm today. Mr. Weinberg commented that the
correspondence shows that applicant could comply with the previous direction to create a 4ft. walkway if
they were willing to accept the conditions outlined by the Association, but rather they are coming back
and requesting that the City Council approve a variance to allow a 2 ft. walkway. Mr. Weinberg
commented that he does not believe the City Council can make the findings to grant the variance to allow
the 2 ft. walkway. He further commented that he believes that if the variance is to be considered then the
project would be subject to CEQA review. In response to Mayor Dieringer, Mr. Weinberg commented that
it would not be appropriate for the Nuccions to contribute monetarily to the condition imposed on the
Hassoldts by the Association.
Mr. Light addressed the City Council in response to the correspondence submitted by Mr. Weinberg to
further explain the Hassoldt's position.
Sid Croft, Attorney addressed the City Council on behalf of the Rolling Hills Community Association to
explain the granting of the license agreement and the conditions that were imposed. In response to Mayor
Dieringer, Mr. Croft further explained the reasoning behind the conditions.
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Dieringer closed the public hearing.
In response to Mr. Light's comment regarding the Station 56 Captain's comments regarding the proposed
2 ft. access Planning Director explained that although the scope of this project did not trigger Fire Dept.
review for Fire Code requirements, the comments by a local Firc Captain are just an opinion and should
not be construed as acceptable or safe. She further commented that were this project of such a scope that it
would trigger Fire Dept. review, the Fire Dept. would require a 5 ft. walkway.
With regard to the CEQA review issue raised by Mr. Weinberg, City Attorney Jenkins stated that staff has
determined this project is categorically exempt and the Supreme Court recently issued an opinion on the
subject of exceptional circumstances concluding that it is very difficult to overcome a categorical
exemption and the objector must prove factually that there is an unusual circumstance warranting further
environmental review. City Attorney Jenkins further commented, with regard to the subject of hardship,
the applicant cannot demonstrate hardship by showing economic hardship and further reviewed the criteria
for granting a variance. Discussion ensued concerning the applicant's reliance on an old survey and the
original suggestion that the Pine tree be removed. Mayor Dieringer commented that she would not be
supportive of including a condition that the Pine tree be removed. Councilmember Mirsch commented that
she believes the City Council has been very reasonable and has attempted to come to a fair and reasonable
solution but there appears to be inflexibility on the part of he applicant. She further commented that she
still does not believe the findings can be made to support granting the variance to allow a 2ft. walkway.
Following brief discussion, Mayor Pro Tem Black moved that the City Council direct staff to prepare a
Resolution approving the variance to encroach into the side yard setback with a portion of the 300 sq. ft.
addition; and denying the request for a variance to provide less than the minimum required 4 ft. wide
walkway along a portion of the perimeter of the addition with the findings of fact as discussed and with a
condition that the Pine tree located near the southern property line be removed if the retaining wall is built
in the RHCA easement. Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion, which carried with Mayor
Dieringer opposed. The public hearing was closed. Councilmember Pieper returned to the dais.
Minutes
City Council Meeting
07-11-16
DRAFT
OLD BUSINESS
CONSIDERATION OF AN INCREASE IN THE FY 16/17 BUDGET FOR SUPPLEMENTAL
TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT.
Mayor Dieringer introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. City Manager Cruz presented the
staff report and provided an overview of the background on this issue. He stated that the traffic citation
statistics are included in the staff report and Captain Beringer is present to answer any questions.
Discussion ensued concerning the number of enforcement hours the City currently receives and the cost of
the supplemental traffic enforcement.
Captain Beringer explained that in addition to traffic enforcement, a benefit of having additional patrol
vehicles in the City is that they also serve as deterrence to crime. Sgt. Blanchard explained the difference
between general patrol hours and supplemental traffic enforcement hours stating that general patrol cars
are in and out of the City at random times and can be called away; whereas, supplemental traffic
enforcement cars are in the City for a fixed amount of time and can be directed to provide whatever type
of patrol the City needs. Discussion ensued concerning enforcement strategies and deployment options.
Further discussion ensued concerning the number of,general patrol hours the City has historically received
as compared to the number of supplemental traffic enforcement hours the City has contracted for.
Following further discussion, Councilmember Mirsch moved that the City Council add 100 hours to the
City's agreement with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Dept. for supplemental traffic enforcement for a
total of 275 hours. Mayor Dieringer seconded the motion, which carried without objection.
NEW BUSINESS
DISCUSSION CONCERNING THE CONSIDERATION OF CHANGING THE RATE FOR
THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS BUILDING PERMIT RELATED FEES.
Mayor Dieringer introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Finance Director Shea presented the
staff report and explained the background on this matter stating that this issue has been discussed by the
Finance Committee during the budget preparation process over the last couple of years and is being
brought before the City Council for further discussion. Mr. Shea reviewed the revenue generated from
permit related fees compared to the cost associated with providing those services stating that the expenses
were greater than the revenue generated. He then reviewed a table showing the impact that decreasing the
multiplier would have on revenue stating that decreasing the multiplier by .25% would decrease the
revenue by approximately $50,000. Discussion ensued concerning property tax revenue and the impact
increased property values have on property tax revenue.
Following discussion, Mayor Dieringer moved that the City Council leave the multiplier rate for building
permit related fees as it currently exists at 2.5%. Councilmember Mirsch seconded the motion, which
carried with Councilmember Pieper and Mayor Pro Tem Black opposed.
MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS
Mayor Pro Tem Black expressed concern that hikers attempt to access the City through the adjacent trail
Minutes
City Council Meeting
07-11-16
DRAFT
system and suggested that signs be installed to let hikers know it is private property. City Attorney
Jenkins commented that because it is private property, it would not be a proper public purpose or expense
for the City to install signage.
Councilmember Wilson suggested that when the Sheriff's Dept. is present to address a particular agenda
item that the item be moved earlier on the agenda. He also expressed concern that when Edison replaces
utility poles, they are leaving the other poles in place and the poles contain unsightly markings.
Councilmember Pieper suggested that a SnapChat filter be created for the City of Rolling Hills and stated
that his company could create the filter at no cost to the City. City Attorney Jenkins suggested that
Councilmember Pieper agendize this matter for further discussion if he would like to pursue it.
MATTERS FROM STAFF
City Manager Cruz reminded the City Council that this Thursday, July 14`", the City is hosting the first
Community Wildfire Protection Plan community meeting at City Hall. Staff was directed to place signs at
the gates to remind residents about the meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
None.
CLOSED SESSION
None.
RETURN TO OPEN SESSION
None.
ADJOURNMENT
Hearing no further business before the City Council, Mayor Dieringer adjourned the meeting at 9:56 p.m.
to the next regular meeting of the City Council scheduled to be held on Monday, July 25, 2016 beginning
at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California.
Respectfully submitted,
Heidi Luce
City Clerk
Minutes
City Council Meeting
07-11-16
DRAFT
Approved,
Bea Dieringer
Mayor
Minutes
City Council Meeting
07-I1-16
CHECK CHECK
04 PALE
• 24392
• 24393
• 24394
• 24395
• 24396
• 24397
• 24398
• 24399
• 24400
• 24401
• 24402
• 24403
• 24404
• 24405
• 24406
• 24407
• 24408
• 24409
• 24410
• 24411
• 24412
• 24413
• 24414
• 24415
• 24416
• 24417
• 24418
• TRANS
• PR LINK
• PR LINK
Ctt o/k?S, Jdh�
Agenda Item No: 4-13
Mtg. Date: 08/08/16
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
8/082016- CHECK RUN A CHECKS DATED 7/192016 AND 8/012016
PAYEE
07/192016 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES
07/192016 AMERICAN MICROIMAGING. MC
07/19/2016 BEA DIERINGER
07/19/2016 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO.
07/19/2016 CCCA
07/19/2016 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
07/192016 COUNTY OF LA DEPT OF AUDITOR -
07/19/2016 COX COMMUNICATIONS
07/192016 DAILY BREEZE
07/19/2016 JENKINS & HOGIN, LLP
07/19/2016 KONICA MINOLTA BUSINESS
07/192016 LA COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT
07/19/2016 LOU'S FLOOR COVERING INC.
07/192016 MANERI SIGN CO., MC.
07/19/2016 MUNICIPAL CODE COPRORATION
07/19/2016 NEOPOST USA INC
07/192016 PACIFIC COAST LANDSCAPE
07/192016 PENINSULA SENIORS
07/192016 PVP COORDINATING COUNCIL
07/192016 REMOTE SATELLITE SYS INTL
07/192016 ROGERS, ANDERSON, MALODY
07/192016 SOUTH BAY CHAMBER MUSIC
07/192016 STEPHENS PLUMBING HEATING &
07/192016 THE GAS COMPANY
07/192016 XEROX CORPORATION
08/012016 CALPERS
08/01/2016 CALPERS-
7/82016 TRANSFER
7/8/2016 PR LINK - PAYROLL PROCESSING
7/8/2016 PR LINK - PAYROLL 14 & PR TARFS
Total
pESCRIPTION
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 3771521
FAX: (310) 377.7288
RESIDENTIAL JAN -JUNE 2016
AMI MTC CONTRACT
CA JPIA RISK MGMT EDU FORUM
RANCHO WATER 526-624/16
ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP FY 16/17
COYOTE CONTROL 6/30/16
LAFCO FY 2016-2017
INTERNET & PHONE 626/6
ADVERTISING 6/1-6/30/16
JUNE 2016 LEGAL FEES
MONTHLY MAINT 6/12-7/11/16
LOMITA 6/01-6/30/16
CUSTOM SHUTTERS FINANCE
SIDE ROAD DEAD END SIGN
JULY ANNUAL WEB HOSTING
TABBING MACH ANNUAL MTC
LANDSCAPE REPAIR 7/11/16
PV SENIORS FY 16/17 BUDGET
ANNUAL DUES FY 16/17
AUGUST MLY SVC FEES & JUNE
JUNE ACCOUNTING SERVICES
FYI6/17 GRANT
EMER AUTO SHUT OFF
06/09/16-07/11/16 GAS CHGS
JUNE MONTHLY BASE CHG
AUGUST 2016 HEALTH PREMIUM
UNFUNDED ACCRUED LIABILITY
OPUS MONEY MARKET TO CHECKING ACCOUNT
Processing Fee
Pay Period - June 22, 2016 Through July 7, 2016
I, Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager of Rolling Hills, California nify that the above demands
are accurate and there is available in the General Fund a bal of 538,168.52 for the
pa) above items.
Ra4nd ru; City anger
1 Previously Disbursed
AMOUNT
377,989.86
1,683.00
758.44
588.95
1,274.00
854.19
85.58
420.40
567.10
11,676.80
118.59
23,196.65
1,937.50
149.02
550.00
612.00
425.00
2,000.00
25.00
97.90
6,855.00
500.00
993.50
19,67
33.00
7,190.41
16,911.00
62,000.00
56.45
18,599.51
S 538,168.52
157.311.56
0
C:
Printed on Recycled Paper
CHECK CHECK
DATE
24419
24420
24421
24422
24423
24424
24425
24426
24427
24428
24429
24430
24431
24432
24433
24434
24435
24436
24437
24438
• TRANS
• PR LINK
• PR LINK
City 0/RS, filth
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
8/08/2016 - CHECK RUN B
PAYEE DESCRIPTION
08/08/2016 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO.
08/082016 CALPERS-
08/08/2016 CONTRACT LAW FUND
08/08/2016 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
08/08/2016 COX COMMUNICATIONS
08/08/2016 EXECUTIVE -SUITE SERVICES, INC.
08/08/2016 FIRST BANKCARD
08/08/2016 FOUNTAINHEAD CONSULTING INC.
08/08/2016 HASLER
08/08/2016 MCGOWAN CONSULTING
08/082016 PACIFIC COAST LANDSCAPE
08/08/2016 PETTY CASH-EWA NIKODEM
08/08/2016 ROLLING HILLS ESTATES
08/08/2016 SAM'S CLUB
08/082016 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
08/082016 STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY
08/08/2016 USCM
08/082016 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS -
08/082016 WI,LDAN NC.
08/08/2016 XEROX CORPORATION
7/21/2016 TRANSFER
7222016 PR LINK - PAYROLL PROCESSING
722/2016 PR LINK - PAYROLL 15 & PR TAXES
Total
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF 90274
(310) 377-1521
. FAX: (310) 377.7288
AMOUNT
JULY 2016 WATER SERVICE 1,032.86
PLAN ID 1065 2016/2017 5,440.36
CCCA BOARD OF DIRECTORS MTG 20.00
HOUSING COSTS -JUNE 2016 53.26
JULY 2016 MONTHLY SERVICE 442.01
JANITORIAL SERVICES JULY 2016 490.00
UNION BANK -JULY 2016 765.79
MONTHLY SERVICE AUG 2016 516.00
POSTAGE 3,000.00
CONSULTING SVC MAY & JUNE 2016 7,227.50
JULY 2016 LANDSCAPE SVC 565.00
JUNE 2016 REIMBURSEMENT 186.56
APRIL, MAY, JUNE 2016 TRAFFIC 608.35
MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL 45.00
JULY 2016 UTILITIES 1,709.91
AUG 2016 PREMIUM 238.02
AUGUST 2016 CONTRIBUTIONS 3,060.00
306580 728.00
DEPUTY DIRECTOR 5,203,75
JULY 2016 MONTHLY BASE CHARGE 37.00
OPUS MONEY MARKET TO CHECKING ACCOUNT 450,000.00
Processing Fee 57.45
Pay Period - July 6, 2016 Through July 19, 2016 18,618.27
I, Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager of Rolling Hills, California certify that the above demands
are accurate and there is available in the General Fund a balance of $500,045.09 for the
paymeyn[eboyve items„ 0J
Raymond R. 3ruz, it„
Manager/02.
• Previously Disbursed
S 500,045.09
3136937
Printed on Recycled Pope,
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
BALANCE SHEET
June 30, 2016 Unaudited (Preliminary)
MUNICIPAL
GENERAL& DEPOSIT COPS& COMMUN. SELF- ' REFUSE TRAFFIC TRANSIT UTILITY
CAPITAL FUND FUND CLEEP FACILITIES INSUR. COLLECT. SAFETY PROP A,C,M FUND
@ TDA
ASSETS
Cash & Cash Equivalents $ 4,504,285 $ 1,771 $ 101,098 $ 18,182 $ 260,374 $ 605,150 $ $ 139,184 $ 1,236,507
Cash & Cash Equivalents - Capital Project Fund - - - - - Poppy Trail Grading Bond - 305,000 - - - -
Accounts Receivable 12,034 - - 4 222,332 32,438 - -
Prepaid Expense & Deposits 37,436 - -
LIABILITIES
TOTAL ASSETS $ 4,553,755 $ 306,771 $ 101,098 S 18,182 S 482,706 S 637,588 $ - S 139,184 S 1,236,507
Accounts & Contract Payable $ 19,392 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 377,990 $
Deposits , 18,803 306,771 - -
Deferred Revenues 14,012 - - - -
FUND BALANCE
Unassigned Fund Balance 4,501,548 101,098 18,182 482,706 259,598 139 184 1,236,507
TOTAL UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE 4,501,548 101,098 18,182 482,706 259 598 - 139,184 1,236,507
ITAL UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE& LIABILITI S 4,553,755 $ 306,771 S 101,098 5 18,182 S 482,706 S 637,588 S S 139,184 S 1,236,507
BEGINNING
YTD OF YEAR
TOTAL TOTAL
$ 6,866,551 $ 6,061,616
10,956
305,000 305,000
266,804 381,398
37.436 27,797
S 7,475,791 $ 6,786,767
$ 397,382 $ 128,965
325,574 331,574
14,012 _ 6,340
TOTAL LIABILITIES _52207 306,771
377,990
COMPOSITION OF CASH
Petry Cash $ 1,500
OPUS Bank - Checking Account 1,021,361
OPUS Bank - Money Market 89,247
US Treasury Bills -
Calif. State Local Agency Investment Fund 5,259,443
Malaga Bank - CDARS - CD's 495,000
$ 6,866,551
Prepared /Bn
Terry Shea, Finance Director
A ro d By:
Raymond R. Cruz, C ry Man r
RH bal_fy1516
Date
711-4
736.968 466.879
6,738,823 6,319,888
6,738,823 6,319,888
S 7,475,791 S 6,786,767
yy 00
Date :rt
i7-/� °°
0
T
P1�
a
p
IT 1J
8/2/2016 12:09 PM
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
Actual Compared to Annual Budget
PRELIMINARY - NOT AUDITED
July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016
GENERAL
Fund
Revenues
Expenditures
Net Revenue before transfers
Transfers in (out)
Net Rcvenue
CITIZENS' OPTION FOR
PUBLIC SAFETY (COPS)
Revenues
Expenditures
Net Revenue before transfers
Transfers in (out)
Net Revenue
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
Revenues
Expenditures
Net Revenue before transfers
Transfers in (out)
Net Revenue
COMMUNITY FACILITIES
Revenues
Expenditures
Net Revenue before transfers
Transfers in (out)
Net Revenue
MUNICIPAL SELF-INSURANCE
Revenues
Expenditures
Net Revenue before transfers
Transfers in (out)
Net Revenue
REFUSE COLLECTION
Revenues
Expenditures
Net Revenue before transfers
Transfers in (out)
Net Rcvenue
TRAFFIC SAFETY
Revenues
Expenditures
Net Revenue before transfers
Transfers in (out)
Net Revenue
TRANSIT - PROPOSITION A, C & M & TDA
Revenues
Expenditures
Net Revenue before transfers
Transfers in (out)
Net Revenue
UTILITY FUND
TOTAL ALL FUNDS
Revenues
Expenditures
Net Revenue before transfers
Transfers in (out)
Net Revenue
Revenues
Expenditures
Net Revenue before transfers
Transfers in (out)
Net Revenue
This Year
$ 1,801,727
1,421966
Last Year
$ 1,844,726
1,429,794
This Year
Better
(Worse)
$ (42.999)
7,828.00
Annual
Budget & Adj.
1,779,550
1,756,780
Remaining
Budget
$ (22,177)
334,814
379,761
414,932
(35,171.00)
22,770
(356,991)
(250,902)
19,200
(270,102)
(332,943)
(82,041)
$ 128.859
$ 434,132
$ (305,273)
(310,173)
$ (439,032)
S 114,618
$ 106,230
$ 8,388
100,200
$ (14,418)
103,235
70,662
(32,573)
104,500
1,265
11,383
35,568
(24,185)
(4,300)
(15,683)
-
-
-
-
0
$ 11,383
$ 35,568
$ (24,185)
4300
5 (15,683)
$ -
$ -
$ -
-
$
(10,956)
-
(10,956)
-
10,956.00
$ (10,956)
$ -
$ (10,956)
-
$ 10,956
$ -
$ -
$ -
100
$ 100
5.354
2,500
(2,854)
57.700
52,346
(5.354)
(2,500)
(2,854)
(57,600)
(52,246)
-
-
-
62,400
62,400
$ (5,354)
S (2,500)
$ (2.854)
4,800
$ 10,154
$ -
$ -
$ -
-
$ -
235
5,197
4,962
228,332
228,097
(235)
(5,197)
4,962
(228,332)
(228,097)
$ (235)
S (5,197)
$ 4,962
(228,332)
$ (228.097)
S 775.099
$ 815,032
S (39.933)
771,800
$ (3.299)
755.980
767,379
11,399
755,980
0
19.119
47,653
(28,534)
15,820
(3,299)
(24.000)
(19,200)
(4,800)
(24,000)
0
5 (4,881)
$ 28,453
$ (33,334)
(8,180)
$ (3,299)
$ -
$ -
$ -
50
5 50
35,858
- 18,978
(16,880)
55.550
19,692
(35,858)
(18,978)
(16,880)
(55,500)
(19,642)
35,858
• ,-
35,858
55.500
19,642
$ -
$ (18,978)
S 18,978
-
$
r ,i
$ 83,919
$ 137,999
5 (54,080)
84,141
$ 222
-
195,000
195,000
-
-
83,919
(57,001)
140,920
84.141
222
$ 83,919
$ (57,001)
$ 140,920
84,141
$ 222
$ -
$ -
$ -
-
S -
33,800
-
(33,800)
150,000
116,200
(33,800)
-
(33,800)
(150,000)
(116,200)
250,000
-
250,000
250,000
$ 216,200
$ -
$ 216,200
100,000
$ (116.200)
$ 2,775,363
$ 2,903987
S (128,624)
2,735,841
S (39,522)
2,356,428
2,489,510
133,082
3,108,842
752,414
418,935
414,477
4,458
(373,001)
(791,936)
-
-
-
10,957
10957.00
$ 418,935
$ 414,477
5 4,458
$ (383958)
$ (802,893)
RH inc_fy15160
8]X2016 12:10 PM
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS RESIDENTIAL
ALLIED WASTE RECYCLE NOW REPORT
Report Date:
2016
MONTH
2016
January
February
March
RECYCLED
(tons)
74.63
82.00
83.40
86.74
GREEN WASTE
(tons)
83.74
66.79
April
May
June
July
120.19
100.07
August
September
October
106.96
100.87
102.06
96.02
November
December
Year to Date Totals:
Average Monthly Totals:
2016
547.04
91.17
556.44
92.74
C&D
Recycled
C&D
Disposed
Disposal Diversion
Tonnage
4.33
1.85
151.42
51.49%
3.20
1.37
145.47
50.66%
11.44
4.10
134,50
59.28%
4.97
1.37
118.77
61.58%
35.79
12.62
163.93
59.38%
52.70
19.13
134.20
61.87%
-
-
-
0.00%
-
-
-
0.00%
-
-
-
0.00%
-
-
-
0.00%
-
-
-
0.00%
-
-
-
0.00%
112.41
18.74
40.46
848.28
315.97
298.83
340.40
312.72
434.59
402.12
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
57.77%
6.74 141.38
0.57
MONTHLY
TOTALS (tons)
2,104.63
350.77
RECEIVED
JUL 112016
City of Rolling Hills
By
TO:
FROM:
THRU:
SUBJECT:
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288
Agenda Item No.: 4-E
Mtg. Date: 08/08/16
HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK
RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER r'__/
REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING/TRAFFIC
COMMISSION RECRUITMENT/APPOINTMENT TIMELINE FOR
TERMS EXPIRING IN JANUARY 2017.
DATE: AUGUST 8, 2016
ATTACHMENTS:
List of expiring Planning/Traffic Commission terms
Timeline for recruitment/appointment process
Sample Letter to be sent to incumbent Planning/Traffic Commissioners
Notice to be posted at City Hall (Maddy Act Notice)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council review the attached timeline for
Planning/Traffic Commissioner recruitment/appointments and direct staff if any
changes are desired.
DISCUSSION
Attached you will find a list of the Planning and Traffic Commissioners whose terms
will expire in January, 2017. The list also identifies the date of their original
appointment.
The Commission appointment process for filling the expiring terms calls for the
incumbents and public to be informed of the Commission openings prior to the
expiration of the Commission term.
As noted in the attached timeline, staff proposes to send letters to each incumbent
advising them of the process for being considered for re -appointment; as well as post
the notice at City Hall and advertise the openings in the City Newsletter on September
7, September 21 and October 5. The proposed timeline is designed so that the
appointments can be made before the terms of the incumbents expire and without
conflicting with upcoming holidays. It also provides for six weeks of pubic notification.
Once letters of interest for serving on the Commissions are received, staff will schedule
candidate interviews with City Council Personnel Committee as necessary.
It is requested that the City Council advise and direct staff if any changes are desired. If
no changes are desired, the City Council may receive and file this report.
HL
CommissionAppfs-Regal ar.docx
0.
Attachment 1
List of Expiring Commission Terms (January, 2017)
Name
Commission
Date of Original
Appointment
Michael Gray
Planning Commission
6/10/13
5/09/16
Charlie Raine
Traffic Commission
Attachment 2
Planning/Traffic Commission Appointment Timeline
August 8, 2016
City Council reviews appointment timeline and directs
changes as necessary
August 31, 2016
Letters mailed to incumbents advising of Commission re-
appointment process
September 7, 2016
Local Appointment List posted at City Hall
September 7 & 21 and
October 5, 2016
Notice of Planning/Traffic Commission Member
recruitment in City Newsletter
October 19, 2016
Due date for letters of interest in serving on
Planning/Traffic Commission
TBD (Last week of Oct/
First week of Nov)
City Council Personnel Committee interviews Commission
candidates (Mirsch/Pieper)
November 14, 2016
City Council appoints Commission Members for terms
beginning in January 2017
December 2016
Staff conducts orientation for any new Commission
Members
Attachment 3
Letter template sent to incumbent Commissioners
August 31, 2016
Name
Address
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Dear (name),
On behalf of the City Council, I am writing to thank you for your on -going commitment
and support of the community by serving on the Planning (or Traffic) Commission.
Your service to the City through your contributions to the Planning (or Traffic)
Commission have helped shape and maintain the unique and special character of
Rolling Hills.
In January 2017, your term on the Planning (or Traffic) Commission will expire. As
such, to be considered for re -appointment, it is necessary that you forward a letter
expressing your continuing interest in serving on the Commission by October 19, 2016.
The letter should be sent to: Rolling Hills City Council, 2 Portuguese Bend Road,
Rolling Hills, CA 90274. The City Council will consider your request along with any
other letters of interest received from members of the community. If necessary, the City
Council Personnel Committee will conduct interviews and subsequent to the
interviews, a recommendation will be made to the City Council for the appointment of
a Commissioner. Upon receiving the Personnel Committee's recommendation, the City
Council will make an appointment for the next four-year term.
If you have any questions about the appointment process, please don't hesitate to call
me at 310-377-1521.
Sincerely,
Heidi Luce
City Clerk
HL
08-37-76pc-tc-reappt-t tr.doa
CC: and City Council
Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager
Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director
elRamTIai
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX (310)377-7288
PLEASE POST
City of Rolling Hills
Local Appointments List
of Positions on City Commissions for Calendar Year 2017
This list is prepared pursuant to Government Code § 54972 to inform residents of the City of Rolling
Hills regarding opportunities that exist for appointment to City Commissions in calendar year 2016.
r,
A. Appointive Terms.
The following is a list of all positions on the City's Planning and Traffic Commissions for
which the terms of office expire in 2017 and for which the City Council will be appointing or
reappointing persons to fill those positions:
PLANNING COMMISSION (4 -year term)
Position/Name of Incumbent Last Appt. Date Term Exp.
Michael Gray 6/10/13 1/1/2017
The necessary qualification to be a member of the Planning Commission is to be a resident of
the City of Rolling Hills at least 18 years of age (Rolling Hills Municipal code § 2.20.025).
TRAFFIC COMMISSION (4 -year term)
Position/Name of Incumbent Last Appt. Date Term Exp.
Charlie Raine 5/9/16 1/1/2017
The necessary qualification to be a member of the Traffic Commission is to be a resident of
the City of Rolling Hills at least 18 years of age (Rolling Hills Municipal Code § 10.08.010).
B. List of Board, Commissions and Committees
The Planning Commission and Traffic Commission are the only permanent Commissions or
Committees of the City of Rolling Hills. All members of these bodies are appointed by the City
Council and all serve at the pleasure of the City Council. The qualifications for the Planning
Commission and Traffic Commission are listed in part A of this List.
Prepared this 7th day of September 2016.
By:
Heidi Luce
Title: City Clerk
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288
Agenda Item No.: 4-F
Mtg. Date: 08/08/16
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK
SUBJECT: CITY OF ROLLING LS CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE
BIENNIAL REVIEW •
DATE: AUGUST 8, 2016
ATTACHEMENTS:
City of Rolling Hills Conflict of Interest Code (Resolution No. 1091)
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
The Political Reform Act (Govt. Code Sections 81000-91015) provides that "no public
official at any level of state or local government shall make, participate in making, or in
any way attempt to use his official position to influence a governmental decision in
which he knows or has reason to know he has a financial interest." The Act requires
every person who makes or participates in decisions related to City business to disclose
financial interests, which may in turn have a material effect on their personal financial
holdings. Economic interests are disclosed by filing a Form 700 - Statement of Financial
Disclosure. All elected officials, in addition to Planning Commissioners and the City
Manager, City Treasurer and City Attorney are required by the Government Code to
file the Form 700.
The purpose of the City's Conflict of Interest Code, is to include by position title,
"designated City employees" who are also subject to provisions of the Political Reform
Act and required to file a Form 700.
Government Code Section 87306.5 requires that the City perform a review of its Conflict
of Interest Code every two years to determine if modifications to the list of designated
employees is required.
Staff has conducted such a review and finds that no changes are necessary - the
appropriate employees are included in the designated positions and disclosure
categories are sufficient.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this biennial review thus
approving the Conflict of Interest Code.
HL
RESOLUTION NO. 1091
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS ADOPTING AN UPDATE OF DESIGNATED
POSITIONS REQUIRED TO FILE STATEMENTS OF ECONOMIC
INTEREST AND AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 750.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF, ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND,
RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.. The Political Reform Act, Government Code Section 81000, et --its'.
requires the City to adopt a Conflict of Interest Code for the City and designate positions required to file
statements of economic interest
Section 2. The Fair Political Practices Commission ("Commission") adopted a
standard model Conflict of Interest Code. The standard model code is codified at 2 Califomia Code of
Regulations Section 18730. Resolution 750 of the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills passed and
adopted on September 26, 1994, incorporated by reference said Section 18730 as amended by the
Commission from time to time, Appendix A which set forth the designated positions, and Appendix B
which set forth the disclosure categories, as the Conflict of Interest Code of the City of Rolling Hills.
Section 3. By this Resolution, the City is updating the City's list of positions that are
required to file statements of economic interest by incorporating by reference the attached Appendix A
which supersedes the prior Appendix A attached to Resolution 750. Appendix B attached hereto
updates references to current Commission Forms, is incorporated by reference and supersedes the
previous Appendix B attached to Resolution 750. Persons holding the designated positions listed in
Appendix A shall file statements of economic interest pursuant to Section 5 of the Conflict of Interest
Code with the Deputy City Clerk who is delegated the duties of the filing officer by the City Council.
Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th da o �;• ber 20 t. )
Resolution No. 1091 1
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
The foregoing Resolution No. 1091 entitled:
SS
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS ADOPTING AN UPDATE OF DESIGNATED
POSITIONS REQUIRED TO FILE STATEMENTS OF ECONOMIC
INTEREST AND AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 750.
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on September 13, 2010, by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Cotmcilmembers Black, Heinsheimer, Hill and Mayor Pemell.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Mayor Pro Tem Lay.
ABSTAIN: None.
*Id
Heidi Luce
Deputy City Clerk
Resolution No. 1091 2
Designated Position
APPENDIX "A"
DESIGNATED POSITIONS
Disclosure Categories
City Council Member I
City Manager 1
City Attorney 1
Assistant City Attorney 2, 3, 4, 5
Member of the Planning Commission 1
Planning Director 2, 3, 4, 5
Treasurer I
Finance Director I
Consultant 6
Resolution No. 1091 3
O
APPENDIX "B"
DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES
1. No disclosure is required by this Conflict ofInterest Code. Disclosure is already required by
Government Code Section 87200. (Form 700, Schedules A-1, A-2, B, C, D and E)
2. Reportable interest in tea) property in the jurisdiction. (Form 700, Schedule B)
3. Reportable irnrm e. (Form 700, Schedules C, D and E)
4. Reportable investments. (Form 700, Schedule A-1 or A-2)
5. Reportable business positions. (Form 700, Schedule C)
6. This disclosure category is to be used for consultants who do not serve in a designated position listed
elsewhere in this code. Persons required to disclose in this category shall disclose pursuant to
categories 2, 3, 4 and 5 above unless :Se City Manager determines in writing that a particular
consultant is hired to perform a range of duties that is limited in scope and thus is not required to
fully comply with the disclosure requirements in categories 2, 3, 4 and 5. Such written
detennination shall include a description of the consultant's antics and, based upon that description,
a statement of the extent f disclosure requirements. The City Manager's determination shall be
retained for public inspection in the same mann :, o:nd location as this conflict of interest code.
Resolution No. 1091
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288
Agenda Item No.: 4-G
Mtg. Date: 08/08/16
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER P
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A DATE OF DECEMBER 12, 2016, 4-7 PM FOR
THE 31ST ANNUAL HOLIDAY OPEN HOUSE
DATE: AUGUST 8, 2016
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that members of the City Council approve December 12, 2016, 4-7
pm for the 31st Annual Holiday Open House. Following the same procedure we have
used in previous years staff will coordinate the arrangements for invitations, food and
support services and keep Councilmembers apprised of our progress.
BACKGROUND
Each year, the City Council hosts a Holiday Open House at City Hall, which is
traditionally held on the second Monday in December. This year, the second Monday is
December 12th. Until 2011 the event was held from 5-8 pm. Starting in 2012, the event
was held from 4-7 pm so that residents who don't want to drive at night could attend
the event. All Rolling Hills residents are invited to attend. Typically, the invitations to
the event are mailed the second week in November, and per the City Councilmembers
decision at their meeting on 11/09/2009, one invitation is mailed to each Mayor,
President or lead individual of each governmental agency (County, School District,
Library District, Cities and State and Federal representatives) for all its elected officials
and its chief of staff and, as deemed appropriate by the individual agency, other
subordinate staff could attend. Only the cities on the Peninsula are included on the
invitation list. Also, vendors who provide a public service to residents are invited and
one invitation is sent to the lead representative of the company (e.g., utilities, refuse
contractor, Willdan, County Building Department, County Fire Department, County
Sheriff's Department, County Animal Care & Control Department, etc.)
In evaluating the events since 2012, response to the earlier start time was positive so
staff proposes to hold the event from 4-7pm again this year.
FISCAL IMPACT
Funds for the event are available in the FY 2016/17 budget.
RRC/en
Holiday Open House Report.doc
TO:
FROM
THRU:
SUBJECT:
gar ail Rallaf qceli
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288
Agenda Item No: 4-H
Mtg. Date: 08/08/16
HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK
RAYOMND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER PO's
CONSIDERATION OF THE FOLLOWING CLAIM:
CLAIMANT: Rick Edler/Merryweather Properties, Inc.
DATE OF LOSS: August 5, 2015
DATE FILED: July 15, 2016
ALLEGATION: Water damage to several units on a property located at
608 Silver Spur Road, Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274
DATE: AUGUST 8, 2016
ATTACHMENTS: Notice of Claim
Carl Warren & Company's response Notice of Claim
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council deny the claim against the City of Rolling Hills
filed by Rick Edler/Merryweather Properties, Inc. alleging water to damage to several
units on a property located at 608 Silver Spur Road, Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274
BACKGROUND
On July 15, 2016, the City receive a Notice of Claim filed by Rick Edler/Merryweather
Properties, Inc. alleging that several units on a property located at 608 Silver Spur Road
in the City of Rolling Hills Estates sustained water damage when water pipes burst.
DISCUSSION
Staff forwarded the claim to the City's Liability Claims Administrator, Carl Warren &
Company, in order to process and investigate the claim. As a result of the investigation,
Carl Warren & Company recommends that the City deny the claim and send an
appropriate denial letter to the claimant.
FISCAL IMPACT
None at this time.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that the City Council accept the recommendation of Carl Warren &
Company to deny this claim.
RRC:hl
Water Damage Claim Staff Report.docr
RECEIVED
1. Claimant's Name: Rick Edler /Merryweather Properties, Inn.
Daytime pone: ( 323 ) 457-2110
2. 0uimmit 608 Silver Spar Rd , Rolling Hills Estates. CA 90274
(Street Number— Street - Apt No. — City — State — Zip)
JUL 15 2016
City of Rolling Hills
By
NOTICE OF CLAIM
AGAINST THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA
(Government Code (I 910, 910.2)
)1N8TIRUCTIONS; (Please reed esref dly)
Claims related to injury to person or damage to personal property must be presented to the City within six (6) months
from the date of Ions.
Claims related to any other loss must be presented not later than one (1) year Dom the date of loss.
Answer all items fully and to the beat of your knowledge and information. Failure to do so may result in your claim
being fbtmd Sufficient If mar space is needed to provide requested information, please attach additional pages
identifying pasagruphs(s) being answered. Please click in the grey text fields to typo requested 'alternation.
IQs City Cietk
City of Rolling Hills City Hall
2 Portuguese Bald Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Date and Time Filed with the City Clerk
Katy Use Only]
Date of Birth: 8/29/69
3. Claimant SSN: ,$JA
Honor Phone: f310) 877,41.31
4. Date of Loss: 8/5/15 Time of Loss: APProximataly 690 am.
5. Location of Loss (Specify in es much detail as possible. Example: 5 feet east of west coma of Elmira Road and
Peabody Street) 608 Saver Spur Rd., Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274
6. Description of incident/accident that caused you to make this claim: Please see attached
7. What specific injury, damages or other losses did you incur? Please see attached
8. List damages incurred to data (Attach copies of receipts, repair estimates, bills, invoices and any other
documentation to prove your loss):
Computation Is ongoing
9. What are your total estimated prospective damages? Well in excess of 825,000.00
10. What is your basis Reclaiming that the City or City employees) are the cause of your injury, damages or loss?
Please see attached
11. What ere the neglect the Cuy employee(s) whom you allege caused your teary, damages or loss, if known?
Unknown at
12. Name, address and phone number of any warms= who an substantiate your claim: Unknown at this time
13. Any additional information that you believe might be helpful to the City in considering this claim:
14. All notices and communication with regard to this claim will be directed to the Claimants) shown in lines 1 and 2
above unless you complete the hollowing to Identity to whom haw communication should be directed:
Name: Joshua Bordin WosI4 Bordin Martorell LLP Relationship: Attorney
Add 6100 Center Dr., Suite 1130, Los Angeles, CA 90045
(Sneed Number —Street - Apt No. — City —State— Zip_
Daytime Phone: (3 S 457-2110 Home Phone: (
1/We, the rued, declare udder pemahy of perjury that 1/we have read the foregoing claim for damages end know
the contests thereof, that the same is true of my/our own knowledge and bellet; save and except as to those matters
wherein stated on information and ballet, and as to them, I/we believe to be true.
Joshua Bordin-Work 7/12/16
Claimant Printed Name: Date Signed:
Claimant Signature
(Note: If someone fdes the claim on behalf of the claimant, the pawn making the claim on behalf of the claimant
should sign above.)
WARNING: Penal Code Section 72 makes It a crime punishable by Imprisonment to submit a "fake or
fraudulent claim" for payment to a thy or public district, and Code of Civil Procedures Secdsn 11138 authorizes
the award of attorney fen against a claimant who brings a claim that is "not brought In good Lich and with
reasonable cause?
O
Attachment to Notice of Claim
No. 6: Description of incident/accident that caused you to make this claim:
California Water Service, a company utilized and acting on behalf of Rolling Hills to provide water
services, failed to properly monitor the water pressure causing a sudden spare in the pressure. As a result
of the lack of proper maintenance of the water pressure, a pipe(s) burst, causing substantial and extensive
damage to several units.
No. 7: What specific injury, damages or other losses did you incur?
Merryweather Properties, Inc. sustained substantial and extensive water daarege to several units at the
location of the incident.
No. 8: List damages incurred to data (Attach copies of receipts, repair estimates, bills, invoices and any
other documentation to prove your loss):
Computation is ongoing at this time
No. 10: What is your basis for claiming that the City or City employee(s) are the reuse of your injury,
damages or loss?
The City utilized and substantially participated in the operations of California Water Service. California
Water Service was acting on behalf of the City. As a result of both the City's and California Water
Service's failure to properly monitor, control and/or maintain the water pressure and/or failure to prop*y
maintain the systems that control or affect the water pressure, the water pressure caused a pipe(s) to burst,
causing the instant water damage (See Cal. Code ay. Proc. § 1036 "In any inverse condemnation
proceeding, the court rendering judgment for the plaintiff by awarding compensation, or the attorney
representing the public entity who effects a settlement of that proceeding, shall determine and award or
allow to the plaintiff, as a part of that judgment or settlement, a sum that will, in the opinion of the court,
reimburse the plaintiffs reasonable costs, disbursements, and expanses, including reasonable attorney,
appraisal, and engineering fees, actually incurred because of that proceeding in the trial court or in any
appellate proceeding in which the plaintiff prevails on any issue in that proceeding") ("A public entity is
a proper defendant in an action for inverse condemnation if the entity substantially participated in the
planning, approval, construction, or operation of a public project or improvement that proximately caused
injury to private property. [Citatiom.] So long as the plaintiff; can show substantial participation, it is
immaterial 'which sovereign holds tide or has the responsibility for operation of the project." (Arreolo v.
County of Monterey (2002)99 Cal.App.4th 730, 761.)
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
@
CARL WARREN & COMPANY
Claims Management and Solutions
July 27, 2016
TO: City of Rolling Hills
ATTENTION: Heidi Luce
RE: Claim Merryweather Properties vs.
City of Rolling Hills
Claimant Rick Edler — Merryweather Properties
Member City of Rolling Hills
Date of Event 8-5-2015
CW File Number 1940527 LMG
Please allow this correspondence to acknowledge receipt of the captioned claim. Please take the
following action:
• CLAIM REJECTION: Send standard rejection letter to the. claimant.
Please include a Signed Proof of Mailing with your rejection notice to the claimant. Please
provide us with a copy of the Notice of Rejection and copy of the Proof of Mailing. If you have
any questions feel free to contact the assigned adjuster or the undersigned supervisor.
Very Truly Yours,
CARL WARREN & CO.
Emily Gutierrez
Claims Supervisor
AN EMPLOYEE -OWNED COMPANY
770 S. Placentia Avenue 1 Placentia. CA 92870
P. O. Box 25180 r Santa Ana, CA 92799-5180
www.carlwarren.com i Tel: 714-572-5200 1 800-572-6900 1 Fax: 866-254-4423
CA License No. 2607296
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX (310)377-7288
Agenda Item No.: 5-A
Mtg. Date: 08/08/16
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR (/V
THRU: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER MX-- U
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2016-17. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A
SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A SWIMMING POOL/SPA, WALLS, FIRE PIT, BARBECUE,
POOL EQUIPMENT, AND A VARIANCE TO EXCEED 2.5' HIGH AVERAGE FOR
ASSOCIATED WALLS IN ZONING CASE NO. 906 AT 27 CREST ROAD WEST, (LOT
174 -B -MS), ROLLING HILLS, CA (GOLDENBERG).
REQUEST AND PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
1. It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this report or provide
other direction to staff.
2. The applicants Mr. and Mrs. Goldenberg request a Site Plan Review and Variance
for a 1,375 square foot pool/spa with infinity edge, with several terraced retaining walls
ranging from 1' to 4'8" high for pool area, associated grading totaling 388 cubic yards, 64
square feet of pool equipment enclosed with 5' high maximum wall, and a 5' high wall
to enclose a master bath courtyard for privacy. A new 68 square foot barbecue structure
and a 40 square foot fire pit are also proposed. The privacy wall will not average out to
2.5' in height, thus the variance request.
3. The Planning Commission held public hearings on May 17, 2016, in the field on
June 21, 2016 and later that same day in Council Chambers on June 21, 2016 and
following the review and discussion of the project directed staff to prepare a Resolution
of approval. On July 19, 2016 the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 2016-17 by a
vote of 3-0 with Commissioner Kirkpatrick abstaining due to the fact that he was absent
at the previous meetings.
The Planning Commission found that the project is not obtrusive, that it fits on the lot
and that it utilizes the sloped condition of the area of the pool in a suitable manner,
rather than grading out the slope. The short walls will be screened by landscape. They
also found that the privacy wall is a replacement of an existing wall, closer to the
residence and it does not affect any development standards from what exists.
BACKGROUND
4. The property is zoned RAS-2 and the gross lot area is 4.5 acres. The net lot area is
3.81 acres or 165,986 square feet. The property is currently developed with a 14,683
square foot residence and a 1,173 square foot garage, a 7,000 square foot recreation court,
1,690 square feet of entryways, 624 square feet of trellises, and a 200 square foot service
yard.
In 2004 the previous owner was granted an administrative approval to convert the then
existing 996 square foot stable into part of the residence (used now as recreation room)
and attached it via a solid roof breezeway to the main residence. As this was an addition
of under 25% of the size of the then residence, it was approved administratively. At that
time the previous property owner elected to set aside an area on the property for a
future stable/corral. In 2007, an approval was granted for remodel of the recreation
room, which was also approved administratively. In August 2015 the applicants were
approved for an extensive interior remodel with no demolition of exterior walls and no
additions, with some windows and doors being replaced.
MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE
5. Pools with more than 800 square feet of surface water area require a Site Plan
Review per Section 17.16.200.G.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed pool/spa is
1,375 square feet and is not in any setbacks. The tiered walls range in height from 1' to
4'8" high for the pool area and will average out to 2'6". The tiered walls are being
introduced to avoid having 5' high retaining walls around the side of the pool and at the
back of the infinity edge. There is a 5' high maximum wall proposed to screen the master
bathroom, and a 5' high maximum wall to screen the pool equipment, which will not
average out to 2'6" and require a variance, (Section 17.16.190.F).
6. The structural lot coverage on the lot, with the proposed new pool and spa will be
27,373 square feet or 16.5%; and with the allowable deduction 16.1%. The proposed total
lot coverage will increase from 42,710 square feet or 25.7% to 50,464 square feet or 30.4%,
with the allowable deductions; where maximum permitted is 35% (Municipal Code
17.16.070A.2).
7. Coverage on the residential building pad of 74,316 square feet will be 25.8%.
Coverage on the future stable pad of 2,120 square feet will be 21.5%.
ZC NO. 906
27 Crest Road West
8. The disturbance on the lot is currently at 25.8%. The pool/spa, barbecue, fire pit,
walls, and future proposed stable/corral will increase disturbance to 33.9%, where
maximum permitted is 40%. The grading will be 388 cubic yards and consist of 324 cubic
yards of cut/excavation for the pool and catchment basin, walls and yards, and 64 cubic
yards of fill for the retaining walls and recompaction with 260 cubic yards being
exported.
9. Future access to the stable is proposed from an existing walkway and will be
comprised of decomposed granite. The future stable will require a Conditional Use
Permit when it is constructed and the stable access, walls, and associated grading will be
reviewed at that time.
10. In response to justification for the variance for the walls to not average out to 2.5',
the applicant's representative states that a 5' high maximum wall is required to
adequately provide privacy for the master bath area and associated courtyard. There
was an existing 5-6' high wall to create a privacy courtyard but the enclosed space was
too large. The proposed 5' high maximum wall encloses a reduced sized privacy
courtyard. The new privacy wall will be softened with layers of landscaping per the
submitted landscape planting plan.
11. Rolling Hills Community Association will review this project at a later date.
12. When reviewing a development application the Planning Commission considers
whether the proposed project meets the criteria for a Variance and must find that the
proposed uses are consistent with the General Plan and development standards of the
City, including provision for open space and maintaining rural environment and that the
uses will not adversely affect adjacent properties.
13. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Class 3.
ZC. NO. 906
SITE PLAN REVIEW
EXISTING
PROPOSED
RA -S- 2 ZONE SETBACKS
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
POOL/SPA, FIRE PIT,
Front: 50 ft. from front easement
line
WITH GARAGE, TRELLISES
ASSOCIATED WALLS
Side: 35 ft. from property line
Rear: 50 ft. from rear property
line
STRUCTURES
Residence
14,683 sq.ft.
Residence
14,683 sq.ft.
Site Plan Review
Garage
1173 sq.ft.
Garage
1173 sq.ft.
Variance required for walls that
Pool
0 sq.ft.
Pool
1375 sq.ft.
average out to more than 2'6" in
Pool equipment
0 sq.ft
Pool equipment
64 sq.ft.
height
Stable
0 sq. ft.
Stable (future)
456 sq.ft.
Recreation Court
7000 sq.ft.
Recreation Court
7000 sq.ft.
ZC NO. 906
27 Crest Road West
Breezeway
Det. Trellis
Barbecue
Fire pit
Service yard
1690 sq.ft.
624 sq.ft
0 sq.ft
0 sq.ft
200 sq.ft.
Breezeway
Det. Trellis
Barbecue
Fire pit
Service yard
1690 sq.ft.
624 sq.ft
68 sq.ft
40 sq.ft
200 sq.ft
TOTAL
25,370 sq.ft.
TOTAL
27,373 sq.ft
STRUCTURAL LOT
14.9%
26,641 sq.ft. w/allowances or
16.1% of 165,986 sq.ft. net lot area
COVERAGE
(20% maximum)
TOTAL LOT COVERAGE
25.7%
50,464 sq.ft. w/allowances or
30.4% of 165,986.ft. net lot area
(35% maximum)
BUILDING PADS (30%
24.5%
0%
25.8% of 74,316 sf. pad
21.5% of 2,120 sf. pad
guideline)
Pad 1 - Residence
Pad 2 - future stable
GRADING
N/A
324 cubic yards of cut/excavation
for the pool, walls, stable, yard
64 cubic yards of fill
total grading = 388 cubic yards
260 c.y. to be exported
Site Plan Review required if
excavation and/or fill or
combination thereof that is more
than 3 feet in depth must be
balanced on site.
DISTURBED AREA
25.8% of the net lot area
33.9% of the net lot area
(40% maximum; any graded
building pad area, any remedial
grading (temporary
disturbance), any graded slopes
and building pad areas, and any
nongraded area where
impervious surfaces exist.)
STABLE (min. 450 SO.FT.
N/A
456 sq.ft. stable (future)
550 sq.ft corral (future)
& 550 SO.FT. CORRAL)
STABLE ACCESS
N/A
Future from existing path on
property
ROADWAY ACCESS
Existing driveway approach
Existing driveway approach
VIEWS
N/A
Planning Commission Condition
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
N/A
Planning Commission Condition
ZC NO. 906
27 Crest Road West
SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA
11.46.010 Purpose.
The site plan review process is established to provide discretionary review of certain
development projects in the City for the purposes of ensuring that the proposed project is
consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates environmentally and aesthetically sensitive
grading practices; preserves existing mature vegetation; is compatible and consistent with the
scale, massing and development pattern in the immediate project vicinity; and otherwise
preserves and protects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills.
11.46.050 Required findings.
A. The Commission shall be required to make findings in acting to approve,
conditionally approve, or deny a site plan review application.
B. No project which requires site plan review approval shall be approved by the
Commission, or by the City Council on appeal, unless the following findings can be made:
1. The project complies with and is consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan and
all requirements of the zoning ordinance;
2. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing
building coverage. Lot coverage requirements are regarded as maximums, and the actual
amount of lot coverage permitted depends upon the existing buildable area of the lot;
3. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding
residences;
4. The project preserves and integrates into the site design, to the greatest extent possible,
existing topographic features of the site, including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees,
drainage courses and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls);
5. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of the site and to minimize the amount
of grading required to create the building area;
6. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect drainage flow, unless such
flow is redirected into an existing drainage course;
7. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature trees and supplements these
elements with drought -tolerant landscaping which is compatible with and enhances the rural
character of the community, and landscaping provides a buffer or transition area between
private and public areas;
8. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and safe movement of
pedestrians and vehicles; and
9. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.
ZC NO. 906
27 Crest Road West
CRITERIA FOR VARIANCES
17.38.050 Required findings. In granting a variance, the Commission (and Council on appeal)
must make the following 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;
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;
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;
D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed;
E. That the variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant;
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.
ZC NO. 906
27 Crest Road West l �'
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-17
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW
FOR A SWIMMING POOL/SPA, WALLS, FIRE PIT, BARBECUE, POOL
EQUIPMENT, AND A VARIANCE TO EXCEED 2.5' HIGH AVERAGE
FOR ASSOCIATED WALLS IN ZONING CASE NO. 906 AT 27 CREST
ROAD WEST, (LOT 174 -B -MS), ROLLING HILLS, CA (GOLDENBERG).
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. Goldenberg for a
1,375 square foot pool with infinity edge, with several terraced retaining walls ranging
from 1' to 4'8" high for pool area, associated grading totaling 388 cubic yards, 64 square
feet of pool equipment enclosed with 5' high maximum wall, and a 5' high wall to
enclose a master bath courtyard for privacy. A new 68 square foot barbecue structure
and a 40 square foot fire pit are also proposed. The privacy wall will not average out to
2.5' in height, thus the variance request.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings
to consider the application on May 17, 2016, on June 21, 2016 at a field trip and an
evening meeting on the same day. The applicants were notified of the public hearings in
writing by first class mail. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons
interested in affecting said proposal and from members of the City staff and the
Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. The
applicants' representative was in attendance at the public hearings.
Section 3. The property is zoned RAS-2 and the gross lot area is 4.5 acres. The
net lot area is 3.81 acres or 165,986 square feet. The property is currently developed
with a 14,683 square foot residence and a 1,173 square foot garage, a 7,000 square foot
recreation court, 1,690 square feet of entryways, 624 square feet of trellises, and a 200
square foot service yard.
In 2004 the previous owner was granted an administrative approval to convert
the then existing 996 square foot stable into part of the residence (used now as a
recreation room) and attached it via a solid roof breezeway to the main residence. As
this was an addition of under 25% of the size of the then residence, it was approved
administratively. At that time the previous property owner elected to set aside an area
on the property for a future stable/corral. In 2007 and 2015 administrative approvals
were granted for interior remodel of the residence.
Section 4. The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3 exemption Guidelines.
Reso. 2016-17
27 Crest Road West
Section 5. Sections 17.46.020 and 17.16.200G require a development plan to be
submitted for Site Plan Review for grading and for swimming pools exceeding 800
square feet, and Section 17.16.190F requires a Site Plan review for walls over 3 feet in
height. With respect to the Site Plan Review application for grading and for the
improvements the Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact:
A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan and
surrounding uses because the proposed project complies with the requirement of low
profile, low -density residential development with sufficient open space between
surrounding structures. The project conforms with development standard
requirements for lot coverage and disturbance of the Zoning Ordinance. The grading
for the improvements is minor (388 cubic yards) on a large lot and it mostly consists of
excavation for the larger pool. The resulting slopes will match the slopes currently
surrounding the outdoor amenities and therefore the lot would not have the appearance
of having unnatural terrain, as all of the grading blends into a natural, existing looking
condition. The tiered walls range in height from 1' to 4'8" high for the pool area and
will average out to 2'6". The tiered walls are being introduced to avoid having 5' high
retaining walls around the pool and at the back of the infinity edge, and will be
screened by landscaping so as to reduce the visual impact of the development. The
swimming pool will be located in a flat area behind the house on a portion of the
property away from any other residence and street and will not be visible or obtrusive
to neighbors. The 3,458 square foot on grade deck will not be visible from any street or
neighbors.
Regarding requested Site Plan Review from Zoning Ordinance Section 17.16.150
relating to walls over 3 feet in height, the wall to enclose the area for the pool
equipment is proposed in an area that has two existing walls already and is in a
depressed area, away from the primary living area. A 3' high wall would not
adequately screen the pool equipment. The other 5' high maximum wall proposed to
enclose a courtyard adjacent to the master bath would provide security and privacy for
the residents as large windows overlook the existing living spaces and proposed pool
and deck area and it replaces a previously existing wall that was located further out
from the residence. This proposed configuration would leave more open space between
the residence and the proposed pool area.
B. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and
undeveloped state of the lot because the new improvements will not cause the lot to
look overdeveloped. The proposed development will be located on an area that is
already flat, adjacent to the great room where the indoor pool was demolished.
Significant portions of the 4.5 acre lot will be left undeveloped so as to maintain open
space on the property. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses,
buildings, and structures and the topography of the lot have been considered, and the
construction will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to the adjacent uses,
Reso. 2016-17
27 Crest Road West
0
buildings, or structures because the proposed improvements will be constructed on a
portion of the lot which is least intrusive to surrounding properties, will be screened
and landscaped with plants and shrubs, is of sufficient distance from nearby residences
so that the proposed project will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding
neighbors.
C. The proposed development, as conditioned, is harmonious in scale and
mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences. The proposed
project is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood, as it is on a large lot. The lot
coverage maximums set forth in the Zoning Code will not be exceeded.
D. The development plan follows natural contours of the site to the
maximum extend practicable to accomplish groomed and usable areas of the lot.
Natural drainage courses will not be affected by the project. Grading will not modify
existing drainage channels nor redirect drainage flow. The project is not located in a
canyon or on existing slopes that exceed 25%.
E. The project preserves much of the existing vegetation elsewhere on the lot
and will introduce drought -tolerant landscaping, which is compatible with and
enhances the rural character of the community, and the landscaping will provide a
buffer or transition area between private and public areas. A landscaping plan has been
filed with the City.
F. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the
convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the proposed
development will utilize the existing driveway.
Section 6. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Rolling Hills Municipal
Code permit approval of a Variance granting relief from the standards and
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances applicable to the property prevent the owner from making use of a parcel
of property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties in the same vicinity or
zone. In proposing walls that do not average out to 2.5' high Variances are required to
grant relief from Section 17.16.190F for walls. Two maximum 5' high walls that will not
average out to 2.5' high are proposed. One 5' maximum high wall encloses the pool
equipment and one 5' maximum high wall provides privacy to the master bath
courtyard.
With respect to the aforementioned requests for Variance, the Planning
Commission finds as follows:
A. There are exceptional circumstances and conditions on the subject
property as follows:
Reso. 2016-17
27 Crest Road West
Regarding requested variance from Zoning Ordinance Section 17.16.190F
relating to walls not averaging out to 2.5' feet in height, the wall to enclose the area for
the pool equipment is proposed in an area that has two existing 5 -6 ' walls already and
is in a depressed area, away from the primary living area. A lesser wall would not
adequately screen the pool equipment. The other 5' high maximum wall proposed to
enclose a courtyard adjacent to the master bath would provide security and privacy for
the residents as large windows overlook the existing living spaces and proposed pool
and deck area.
The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right possessed by other property owners in the same vicinity and zone but
which is denied to the property in question by strict application of the code. The
property right which otherwise would be enjoyed is the ability to adequately screen the
pool equipment in a location that would ensure noise is buffered, and to ensure privacy
for the residents and their guests from the master bathroom.
B. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to the properties or improvements in such vicinity and zone
in which the property is located in that the degree of deviation from the allowed
average of walls is relatively minor because the walls are very short in length and do
not span over a large area. Further, the proposed improvements would not be visible
from the adjoining street or private properties and therefore are not expected to result
in any visual or privacy impacts. The pool equipment area is tucked away and will not
be visible by residents or neighbors. The privacy wall will be screened with
landscaping.
C. In granting of the Variance the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance
will be observed in that the proposed walls construction will be orderly, attractive, and
will not affect the rural character of the community. The subject proposed structures
are in the rear of the property and will not impact the proposed future stable and
corral area and will not impact the use of the existing structures.
D. The Variance request is consistent with the General Plan of the City of
Rolling Hills because the proposed structures comply with the General Plan
requirement of low profile, low -density residential development with sufficient open
space between surrounding structures. The property is located above the adjacent
property to rear and due to the large size of the properties and sloped conditions there
is large open space between any structures on subject property and the adjacent
properties.
E. 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.
Reso. 2016-17
27 Crest Road West
Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission
hereby approves the Site Plan Review and Variance in Zoning Case No. 906 for new
1,375 square foot pool with infinity edge, with several terraced retaining walls ranging
from 1' to 4'8" high for pool area, associated grading totaling 388 cubic yards, 64 square
feet of pool equipment enclosed with 5' high maximum wall, and a 5' high wall to
enclose a master bath courtyard for privacy, a 68 square foot barbecue structure and a
40 square foot fire pit subject to the following conditions:
A. The Site Plan and Variance approvals shall expire within two years from
the effective date of approval if construction pursuant to this approval has not
commenced within that time period, as required by Section 17.38.070 and 17.46.080 of
the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, or the approval granted is otherwise extended
pursuant to the requirements of these sections.
B. It is declared and made a condition of the approval, that if any conditions
thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted
thereunder shall lapse; provided that the City has given the applicants written notice to
cease such violation, the opportunity for a hearing has been provided, and if requested,
has been held, and thereafter the applicant fails to correct the violation within a period
of thirty (30) days from the date of the City's determination.
C. All requirements of the Building and Construction Ordinance, the Zoning
Ordinance, LA County Building Code 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 May 11, 2016, and a concept landscaping plan, with
condition to retain certain vegetation, and dated May 11, 2016 except as otherwise
provided in these conditions.
E. The working drawings submitted to the Department of Building and
Safety for plan check review must conform with the development plan approved with
this application. A copy of the conditions of this Resolution shall be printed on plans
approved when a building permit is issued and a copy of such approved plans,
including conditions of approval, shall be available on the building site at all times.
F. Prior to obtaining a building permit a detailed landscaping plan shall be
submitted to the Planning Department. To maximum extent practicable, the existing
trees and shrubs shall remain, or be replaced.
G. If landscaping of 5,000 square foot area or greater is introduced or
redeveloped, the landscaping shall be subject to the requirements of the City's Water
Efficient Landscape Ordinance. Any plants introduced for this project shall not grow
Reso. 2016-17
27 Crest Road West
8
into a hedge but be offset. The landscaping plan shall utilize to the maximum extent
feasible, plants that are native to the area and are consistent with the rural character of
the community.
H. A drainage plan shall be prepared and submitted to the City's Building
Department for review and approval, and the project shall comply with their
requirements. The applicants, at all times, shall maintain the drainage devices in good
working condition and free of debris and vegetation.
I. A licensed professional preparing construction plans for this project for
Building Department review shall execute a Certificate affirming that the plans conform
in all respects with this Resolution approving this project and including conformance
with all of the conditions set forth therein and the City's Building Code and Zoning
Ordinance.
Further, the person obtaining a building permit for this project shall execute a
Certificate of Construction stating that the project will be constructed according to this
Resolution and any plans approved therewith.
J. Grading for this project shall not exceed 388 cubic yards which includes 260
cubic yards of excavation from the swimming pool that may be exported.
K. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 27,373 square feet, or 16.1%
(with allowable deductions). Total lot coverage shall not exceed 30.4% or 50,464 square
feet, as approved by this Variance. Building Pad coverage on the 74,316 square foot
residential pad shall not exceed 25.8%.
L. Disturbance for the pool/spa, barbecue, fire pit, walls, and future
proposed stable/corral will not exceed 56,417 square feet or 33.9%
M. The future set -aside area for the stable and corral area of minimum of
1,000 square feet, shall be retained on the property at all times.
N. A minimum of four -foot level path and/or walkway, which does not
have to be paved, shall be provided around the perimeter of the project.
O. The pool equipment area shall be enclosed. Per LA County Building
Code, pool barrier/fencing shall be required for the pool.
P. During construction, conformance with the air quality management
district requirements, stormwater pollution prevention practices, county and local
ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to
undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, and objectionable odors shall be required.
Reso. 2016-17
27 Crest Road West
Q. During and after construction, all parking shall take place on the project
site and there shall be no parking on the common driveway. During construction, to
maximum extend feasible, employees of the contractor shall car-pool into the City.
R. During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule
and regulate construction and related traffic noise throughout the day between the
hours of 7 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when construction and
mechanical equipment noise is permitted, so as not to interfere with the quiet
residential environment of the City of Rolling Hills.
S. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional
Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management
Practices (BMP's) requirements related to solid waste, drainage and storm water
management.
T. A minimum of 50% of the construction material spoils shall be recycled
and diverted. The hauler shall provide the appropriate documentation to the City.
U. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills
Community Association (RHCA) Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance
of building permit. Perimeter easements and trails, if any, shall remain free and clear of
any improvements including, but not be limited to fences -including construction fences,
any hardscape, driveways, landscaping, irrigation and drainage devices, except as
otherwise approved by the RHCA.
V. The contractor shall not use tools that could produce a spark, including
for clearing and grubbing, during red flag warning conditions. Weather conditions can
be found at: http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/lox/main.php?suite=safety&page=hazard definitions#FIRE.
It is the sole responsibility of the property owner and/or his/her contractor to monitor
the red flag warning conditions. Should a red flag warning be declared and if work is to
be conducted on the property, the contractor shall have readily available fire
distinguisher.
W. All requirements of the Building and Construction Code, the Zoning
Code, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with.
The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Lighting Ordinance of the City
of Rolling Hills (RHMC 17.16.190 E), pertaining to lighting on said property
X. Prior to finaling of the project an "as graded" and an "as constructed"
plans and certifications shall be provided to the Planning Department and the Building
Department to ascertain that the completed project is in compliance with the approved
plans. In addition, any modifications made to the project during construction, shall be
depicted on the "as built/as graded" plan.
Reso. 2016-17
27 Crest Road West
HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK
Y. Until the applicants execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions
of this approval, the approvals shall not be effective. Such affidavit shall be recorded
together with the resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 19th DAY OF JULY 2016.
Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the
public hearing on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in -
section 17.54.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code and Code of Civil
Procedure Section 1094.6.
Reso. 2016-17
27 Crest Road West
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2016-17 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A
SWIMMING POOL/SPA, WALLS, FIRE PIT, BARBECUE, POOL EQUIPMENT,
AND A VARIANCE TO EXCEED 2.5' HIGH AVERAGE FOR ASSOCIATED
WALLS IN ZONING CASE NO. 906 AT 27 CREST ROAD WEST, (LOT 174 -B -
MS), ROLLING HILLS, CA (GOLDENBERG).
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on
July 19, 2016 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Cardenas, Gray and Chairman Chelf.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Kirkpatrick.
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices.
Reso. 2016-17
27 Crest Road West
HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288
Agenda Item No.: 5-B
Mtg. Date: 08/08/16
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR
THRU: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2016-18. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A
SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE, GARAGE AND A BASEMENT, SWIMMING POOL, VARIOUS
OUTDOOR AMENITIES AND VARIOUS RETAINING WALLS, A NEW DRIVEWAY
AND GRADING; REQUEST FOR VARIANCES TO ENCROACH WITH THE
RESIDENCE, BASEMENT, LIGHT WELLS AND SEVERAL WALLS INTO SETBACKS,
OF WHICH SOME DO NOT AVERAGE OUT TO 2.4' IN HEIGHT, TO LOCATE THE
POOL, POOL EQUIPMNENT AND FUTURE STABLE AND CORRAL IN FRONT
YARD AREA, TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMI I1 ED TOTAL LOT COVERAGE
AND DISTURBED AREA, TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED COVERAGE
OF FRONT SETBACK WITH THE DRIVEWAY AND TO EXPORT DIRT IN ZONING
CASE NO. 895, AT 10 BOWIE ROAD, (LOT 4-CRA), ROLLING HILLS, CA (PANG JUI
YIU).
REQUEST AND PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
1. It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this report or provide
other direction to staff.
2. The Planning Commission, following several public hearings and project
modifications by the applicant to address the neighbors' and Commission's concerns,
approved this project by a 4-0 vote.
3. The applicant Pang Jui Yiu plans to demolish the existing house on the property
at 10 Bowie Road and construct a new house with accessory structures. He is requesting
a Site Plan Review to construct a 5,270 square foot single family residence, 848 square
foot garage, 6,000 square foot basement, 640 square foot swimming pool and spa,
various retaining walls, ranging from 6" curb to 5' in height, with mostly 3' and 4'
walls, service yard, entryway, covered porches, outdoor kitchen, a new 400' long,
20'wide driveway and grading of 8,946 cubic yards of dirt. Variances are requested to
encroach with the residence, basement, two light wells, covered entry, service yard,
several of the walls over 3' in height into the rear, side and front setbacks, to locate a
portion of the swimming pool and pool equipment area, the set aside area for a stable
and portion of the corral in front yard and a portion of the corral within front setback; to
exceed the maximum permitted total lot coverage and disturbed area of the net lot; to
construct walls that do not average out to 2.5' in height, to exceed the maximum
permitted coverage with a driveway of the front setback (21.2%) and to export 4,643
cubic yards of dirt off site, (total of 8,360 cubic yards will be exported, of which 4,303
cubic yards will be generated from excavation of the basement and swimming pool and
is allowed to be exported).
4. The Resolution contains standard finding, facts and conditions of approval. The
Planning Commission found that the project is reasonable for the size of the lot, that the
lot has many constraints and the existing conditions dictate the placement of the
residence. There exist several retaining walls on the property already; the existing house
encroaches into the rear setback by more than the new house will and the new house
will utilize the existing building pad. The Fire Department requirement for a 20' wide
driveway and turn around requires additional grading and impervious coverage.
5. The chart included with this staff report reflects the changes that were made to
the project since the first submittal. In addition, during the proceedings the applicant, in
response to the Planning Commission concerns, amended the project by lowering the
building pad by 6 feet vertically at the north edge - front, and gently slope back to the
south; and by about 5' in the back and there will be no fill placed between the road and
the house, except where necessary for the driveway. Since the initial submittal the
applicant made changes to the walls and eliminated and lowered several of them. He
has also removed covered porches from the front of the house and moved the pool and
pool equipment area as requested by neighbors and made other modifications.
6. Several neighbors participated in the hearings during the proceedings and
although initially some objected to the initial project, they expressed satisfaction with
the final submittal. Some residents expressed concerns about the integrity of the wall at
the west side of the lot (by Bowie Trail) and the slope and geology of the lot in general.
On July 14, 2016 an objection to the project was received from a neighbor at 19 Bowie
Road. Specifically, they objected to: 1- All encroachment into the rear, side & front
setbacks. 2 -Exceeding the maximum permitted lot coverage & disturbed area of the net
lot. Staff reached out and encouraged them to attend the Planning Commission public
hearing on July 19, 2016; however, they were not in attendance nor did they respond to
City's correspondence informing them that the Planning Commission approved the
project.
ZC NO. 895
10 Bowie Road
BACKGROUND
7. The property is zoned RAS-1 and the lot area excluding the roadway easement is
1.6 acres. For development purposes the net lot area of the lot is 59,376 square feet or
1.36 acres.
8. The existing 3,506 square foot house and 703 square foot detached garage and a
gazebo will be demolished. The existing house encroaches 1,110 square feet and up to
28' into the rear yard. (1,060 sq.ft. of the proposed house will encroach 18.5' into the rear
setback). There are some existing retaining walls that will remain including a 7 -foot tall
wall that is within the rear yard setback and which has nonconforming status. That
wall will not be altered or extended but will be maintained at the existing height.
A new driveway is proposed that will access the site from Bowie Road, utilizing a
slightly reconfigured existing apron. The Traffic Commission reviewed the proposed
apron at their May 26, 2016 meeting and recommended approval.
9. The applicant has designated a future stable and corral location between the
proposed house and Bowie Road. A variance is required for the stable and corral
because they would be located within the front yard and setback. Access to a future
stable is planned off the proposed new driveway.
10. The applicants conducted and prepared a geotechnical engineering and geology
investigation (including soils and slope stability). 6 test pits were investigated. The
report indicates that the property is suitable for the proposed development. The City's
engineer will review the report during the plan check review process and if more
information or explorations are requested, the applicant will have to provide it.
MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE
11. There will be grading of 8,946 cubic yards of dirt, of which 8,360 cubic yards will
be exported, (4,303 cubic yards will be generated from excavation of the basement and
swimming pool and is allowed to be exported). The total amount of the dirt will be
exported, necessitating a variance. Pursuant to the zoning ordinance only excavated
material may be exported.
12. The lot currently is nonconforming for disturbed area (maximum 40% of net lot
area permitted). There is a total existing disturbed area of 54,320 square feet (91.5% of
net lot area) that is proposed to be increased mostly due to the driveway construction,
to 55,820 square feet (increase by 1,500 square feet) to 94.0%, which requires a variance.
The architect states that the front of the lot and most of the west side of the property
was graded previously when Bowie Road was constructed and is included in the
disturbed area.
ZC NO. 895
10 Bowie Road
13. The roof ridgeline at the highest point of the residence will not exceed 17'6" from
the finished floor, and some elevations will be at 13' and 14'. The lowest finished grade
elevation over the span of the project will be at 1040.75-1041.8 feet and the ridge height
at the highest elevation will be at 1058.5'. The basement is proposed at a depth of
approximately 11 feet, at finished floor elevation 1029.5. Proposed are six light wells, or
shafts external and adjoining the building that allow mainly for access of light and air to
the basement. One light well and one set of stairs for emergency egress, as well as the
service yard are to be located in the rear yard setback and are subject to a variance.
All wells will have a 42 -inch high solid wall on the exterior to shield view and access
into the wells. Although the design of the light wells are under the purview of the
RI-ICA Architectural Committee, and the requirement for ingress and egress and for
light and ventilation for basements are reviewed by the Building Department, the
Planning Commission may regulate the massing of structures, number and height of
walls, compatibility of the structure in relationship to the lot and other aspects of the
development.
14. The residential building pad (outside of setbacks) will be increased by 4,353
square feet to 14,708 square feet. The coverage on this pad is proposed at 48.5%, which
includes all of the structures, but excludes permissible deductions of 120 square feet and
the porch. This is an increase from 41.6% from the existing condition. The code provides
a guideline of 30% maximum coverage.
The future stable building pad is proposed at 2,073 square feet in area, and coverage of
21.7%, assuming a minimum 450 square foot stable is built.
15. The structural lot coverage proposed is 8,116 square feet or 13.7%; with the
allowed deductions the structural coverage will be 7,996 or 13.5%, which is in
compliance with the 20% maximum permitted of net lot area. However, when factoring
in the additional flatwork that is proposed, including the new driveway, the total lot
coverage will be 22,466 square feet or 37.6%, which exceeds the maximum permitted of
35%, (of net lot area); but is less than currently existing at 38.8% as the entire rear/front
areas around the house have hard surface. A variance is requested from the total lot
coverage requirement. The new building pad will have several pockets of landscaping,
which will soften the massing.
16. A new 400' long driveway with a motor court and turnaround area to meet Fire
Department standards is proposed, which adds a net increase in flatwork of 3,954
square feet (total 11,240 square feet). The driveway will be paved, (impervious surface).
21.2% of the front yard setback will be covered by the driveway, (approx. 4,277 sq.ft. of
the 20,175 sq.ft. front yard setback), which requires a variance. Pursuant to Section
17.16.150 of the Zoning Ordinance, driveways may not cover more than twenty percent
of the area of the setback in which they are located. In addition, all driveways shall have
ZC NO. 895
10 Bowie Road
a roughened driveway apron and the first twenty feet of a driveway shall have a
maximum grade of seven percent.
17. The architect consulted with the Fire Department regarding the driveway
requirement. The Fire Department requires a 20' wide driveway and a turnaround or
"hammerhead" at the motor court up near the home. To achieve this, the existing
driveway location on the east side will be abandoned in favor of a new approach that
crosses the front and wraps towards the garage and motor court on the west side. The
topography of this portion of the lot includes a steep upward grade. To accommodate
the 400' long driveway, a retaining wall along both sides of the driveway are proposed,
which range from a 6" curb to a maximum of 5 -feet. The retaining wall at the start of the
driveway (south side) will be 5' in height and as it follows the driveway, it will be 4' at
approximately the area of the future stable and corral and then taper off to a 4' then 3'
and to a 6" curb. Along the north side of the driveway, the retaining wall will range
from 4' to 5', with 12" and 6" curb along the middle of the driveway. Any work to be
done in the RHCA easement requires their approval.
The retaining walls will not average out to 2.5 feet in height and the service yard is
proposed to be located in the rear setback; both conditions require a variance.
18. Routine conditions of approval will require that utility lines to the residence be
placed underground and a new septic tank installed in compliance with all applicable
standards.
19. The project will be required to comply with storm water management
requirements, and will be subject to the City's Low Impact Development (LID)
ordinance, which has the purpose of ensuring that building and landscape features are
designed to control storm water runoff. Lastly, the project will be subject to the City's
Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance where the applicants must implement low
water usage planting and devices and certify compliance.
The site will maintain its existing drainage patterns. The new driveway surface will
drain to Bowie Road, to be collected in an existing storm drain catch basin adjacent to
the site.
20. • In describing the application the applicant's agent states that the main constraint
on this lot is the steepness of the lot at the front, which at places has 1:1 slope, which
disallows use of the existing driveway in meeting Fire Department standards for access.
The need to build a new longer driveway to meet fire standards in turn constrains the
ability to meet the lot coverage requirement. The new driveway, especially the large
motor court and hammerhead area, adds a net of 3,954 square feet of paved surface,
which, although less than existing, still exceeds 35% coverage. The applicant's agent
states further that the project will preserve the existing topography with only minor
grading, and will preserve mature trees and drainage courses.
ZC NO. 895
10 Bowie Road
He states that the existing house encroaches 28 feet into the rear setback for a total of
1,110 square feet, and the new construction will diminish this condition, therefore
providing for a greater rear yard.
21. While the disturbed area proportionate to net lot area remains high (94%), the net
increase is a relatively minor amount (2.5%) considering the extent of retaining walls
that are needed to construct the driveway. Retaining walls are kept to a minimum,
generally a maximum of 5 -feet along portions of the driveway, to up to 6" curb in other
areas.
22. The Rolling Hills Community Association has reviewed this project in concept
and made some suggestions regarding walls.
23. When reviewing a development application the Planning Commission considers
whether the proposed project meets the criteria for a Site Plan Review and Variances
and must find that the proposed uses are consistent with the General Plan and
development standards of the City, including provision for open space and maintaining
rural environment and that the uses will not adversely affect adjacent properties.
24. - The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a Class 3 exemption in that the project
is a new single family residence.
ZC NO. 895 NEARBY PROPERTIES
For information only)
Address
House size in sq.ft.
(built/add or remodel)
Lot Area sq.ft. (excl.
roadway easements)
2 Bowie
4,965 (1964)
38,986
4 Bowie
2,957 (1960/04)
64,338
6 Bowie
3,592 (1972/77)
102,370
8 Bowie
4,742 (1966/68)
73,790
9 Bowie
1,916 (1961)
79,410
12 Bowie
4,805 (1960/80)
61,120
AVERAGE
3,663
70,000
10 Bowie
Proposed 5,270
70,567
NOTE: The above do not include garages, basements and other accessory
structures.
SOURCES: Assessors' records
ZC NO. 895
10 Bowie Road
SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA
11.46.010 Purpose.
The site plan review process is established to provide discretionary review of certain
development projects in the City for the purposes of ensuring that the proposed project is
consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates environmentally and aesthetically
sensitive grading practices; preserves existing mature vegetation; is compatible and consistent
with the scale, massing and development pattern in the immediate project vicinity; and
otherwise preserves and protects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills.
11.46.050 Required findings.
A. The Commission shall be required to make findings in acting to approve,
conditionally approve, or deny a site plan review application.
B. No project which requires site plan review approval shall be approved by the
Commission, or by the City Council on appeal, unless the following findings can be made:
1. The project complies with and is consistent with the goals and
policies of the general plan and all requirements of the zoning ordinance;
2. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped
state of the lot by minimizing building coverage. Lot coverage requirements are regarded as
maximums, and the actual amount of lot coverage permitted depends upon the existing
buildable area of the lot;
3. - - The project is harmoniousin scale and mass with the site, the
natural terrain and surrounding residences;
4. The project preserves and integrates into the site design, to the
greatest extent possible, existing topographic features of the site, including surrounding native
vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls);
5. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of the site
and to minimize the amount of grading required to create the building area;
6. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect
drainage flow, unless such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course;
7. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature
trees and supplements these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping which is compatible
with and enhances the rural character of the community, and landscaping provides a buffer or
transition area between private and public areas;
8. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and
safe movement of pedestrians and vehicles; and
9. The project conforms to the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act.
ZC NO. 895
10 Bowie Road
CRITERIA FOR VARIANCES
17.38.050 Required findings. In granting a variance, the Commission (and Council on appeal)
must make the following 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;
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;
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;
D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed;
E. That the variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant;
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.
ZC NO. 895
10 Bowie Road
ZC NO. 89510 BOWIE ROAD -REVISIONS
SITE PLAN REVIEW
EXISTING
PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED
REVISED /APPROVED BY PC
RA -S- 1 ZONE SETBACKS
SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE WITH
GARAGE , GAZEBO,
TO BE DEMOLISHED
NEW RESIDENCE WITH
BASEMENT, POOL, WALLS,
DRWY, OUTDOOR KITCHEN,
SET -ASIDE STABLE/CORRAL
LOCATION
NEW RESIDENCE WITH
BASEMENT, POOL, WALLS,
DRWY, OUTDOOR KITCHEN,
SET -ASIDE STABLE/CORRAL
LOCATION
Front. 50 ft. from front easement
line
Side: 20 ft. from property line
Rear: 50 ft from rear property line
STRUCTURES
Residence
Garage
Gazebo
Service yard
3506 sq.ft.
702 sq.ft
128 sq.ft
96 sq. ft
Residence
Garages
Stable (future)
Service yard
Pool
Pool Equipment
Outdoor kitchn.
Att. porches
Entry
Basement
6269 sq.ft.
848 sq.ft.
450 sq.ft.
96 sq.ft.
640 sq.ft
20 sq.ft
144 sq:ft
550 sq.ft
98 sq.ft
6000sq. ft.
Residence 5270 sq.ft.
Garages 848 sq.ft
Stable (future) 450 sq.ft.
Service yard 96 sq.ft
Pool/spa 640 sq.ft
Pool Equipment 20 sq.ft
Outdoor kitchn. 144 sq.ft.
Att. Porches 550 sq.ft.
Entry 98 sq.ft.
Basement 6000 sq.ft.
(Site Plan Review required for
new residence and if size of
structure increases by more than
999 s.f. in a 36 -month period).
TOTAL
4,432 sq.ft
TOTAL
9,115 sq.ft
TOTAL 8,116 sq.ft.
STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE
7.2% (with allowances)
8,995 sq.ft. w/allowed
deductions or 15.1% of 59,376
sq.ft net lot area
7,996 sq.ft. w/allowed
deductions or 13.5% of 59,376
sq.ft. net lot area
(20% maximum)
'TOTAL LOT COVERAGE
38.8%
23,345 sq.ft. w/allowances or
39.3% of 59,376 sq.ft. net lot area
22,466 sq.ft w/allowances or
37.6% of 59,376 sq.ft. net lot
area -variance request
(35% maximum)
BUILDING PADS (30% guideline)
41.6% (to be demolished)
None existing
47.4% of 16,882 sq.ft. residential
pad
21.7% on future 2,073 sq.ft pad
48.5% of 14,708 sq.ft. residential
pad
21.7% on future 2,073 sq.ft. pad
Residence, garage, gazebo
Stable (minimum 450 sq. ft)
10 Bowie, ZC No. 895 — R
GRADING
N/ A
4,209 c.y. cut and 4,075 c.y. fill
134 c.y. from basement (export)
8,946 c.y. total cut and fill; fill
only - 293 c.y.
8,360 c.y. to be exported of
which 4,303 c.y. is allowed to
be exported; balance -variance
request
Revised, lower pad & no fill,
except where necessary for the
driveway.
Site Plan Review required if
excavation and/or fill or
combination thereof that is more
than 3 feet in depth; must be
balanced on site (except basement)
DISTURBED AREA
91.5%
96.6%
59,376 sq.ft. of net lot area
94.0 % (55,820 sq.ft) of 59,376
sq.ft of net lot area
(40% maximum; any graded
building pad area, any remedial
grading (temporary disturbance),
any graded slopes and building
pad areas, and any nongraded
area where impervious surfaces
exist.)
STABLE (min. 450 SO.FT.
N/A
450 sq. ft. future proposed
550 sq. ft future corral
450 sq. ft. future proposed
550 sq. ft. future corral
& 550 SO.FT. CORRAL)
STABLE ACCFSS
N/ A
Off main private driveway
Off main private driveway
ROADWAY ACCESS
Existing
Existing driveway approach,
slightly reconfigured.
Existing driveway approach,
slightly reconfigured -Traffic
Commission approved.
VIEWS
N/ A
Planning Commission review,
Planning Commission
condition
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
N/A
Planning Commission review
Planning Commission
condition
10 Bowie, ZC No. 895 - R
Thursday, July 14, 2016 2:16:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Subject: 10 Bowie Rd Zoning Case #895 -Modification
Date: Thursday, July 14, 2016 1:45:49 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: ADRIENNE BARNARD czazzi2@cox.net>
To: Yolanta Schwartz cys@cltyofrh.net>
CC: Adrienne Barnard c2azz12@cox.net>, 8111 Barnard <wlbamarddds@hotmail.com>
Ms. Yolanda Schwartz
Planning Commission Director
Planning Commission of the Crty of Rolling Hills
No. 2 Portuguese Bend Rd.
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Dear Ms. Schwartz,
I would like to voice my strong objection to the proposed plan for construction In Zoning Case #895 at 10 Bowie
Rd.
I specifically object to:
1- All encroachment into the rear, side & front setbacks.
2- Exceeding the maximum permitted lot coverage & disturbed area of the net lot.
We moved to Rolling Hills specifically for It's rural character & spaciousness. Encroaching on the setbacks takes
away from the wonderful character of our street & neighborhood. If
we wanted to be surrounded by large homes on small lots, we would have moved to Rolling Hills Estates.
The fact that there will be so much extension into the front setback by any building or driveway is not acceptable.
I feel that this will begin a sad precedent of oversized homes on small lots. As we drive down Bowie Road on the
way to our home in the cul de sac, this will be an eyesore.
It should be noted, that when we built our home In 1995, we Initially wanted a larger home. We decided to obey
the rules of our community to preserve the "feel of living in the country."
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Adrienne & Bill Barnard
RECEIVED
JUL 142016
City of Rolling Hills
By
Page 1 of 1
8
RECEIVED 05/17/2016 17:02 3103777200
f
ai i LDPia HILLS CITY
Rani/et-as'
es mte,t .te X a,,«:�
1VED
MAY 171016
City of Rolling Hills
47
rt.
ab-eflat.jatt. aitfint.-�'" �h� .24m -Y ---c ,= joie
Litt- drOa o
iud-,
4 K,r-.e& 71E44) -wJ-- a�x
"-
Ian%) -.,tom- A- .. _
siata ale
ontrity
tak. ciao.M- Att rfrieT-IAH)
10-t 40-6 2. tknal 1"`' 4 4-00 0 ,� r`�u"'
u
nal- 44.30-U ant -
Art
„eft, j,„").rtis,AA, 6041.za04.4 jr,t;a.amkai._ dtita.
nsaltd.707:1- (A -tad
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-18
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, GARAGE AND
A BASEMENT, SWIMMING POOL, VARIOUS OUTDOOR AMENITIES AND
VARIOUS RETAINING WALLS, A NEW DRIVEWAY AND GRADING;
REQUEST FOR VARIANCES TO ENCROACH WITH THE RESIDENCE,
BASEMENT, LIGHT WELLS AND SEVERAL WALLS INTO SETBACKS, OF
WHICH SOME DO NOT AVERAGE OUT TO 2.5' IN HEIGHT, TO LOCATE
THE POOL, POOL EQUIPMNENT AND FUTURE STABLE AND CORRAL IN
FRONT YARD AREA, TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED TOTAL LOT
COVERAGE AND DISTURBED AREA, TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM
PERMITTED COVERAGE OF FRONT SETBACK WITH THE DRIVEWAY AND
TO EXPORT DIRT IN ZONING CASE NO. 895, AT 10 BOWIE ROAD, (LOT 4-
CRA), ROLLING HILLS, CA (PANG JUI YIU).
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. Pang Jui Yiu with respect to real
property located at 10 Bowie Road, Rolling Hills (Lot 4-CRA) requesting a site plan review to
construct a new 5,270 square foot single family residence, 844 square foot garage, 550 square
feet covered porches, 98 square foot entryway, 6,000 square foot basement, 640 square foot
swimming pool and spa, outdoor kitchen, various retaining walls, ranging from 6" curb to 5'
in height, with mostly 3' and 4' high walls, service yard, entryway, covered porches, outdoor
kitchen, a new 400' long by 20' wide driveway and grading of 8,946 cubic yards of dirt, of
which 8,360 cubic yards will be exported. Variances are requested to encroach with the
residence, basement, two light wells, service yard, several of the walls over 3' in height into the
required setbacks, to locate a portion of the swimming pool and pool equipment area, the set
aside area for a stable and portion of the corral in front yard and a portion of the corral within
front yard setback; to exceed the maximum permitted total lot coverage and disturbed area of
the net lot; to construct walls that do not average out to 2.5' in height, to exceed the maximum
permitted coverage with a driveway of the front setback (21.2%) and to export dirt off site.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to
consider the application at their regular meeting on December 15, 2015 and at the request of
the applicants the case was continued for several months to May 17, 2016, at which time the
Planning Commission visited the site to view the silhouette of the project and held a meeting
in the evening on May 17. At the May 17, 2016 meetings, the Planning Commission and the
neighbors expressed concerns with the project and the applicant revised the project to address
their concerns and a revised project was reviewed at a public hearing held on June 21, 2016.
Neighbors within 1,000 -foot radius were notified of the public hearings and notices were
published in the Peninsula News on May 5, 2016, June 9, 2016 and July 7, 2016. The applicant
and his agents were notified of the public hearings in writing by first class mail and the
applicant's agents were in attendance at the hearings. Evidence was heard and presented from
10 Bowie Rd.
all persons interested in affecting said proposal, and from members of the City staff. Once the
project was revised, there were no objections to the project. The Planning Commission have
reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal.
Section 3. The property is zoned RAS-1 and the lot area excluding the roadway
easement is 1.6 acres. For development purposes the net lot area of the lot is 59,376 square feet
or 1.36 acres. The existing 3,506 square foot house and 703 square feet detached garage and a
gazebo will be demolished. The existing house encroaches 1,110 square feet and up to 28' into
the rear yard. There are some existing retaining walls that will remain including a 7 -foot tall
wall that is within the rear yard setback and which has nonconforming status. That wall will
not be altered or extended but will be maintained at the existing height.
Section 4. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a Class 3
Exemption, and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under the
California Environmental Quality Act.
Section 5. Section 17.46.030 requires a development plan to be submitted for Site
Plan Review and approval before any grading requiring a grading permit or any new building
or structure may be constructed or any expansion, addition, alteration or repair to existing
buildings may be made which involve changes to grading or an increase to the size of the
building or structure by 999 square feet or more in any thirty-six (36) month period. With
respect to the Site Plan for grading, the new residence, garages, porches, swimming pool/spa,
retaining walls, driveway and other miscellaneous structures, the Planning Commission
makes the following findings of fact:
A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan, the Zoning
Ordinance and surrounding uses because the proposed structures comply with the General
Plan requirement of low profile, low -density residential development with sufficient open
space between surrounding structures and maintaining sufficient setbacks to provide buffers
between residential uses. The project is situated on a large, but topographically is constraint;
however the development would not cause the lot to be overdeveloped. The existing residence
encroaches into the rear setback. The proposed project would encroach less than the existing
residence. The proposed project is situated away from the road so as to reduce the visual
impact of the development. The project conforms with Zoning Code structural coverage
requirements, however due to the Fire Department requirement for a new driveway, the total
lot coverage (hardscape and structures) exceeds the maximum permitted. The net lot area of
the lot is 59,376 square feet. The structural net lot coverage is proposed at 13.5%, which
includes all of the structures, with allowance for permitted deductions, (20% max. permitted);
and the total lot coverage proposed, including the future stable would be 37.6%, (35% max.
permitted). The lot was mostly disturbed when it was developed and when Bowie Road was
created and is currently over 91% disturbed. The disturbed area of the lot is proposed to
increase by 2.5% for a total of 94%.
B. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot
by minimizing building coverage. The topography and the configuration of the lot, have been
considered, and it was determined that the proposed development will not adversely affect or
be materially detrimental to adjacent uses, buildings, or structures, because the proposed
10 Bowie Rd.
2 f4
project will be constructed largely on an existing building pad, will be the least intrusive to
surrounding properties, will be screened and landscaped with trees and shrubs, is of sufficient
distance from nearby residences so that it will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding
neighbors, and will permit the owners to enjoy their property without deleterious
infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners. The lot will not be built up or
raised to accommodate the development, but will utilize to the maximum extent practicable
the existing topography. The grading for the driveway will follow the topography.
C. The proposed development, as conditioned, is harmonious in scale and mass
with the site, and is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood when compared to new
residences in the vicinity of said lot. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped.
The project will be screened from the road and all neighbors.
D. The development plan will introduce additional landscaping, which is
compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community, and the landscaping will
provide a buffer or transition area between private and public areas.
E. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience
and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the project will capture all
resident and visitor parking on -site with guest parking spaces on the fire turn around area and
in the garage. The applicants will continue to utilize the existing driveway approach to the
residence, but widen it by 6' and construct a new driveway along the front of the parcel.
F. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and is exempt pursuant to Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines.
Section 6. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code
permit approval of a Variance granting relief from the standards and requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property
prevent the owner from making use of a parcel of property to the same extent enjoyed by
similar properties in the same vicinity or zone.
The following Variances from the RHMC are required:
Sections 17.16.190F - the project exceeds the allowed maximum permitted average of walls
height of 2.5 -feet, and walls in setbacks
Section 17.16.070 - the maximum permitted disturbance of the lot will exceed 40% and will be
at 94%, whereas the existing disturbance is at 91.5%; and the total lot coverage will exceed the
maximum permitted coverage of 35% and will be 37.6%
Section17.12.190 Setbacks; portion of the residence and basement, light wells, walls, trash area,
entry porch and portion of the future corral will be located in setbacks
Section 17.16.150, the new driveway will cover more than 20% of the front setback, (21.2% of
front setback)
Section 17.12.250 Yards; the pool, pool equipment future stable and corral will be located in the
front yard area of the lot
Section 15.04.150 Balanced Cut and Fill Ratio; 8,260 cubic yards of dirt will be exported, of
which 4,403 c.y is allowed to be exported, the remainder requires a variance.
10 Bowie Rd. 3
With respect to the aforementioned requests for Variances, the Planning Commission
finds as follows:
A. There are exceptional circumstances and conditions on the subject property as
follows:
Regarding requested variance relating to the height and encroachment into the
setbacks with the proposed retaining walls, some of which do not average out to 2.5' in height
the longest retaining walls in the front are necessary for the construction of the driveway. The
configuration of the lot is such that the existing driveway does not meet the Fire Department
requirements and a new driveway must be built. The topography of the lot in the area along
the front is steep and in order to avoid additional grading the walls are necessary. The
retaining wall in the rear is necessary so that the building pad could be kept at its existing
elevation and not be raised, but yet allow a larger than existing house to be built on the lot.
The sloping condition at the rear of the lot in this area makes a retaining wall necessary to
protect the proposed residence. There already exists a retaining wall that supports the rear
slope and the new wall will aid in this respect. Al of the retaining walls will match the sloped
topography, will blend in with the natural slope and will not be seen from the street.
Regarding the requested variances from Section 17.16.070, relating to maximum
structural coverage limits and disturbance of the lot: the property is uniquely constrained by
the steep topography both at the front and the rear of the building pad. The lot coverage is
relatively small compared to the amount of coverage that is associated with the
improvements, specifically the proposed driveway, which is necessary to meet the Fire Code
standards. The proposed additional disturbance to provide a slightly larger building pad and
to exceed the maximum permitted total lot coverage is mostly due to the requirement for the
driveway and is minimal and will result in better vehicle access. The lot has been previously
graded and disturbed to over 91%, when the road (Bowie Rd.) and the equestrian trail located
along the westerly property line were graded out and constructed. To the maximum extent
practicable the proposed development works within and follows the existing conditions on
the lot.
Regarding the requested variances from Sections 17.12.190 encroachment into
setbacks; 17.16.150 coverage with driveway; and 17.12.250 Front yards; the encroachments is
minimal given the configuration and topography of the lot. Over 1,100 square feet of the
existing residence encroaches up to 28' into the rear setback and the new residence will lessen
this condition where 1,064 square feet of the residence will encroach up to 18.5' into the rear
setback. Due to the configuration and topography of the lot, without more grading of the
hillsides, there is no other area to place a pool, future area for stable and corral and the
driveway, than the front of the residence or in setbacks. The steepness and configuration of the
lot makes it impossible to meet the code requirement and provide for a reasonable size house
on the lot. In general, the existing residence encroaches into the rear yard setback and the
requested encroachment is less than the existing. The topography of the lot, specifically the
steep slopes, paired with the applicants' desire to minimize grading by utilizing the existing
residential pad, create difficulty in remaining outside of the setbacks.
10 Bowie Rd. 4
Regarding the requested variance from Section 15.04.150 Balanced Cut and Fill Ratio
where 8,360 cubic yards of dirt will be exported, 4,303 cubic yards of dirt will be generated •
from the excavation of the basement and swimming pool, which is allowed to be exported. The
additional 4,057 cubic yards, which is to be exported, is necessary in order to not to raise the
building pad. To keep the dirt on site would mean raising the building pad and/or the
steepness of the slopes, which in turn would require a variance for slopes of over 2:1 grade.
Due to the already steep slopes surrounding the building pad and the neighbors' desire to not
to raise the pad, it is necessary to export the dirt.
B. The variances are necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right possessed by other property owners in the same vicinity and zone but which is
denied to the property in question by strict application of the code. The property right which
otherwise would not be enjoyed is the ability to utilize a portion of the front yard and
setbacks for superior access and entry/exit than currently exists and which meets the Fire
Code, as well as not to substantially change to exiting topography and configuration of the
lot.
C. The granting of the Variances would not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to the properties or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the
property is located in that the proposed reconfigured driveway access increases safety to the
property. Additionally, the improvements to the property will not be easily viewed from
adjacent properties, and the street and visual impacts are minor. To the maximum extent
practicable the proposed development works within and follows the existing conditions on
the lot and therefore will not be materially or otherwise detrimental to the public. The project
would not affect any neighbor's views and therefore would not affect property values, and
would be screened from the street.
D. In granting of the Variances the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance will be
observed in that the proposed driveway, retaining walls, and the new residential construction
will be orderly, attractive, and while it encroaches into the rear setback, it will be buffered and
mediated with landscaping and a wall to ensure it will not affect the rural character of the
community. The subject property retains a suitable stable and corral set -aside area and the
development will not impact use of the set aside for stable and corral.
E. The Variances request are consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling
Hills because the proposed structures comply with the General Plan requirement of low
profile, low -density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding
structures.
F. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience
and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the proposed development will
utilize the existing driveway approach, however, the new driveway will comply with the Fire
Code requirements and will be long and wide to accommodate emergency vehicles and where
no cars would need to be parked in the roadway easements.
10 Bowie Rd.
G. The Variances are consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles
Hazardous Waster Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste
facilities.
Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby
approves Zoning Case No. 895 a Site Plan Review for grading, for a new residence with a
basement and garage, new pool/ spa, covered porch, new driveway, site retaining walls that
exceed 3 feet in height; and Variances to encroach with a portion of the residence, basement,
retaining walls and light wells into setbacks and with pool, spa and future stable/corral into
the front yard area; to exceed the maximum permitted disturbance and total lot coverage, to
exceed coverage of the front setback with a driveway, to exceed 2.5' high walls on the average
and to export dirt subject to the following conditions:
A. The Site Plan and Variances approvals shall expire within two years from the
effective date of approval as defined in Sections 17.46.080 and 17.38.070, unless otherwise
extended pursuant to the requirements of this section.
B. It is declared and made a condition of this approval 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, the
opportunity for a hearing has been provided, and if requested, has been held, and thereafter the
applicant fails to correct the violation within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of the
City's determination.
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 this 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 July 13, 2016 except as otherwise provided in these conditions. The
working drawings submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check review
shall conform to the approved development plan. All conditions of the Site Plan Review and
Variance approvals shall be incorporated into the building permit working drawings and
where applicable complied with prior to issuance of a grading or building permit from the
building department.
The conditions of approval of this Resolution shall be printed onto building plans submitted to
the Building Department for review arid shall be kept on site at all times.
E. Prior to submittal of final working drawings to the Building and Safety
Department for issuance of building permits, the plans for the project shall be submitted to
City staff for verification that the final plans are in compliance with the plans approved by the
Planning Commission.
F. A licensed professional preparing construction plans for this project for Building
Department review shall execute a Certificate affirming that the plans conform in all respects
10 Bowie Rd. 6 0
to this Resolution approving this project and all of the conditions set forth therein and the
City's Building Code and Zoning Ordinance.
Further, the person obtaining a building and/or grading permit for this project shall
execute a Certificate of Construction stating that the project will be constructed according to
this Resolution and any plans approved therewith.
G. Structural lot coverage of the lot shall not exceed 8,116 square feet or 13.5% of the
net lot area, (with allowed deductions) in conformance with lot coverage limitations (20%
maximum).
The total lot coverage proposed, including structures and flatwork shall not exceed 22,466
square feet or 37.6% of the net lot area, which includes the driveway.
H. Grading for this project shall consist of 8,946 cubic yards of cut and 293 cubic
yards of fill with 8.360 cubic yards to be exported. The disturbed area of the lot, including the
future stable and corral area shall not exceed 94%.
I. The residential building pad shall be 14,708 square feet and will have coverage
of 48.5%.
J. 1,060 square feet of the new residence and of the basement may encroach up to
18.5' into the rear setback.
K. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Lighting Ordinance of
the City of Rolling Hills (RHMC 17.16.190 E), pertaining to lighting on said property, roofing
and material requirements of properties in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.
L. All utility lines to the development shall be placed underground, subject to all
applicable standards and requirements.
M. A drainage plan, as required by the Building Department shall be prepared and
approved by City Staff prior to issuance of a construction permit. Such plan shall be subject to
LA County Code requirements.
N. All graded slopes shall be landscaped. Prior to obtaining a building permit, a
landscaping plan shall be submitted to the City in conformance with Fire Department Fuel
Modification requirements and for graded slopes. Prior to finaling the project, trees and shrubs
shall be planted to screen the project from the neighbors. Any shrubs and trees shall not form a
hedge like screen but be offset and they shall be of a height, which shall not at any time grow
into residents' view. The landscaping plan shall utilize to the maximum extent feasible, plants
that are native to the area and are consistent with the rural character of the community.
If landscaping of 5,000 square foot area or greater is introduced or redevelop, the
landscaping shall be subject to the requirements of the City's Water Efficient Landscape
Ordinance.
10 Bowie Rd.
O. The pool and pool equipment area shall be screened with landscaping. Per LA
County Building Code, pool barrier/fencing shall be required. The swimnung pool and the
spillway shall utilize the most quiet and technologically advanced equipment to dampen the
sound.
P. The west and south side setback lines in the vicinity of the construction for this
project shall remain staked throughout the construction. A construction fence may be
required.
Q. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community
Association (RHCA) Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of building permit.
Perimeter easements and trails, if any, shall remain free and clear of any improvements
including, but not be limited to fences -including construction fences, any hardscape,
driveways, landscaping, irrigation and drainage devices, except as otherwise approved by
RHCA.
R. A minimum of 50% of any construction materials must be recycled or diverted
from landfills. The hauler of the materials shall obtain City's Construction and Demolition
permit for waste hauling prior to start of work, and provide the appropriate documentation to
the City.
S. During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule and
regulate construction and related traffic noise throughout the day between the hours of 7 AM
and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when construction and mechanical equipment
noise is permitted, so as not to interfere with the quiet residential environment of the City of
Rolling Hills.
T. The contractor shall not use tools that could produce a spark, including for
clearing and grubbing, during red flag warning conditions. Weather conditions can be found
at: http;//www.wrh.noaa.gov/loijmain.php?suite=safety&page=hazard definitions#FIRE. It
is the sole responsibility of the property owner and/or his/her contractor to monitor the red
flag warning conditions. Should a red flag warning be declared and if work is to be conducted
on the property, the contractor shall have readily available fire distinguisher.
U. During construction, all parking shall take place on the project site and, if
necessary, any overflow parking shall take place within nearby unimproved roadway
easement adjacent to subject site. There shall be no blocking of adjacent driveways or blocking
of the trail. During construction a flagmen shall be used to direct traffic when it is anticipated
that a lane may be impeded.
V. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water
Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices
(BMP's) requirements related to solid waste, drainage and storm water management and
comply with the City's Low Impact development Ordinance (LID). Further the property
owners shall be required to conform to the County Health Department requirements for a
septic system.
10 Bowie Rd.
X. Prior to finaling of the project an "as graded" and an "as constructed" plans and
certifications shall be provided to the Planning Department and the Building Department to
ascertain that the completed project is in compliance with the approved plans. In addition, any
modifications made to the project during construction, shall be depicted on the "as built/as
graded" plan.
Y. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this
permit pursuant to Zoning Ordinance, or the approval shall not be effective. The affidavit shall
be recorded together with the resolution.
PASSED, A DO E
BR F, CHA
ATTEST:
clath 4gb
HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK
THIS 19TH DAY OF JULY 2016.
Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public
hearing on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 17.54.070 of
the Rolling Hills Municipal Code and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6.
10 Bowie Rd.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2016-18 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, GARAGE AND
A BASEMENT, SWIMMING POOL, VARIOUS OUTDOOR AMENITIES AND
VARIOUS RETAINING WALLS, A NEW DRIVEWAY AND GRADING;
REQUEST FOR VARIANCES TO ENCROACH WITH THE RESIDENCE,
BASEMENT, LIGHT WELLS AND SEVERAL WALLS INTO SETBACKS, OF
WHICH SOME DO NOT AVERAGE OUT TO 2.5' IN HEIGHT, TO LOCATE
THE POOL, POOL EQUIPMNENT AND FUTURE STABLE AND CORRAL IN
FRONT YARD AREA, TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERIVII I I'ED TOTAL LOT
COVERAGE AND DISTURBED AREA, TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM
PERMITTED COVERAGE OF FRONT SETBACK WITH THE DRIVEWAY AND
TO EXPORT DIRT IN ZONING CASE NO. 895, AT 10 BOWIE ROAD, (LOT 4-
CRA), ROLLING HILLS, CA (PANG JUI YIU).
was approved and adopted at regular meeting of the Planning Commission on July 19,
2016 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Cardenas, Gray, Kirkpatrick and Chairman Chelf.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices
ftL as
HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK
10 Bowie Rd. 10
9
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288
Agenda Item No.: 6-A
Mtg. Date: 08/08/16
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR,, � Q
THRU: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER 'I a [—
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION IN ZONING CASE NO. 901 AT 5 PINE TREE
LANE AS REFLEC TED IN PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2016-15:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING
HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR GRADING AND
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENCE WITH A BASEMENT, DETACHED
GARAGES, COVERED PORCHES, STABLE, SWIMMING POOL WITH A SPA,
RETAINING WALLS AND NEW DRIVEWAY; A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
CONSTRUCT A GUEST HOUSE, DETACHED GARAGES, AND STABLE WITH LOFT;
AND VARIANCES TO EXCEED MAXIMUM PERMUTED TED AVERAGE HEIGHT OF
RETAINING WALLS AND TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMIITED LOT
DISTURBANCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 901 AT 5 PINE TREE LANE, (LOT 94-RH),
(SHARNG).
ATTACHMENTS:
Appeal
Correspondence
Planning Commission Staff Reports/City Council Staff Report
Planning Commission Minutes
REQUEST, PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AND CITY COUNCIL
1. It is recommended that the City Council review the appeal and the record of this
case and provide direction to staff.
2. The Planning Commission approved Zoning Case No. 901 for 5 Pine Tree Lane at
its June 21, 2016 meeting. The City Council heard a report regarding this project at its
July 11, 2016 meeting; at which time, the Ci Council received and filed the report.
3. The project entails a Site Plan Review to construct a new 5,250 square foot
residence, with a 5,250 square foot basement, 1,115 square feet of detached garages (714
and 441 square feet each), 1,445 square feet covered porches including 520 square feet at
the stable, 964 square foot swimming pool and spa, 50 square foot pool equipment, 300
square foot service yard, 275 square foot entryway, retaining walls ranging from a 3- 5
feet, new driveway, 350 square foot outdoor kitchen, and grading for a total of 48,150
cubic yards of dirt (11,775 c.y. cut and 11,775 c.y. fill; 12,300 c.y. over -excavation and
12,300 c.y. re -compaction). The applicant also requests a Conditional Use Permit to
construct an 800 square foot guesthouse, the detached garages, and 1,810 square foot
stable with 611 square foot loft; and Variances to exceed the maximum permitted
average height of retaining walls and to exceed the maximum permitted disturbed area
of the lot, at 5 Pine Tree Lane. The existing residence is proposed to be demolished.
4. Chapter 17.54 of the Municipal Code sets the process for appeals of the Planning
Commission decision to the City Council. Anyone may appeal a decision of the
Planning Commission within 30 -days of the Commission action. Mr. Keith Murphy, a
property owner at 3 Pine Tree Lane submitted the attached appeal on the 30th day of the
appeal period. Mr. Murphy is appealing the Planning Commission decision of the
project and in particular the Variance for retaining walls that do not average out to 2.5'
in height and the overall over -excavation and re -compaction of dirt.
In his letter, Mr. Murphy states that the Planning Commission "improperly failed to
consider or address" his objections to the project. Mr. Murphy submitted a very general
letter of objection to the Planning Commission while he was in escrow on the property.
The Commissioners felt that Mr. Murphy had several opportunities to review the plans
and/or attend the public hearings to voice his objections, but that he had not availed
himself of those opportunities.
Following the Planning Commission approval, Mr. Murphy visited City Hall and
reviewed the plans.
Pursuant to Section 17.54.060, upon receipts of an appeal, the City Council shall
conduct a public hearing as a de-novo hearing. The Council must consider all
information in the record, as well as additional information presented at the appeal
hearing, before taking action on the appeal. The Council may uphold, overturn or
otherwise modify the Planning Commission's original action on the proposal, or the
Council may remand the application back to the Planning Commission for further
review and direction. The City Council's action is final.
5. The correspondence received during the Planning Commission proceedings is
included in the respective staff reports, including one in the City Council staff report
considered at the 7/11/16 City Council meeting. Correspondence received after the
proceedings is included as a separate attachment to this report. The minutes of the
Planning Commission meetings are also included.
ZC NO. 901 -appeal
PROPERTY/PROJECT BACKGROUND
6. The property is zoned RAS-2 and the gross lot area is 5.15 acres. The net lot area
is 4.3 acres or 187,196 square feet. Currently the property is developed with a 5,346
square foot residence, 462 square foot garage and 800 square foot swimming pool. The
existing driveway apron serves two properties, 3 and 5 Pine Tree Lane, and at its
starting point off of Pine Tree Lane is located in its entirety on 5 Pine Tree Lane
roadway easement; and it then widens out, still in an easement, towards each property.
With the new project the access past the apron to 5 Pine Tree Lane will be abandoned,
however, it is a requirement of the approval that the apron leading to 3 Pine Tree Lane
remains intact. A new driveway will serve 5 Pine Tree Lane.
7. During the Planning Commission review process, following concerns expressed
by the Commissioners, the applicant revised her project and withdrew the request for a
tennis court which was originally located in the front yard and required several
variances, decreased the size of the residence and out of grade porches and some of the
hardscape and stairs were eliminated to provide more landscaped areas and a less
crowded condition on the building pad.
Several neighbors expressed concerns with the project as well. At the onset of the
proceedings, the then owner of 3 Pine Tree Lane was concerned with the project in
general, but more specifically with what effect the project will have on their common
driveway. Being satisfied with the conditions for the driveway, he did not further object
to the project. Since that time he sold the property and the new property owner, Mr.
Keith Murphy, submitted several emails, as well as the appeal. In addition, during the
field trip the property owner at 10 Pine Tree Lane expressed concerns that the project
will be visible from his property and that many Pine Trees and other vegetation will be
removed.
8. In 2007 a subdivision application for a two -lot split was granted to the previous
owners. The approval expired on January 12, 2013. In 2004 approval was granted to
separate the driveway access to 3 and 5 Pine Tree Lane and construct two new
driveways, one on each property, however the driveways were not constructed.
MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE
9. The new residence is proposed at 5,250 square feet and the floor level will be
about 10' lower than the existing residence on the lot removing potential view issues
from neighbors. The proposed residence will have a maximum ridge height of 17'6"
above the finished floor, plus 3' high chimneys. Most of the residence has an out of
grade condition. The maximum ridge height of the residence with the out of grade
condition is 19'6" which will be softened by a 2'6" high planter wall on the northwest
corner where the out of grade condition is the most significant. Most of the north face
of the residence except for the front entrance is proposed to be out -of -grade. The
ZC NO. 901 -appeal
remainder of the residence varies in height above the finished grade between 2.5 to 4
feet.
The garages are proposed to have a maximum ridge height of 14'. The guest house will
have a maximum ridge height of 15'6" above finished floor plus a 3' high chimney. The
stable ridge will be 25' from the finished floor. Viewing from the driveway, the stable
would be below the driveway but the loft is proposed to be 11'4" in height and accessed
from the driveway. As a condition of approval all access areas to the stable including by
the loft is required to be decomposed granite or other pervious material.
The basement is proposed to be 5,250 square feet and be contained entirely within the
footprint of the new residence with 4 light wells proposed. The residence is proposed
on the shallowest sloped area with a basement being added to increase the residence
size while reducing the footprint. None of the proposed structures are in setbacks or
easements.
10. The lot drains to the north of the property and the run-off from the proposed
structures is proposed to be collected in underground pipes that will flow into a 360
square foot bio-filtration unit with maximum 3' high walls, which will filter the water
and disperse into a dissipater, located just below it with maximum 4' high walls.
11. The applicant is proposing a new driveway off of Pine Tree Lane. Per the Fire
Department requirement, the driveway will be 20' wide and include a turn -around area
to accommodate fire truck access. The proposed driveway is 10,400 square feet of which
8.1% is in the front setback, which complies with City's requirements for coverage of
setbacks with driveways. The Traffic Commission reviewed the driveway access at
their May 26th meeting and recommended approval. Since that time the applicant
revised the apron and proposes to move the driveway further north, approximately 20
feet, in order to retain one or two Pine Trees. The Traffic Commission reviewed this
access at their July 28the meeting and recommended approval.
12. The applicant is proposing a 3' to 5' high maximum retaining walls along the
entire perimeter of the building pad. A 3' high retaining wall along the northern
portion of the driveway is proposed and a 4' high retaining wall is proposed along the
guest parking area. A 3'-5' high retaining wall is proposed along the southern perimeter
of the building pad. The walls will not average out to 2.5' in height, and the applicant
requests a variance.
13. An 800 square foot guest house is proposed. Section 17.16.210 (A)(5) of the
Zoning Ordinance contains conditions for a guest house, subject to approval of a
conditional use permit. These conditions, listed below, are intended to ensure that such
structures are ancillary uses, do not eliminate an existing or future development for a
stable and are not converted to other than permitted uses.
ZC NO. 901 -appeal
0
REQUIREMENTS
PROPOSED
Shall not exceed eight hundred square feet
An 800 square foot guest house is
proposed.
Shall not be located in the front yard or any
setback.
The guest house is not in the
front yard or any setback.
A kitchenette and sanitary facility consisting of
a shower, sink and toilet shall be permitted.
- a
Applicantof palposes to meet condi ion the
requirement
No vehicular access or paved parking area
shall be developed within fifty feet of the guest
house.
The driveway is more than fifty
feet away.
Occupancy of the guest house shall be limited
to persons employed on the premises, the
immediate family of the occupants of the main
residence or by the temporary guests of the
occupants of the main residence. No
temporary guest may remain in occupancy for
more than thirty days in any six-month period.
This is a standard condition of
approval.
Renting of a guest house is prohibited.
This is a standard condition of
approval.
14. Two detached garages are proposed (714 square feet and 441 square feet). Section
17.16.210 (A)(4) of the Zoning Ordinance contains conditions for a detached garage(s),
subject to approval of a conditional use permit. These conditions, listed below, are
intended to ensure that such structures are ancillary uses, do not eliminate an existing
or future development for a stable and are not converted to other than permitted uses.
REQUIREMENTS
PROPOSED
Shall not be located in the front yard or
any setback
Not located in front yard or setback
A sink and toilet are permitted
Not proposed
A kitchen or kitchenette shall not be
permitted
Not proposed
No sleeping quarters or renting of the
structure shall be permitted
Standard condition
The Planning Commission shall have the
ability to limit the size of the detached
garage in relationship to the size of the
residence, topography, size of the lot and
other conditions
Planning Commission did not require
smaller size.
15. A 1,810 square foot stable is proposed with a 611 square foot loft above that will
be accessed directly from the main driveway. Two 260 square foot attached porches on
ZC NO. 901 -appeal
either end of the stable are also proposed (total porches 520 square feet). Pedestrian
access to the lower stable area will be provided via stairway south of the stable, and for
horses from the lower corral area north of the stable, via a 10' wide path extending
directly from the driveway and which will have decomposed granite surface. The corral
is proposed at 3,900 square feet. A 100 square foot open horse wash rack is also
proposed in the south-eastern most portion of the corral area. A 5' high maximum
retaining wall runs the perimeter of the corral.
Pursuant to the zoning code requirements the following is applicable to this request:
REQUIREMENTS
PROPOSED
Minimum 6' wide access with roughened
surface
10 'wide access -way joining existing
driveway with roughened surface (not
paved)
Stable, corral not to be located on slopes
greater than 4:1
Grading with 5' retaining wall; 1,450
cubic yards (550 cy cut; 900 cy. fill)
Not in front yard or side or front setback.
May be located up to 25' in rear setback.
Not proposed in any setback
Stable min. 35' from any residential structure
Proposed stable more than 35' from
any residential structure.
Stable building to be designed for rural and
agricultural uses only, but may include storage.
for vehicles, household items
Stable is proposed with 5 stalls, tack
space that is 15.5% of the structure, anc
a 611 square foot feed/ loft area, all
designed for rural and agricultural
uses.
Size to include the entire footprint including
loft; if any
.. .
-1a _t
Ground floor (1,810 sf.):
1,010 sf. stalls; 425 sf center aisle; 375 sf
tack room
Loft (611 sf.) - feed/hay storage area
Minimum of 60% shall be maintained for
agricultural uses
Agricultural uses 84.5%
Maximum of 40% not to exceed 800 s.f. may be
maintained for a tack room use
Tack use area comprises 375 sf. or
15.5%
Includes tack room/storage &
bathroom
Tack area may have sanitary and kitchen
amenities
Bathroom proposed; no kitchen
Tack area may have glazed openings
Will install
Agricultural space entry doors to be min. 4'widE
& 7.5' high; appearance of a stable door
Shall be a condition of approval.
Loft is permitted
Loft; proposed for feed/hay storage
ZC NO. 901 -appeal
0
Loft plate height may not exceed 7'
The total height of the structure at its
highest peak is proposed to be 25' with
a 7' plate height shown for the loft.
(Plate heights per condition of
approval.)
Exterior area of stables may not to be paved
Dirt or D.G. (condition of approval)
Corral minimum 550 sf.; fenced and contiguous
to stable. (Planning Commission may determine
the size of a corral)
Proposed 3,900 sq. ft. corral enclosed
with 5' high maximum retaining walls
Access slope not to exceed 25%
From main driveway at 16% maximun
slope
Commercial uses or sleeping is not allowed
Applicant is not proposing any
commercial uses or sleeping in the
stable
The applicant must comply with all other requirements of Chapter 17.18 of the Zoning
Ordinance pertaining to stables, as well as to all other regulations including, but not be
limited to undergrounding of utility lines to the structures, lighting, roof material, Fire
Department requirements and others.
16. The proposed disturbed area will be 45.2%, which exceeds the maximum
allowed disturbance of 40% (Municipal Code 17.16.070B). The project does not qualify
for greater than 40% disturbance, as the resulting slopes will not be less than 2:1 grade.
Grading for this project is proposed to be 11,775 cubic yards of cut and 11,775 cubic
yards of fill, 12,300 cubic yards of over -excavation, and 12,300 cubic yards of
recompaction and will be balanced on site. The cut/excavation is for the guest house,
driveway, front of the lot, north horse access, and south portion of the lot primarily, and
1,300 cubic yards is for the basement excavation. The fill is primarily for the north side
of the house, the driveway, and southwest corner of the area behind the new driveway
approach, and 12,300 cubic yards recompaction. The stable pad has a total cut of 550
cubic yards, and 900 cubic yards of fill.
17. There are two building pads proposed. The residential building pad is proposed
at 44,100 square feet and will have coverage of 9,344 square feet or 21.2% with allowed
deductions. The stable pad is proposed at 5,720 square feet with 2,149 square feet of
coverage or 37.6% with allowed deductions.
18. The structural net lot coverage is proposed at 12,279 square feet or 6.56% with
allowed deductions (20% max. permitted); and the total lot coverage is proposed at
29,074 square feet or 15.5%, (35% max. permitted).
19. In describing the criteria to be satisfied for a variance to exceed the maximum
permitted disturbance and walls that exceed 2.5' average height the applicant states: the
existing house on the property is located partially in the setback and has structures in the
easement. The proposed project complies with development standards and moves all proposed
ZC NO. 901 -appeal
structures out of setbacks and more cent -rally on the lot, including the residence, which creates a
large front yard. Every effort has been made to keep the development centrally located on one
main pad to further limit the increase in disturbance. The disturbed area is proposed to be above
the development standards due to the existing topography of the site. The lot is sloped in nature
and in order to provide a building pad that meets the development guidelines, additional grading
and disturbance is required; the proposed retaining walls will help to limit this disturbance.
However, a variance is required due to their average height. When looking at the breakdown of
site disturbance, approximately 15% of the overall disturbance comes from equestrian uses, (i.e.
the stable and corral), and if these items were not being proposed the development would not
require a variance for disturbed arca. The applicant believes that the addition of these equestrian
facilities help to further the City of Rolling Hills as an equestrian community and therefore the
variance should be granted. At the recommendation of the Planning Commission, alternative lot
configurations were also analyzed however the number of walls and disturbance was lowest with
the currently proposed plan.
20. Rolling Hills Community Association will review this project at a later date.
21. When reviewing a development application the Planning Commission must
consider whether the proposed project meets the criteria for a Site Plan Review,
Conditional Use Permit and Variances, and must find that the proposed uses are
consistent —with the-General-Plan'and development -standards --of-the`Cityincluding
provision for open space and maintaining rural environment and that the uses will not
adversely affect adjacent properties.
22. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
ZC NO. 901 -appeal
Zoning Case No. 901
SITE PLAN REVIEW
PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED
PROPOSED -PC APPROVED
RA -S- 2 ZONE SETBACKS
NEW RESIDENCE WITH
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES,
DETACHED GARAGES,
STABLE/LOFT
NEW RESIDENCE WITH
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES,
DETACHED GARAGES,
STABLE/LOFT
Front: 50 ft. from front easement line
Side: 35 ft. from property line
Rear: 50 ft. from rear property line
STRUCTURES
Residence
Basement
Garage attached
Garage detached
Pool/spa
Pool Equip.
Guest House
Stable
Loft for Stable
Recreation Court
Att. Cov. Porches
Entryway
Service yard
Outdoor Kitchen
5,975 sq.ft.
5,000 sq.ft.
714 sq.ft.
441 sq.ft.
1,152sq.ft.
50 sq.ft.
800 sq.ft
1,810 sq.ft
611 sq.ft
7,000 sq.ft
1,360 sq.ft.
100 sq.ft.
300 sq.ft
460 sq.ft.
Residence
"Basement
Garage detached
Garage detached
Pool/spa
Pool Equip.
Guest House
Stable
*Loft for Stable
Att. Cov. Porches
Entryway
Service yard
Outdoor Kitchen
5,250 sq.ft.
5,250 sq.ft.
714 sq.ft.
441 sq.ft.
964 sq.ft.
50 sq.ft.
800 sq.ft
1,810 sq.ft
611 sq.ft
1,445 sq.ft.
275 sq.ft.
300 sq.ft
350 sq.ft.
(Site Plan Review required for new
structures and if size of addition
increases by at more than 999 sq.ft.
CUP is required for detached
accessory structures & Variance is
required for exceedance of
disturbance & average height of
walls).
TOTAL
20,162 sq.ft
TOTAL
12,399sq.ft
STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE
20,042 sf w/allowances 10.7% of
187,196 sq.ft. net lot area
12,279 sf w/allowances 6.56% of
187,196 sq.ft. net lot area
(20% maximum)
TOTAL LOT COVERAGE
39,002 w/allowances or 20.8% of
187,196 sq.ft. net lot area
29,074 w/allowances or 15.53% of
187,196 sq.ft. net lot area
(35% maximum)
BUILDING PADS (30% guideline)
38.6% of 44,100 sq.ft. pad
37.6% of 5,720 sq.ft pad
21.2% of 44,100 sq.ft. pad
37.6% of 5,720 sq.ft pad
Residential
Stable
GRADING
12,745 cy cut, 12,745 cy fill,
10,300 cy overexcavation, 10,300
cy recompaction = balanced on
site.
11,775 cut, 11,775 cy fill, 12,300 cy
overexcavation, 12,300 cy
recompaction = balanced on site.
Site Plan Review required if
excavation and/or fill or combination
thereof that is more than 3 feet in
depth and covers more than 2,000
sq.ft.) must be balanced on site.
DISTURBED AREA
45.2% (84,550 sq. ft.)
45.2% (84,550 sq. ft.)
(40% maximum; any graded building
pad area, any remedial grading
(temporary disturbance), any graded
slopes and building pad areas, and
any nongraded area where
impervious surfaces exist.)
STABLE (min. 450 SQ.FT.
1,810 sq. ft. with 611 sq. ft. loft-
3,900 sq. ft.
1,810 sq. ft. with 611 sq. ft. loft-
3,900 sq. ft.
& 550 SQ.FT. CORRAL)
STABLE ACCESS
Proposed from Residence Pad
Proposed from Residence Pad
ROADWAY ACCESS
New off Pine Tree Lane
New off Pine Tree Lane
VIEWS
Planning Commission condition
Planning Commission condition
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Planning Commission condition
Planning Commission condition
"Loft for stable and basement are not included in the calculations for structural coverage
ZC NO. 901 -appeal
NEARBY PROPERTIES (For information only)
Address
House size in
sq.ft.
Lot Area (gross
acres)
1 Pine Tree
*6,516
4.66
2 Pine Tree
*6,211
2.24
3 Pine Tree
*4,674
5.13
4 Pine Tree
*8,961
4.38
6 Pine Tree
6,148
1.31
7 Pine Tree
3,912
5.64
8 Pine Tree
2,812
2.23
10 Pine Tree
3,253
2.49
23 Portuguese Bend Road
*3,348
2.42
2 Pheasant Lane
5,651
5.0
Average
5,149
3.9
5 Pine Tree Lane
5,250 Proposed
5.15
NOTE: The above do not include garages, basements or accessory structures.
SOURCES: Assessors' records * City address file records
The following table lists stables /sizes approved since 2011
Location
Square Feet / No. of Stories
11 Blackwater Cyn. Rd.
890 sq. ft. one story
5 Buggy Whip
890 sq. ft. one story
0 Chestnut
900 sq. ft. one story
9 Chuckwagon Rd.
1,296 sq. ft. first floor / 792 sq. ft. Ioft
2,088 sq.ft. total
10 Crest Rd. W.
735 sq. ft. first floor / 453 sq. ft. loft
1,188 sq.ft. total
49 Eastfield
600 sq. ft. one story
12 Johns Cyn. Rd.
735 sq. ft. one story
3 Meadowlark
480 sf. first floor / 360 sf. loft
840 sq.ft. total
29 Middleridge Rd. S.
2,160 sq. ft. first floor / 800 sf. loft with
center aisle; 2,960 sq.ft. total'
6 Portuguese Bend Rd.
450 sq. ft. one story te
77 Crest Rd. E
3,456 sq. ft. first floor/ 235 sq.ft. loft witF
center isle; 3,691 sq.ft. total
1 Pine Tree Lane
2,976 sq. ft. one story
11 Saddleback
2,415 sq. ft. with 625 sq. ft. loft with
center isle; 3,040 sq.ft. total
34 Saddleback Rd.
1,140 sq.ft. - one story (proposed)
5 Pine Tree Lane
1,810 sq. ft. with 611 sq. ft. Ioft;
2,421 sq.f.t total
ZC NO. 901 -appeal
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT:
11.42.050 Basis for approval or denial of conditional use permit.
The Commission (and Council on appeal), in acting to approve a conditional use permit
application, may impose conditions as are reasonably necessary to ensure the project is
consistent with the General Plan, compatible with surrounding land use, and meets the
provisions and intent of this title. In making such a determination, the hearing body shall find
that the proposed use is in general accord with the following principles and standards:
A. That the proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan;
B. That the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and
structures have been considered, and that the use will not adversely affect or be materially
detrimental to these adjacent uses, building or structures;
C. That the site for the proposed conditional use is of adequate size and shape to
accommodate the use and buildings proposed;
D. That the proposed conditional use complies with all applicable development
standards of the zone district;
E. That the proposed use is consistent with the portions of the Los Angeles County
Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste
facilities;
F. That the proposed conditional use observes the spirit and intent of this title.
SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA
11.46.010 Purpose.
The site plan review process is established to provide discretionary review of certain
development projects in the City for the purposes of ensuring that the proposed project is
consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates environmentally and aesthetically
sensitive grading practices; preserves existing mature vegetation; is compatible and consistent
with the scale, massing and development pattern in the immediate project vicinity; and
otherwise preserves and protects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills.
11.46.050 Required findings.
A. The Commission shall be required to make findings in acting to approve,
conditionally approve, or deny a site plan review application.
B. No project which requires site plan review approval shall be approved by the
Commission, or by the City Council on appeal, unless the following findings can be made:
1. The project complies with and is consistent with the goals and
policies of the general plan and all requirements of the zoning ordinance;
2. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped
state of the lot by minimizing building coverage. Lot coverage requirements are regarded as
maximums, and the actual amount of lot coverage permitted depends upon the existing
buildable area of the lot;
3.
The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the
natural terrain and surrounding residences;
4. The project preserves and integrates into the site design, to the
greatest extent possible, existing topographic features of the site, including surrounding native
vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls);
ZC NO. 901 -appeal
5. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of the site
and to minimize the amount of grading required to create the building area;
6. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect
drainage flow, unless such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course;
7. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature
trees and supplements these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping which is compatible
with and enhances the rural character of the community, and landscaping provides a buffer or
transition area between private and public areas;
8. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and
safe movement of pedestrians and vehicles; and
9. The project conforms to the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act.
CRITERIA FOR VARIANCES
17.38.050 Required findings. In granting a variance, the Commission (and Council on appeal)
must make the following 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;
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;
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;
D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed;
E. That the variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant;
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.
SOURCE: City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance
ZC NO. 901 -appeal
RECEIVED
JUL 21 2016
City of Rolling Hills
By
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO.2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROU N O HILLS, CA 90274
(910) 977-7627
FAX (970) 977-7288
REQUEST FOR APPEAL
APPLICATION PILE NO. 20 17 ,k / 1 C�c�Te_ / 4J. / G�
0/
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
OWNER:
-C me__ Tree. Lane_
R0l`It) t+lks/CM 027y
Cadre, �L nj
I hereby request appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission on the above
referenced application(s) for the following LJ '
? � Ass re f a 4 j
acc
f/lcornar",4e—i Leah ly r 1 rein-�
(Two-thirds of original application fee.)
Keith Murphy
3 Pine Tree Lane
Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274
City of Rolling Hills
City Council
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
July 21, 2016
To whom it may concern,
In regard to Zoning Case No. 901, I hereby appeal the Planning Commission decision to
approve.
During its consideration of the proposal, the Planning Commission improperly failed to consider
or address my objections to the project See meeting minutes "It was noted that Keith Murphy is
not a property owner". However, there is no requirement for property ownership or residency to
raise an objection. Further, as I was in escrow at the time on the adjacent property at 3 Pine Tree
Lane, I had and continue to have a legitimate interest in objecting to the proposal.
The City has a compelling interest to allow an appeal and another review cycle. The City's
planning process has evolved over time to allow for full discourse prior to moving forward on a
project. Such a process provides greater assurance of discussion, compromise and harmony
among property owners, avoiding potential costly legal battles for them and for the City. Such
full discourse and careful consideration of all interested parties should not fall victim to a false
requirement for property ownership to raise objections nor simply to a mismatch between
property acquisition timing and the initial Planning Commission review process. The City
provides for careful notice requirements during planning to allow all parties to come to the table
for a full and thorough discourse. Due to timing issues that has not happened in this case but can
happen with an appeals process where the objections are properly considered.
The proposal requires variances for both average retaining wall height and overall excavation
and recompaction, both of which I object to. This includes a retaining wall two times the
normally allowed average height 25 feet from the property line with my property on a very steep
slope. The Planning Commission recommended approval without a full consideration of the
potential implications to stability of the hillside, and instability would greatly impact my
property a short distance away. A fuller review of these issues by the City Council is necessary.
Sincerely,
/91
Keith Murphy
Wednesday, August 3, 2011t3ErtliVrtre
Subject: Letter to City Council
Date: Wednesday, August 3, 2016 9:07:07 AM Pacific Daylight Time JAU6 0 3 2016
From: lauren <sharngla@me.com>
To: Yolanta Schwartz < s ci ofrh.net> City of Hills
v@�iv By
CC: Tavisha Nicholson<tnicholson@boltonengineering.com>, Chris Sharng <sharngch@me.com>
Dear City Council Members,
I'm sorry that I am not in town to represent my project. After knowing that I have secured approvals from the
Planning Commission (4-0) and the City Council (5-0), 1 took my son on a High School graduation trip. My husband,
Chris Sharng, Bolton Engineering and Tony Inferrera will all be in attendance for the public hearing on August 8,
2016.
I wanted to provide a quick recap on the events since Mr. Murphy of 3 Pine Tree has been involved. I want to
emphasize that Mr. Murphy has never given me a chance to speak to him as a neighbor. He has just shot off
emails, appealed to the City and hired engineers to second guess my project and the Planning Commission's
thorough work, all without having one conversation with me.
•
May 17, 2016 - Keith Murphy, a prospective buyer of 3 Pine Tree Lane, emailed the City 7 hours before the
scheduled Planning Commission meeting. The email categorically objects to every aspect of our proposed
project and basically our right to legally build a residence on our property. Mr. Murphy did not attend the
meeting but Mr. Anthony Podell, the legal owner of 3 Pine Tree at the time was in attendance and endorsed
our project, which was approve 4-0 by the Planning Commission.
June 21, 2016 - Mr Murphy, by now the owner of 3 Pine Tree, emailed the City 4 hours before the Planning
Commission meeting. This time he asked that the Planning Commission delay their vote so that he could
review our plans for 5 Pine Tree. Again, Mr. Murphy was not in attendance for the meeting. The Planning
Commission rejected Mr. Murphy's request as he didn't object to anything specifically. He only asked for
more time to review the project. And he had already had since at least May 17, 2016 to review the project,
which is more than a reasonable amount of time.
June 28, 2016 - Wanting to be neighborly and civil, 1 emailed Mr. Murphy and offered to have my Engineers
and Architect meet with him so that he could feel comfortable with the project and we could all avoid an
appeal. (I forwarded all the email correspondence between us to Yolanta so you should have a copy, and
Mr. Murphy requested Saturday, July 9, 2016, which we complied with but then said he had to go out of
town.) 1 was not able to set another meeting with Mr. Murphy.
July 21, 2016 - Mr. Murphy filed an appeal, on the very last day possible.
August 1, 2016 - Mr. Murphy informed my that he hired Palos Verdes Engineering to address his concerns
on my project.
First of all, I would just like to state that, having built 3 houses before, l have no prior experience in getting into
any kind of disputes with neighbors. Now 1 find myself scrambling to deal with this barrage of attacks from Mr.
Murphy, who claims that his busy life and timing of the purchase entitles him to repeatedly blindside me and
delay my project onto his timetable. I am really saddened that the project has to be dragged in front of the City.
Page 1 of 2
The process with Planning took over 4 months. Our original plans had a house that was 1,000 sq. ft. larger. We
initially asked for larger pool, more patios and a tennis court. We already conceded many items that we
significantly cared about. The Planning Commission isn't a rubber stamp. They did not cut us any slack and utterly
worked us over, as is their thankless duty. They studied the plans and agreed with us on some items and
disapproved others. We have made a lot of concessions during this intensive review process and thorough due
diligence was done by the Planning Commission and my team of Engineers/Geologists. At the end, 1 am happy
with the result and impressed by the process. Obviously, I don't want Mr. Murphy's house or my house sliding
down the hill, and everyone involved has fulfilled their responsibility to ensure that doesn't happen.
Mr. Murphy was aware of my project no later than May 17, 2016 (per the email he sent the City). If he was.so
concerned about the variances that were granted and his house sliding down the hill, he simply should have
extended his own escrow and done his due diligence on his own time. Instead, he has shifted the time burden to
me. Now I am paying for two properties in Rolling Hills and can't start construction on my Pine Tree property. Mr.
Murphy's unneighborly'and unpredictable whims have impacted my ability to enjoy and use my property, the
quality of my life (my daughter is sleeping in a den) and has had a huge financial impact on our family.
Mr. Murphy was not the legal owner of 3 Pine Tree at the time the Planning Commission approved my project,
nor did he have to close escrow given that the project was approved. 1 question whether Mr. Murphy has the legal
right to appeal since he wasn't the owner of 3 Pine Tree at the time of the Planning Commission's approval.
Furthermore, on June 21, 2016, when Mr. Murphy was the legal owner, he only asks for more time to review the
project. He never objected to the variances. It is my understanding that an objection needs to be made during the
Planning Commission stage and can't be a new claim in the appeal. For all the reasons above, Mr. Murphy's
appeal should be rejected.
One of many reasons I want to live in Rolling Hills is that I have horses and very much enjoy the equestrian
atmosphere. We are very fortunate to have over 5 acres but they are not 5 flat acres and the variances were
granted so that my horses would have a flat area and not break a leg on the steep hillside. As a lifelong
equestrian, I very much want to maintain the rural nature of Rolling Hills. I think that my project adds to the
appeal of the City. Former owners had pursued splitting the lot into two parcels and we are certainly not
interested in doing that. We are building this house to live in and enjoy our horses, hopefully for a very long time.
I am grateful for your considerations.
Respectfully,
Lauren Sharng
Page 2 of2
RECEIVED
From: lauren
Date: Monday, July 25, 2016 3:14 PM
To: Yolanta Schwartz
Cc: Chris Sharng , Tavisha Nicholson
Subject: Fwd: Meeting for 5 Pine Tree
JUL 252016
City of Rolling Hills
By
Hi Yolanta,
Since Keith Murphy filed an appeal, 1 would like to forward the following correspondence to you
regarding the multiple attempts 1 have made to have my team meet with Mr. Murphy. As you can see
below, l reached out to him on June 28th, 2016 and he requested a meeting on Saturday, July 9th,
which my team agreed to. He never confirmed the meeting and I had to email him again, however,
when he responded he was no longer available on July 9th. He gave me a few other dates in the future,
one of which was July 22nd, but yet again, he never confirmed and sent me an email July 21st asking if
we were still meeting. But at this point, he had already filed an appeal.
1 will also be sending a formal letter for the City Council Members to be included in their meeting
material.
Thank you,
Lauren Sharng
Begin forwarded message:
From: <kemurph@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Meeting for 5 Pine Tree
Date: July 25, 2016 at 11:15:46 AM PDT
To: lauren <sharngla@msn.com>
Reply -To: <kemurph@earthlink.net>
Lauren,
1 filed an appeal just to have a little more time to engage here. I'm sorry that we couldn't connect prior
to this but I'm eager to engage prior to the appeal date and make sure we see eye to eye. I'm certainly
not against your project, the timing of everything was just off with me moving in right in the middle of
everything and not having been able to engage in the normal process from the beginning.
Can we set a time to get together soon? is there any chance you can meet on Saturday (this Sat, July
30)?
Keith
Page 1 of 3
-----Original Message
From: lauren
Sent: Jul 21, 2016 7:31 PM
To: "kemurph@earthlink.net"
Subject: Re: Meeting for 5 Pine Tree
Hi Keith, I'm just arriving from CDG. I have a screaming case of bronchitis and need to see my dr in
the AM. I'll have to touch base with you later tmrw.
My best,
Lauren Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 21, 2016, at 11:30 AM, "kemurph@earthlink.net" wrote:
Lauren,
First thing works for me because I have a full work day as well. I would prefer 8am but 9am is
possible if your folks can't do that...
Keith
Original Message
From: lauren
Sent: Jul 6, 2016 10:44 AM
To: "kemurph(&earthlink.net"
Subject: Re: Meeting for 5 Pine Tree
Hi Keith,
July 22nd works. Since it is a Friday, we don't have to do first thing in the morning. Would around
10am work?
Thank you,
Lauren
On Jul 4, 2016, at 10:49 AM, <kemurph U earthlink.net> wrote:
Sorry, I now have a work -related change of schedule. I can't do the 9th now, I have to be on a
trip. Would the following weekend work for you, preferably on the 17th, or perhaps the week of the
18th - I could do first thing in the morning (whatever that equates to for the team, I can do 6a or later)
the 18th, 21st, or 22nd.
Keith
Page 2 of 3
Original Message
From: lauren
Sent: Jul 4, 2016 9:16 AM
To: "kemurph@earthlink.net"
Subject: Re: Meeting for 5 Pine Tree
Hi Keith,
Does the proposed meeting work for you? I have to let my team know tomorrow so they can plan.
Thank you,
Lauren
On Jun 29, 2016, at 1:55 PM, lauren sharng <sharngla@msn.com> wrote:
Hi Keith,
July 9th is a bit challenging for my team but everyone can accommodate that date if we are able to do
it first thing in the morning. Would 8am work for you? If that is amenable, do you want to meet at your
home or at my site? My senior engineer recently had open heart surgery and he can't stand for long
periods of times so perhaps we could review the plans at your house and then take a field trip with
another engineer and my architect.
Thank you,
Lauren
On Jun 28, 2016, at 9:43 PM, <kemurph@earthlink.net> wrote:
Lauren,
Thanks for reaching out. The best time for me to meet would be 7/9, could they do it then? Thanks!
Keith
Original Message
From: Keith Murphy
Sent: Jun 28, 2016 11:32 AM
To: "kemurph@alum.mit,edu"
Subject: FW: Meeting for 5 Pine Tree
From: Lauren Sharng [mailto:sharngla@msn_com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 11:31 AM
To: Keith Murphy <KMurphy_@organovo.com>
Subject: Meeting for 5 Pine Tree
Dear Keith,
Would you be available to meet with my architect and engineer this week or next week to address your
questions on our project? I look forward to our meeting.
My best, Lauren
Page 3 of 3
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
TO:
FROM:
APPLICATION NO.
SITE LOCATION:
ZONING AND SIZE:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
DATE PUBLISHED:
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288
Agenda Item No. 9A
Mtg. Date: 04-19-16
HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR
WENDY STARKS, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
ZONING CASE NO. 901
5 PINE TREE LANE (LOT 94-RH)
RA -S-2, 5.15 ACRES (EXCL. ROADWAY EASEMENT)
MS. LAUREN SHARNG
TAVISHA NICHOLSON, BOLTON ENGINEERING
APRIL 7, 2016
REQUEST AND PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
1. The applicaht requests a Site Plan Review for the construction of a new 5,975
square foot residence, 5,000 square foot basement 14' in depth, two new detached
garages totaling 1,155 square feet (714 and 441 square feet each), a new pool and spa
totaling 1,152 square feet with a 50 square foot pool equipment area, an 800 square foot
guest house proposed with two sanitary facilities, a 460 square foot outdoor kitchen, a
7,000 square foot tennis court, 1,810 square foot stable with 611 square foot loft above
for a total of 2421 square feet stable, 1,360 square feet of attached covered porches, a 100
square foot breezeway, a 300 square foot service yard, a new 10,400 square foot
driveway and turnaround access, and for grading of a total of 46,090 cubic yards of dirt
(12,745 c.y. cut, 10,300 c.y. over -excavation, and 12,745 c.y. fill and 10,300 c.y.
recompaction).
Also requested are Conditional Use Permits for the 800 square foot guesthouse; for a
7,000 square foot tennis court; for the two detached garages (714 square feet and 441
ZC NO. 901, 5 Pine Tree Lane
square feet); and for the 1,810 square foot stable with 611 square foot loft, and 3,900
square foot corral.
The requests for Variances are for the tennis court as it is proposed to be located in the
front yard area of the lot; the associated grading for the tennis court as it exceeds 750
c.y. and is proposed at 3,500 c.y.; to exceed permitted disturbance with 45.2%; and to
exceed the maximum permitted average of 2.5' high retaining walls.
2. It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the staff report, open the
public hearing, take public testimony and schedule a field visit to the site.
BACKGROUND
3. The property is zoned RAS-2 and the gross lot area is 5.15 acres. The net lot area
is 4.3 acres or 187,196 square feet. The existing property is currently developed with a
single -family residence, garage, and swimming pool, which will be demolished. Access
to the property is taken from a joint driveway approach with 3 Pine Tree Lane.
4. A previous property owner was granted an approval to subdivide the property
into a two -lots. However that approval expired on January 12, 2013. In 2004 the owner
was approved to separate the driveway access at 3 and 5 Pine Tree Lane and that
approval expired as well.
MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE
5. The new residence is proposed at 5,975 square feet and the first floor level will
be about 10' lower than the existing residence on the lot removing potential view issues
from neighbors. The proposed residence will have a maximum ridge height of 176"
above the finished floor, plus 3' high chimneys. The entire north face of the residence
except for the front entrance has an out -of -grade condition. A 5' maximum out of grade
condition is shown at the northwest corner of the house and 1' -maximum at the
northeast corner. A 4' maximum out -of -grade condition around the rear side continues
from the planter box all the way to the pool deck stairs where the house returns to an
on -grade condition. The adjacent grade then returns to a 4' maximum out of grade
condition from the termination of the concrete stairs until the concrete entryway
adjacent to the garage where the entryway is on -grade, then continues to 2.5' maximum
out of grade condition.
The garages are proposed to have a maximum ridge height of 14'. The guest house will
have a maximum ridge height of 15'6" above finished floor plus 3' high chimney.
The stable ridge will be 25' from the finished floor. Viewing from the driveway, the
stable loft is proposed to be 11'4" in height. As a condition of approval all access areas
ZC NO. 901
for the stable including by the loft will be required to be decomposed granite or other
pervious material.
The basement is proposed to be 5,000 square feet and' be contained entirely within the
footprint of the new residence with 5 light wells proposed. The residence is proposed
on the shallowest sloped area with a basement being added to increase the residence
size while reducing the footprint. None of the proposed structures are in setbacks or
easements.
The 7,000 square foot tennis court is proposed in the front yard (in front of the leading
edge of the proposed residence), will be sunken and 4' lower than the proposed
residence. A graded ridge is proposed to be created to partially screen the tennis court
from the roadway. The proposed tennis court will have a max 4' high sports court wall
along the north, east, and south sides of the tennis court, which will not be visible from
the exterior of the court.
6. The lot drains to the north of the property and of proposed structures and the
run-off is proposed to be collected in underground pipes that will flow into a 360 square
foot bio-filtration unit with maximum 3' high walls, which will filter the water and
disperse into a dissipater, located just below it with maximum 4' high walls.
7. The applicant is proposing a new driveway off of Pine Tree Lane. Per the Fire
Department requirement, the driveway will be 20' wide and include a turn -around area
to accommodate fire truck access. The proposed driveway is 10,400 square feet of which
8.1% is in the front setback and complies with Section 17.16.150B that states that
driveways shall not cover more than 20% of the area of the setback in which they are
located. The driveway apron is proposed to be relocated north of the existing driveway
off of Pine Tree Lane. The Traffic Commission will review the driveway access at their
May 26th meeting, and staff will report their findings to the Planning Commission at
that time. An 850 square foot parking pad is proposed in front of the residence, and
adjacent to the circular driveway, to accommodate guest parking.
The applicant is proposing a 3' to 5' high maximum retaining walls along the entire
perimeter of the building pad. A 3' high max retaining wall along the northern portion
of the driveway is proposed and a 4' high maximum wall is proposed along the guest
parking area. A 3'-5' high retaining wall is proposed along the southern perimeter of
the building pad. An 810 square foot upper patio with 2' high curb seat wall is
proposed adjacent to the southern -most portion of the project and next to the guest
house and pool.
8. A 460 square foot outdoor kitchen, 1,360 square of attached covered porches, a
1,152 square foot pool/spa, and a 350 square foot service yard/pool equipment area are
proposed as well.
ZC NO. 901
9. Section 17.16.210 (A)(7) of the Zoning Ordinance contains conditions for
recreational game courts, subject to approval of a conditional use permit. These
conditions, listed below, are intended to ensure that such structures: are ancillary
recreational uses, do not eliminate an existing or future development for a stable, do not
create visual or other impacts and blend in with the existing topography and landscape
or views.
Recreational Game Courts are defined as: tennis, racquetball and squash courts, and
any other fenced, enclosed, paved or hard -surfaced areas used for recreational
purposes. They shall adhere to the following conditions:
REQUIREMENT'S:
PROPOSED:
A legally required and accessible stable
and corral area shall be provided;
A stable and corral is proposed to be
constructed as part of this application.
A game court shall not be located in the
front yard or any setback;
The proposed project is in the front yard
and requires a variance.
A game court shall not be located
within fifty feet of any paved road or
street easements;
Proposed project is not located within
fifty feet of any pavedroad or street
easements.
Retaining walls constructed for a game
court shall not exceed four feet in
height at any point along the wall;
retaining walls shall not be exposed to
the exterior; and if nececcary to
minimize the visual impact, the game
court surface shall be inset or sunken
below grade;
A 4 -foot high maximum retaining wall is
proposed along the north, east, and south
portion of the court. The court is sunken
at that side.
The construction of a game court shall
conform to the lot coverage limitations as
set forth in Section 17.16.070;
All development standards for coverage
are within the permitted standards,
except for disturbance at 45.17% for
which they are applying for a variance.
A game court shall not be located on a
slope that exceeds a 2:1 grade;
Existing slope in court location does not
exceed 2:1 gradient.
A game court shall not be located on the
side or bottom of a canyon or in the path
of a natural drainage course;
Location of proposed court is not in a
canyon or in a natural drainage course.
The tennis court is proposed to be where
the existing house and other structures
are located, to be demolished.
When grading is required for a game
court, cutting and filling shall be balanced
on site and shall not exceed a total cut and
fill of 750 cubic yards;
Grading is proposed to be balanced on
site; however a Variance is requested
because total grading will be greater than
750 c.y. of dirt. It is proposed at 3,500 c.y.
of cut and 0 c.y of fill for a total of 3,500
c.y.
ZC NO. 901
When grading is required for a game
court, cutting and filling shall be balanced
on site and shall not exceed 10,000 square
feet;
Graded area for the proposed court does
not exceed 10,000 square feet as it is
proposed where the existing residence
and other structures to be demolished
are.
The existing topography, flora and natural
features of the site shall be retained to the
greatest extent possible;
The proposed tennis court is where the
existing to be demolished residence is
now.
Drainage systems shall be incorporated
into the game court and shall be approved
by the City Engineer;
Drainage will be submitted to Building
and Safety for review and approval. The
court slopes towards the motor court and
will drain into underground pipes.
A game court shall be adequately screened
on all four sides;
Detailed landscaping plan is required
during project plan -check. Conceptual
plan will be submitted.
Landscape screening shall include native
or other drought -tolerant mature trees and
shrubs, which shall be maintained in a
healthy condition. The landscape
screening shall not exceed the mature
height determined by the Planning
Commission or City Council
Standard condition of approval to require
that the applicant submit detailed plans
and a bond or similar financial deposit
for landscaping.
Landscaping shall not interfere with the
viewscape of surrounding properties or
pursuant to Chapter 17.26;
Landscaping to be planted around court
perimeter to be designed to screen the
perimeter fencing. RHCA allows
maximuml0-foot fence.
Game court lighting shall not be
permitted;
Condition in resolution prohibits lighting.
Design and construction of a game court
shall include methods to mitigate visual
and noise impacts.
Landscaping plan to be required
buffering the development. Daytime use
only will minimize noise.
10. An 800 square foot guest house is proposed. Section 17.16.210 (A)(5) of the
Zoning Ordinance contains conditions for a guest house, subject to approval of a
conditional use permit. These conditions, listed below, are intended to ensure that such
structures are ancillary uses, do not eliminate an existing or future development for a
stable and are not converted to other than permitted uses.
REQUIREMENTS
PROPOSED
Shall not exceed eight hundred square feet
An 800 square foot guest house
is proposed.
Shall not be located in the front yard or any
The guest house is not proposed
ZC NO. 901
setback.
to be in the front yard or any
setback.
A kitchenette and sanitary facility consisting
of a shower, sink and toilet shall be permitted.
* The applicant proposes an 800
square foot guest house with
two bathrooms (one inside and
one accessed outside). Staff has
determined that the Municipal
Code allows for one sanitary
facility (a toilet, sink, and
shower), not two. The applicant
requested direction from the
Planning Commission
No vehicular access or paved parking area
shall be developed within fifty feet of the
guest house.
The driveway is more than fifty
feet away.
Occupancy of the guest house shall be limited
to persons employed on the premises, the
immediate family of the occupants of the
main residence or by the temporary guests of
the occupants of the main residence. No
temporary guest may remain in occupancy for
more than thirty days in any six-month
period.
This is a standard condition of
approval.
Renting of a guest house is prohibited.
This is a standard condition of
approval.
*The Planning Department submitted a Staff Report for the Planning
Commissions consideration to determine if more than one sanitary facility
should be allowed in guest houses.
11. Two detached garages are proposed (714 square feet and 441 square feet). Section
17.16.210 (A)(4) of the Zoning Ordinance contains conditions for a detached garage(s),
subject to approval of a conditional use permit. These conditions, listed below, are
intended to ensure that such structures are ancillary uses, do not eliminate an existing
or future development for a stable and are not converted to other than permitted uses.
REQUIREMENTS
PROPOSED
Shall not be located in the front yard or
any setback
Not located in front yard or setback
A sink and toilet are permitted
Not proposed
A kitchen or kitchenette shall not be
permitted
Not proposed
No sleeping quarters or renting of the
structure shall be permitted
Standard condition
ZC NO. 901
The Planning Commission shall have the
ability to limit the size of the detached
garage in relationship to the size of the
residence, topography, size of the lot and
other conditions
Planning Commission may limit the size
12. A 1,810 square foot stable is proposed with a 611 square foot loft above that will
be accessed directly from the main driveway. Two 260 square foot attached porches on
either end of the stable are also proposed (total porches 520 square feet). Pedestrian
access to the lower stable area will be provided via stairway south of the stable, and for
horses from the lower corral area north of the stable, via a 10' wide path extending
directly from the driveway and which will have decomposed granite surface. The corral
is proposed at 3,900 square feet. A 100 square foot open horse wash rack is also
proposed in the south-eastern most portion of the coral area. A 5' high maximum
retaining wall runs the perimeter of the corral.
Pursuant to the zoning code requirements the following is applicable to this request:
REQUIREMENTS
PROPOSED
Minimum 6' wide access with roughened surface
10 'wide access -way joining existing
driveway with roughened surface (not
paved)
Stable, corral not to be located on slopes
greater than 4:1
Grading with 5' retaining wall; 1,620 cubic
yards (550 cy cut; 1,070 cy. fill)
Not in front yard or side or front setback.
May be located up to 25' in rear setback.
Not proposed in any setback
Stable min. 35' from any residential structure
Proposed stable more than 35' from any
residential structure.
Stable building to be designed for rural and
agricultural uses only, but may include storage
for vehicles, household items
Stable is proposed with 4 stalls, tack space
that is 15.5% of the structure, and a 611
square foot feed/ loft area, all designed for
rural and agricultural uses.
Size to include the entire footprint including loft,
if any
Ground floor (1,810 sf.):
1,010 sf. stalls; 425 sf center aisle; 375 sf. tack
room
Loft (611 sf.) - feed/hay storage area
Minimum of 60% shall be maintained for
agricultural uses
Agricultural uses 84.5%
Maximum of 40% not to exceed 800 s.f. may be
maintained for a tack room use
Tack use area comprises 375 sf. or 15.5%
Includes tack room/storage & bathroom
Tack area may have sanitary and kitchen
amenities
Bathroom proposed; no kitchen
Tack area may have glazed openings
Shall be a condition of approval.
Agricultural space entry doors to be min. 4'wide
Shall be a condition of approval.
ZC NO. 901
& 7.5' high; appearance of a stable door
Loft is permitted
Loft; proposed for feed/hay storage
Loft plate height may not exceed 7'
The total height of the structure at its
highest peak is proposed to be 25' with a 7'
plate height shown for the loft. (Plate
heights per condition of approval.)
Exterior area of stables may not to be paved
Dirt or D.G. (condition of approval)
Corral minimum 550 sf.; fenced and contiguous
to stable. (Planning Commission may determine
the size of a corral)
Proposed 3,900 sq. ft. corral enclosed with 5
high maximum retaining walls
Access slope not to exceed 25%
From main driveway at 16% maximum
slope
Commercial uses or sleeping is not allowed
Applicant is not proposing any commercial
uses or sleeping in the stable
The applicant must comply with all other requirements of Chapter 17.18 of the Zoning
Ordinance pertaining to stables, as well as to all other regulations including, but not be
limited to undergrounding of utility lines to the structures, lighting, roof material, Fire
Department requirements and others.
13. The proposed disturbed area will be 45.2%, which exceeds the maximum
allowed disturbance of 40% (Municipal Code 17.16.070B). Grading for this project is
proposed to be 12,745 cubic yards of cut and 12,745 cubic yards of fill, 10,300 cubic
yards of over -excavation, and 10,300 cubic yards of recompaction and will be balanced
on site. The cut/excavation is for the guest house, driveway, tennis court, north horse
access, and south portion of the lot primarily, and 1,200 cubic yards is for the basement
excavation. The fill is primarily for the north side of the house, the driveway, and
southwest comer of the tennis court, and 10,300 cubic yards recompaction. The stable
pad has a total cut of 550 cubic yards, and 1,070 cubic yards of fill.
14. There are two building pads proposed. The residential building pad is proposed
at 44,100 square feet and will have coverage of 17,035 square feet or 38.6% with allowed
deductions, and includes the tennis court. The stable pad is proposed at 5,720 square
feet with 2,149 square feet of coverage or 37.6% with allowed deductions.
15. The structural net lot coverage is proposed at 20,042 square feet or 10.7%, (20%
max. permitted); and the total lot coverage is proposed at 39,002 square feet or 20.8%
(35% max. permitted) excluding allowable deductions.
16. In describing the criteria to be satisfied for a variance to exceed the maximum
permitted grading quantity for the sports court, the applicant's representative states
that the existing house on the property is located partially in the setback and has
structures in the easement. The proposed project complies with development standards
and moves all proposed structures out of setbacks and more centrally on the lot,
ZC NO. 901
including the residence, which creates a large front yard. There are few options as to
where to locate the tennis court as a result. The applicant is proposing to create a ridge
to partially screen the tennis court from the road. The tennis court has been dropped an
additional 4' from the building pad to further sink it into the grade and out of the view
shed resulting in the need to exceed 750 c.y. of grading. The grading for the tennis court
is proposed at 3,500 c.y.
17. In describing the criteria to be satisfied for a variance to exceed the maximum
permitted grading quantity for the sports court, the applicant's representative states
that the existing house on the property is located partially in the setback and has
structures in the easement. The proposed project complies with development standards
and moves all proposed structures out of setbacks and more centrally on the lot,
including the residence, which creates a large front yard. There are few options as to
where to locate the tennis court as a result. The applicant is proposing to create a ridge
to screen the tennis court from the road. The tennis court has been dropped an
additional 4' from the building pad to further sink it into the grade and out of the view
shed resulting in the need to exceed 750 c.y. of grading. The grading for the tennis court
is proposed at 3,500 c.y.
18. Rolling Hills Community Association will review this project at a later date.
19. When reviewing a development application the Planning Commission must
consider whether the proposed project meets the criteria for a Site Plan Review,
Conditional Use Permit and Variances, and must find that the proposed uses are
consistent with the General Plan and development standards of the City, including
provision for open space and maintaining rural environment and that the uses will not
adversely affect adjacent properties.
20. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Zoning Case No. 901
Sllh PLAN REVIEW
EXISTING
PROPOSED
RA -S- 2 ZONE ShiBACKS
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
NEW RESIDENCE WITH
Front 50 ft from front easement line
AND ACCESSORY
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES,
Side: 35 ft from property line
STRUCTURES, to be
SPORTS COURT, DETACHED
Rear: 50 ft. from rear easement line
demolished
GARAGES, STABLE
STRUCTURES
Residence
0 sq.ft.
Residence
5,975 sq.ft.
(Site Plan Review required if size of
Basement
0 sq.ft
*Basement
5,000 sq.ft
structure increases by at least 1,000
Garage attached
0 sq.ft
Garage detached
714 sq.ft
sq.ft and has the effect of increasing
Garage detached
0 sq.ft
Garage detached
441 sq.ft.
the size of the structure by more than
Pool/spa
0 sq.ft
Pool/spa
1,152sq.ft
25% in a 36 -month period).
Pool Equip.
0 sq.ft
Pool Equip.
50 sq.ft.
Guest House
0 sq.ft
Guest House
800 sq.ft
Stable
0 sq.ft
Stable
1,810 sq.ft
Loft for Stable
0 sq.ft
*Loft for Stable
611 sq.ft
ZC NO. 901
Recreation Court
Att Cov. Porches
Entryway
Service yard
Outdoor Kitchen
0 sq.ft
0 sq.ft
0 sq.ft
0 sq.ft
0 sq.ft
Recreation Court
Att. Cov. Porches
Entryway
Service yard
Outdoor Kitchen
7,000 sq.ft
1,360 sq.ft
100 sq.ft
300 sq.ft
460 sq.ft
TOTAL
0 sq.ft.
TOTAL
20,162 sq.ft
STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE
0%
20,042 sf w/allowances 10.7% of
187,196 sq.ft net lot area
(20% maximum)
TOTAL LOT COVERAGE
0%
39,002 w/ allowances or 20.8% of
187,196 sq.ft net lot area
(35% maximum)
BUILDING PADS (30% guideline)
N/A
N/A
38.6% of 44,100 sq.ft pad
37.6% of 5,720 sq.ft pad
Residential
Stable
GRADING
N/A
12,745 cy cut 12,745 cy fill, 10,300
cy overexcavation,10,300 cy
recompaction = balanced on site.
Site Plan Review required if
excavation and/or fill or combination
thereof that is more than 3 feet in
depth and covers more than 2,000
sq.ft) must be balanced on site.
DISTURBED AREA
N/A
45.2% (86,150 sq. ft)
(40% maximum; any graded building
pad area, any remedial grading
(temporary disturbance), any graded
slopes and building pad areas, and
any nongraded area where
impervious surfaces exist.)
STABLE (min. 450 SO.FT.
N/A
1,810 sq. ft. with 611 sq. ft. loft
3,900 sq. ft
& 550 SO.FT. CORRAL)
STABLE ACCESS
N/ A
Proposed from Residence Pad
ROADWAY ACCESS
N/A
New off Pine Tree Lane
VIEWS
N/A
Planning Commission condition
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
N/A
Planning Commission condition
`Loft for stable and basement are not included in the calculations for structural coverage
ZC NO. 901 NEARBY PROPERTIES
For information onl
Address
House size in
sq.ft.
Lot Area (gross
acres)
1 Pine Tree
*6,516
4.66
2 Pine Tree
*6,211
2.24
3 Pine Tree
*4,674
5.13
4 Pine Tree
*8,961
4.38
6 Pine Tree
6,148
1.31
7 Pine Tree
3,912
5.64
8 Pine Tree
2,812
2.23
10 Pine Tree
3,253
2.49
ZC NO. 901
23 Portuguese Bend Road
9,348
2.42
2 Pheasant Lane
5,651
5.0
Average
5,149
3.9
5 Pine Tree Lane
5,975 Proposed
5.15
NOTE: The above do not include garages, basements or accessory structures.
SOURCES' Assessors' records * City records
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT:
17.42.050 Basis for approval or denial of conditional use permit.
The Commission (and Council on appeal), in acting to approve a conditional use permit
application, may impose conditions as are reasonably necessary to ensure the project is
consistent with the General Plan, compatible with surrounding land use, and meets the
provisions and intent of this title. In making such a determination, the hearing body shall find
that the proposed use is in general accord with the following principles and standards:
A. That the proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan;
B. That the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and
structures have been considered, and that the use will not adversely affect or be materially
detrimental to these adjacent uses, building or structures;
C. That the site for the proposed conditional use is of adequate size and shape to
accommodate the use and buildings proposed;
D. That the proposed conditional use complies with all applicable development
standards of the zone district;
E. That the proposed use is consistent with the portions of the Los Angeles County
Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste
facilities;
F. That the proposed conditional use observes the spirit and intent of this title.
SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA
17.46.010 Purpose.
The site plan review process is established to provide discretionary review of certain
development projects in the City for the purposes of ensuring that the proposed project is
consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates environmentally and aesthetically
sensitive grading practices; preserves existing mature vegetation; is compatible and consistent
with the scale, massing and development pattern in the immediate project vicinity; and
otherwise preserves and protects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills.
17.46.050 Required findings.
A. The Commission shall be required to make findings in acting to approve,
conditionally approve, or deny a site plan review application.
B. No project which requires site plan review approval shall be approved by the
Commission, or by the City Council on appeal, unless the following findings can be made:
ZC NO. 901
1. The project complies with and is consistent with the goals and
policies of the general plan and all requirements of the zoning ordinance;
2. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped
state of the lot by minimizing building coverage. Lot coverage requirements are regarded as
maximums, and the actual amount of lot coverage permitted depends upon the existing
buildable area of the lot;
3. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the
natural terrain and surrounding residences;
4. The project preserves and integrates into the site design, to the
greatest extent possible, existing topographic features of the site, including surrounding native
vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls);
5. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of the site
and to minimize the amount of grading required to create the building area;
6. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect
drainage flow, unless such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course;
7. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature
trees and supplements these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping which is compatible
with and enhances the rural character of the community, and landscaping provides a buffer or
transition area between private and public areas;
8. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and
safe movement of pedestrians and vehicles; and
9. The project conforms to the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act.
CRITERIA FOR VARIANCES
17.38.050 Required findings. In granting a variance, the Commission (and Council on appeal)
must make the following 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;
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;
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;
D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed;
E. That the variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant;
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.
SOURCE: City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance
ZC NO. 901
a/Slatgam.
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
TO:
FROM:
APPLICATION NO.
SITE LOCATION:
ZONING AND SIZE:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
DATE PUBLISHED:
NO.2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288
Agenda Item No. 4E
Mtg. Date: 05-17-16FT
HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR
WENDY STARKS, AICP, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
ZONING CASE NO. 901
5 PINE TREE LANE (LOT 94-RH)
RA -S-2, 5.15 ACRES (EXCL. ROADWAY EASEMENT)
MS. LAUREN SHARNG
TAVISHA NICHOLSON, BOLTON ENGINEERING
APRIL 7, 2016
REQUEST AND PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
1. The Planning Commission reviewed this case at their April 19, 2016 meeting and
scheduled a field trip for May 17th.
2. At the April 19th meeting, the Planning Commission expressed concerns with the
project and specifically the crowding of the structures on the building pad, the long
driveway and walls, grading, and the proposed tennis court in the front yard area.
3. The applicants revised the project and are requesting a Site Plan Review for the
construction of a new 5,250 square foot residence, with 5,250 square foot basement,
(previously 5,975 square foot residence with 5,000 square foot basement) 1,155 square
feet detached garages- (714 and 441 square feet each), 1,445 square feet covered porches,
including 520 sq.ft. at the stable - (previously 1,360 sq.ft. of covered porches), 964
square foot swimming pool and spa (previously 1,152 sq.ft. pool/spa), 50 square foot
pool equipment, 300 square foot service yard, 275 square foot entryway (was 100
ZC NO. 901, 5 Pine Tree Lane
L
previously), retaining walls, new driveway and 350 square foot outdoor kitchen -
(previously 460 sq.ft.) and grading for a total of 48,150 cubic yards of dirt (11,775 c.y.
cut, 12,300 c.y. over -excavation, and 11,775 c.y. fill and 12,300 c.y. re -compaction). The
applicants also request a Conditional Use Permit to construct an 800 square foot guest
house, the detached garages, and 1,810 square foot stable with 481 square foot loft; and
Variances to exceed the maximum permitted average height of retaining walls and to
exceed the maximum permitted disturbed area of the lot. The applicants withdrew the
request for a CUP and several Variances for the previously proposed tennis court. The
applicants have also removed the previously proposed two bathrooms in the guest
house (and are now proposing one bathroom which complies with the Municipal
Code), an out of grade porch at the north-west corner of the house has been decreased
and some of the hardscape and stairs to provide more landscaped areas and a less
crowded condition on the building pad.
4. It is recommended that the Planning Commission view the project in the field,
take public testimony and continue the meeting to the evening meeting beginning at
6:30 PM.
BACKGROUND
5. The property is zoned RAS-2 and the gross lot area is 5.15 acres. The net lot area
is 4.3 acres or 187,196 square feet. The existing property is currently developed with a
single -family residence, garage, and swimming pool, which will be demolished. Access
to the property is taken from a joint driveway approach with 3 Pine Tree Lane.
6. A previous property owner was granted an approval to subdivide the property
into a two -lots. The approval expired on January 12, 2013. In 2004 approval was
granted to separate the driveway access to 3 and 5 Pine Tree Lane and construct two
new driveways, one on each property, however the driveways were not constructed.
MUNICDPAL CODE COMPLIANCE
7. The new residence is proposed at 5,250 square feet and the floor level will be
about 10' lower than the existing residence on the lot removing potential view issues
from neighbors. The proposed residence will have a maximum ridge height of 176"
above the finished floor, plus 3' high chimneys. The maximum ridge height of the
residence with the out of grade condition is 19'6" which will be softened by a 2'6" high
planter wall on the northwest corner where the out of grade condition is the biggest at
the front of the house. Most of the north face of the residence except for the front
entrance is proposed to have an out -of -grade condition . A 4' maximum out -of -grade
condition around the rear side continues from the planter box all the way to the pool
deck stairs where the house returns to an on -grade condition. The adjacent grade then
returns to a 4' maximum out of grade condition from the termination of the concrete
ZC NO. 901
stairs until the concrete entryway adjacent to the garage where the entryway is on -
grade, then continues to 2.5' maximum out of grade condition.
The garages are proposed to have a maximum ridge height of 14'. The guest house will
have a maximum ridge height of 15'6" above finished floor plus 3' high chimney. The
stable ridge will be 25' from the finished floor. Viewing from the driveway, the stable
loft is proposed to be 11'4" in height. As a condition of approval all access areas for the
stable including by the loft will be required to be decomposed granite or other pervious
material.
The basement is proposed to be 5,250 square feet and be contained entirely within the
footprint of the new residence with 4 light wells proposed. The residence is proposed
on the shallowest sloped area with a basement being added to increase the residence
size while reducing the footprint. None of the proposed structures are in setbacks or
easements.
8. The lot drains to the north of the property and the run-off from the proposed
structures is proposed to be collected in underground pipes that will flow into a 360
square foot bio-filtration unit with maximum 3' high walls, which will filter the water
and disperse into a dissipater, located just below it with maximum 4' high walls.
9. The applicant is proposing a new driveway off of Pine Tree Lane. Per the Fire
Department requirement, the driveway will be 20' wide and include a turn -around area
to accommodate fire truck access. The proposed driveway is 10,400 square feet of which
8.1% is in the front setback and complies with GeLtion 17.16.150B that states that
driveways shall not cover more than 20% of the area of the setback in which they are
located. The driveway apron is proposed to be relocated north of the existing driveway
off of Pine Tree Lane. The Traffic Commission will review the driveway access at their
May 26th meeting. Staff will report their findings to the Planning Commission at that
time. An 850 square foot guest parking pad is proposed in front, but below the
residence, and adjacent to the circular driveway. The front of the house will be accessed
by stairs from the guest parking.
The applicant is proposing a 3' to 5' high maximum retaining walls along the entire
perimeter of the building pad. A 3' high max retaining wall along the northern portion
of the driveway is proposed and a 4' high maximum, wall is proposed along the guest
parking area. A 3'-5' high retaining wall is proposed along the southern perimeter of
the building pad. The walls will not average out to 2.5' in height, and the applicants
request a variance. A 500 square foot upper landscaped patio with 2' high curb seat wall
is proposed adjacent to the southern -most portion of the project and next to the guest
house and pool (previously proposed as an impervious patio).
10. An 800 square foot guest house is proposed. Section 17.16.210 (A)(5) of the
Zoning Ordinance contains conditions for a guest house, subject to approval of a
ZC NO. 901
conditional use permit These conditions, listed below, are intended to ensure that such
structures are ancillary uses, do not eliminate an existing or future development for a
stable and are not converted to other than permitted uses.
REQUIREMENTS
PROPOSED
Shall not exceed eight hundred square feet
800 square foot guest house
is proposed.
Shall not be located in the front yard or any
setback.
The guest house is not proposed
to be in the front yard or any
setback.
A kitchenette and sanitary facility consisting
of a shower, sink and toilet shall be permitted.
Applicant proposes and will be
a condition of approval to meet
the requirement
No vehicular access or paved parking area
shall be developed within fifty feet of the
guest house.
The driveway is more than fifty
feet away.
Occupancy of the guest house shall be limited
to persons employed on the premises, the
immediate family of the occupants of the
main residence or by the temporary guests of
the occupants of the main residence. No
temporary guest may remain in occupancy for
more than thirty days in any six-month
period.
This is a standard condition of
approval.
Renting of a guest house is prohibited.
T is a standard condition of
approval.
11. Two detached garages are proposed (71.4 square feet and 441 square feet). Section
17.16.210 (A)(4) of the Zoning Ordinance contains conditions for a detached garage(s),
subject to approval of a conditional use permit. These conditions, listed below, are
intended to ensure that such structures are ancillary uses, do not eliminate an existing
or future development for a stable and are not converted to other than permitted uses.
REQUIREMENTS
PROPOSED
Shall not be located in the front yard or
any setback
Not located in front yard or setback
A sink and toilet are permitted
Not proposed
A kitchen or kitchenette shall not be
permitted
Not proposed
No sleeping quarters or renting of the
Standard condition
ZC NO. 901
structure shall be permitted
The Planning Commission shall have the
ability to limit the size of the detached
garage in relationship to the size of the
residence, topography, size of the lot and
other conditions
Planning Commission may limit the size
12. A 1,810 square foot stable is proposed with a 481 square foot loft above that will
be accessed directly from the main driveway. Two 260 square foot attached porches on
either end of the stable are also proposed (total porches 520 square feet). Pedestrian
access to the lower stable area will be provided via stairway south of the stable, and for
horses from the lower corral area north of the stable, via a 10' wide path extending
directly from the driveway and which will have decomposed granite surface. The corral
is proposed at 3,900 square feet. A 100 square foot open horse wash rack is also
proposed in the south-eastern most portion of the corral area. A 5' high maximum
retaining wall runs the perimeter of the corral.
Pursuant to the zoning code requirements the following is applicable to this request:
QUIREMENTS
PROPOSED
Minimum 6' wide access with roughened surface
10 'wide access -way joining existing
driveway with roughened surface (not
paved)
Stable, corral not to be located on slopes
greater than 4:1
Grading with 5' retaining wall; 1,450 cubic
yards (550 cy cut; 900 cy. fill)
Not in front yard or side or front setback.
May be located up to 25' in rear setback.
Not proposed in any setback
Stable min. 35' from any residential structure
Proposed stable more than 35' from any
residential structure.
Stable building to be designed for rural and
agricultural uses only, but may include storage
for vehicles, household items
Stable is proposed with 5 stalls, tack space
that is 15.5% of the structure, and a 611
square foot feed/ loft area, all designed for
rural and agricultural uses.
Size to include the entire footprint including loft,
if any
Ground floor (1,810 sf.):
1,010 sf. stalls; 425 sf center aisle; 375 sf. tad
room
Loft (611 sf.) - feed/hay storage area
Minimum of 60% shall be maintained for
agricultural uses
Agricultural uses 84.5%
Maximum of 40% not to exceed 800 s.f. may be
maintained for a tack room use
Tack use area comprises 375 sf. or 15.5%
Includes tack room/storage & bathroom
Tack area may have sanitary and kitchen
amenities
Bathroom proposed; no kitchen
Tack area may have glazed openings
Will install
ZC NO. 901
Agricultural space entry doors to be min. 4'wide
& 7.5' high; appearance of a stable door
Shall be a condition of approval.
Loft is permitted
Loft; proposed for feed/hay storage
Loft plate height may not exceed 7
The total height of the structure at its
highest peak is proposed to be 25' with a 7'
plate height shown for the loft. (Plate
heights per condition of approval.)
Exterior area of stables may not to be paved
Dirt or D.G. (condition of approval)
Corral minimum 550 sf.; fenced and contiguous
to stable. (Planning Commission may determine
the size of a corral)
Proposed 3,900 sq. ft. corral enclosed with 5
high maximum retaining walls
Access slope not to exceed 25%
From main driveway at 16% maximum
slope
Commercial uses or sleeping is not allowed
Applicant is not proposing any commercial
uses or sleeping in the stable
The applicant must comply with all other requirements of Chapter 17.18 of the Zoning
Ordinance pertaining to stables, as well as to all other regulations including, but not be
limited to undergrounding of utility lines to the structures, lighting, roof material, Fire
Department requirements and others.
13. The proposed disturbed area will be 45.2%, which exceeds the maximum
allowed disturbance of 40% (Municipal Code 17.16.07013). Grading for this project is
proposed to be 11,775 cubic yards of cut and 11,775 cubic yards of fill, 12,300 cubic
yards of over -excavation, and 12,300 cubic yards of recompaction and will be balanced
on site. The cut/excavation is for the guest house, driveway, front of the lot, north
horse access, and south portion of the lot primarily, and 1,300 cubic yards is for the
basement excavation. The fill is primarily for the north side of the house, the driveway,
and southwest corner of the area behind the new driveway approach, and 12,300 cubic
yards recompaction. The stable pad has a total cut of 550 cubic yards, and 900 cubic
yards of fill.
14. There are two building pads proposed. The residential building pad is proposed
at 44,100 square feet and will have coverage of 9,344 square feet or 21.2% with allowed
deductions, (previously with the tennis court -38.6%). The stable pad is proposed at
5,720 square feet with 2,149 square feet of coverage or 37.6% with allowed deductions.
15. The structural net lot coverage is proposed at 12,279 square feet or 6.56% with
allowed deductions (previously with tennis court - 10.7%), (20% max. permitted); and
the total lot coverage is proposed at 29,074 square feet or 15.5%, (previously with tennis
court -20.8%), (35% max. permitted).
16. In describing the criteria to be satisfied for a variance to exceed the maximum
permitted disturbance and walls that exceed 2.5' average height the applicant states: the
ZC NO. 901
existing house on the property is located partially in the setback and has structures in the
easement. The proposed project complies with development standards and moves all proposed
structures out of setbacks and more centrally on the lot, including the residence, which creates a
large front yard. Every ejfui t has been made to keep the development centrally located on one
main pad to further limit the increase in disturbance. The disturbed area is proposed to be above
the development standards due to the existing topography of the site. The lot is sloped in nature
and in order to provide a building pad that meets the development guidelines, additional grading
and disturbance is required; the proposed retaining walls will help to limit this disturbance.
However, a variance is required due to their average height. When looking at the breakdown of
site disturbance, approximately 15% of the overall disturbance comes from equestrian uses, (i.e.
the stable and corral), and if these items were not being proposed the development would not
require a variance for disturbed area. The applicant believes that the addition of these equestrian
facilities help to further the City of Rolling Hills as an equestrian community and therefore the
variance should be granted. At the recommendation of the Planning Commission, alternative lot
configurations were also analyzed however the number of walls and disturbance was lowest
with the currently proposed plan
17. Rolling Hills Community Association will review this project at a later date.
18. When reviewing a development application the Planning Commission must
consider whether the proposed project meets the criteria for a Site Plan Review,
Conditional Use Permit and Variances, and must find that the proposed uses are
consistent with the General Plan and development standards of the City, including
provision for open space and maintaining rural environment and that the uses will not
adversely affect adjacent properties.
19. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
ZC NO. 901
Zoning Case No. 901
Slit PLAN REVIEW
EXISTING
PROPOSED
RA -S- 2 ZONE SETBACKS
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
AND ACCESSORY
STRUCTURES, to be
demolished
NEW RESIDENCE WITH
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES,
DETACHED GARAGES,
STABLE
Front 50 ft from front easement line
Side: 35 ft from property line
Rear: 50 ft from rear easement line
STRUCTURES
Residence
Basement
Garage attached
Garage detached
Pool/spa
Pool Equip.
Guest House
Stable
Loft for Stable
Recreation Court
Att Cov. Porches
Entryway
Service yard
Outdoor Kitchen
0 sq.ft.
0 sq.ft
0 sq.ft
0 sq.ft
0 sq.ft
0 sq.ft
0 sq.ft
0 sq.ft
0 sq.ft
0 sq.ft
0 sq.ft
0 sq.ft
0 sq.&
0 sq.ft
Residence
•Basement
Garage detached
Garage detached
Pool/spa
Pool Equip.
Guest House
Stable
*Loft for Stable
Att. Cov. Porches
Entryway
Service yard
Outdoor Kitchen
5,250 sq.ft.
5,250 sq.ft
714 sq.ft
441 sq.ft
964 sq.ft
50 sq.ft
800 sq.ft
1,810 sqlt
481 sq.ft
1,445 sq.ft
275 sq.ft
300 sq.ft
350 sq.ft.
(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).
TOTAL
0 sq.ft
TOTAL
12,399sq.ft
STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE
0%
12,279 sf w/ allowances 6.56% of
187,196 sq.ft. net lot area
(20% maximum)
TOTAL LOT COVERAGE
0%
29,074 w/allowances or 15.53% of
187,196 sq.ft net lot area
(35% maximum)
BUILDING PADS (30% guideline)
N/A
N/A
21.2% of 44,100 sq.ft. pad
37.6% of 5,720 sq.ft pad
Residential
Stable
GRADING
N/A
11,775 cut, 11,775 cy fill, 12,300 cy
overexcavation, 12,300 cy
recompaction = balanced on site.
Site Plan Review required if
excavation and/or fill or combination
thereof that is more than 3 feet in
depth and covers more than 2,000
sq.ft) must be balanced on site.
DISTURBED AREA
N/A
45.2% (84550 sq. ft)
(40% maximum; any graded building
pad area, any remedial grading
(temporary disturbance), any graded
slopes and building pad areas, and
any nongraded area where
impervious surfaces exist)
STABLE (min 450 SQ.FT.
N/A
1,810 sq. ft. with 481 sq. ft loft
3,900 sq. ft
& 550 SQ.FT. CORRAL)
STABLE ACCESS
N/A
Proposed from Residence Pad
ROADWAY ACCESS
N/A
New off Pine Tree Lane
VIEWS
N/ A
Planning Commission condition
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
N/A
Planning Commission condition
ZC NO. 901
*Loft for stable and basement are not included in the calculations for structural coverage
ZC NO. 901 NEARBY PROPERTIES
or information onl
Address
House size in
sq.ft.
Lot Area (gross
acres)
1 Pine Tree
*6,516
4.66
2 Pine Tree
*6,211
2.24
3 Pine Tree
*4,674
5.13
4 Pine Tree
*8,961
4.38
6 Pine Tree
'6,148
1.31
7 Pine Tree
3,912
5.64
8 Pine Tree
2,812
2.23
10 Pine Tree
3,253
2.49
23 Portuguese Bend Road
*3,348
2.42
2 Pheasant Lane
5,651
5.0
Average
5,149
3.9
5 Pine Tree Lane
5,250 Proposed
5.15
NOTE: The above do not include garages, basements or accessory structures.
SOURCES: Assessors' records * City records
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT:
17.42.050 Basis for approval or denial of conditional use permit.
The Commission (and Council on appeal), in acting to approve a conditional use permit
application, may impose conditions as are reasonably necessary to ensure the project is
consistent with the General Plan, compatible with surrounding land use, and meets the
provisions and intent of this title. In making such a determination, the hearing body shall find
that the proposed use is in general accord with the following principles and standards:
A. That the proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan;
B. That the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and
structures have been considered, and that the use will not adversely affect or be materially
detrimental to these adjacent uses, building or structures;
C. That the site for the proposed conditional use is of adequate size and shape to
accommodate the use and buildings proposed;
D. That the proposed conditional use complies with all applicable development
standards of the zone district;
E. That the proposed use is consistent with the portions of the Los Angeles County
Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste
facilities;
F. That the proposed conditional use observes the spirit and intent of this title.
ZC NO. 901
SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA
17.46.010 Purpose.
The site plan review process is established to provide discretionary review of certain
development projects in the City for the purposes of ensuring that the proposed project is
consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates environmentally and aesthetically
sensitive grading practices; preserves existing mature vegetation; is compatible and consistent
with the scale, massing and development pattern in the immediate project vicinity; and
otherwise preserves and protects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills.
17.46.050 Required findings.
A. The Commission shall be required to make findings in acting to approve,
conditionally approve, or deny a site plan review application.
B. No project which requires site plan review approval shall be approved by the
Commission, or by the City Council on appeal, unless the following findings can be made:
1. The project complies with and is consistent with the goals and
policies of the general plan and all requirements of the zoning ordinance;
2. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped
state of the lot by minimizing building coverage. Lot coverage requirements are regarded as
maximums, and the actual amount of lot coverage permitted depends upon the existing
buildable area of the lot;
3. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the
natural terrain and surrounding residences;
4. The project preserves and integrates into the site design, to the
greatest extent possible, existing topographic features of the site, including surrounding native
vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls);
5. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of the site
and to minimize the amount of grading required to create the building area;
6. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect
drainage flow, unless such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course;
7. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature
trees and supplements these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping which is compatible
with and enhances the rural character of the community, and landscaping provides a buffer or
transition area between private and public areas;
8. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and
safe movement of pedestrians and vehicles; and
9. The project conforms to the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act.
CRITERIA FOR VARIANCES
1738.050 Required findings. In granting a variance, the Commission (and Council on appeal)
must make the following 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;
ZC NO. 901
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;
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;
D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed;
E. That the variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant;
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.
SOURCE: City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance
ZC NO. 901
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 _5:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Subject: 5 Pine Tree Lane
Date: Monday, April 18, 201610:08:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: Tony Podell <awpodell@gmail.com>
To: Yolanta Schwartz <ys@cityofrh.net>
CC: Wendy Starks <wstarks@cityofrh.net>
Yolanta,
In reference to Tuesday, April 19th's meeting regarding 5 Pine Tree we challenge the approval of all
permit applications until we see the staking and all reports and approvals relevant to construction of the
house, outlying buildings, pool and tennis court.
Per the plans you showed me for #5 Pine Tree the driveway has been relocated further down Pine Tree, that
and no
construction trucks or vehicles of any type using #3's driveway ever is our number one priority.
Thank you for your help,
Mary and Tony Podell
P.S. Would you please email me that you received this email.
RECEDED'
APR 1 9 2016
City of Rolling Hills
By
Page 1 of 1
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
TO:
FROM:
APPLICATION NO.
SITE LOCATION:
ZONING AND SIZE:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
DATE PUBLISHED:
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288
Agenda Item No. 7E
Mtg. Date: 05-17-16
HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR
WENDY STARKS, AICP, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
ZONING CASE NO. 901
5 PINE TREE LANE (LOT 94-RH)
RA -S-2, 5.15 ACRES (EXCL. ROADWAY EASEMENT)
MS. LAUREN SHARNG
TAVISHA NICHOLSON, BOLTON ENGINEERING
APRIL 7, 2016
REQUEST AND PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
1. The Planning Commission reviewed this case at their April 19, 2016 meeting and
viewed the project in the field earlier in the day on May 17th and continued the hearing
to the evening meeting on May 17, 2016.
2. At the April 19th meeting, the Planning Commission expressed concerns with the
project and specifically the crowding of the structures on the building pad, the long
driveway and walls, grading, and the proposed tennis court in the front yard area.
3. The applicants revised the project and are requesting a Site Plan Review for the
construction of a new 5,250 square foot residence, with 5,250 square foot basement,
(previously 5,975 square foot residence with 5,000 square foot basement) 1,155 square
feet detached garages- (714 and 441 square feet each), 1,445 square feet covered porches,
including 520 sq.ft. at the stable - (previously 1,360 sq.ft. of covered porches), 964
square foot swimming pool and spa (previously 1,152 sq.ft. pool/spa), 50 square foot
ZC NO. 901, 5 Pine Tree Lane
pool equipment, 300 square foot service yard, 275 square foot entryway (was 100
previously), retaining walls, new driveway and 350 square foot outdoor kitchen -
(previously 460 sq.ft.) and grading for a total of 48,150 cubic yards of dirt (11,775 c.y.
cut, 12,300 c.y. over -excavation, and 11,775 c.y. fill and 12,300 c.y. re -compaction). The
applicants also request a Conditional Use Permit to construct an B00 square foot guest
house, the detached garages, and 1,810 square foot stable with 481 square foot loft; and
Variances to exceed the maximum permitted average height of retaining walls and to
exceed the maximum permitted disturbed area of the lot. The applicants withdrew the
request for a CUP and several Variances for the previously proposed tennis court. The
applicants have also removed the previously proposed two bathrooms in the guest
house (and are now proposing one bathroom which complies with the Municipal
Code), an out of grade porch at the north-west corner of the house has been decreased
and some of the hardscape and stairs to provide more landscaped areas and a less
crowded condition on the building pad.
4. It is recommended that the Planning Commission reconvene the staff report, take
public testimony and provide direction to staff.
BACKGROUND
5. The property is zoned RAS-2 and the gross lot area is 5.15 acres. The net lot area
- . is 4.3 acres or 187,196 square feet The existing property is currently developed with a -
single -family residence, garage, and swimming pool, which will be demolished. Access
to the property is taken from a joint driveway approach with 3 Pine Tree Lane.
6. A previous property owner was granted an approval to subdivide the property
into a two -lots. The approval expired on January 12, 2013. In 2004 approval was
granted to separate the driveway access to 3 and 5 Pine Tree Lane and construct two
new driveways, one on each property, however the driveways were not constructed.
MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE
7. The new residence is proposed at 5,250 square feet and the floor level will be
about 10' lower than the existing residence on the lot removing potential view issues
from neighbors. The proposed residence will have a maximum ridge height of 176"
above the finished floor, plus 3' high chimneys. The maximum ridge height of the
residence with the out of grade condition is 176" which will be softened by a 2'6" high
planter wall on the northwest corner where the out of grade condition is the biggest at
the front of the house. Most of the north face of the residence except for the front
entrance is proposed to have an out -of -grade condition . A 4' maximum out -of -grade
condition around the rear side continues from the planter box all the way to the pool
deck stairs where the house returns to an on -grade condition. The adjacent grade then
returns to a 4' maximum out of grade condition from the termination of the concrete
ZC NO. 901
etis
stairs until the concrete entryway adjacent to the garage where the entryway is on -
grade, then continues to 2.5' maximum out of grade condition.
The garages are proposed to have a maximum ridge height of 14'. The guest house will
have a maximum ridge height of 15'6" above finished floor plus 3' high chimney. The
stable ridge will be 25' from the finished floor. Viewing from the driveway, the stable
loft is proposed to be 11'4" in height. As a condition of approval all access areas for the
stable including by the loft will be required to be decomposed granite or other pervious
material.
The basement is proposed to be 5,250 square feet and be contained entirely within the
footprint of the new residence with 4 light wells proposed. The residence is proposed
on the shallowest sloped area with a basement being added to increase the residence
size while reducing the footprint. None of the proposed structures are in setbacks or
easements.
8. The lot drains to the north of the property and the run-off from the proposed
structures is proposed to be collected in underground pipes that will flow into a 360
square foot bio-filtration unit with maximum 3' high walls, which will filter the water
and disperse into a dissipater, located just below it with maximum 4' high walls.
9. The applicant is proposing a new driveway off of Pine Tree Lane. Per the Fire
Department requirement, the driveway will be 20' wide and include a turn -around area
to accommodate fire truck access. The proposed driveway is 10,400 square feet of which
8.1% is in the front setback and complies with Section 17.16.150B that states that
driveways shall not cover more than 20% of the area of the setback in which they are
located. The driveway apron is proposed to be relocated north of the existing driveway
off of Pine Tree Lane. The Traffic Commission will review the driveway access at their
May 26th meeting. Staff will report their findings to the Planning Commission at that
time. An 850 square foot guest parking pad is proposed in front, but below the
residence, and adjacent to the circular driveway. The front of the house will be accessed
by stairs from the guest parking.
The applicant is proposing a 3' to 5' high maximum retaining walls along the entire
perimeter of the building pad. A 3' high max retaining wall along the northern portion
of the driveway is proposed and a 4' high maximum wall is proposed along the guest
parking area. A 3'-5' high retaining wall is proposed along the southern perimeter of
the building pad. The walls will not average out to 2.5' in height, and the applicants
request a variance. A 500 square foot upper landscaped patio with 2' high curb seat wall
is proposed adjacent to the southern -most portion of the project and next to the guest
house and pool (previously proposed as an impervious patio).
10. An 800 square foot guest house is proposed. Section 17.16.210 (A)(5) of the
Zoning Ordinance contains conditions for a guest house, subject to approval of a
ZC NO. 901
conditional use permit. These conditions, listed below, are intended to ensure that such
structures are ancillary uses, do not eliminate an existing or future development for a
stable and are not converted to other than permitted uses.
REQUIREMENTS
PROPOSED
Shall not exceed eight hundred square feet
An 800 square foot guest house
is proposed.
Shall not be located in the front yard or any
setback.
The guest house is not proposed
to be in the front yard or any
setback.
A kitchenette and sanitary facility consisting
of a shower, sink and toilet shall be permitted.
Applicant proposes and will be
a condition of approval to meet
the requirement
No vehicular access or paved parking area
shall be developed within fifty feet of the
guest house.
The driveway is more than fifty
feet away.
Occupancy of the guest house shall be limited
to persons employed on the premises, the
immediate family of the occupants of the
main residence or by the temporary guests of
the occupants of the main residence. No
temporary guest may remain in occupancy for
more than thirty days in any six-month
period.
This is a standard condition of
approval.
Renting of a guest house is prohibited.
T a standard condition of
approval.
11. Two detached garages are proposed (714 square feet and 441 square feet). Section
17.16.210 (A)(4) of the Zoning Ordinance contains conditions for a detached garage(s),
subject to approval of a conditional use permit. These conditions, listed below, are
intended to ensure that such structures are ancillary uses, do not eliminate an existing
or future development for a stable and are not converted to other than permitted uses.
REQUIREMENTS
PROPOSED
Shall not be located in the front yard or
any setback
Not located in front yard or setback
A sink and toilet are permitted
Not proposed
A kitchen or kitchenette shall not be
permitted
Not proposed
No sleeping quarters or renting of the
Standard condition
ZC NO. 901
structure shall be permitted
The Planning Commission shall have the
ability to limit the size of the detached
garage in relationship to the size of the
residence, topography, size of the lot and
other conditions
Planning Commission may limit the size
12. A 1,810 square foot stable is proposed with a 481 square foot loft above that will
be accessed directly from the main driveway. Two 260 square foot attached porches on
either end of the stable are also proposed (total porches 520 square feet). Pedestrian
access to the lower stable area will be provided via stairway south of the stable, and for
horses from the lower corral area north of the stable, via a 10' wide path extending
directly from the driveway and which will have decomposed granite surface. The corral
is proposed at 3,900 square feet. A 100 square foot open horse wash rack is also
proposed in the south-eastern most portion of the corral area. A 5' high maximum
retaining wall runs the perimeter of the corral.
Pursuant to the zoning code requirements the following is applicable to this request:
REQUIREMENTS
PROPOSED
Minimum 6' wide access with roughened surface
10 'wide access -way joining existing
driveway with roughened surface (not
paved)
Stable, corral not to be located on slopes
greater than 4:1
Grading with 5' retaining wall; 1,450 cubic
yards (550 cy cut; 900 cy. fill)
Not in front yard or side or front setback.
May be located up to 25' in rear setback.
Not proposed in any setback
Stable min. 35' from any residential structure
Proposed stable more than 35' from any
residential structure.
Stable building to be designed for rural and
agricultural uses only, but may include storage
for vehicles, household items
Stable is proposed with 5 stalls, tack space
that is 15.5% of the structure, and a 611
square foot feed/ loft area, all designed for
rural and agricultural uses.
Size to include the entire footprint including loft,
Ground floor (1,810 sf.):
1,010 sf. stalls; 425 sf center aisle; 375 sf. tack
MOM
Loft (611 sf.) - feed/hay storage area
if any
Minimum of 60% shall be maintained for
agricultural uses
Agricultural uses 84.5%
Maximum of 40% not to exceed 800 s.f. may be
maintained for a tack room use
Tack use area comprises 375 sf. or 15.5%
Includes tack room/storage & bathroom
Tack area may have sanitary and kitchen
amenities
Bathroom proposed; no kitchen
Tack area may have glazed openings
Will install
ZC NO. 901
Agricultural space entry doors to be min. 4'wide
,& 7.5' high; appearance of a stable door
Shall be a condition of approval.
Loft is permitted
Loft; proposed for feed/hay storage
Loft plate height may not exceed 7
The total height of the structure at its
highest peak is proposed to be 25' with a 7'
plate height shown for the loft. (Plate
heights per condition of approval.)
Exterior area of stables may not to be paved
Dirt or D.G. (condition of approval)
Corral minimum 550 sf.; fenced and contiguous
to stable. (Planning Commission may determine
the size of a corral)
Proposed 3,900 sq. ft. corral enclosed with 5
high maximum retaining walls
Access slope not to exceed 25%
From main driveway at 16% maximum
slope
Commercial uses or sleeping is not allowed
Applicant is not proposing any commercial
uses or sleeping in the stable
The applicant must comply with all other requirements of Chapter 17.18 of the Zoning
Ordinance pertaining to stables, as well as to all other regulations including, but not be
limited to undergrounding of utility lines to the structures, lighting, roof material, Fire
Department requirements and others.
13. The proposed disturbed area will be 45.2%, which exceeds the maximum
allowed disturbance of 40% (Municipal Code 17.16.070B). Grading for this project is
proposed to be 11,775 cubic yards of cut and 11,775 cubic yards of fill, 12,300 cubic
yards of over -excavation, and 12,300 cubic yards of recompaction and will be balanced
on site. The cut/excavation is for the guest house, driveway, front of the lot, north
horse access, and south portion of the lot primarily, and 1,300 cubic yards is for the
basement excavation. The fill is primarily for the north side of the house, the driveway,
and southwest corner of the area behind the new driveway approach, and 12,300 cubic
yards recompaction. The stable pad has a total cut of 550 cubic yards, and 900 cubic
yards of fill.
14. There are two building pads proposed. The residential building pad is proposed
at 44,100 square feet and will have coverage of 9,344 square feet or 21.2% with allowed
deductions, (previously with the tennis court -38.6%). The stable pad is proposed at
5,720 square feet with 2,149 square feet of coverage or 37.6% with allowed deductions.
15. The structural net lot coverage is proposed at 12,279 square feet or 6.56% with
allowed deductions (previously with tennis court - 10.7%), (20% max. permitted); and
the total lot coverage is proposed at 29,074 square feet or 15.5%, (previously with tennis
court -20.8%), (35% max. permitted).
16. In describing the criteria to be satisfied for a variance to exceed the maximum
permitted disturbance and walls that exceed 2.5' average height the applicant states: the
ZC NO. 901
existing house on the property is located partially in the setback and has structures in the
easement. The proposed project complies with development standards and moves all proposed
structures out of setbacks and nurre centrally on the lot, including the residence, which creates a
large front yard. Every effort has been made to keep the development centrally located on one
main pad to further limit the increase in disturbance. The disturbed area is proposed to be above
the development standards due to the existing topography of the site. The lot is sloped in nature
and in order to provide a building pad that meets the development guidelines, additional grading
and disturbance is required; the proposed retaining walls will help to limit this disturbance.
However, a variance is required due to their average height. When looking at the breakdown of
site disturbance, approximately 15% of the overall disturbance comes from equestrian uses, (i.e.
the stable and corral), and if these items were not being proposed the development would not
require a variance for disturbed area. The applicant believes that the addition of these equestrian
facilities help to further the City of Rolling Hills as an equestrian community and therefore the
variance should be granted. At the recommendation of the Planning Commission, alternative lot
configurations were also analyzed however the number of walls and disturbance was lowest
with the currently proposed plan
17. Rolling Hills Community Association will review this project at a later date.
18. When reviewing a development application the Planning Commission must
consider whether the proposed project meets the criteria for a Site Plan Review,
Conditional Use Permit and Variances, and must find that the proposed uses are
consistent with the General Plan and development standards of the City, including
provision for open space and maintaining rural environment and that the uses will not
adversely affect adjacent properties.
19. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
ZC NO. 901
Zoning Case No. 901
Sl l E PLAN REVIEW
EXIS11NG
PROPOSED
RA -S- 2 ZONE Shi BACKS
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
AND ACCESSORY
STRUCTURES, to be
demolished
NEW RESIDENCE WITH
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES,
DETACHED GARAGES,
STABLE
Front 50 ft from front easement line
Side: 35 ft from property line
Rear. 50 ft. from rear easement line
STRUCTURES
Residence
Basement
Garage attached
Garage detached
Pool/spa
Pool Equip.
Guest House
Stable
Loft for Stable
Recreation Court
Att Cov. Porches
Entryway
Service yard
Outdoor Kitchen
0 sq.ft
0 sq.ft
0 sq.ft
0 sq.ft
0 sq.ft
0 sq.ft
0 sq.ft
0 sq.ft
0 sq.ft
0 sq.ft
0 sq.ft
0 sq.ft
0 sq.ft
0 sq.ft
Residence
*Basement
Garage detached
Garage detached
Pool/spa
Pool Equip.
Guest House
Stable
*Loft for Stable
Att. Cov. Porches
Entryway
Service yard
Outdoor Kitchen
5,250 sq.ft
5,250 sq.ft.
714 sq.ft
441 sq.ft
964 sq.ft
50 sq.ft
800 sq.ft
1,810 sq.ft
481 sq.ft
1,445 sq.f .
275 sq.ft
300 sq.ft
350 sq.ft
.
(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).
•
TOTAL
0 sq.ft
TOTAL
12,399sq.ft
STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE
0%
12,279 sf w/allowances 6.56% of
187,196 sq.ft net lot area
(20% maximum)
TOTAL LOT COVERAGE
0%
29,074 w/allowances or 15.53% of
187,196 sq.ft net lot area
(35% maximum)
BUILDING PADS (30% guideline)
N/A
N/A
2L2% of 44,100 sq.ft pad
37.6% of 5,720 sq.ft pad
Residential
Stable
GRADING
N/A
11,775 cut. 11,775 cy fill, 12,300 cy
overexcavation, 12,300 cy
recompaction = balanced on site.
Site Plan Review required if
excavation and/or fill or combination
thereof that is more than 3 feet in
depth and covers more than 2,000
sq.ft) must be balanced on site.
DISTURBED AREA
N/A
45.2% (84,550 sq. ft.)
(40% maximum; any graded building
pad area, any remedial grading
(temporary disturbance), any graded
slopes and building pad areas, and
any nongraded area where
impervious surfaces exist)
STABLE (min. 450 SO.FT.
N/A
1,810 sq. ft with 481 sq. ft loft-
3,900 sq. ft.
& 550 SO.FT. CORRAL)
STABLE ACCESS
N/A
Proposed from Residence Pad
ROADWAY ACCESS
N/A
New off Pine Tree Lane
VIEWS
N/A
Planning Commission condition
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
N/A
Planning Commission condition
*Loft for stable and basement are not included in the calculations for structural covera
ZC NO. 901
ZC NO. 901 NEARBY PROPERTIES
(For information oni
Address
House size in
salt.
Lot Area (gross
acres)
1 Pine Tree
*6,516
4.66
2 Pine Tree
*6,211
2.24
3 Pine Tree
*4,674
5.13
4 Pine Tree
' 1,961
4.38
6 Pine Tree
6,148
1.31
7 Pine Tree
3,912
5.64
8 Pine Tree
2,812
2.23
10 Pine Tree
3,253
2.49
23 Portuguese Bend Road
*3,348
2.42
2 Pheasant Lane
5,651
5.0
Average
5,149
3.9
5 Pine Tree Lane
5,250 Proposed
5.15
NOTE: The above do not include garages, basements or accessory structures.
SOURCES. Assessors' records * City records
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT:
17.42.050 Basis for approval or denial of conditional use permit.
The Commission (and Council on appeal), in acting to approve a conditional use permit
application, may impose conditions as are reasonably necessary to ensure the project is
consistent with the General Plan, compatible with surrounding land use, and meets the
provisions and intent of this title. In making such a determination, the hearing body shall find
that the proposed use is in general accord with the following principles and standards:
A. That the proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan;
B. That the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and
structures have been considered, and that the use will not adversely affect or be materially
detrimental to these adjacent uses, building or structures;
C. That the site for the proposed conditional use is of adequate size and shape to
accommodate the use and buildings proposed;
D. That the proposed conditional use complies with all applicable development
standards of the zone district
E. That the proposed use is consistent with the portions of the Los Angeles County
Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste
facilities;
F.
ZC NO. 901
That the proposed conditional use observes the spirit and intent of this title.
SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA
17.46.010 Purpose.
The site plan review process is established to provide discretionary review of certain
development projects in the City for the purposes of ensuring that the proposed project is
consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates environmentally and aesthetically
sensitive grading practices; preserves existing mature vegetation; is compatible and consistent
with the scale, massing and development pattern in the immediate project vicinity; and
otherwise preserves and protects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills.
17.46.050 Required findings.
A. The Commission shall be required to make findings in acting to approve,
conditionally approve, or deny a site plan review application.
B. No project which requires site plan review approval shall be approved by the
Commission, or by the City Council on appeal, unless the following findings can be made:
1. The project complies with and is consistent with the goals and
policies of the general plan and all requirements of the zoning ordinance;
2. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped
state of the lot by minimizing building coverage. Lot coverage requirements are regarded as
maximums, and the actual amount of lot coverage permitted depends upon the existing
buildable area of the lot;
3. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the
natural terrain and surrounding residences;
4. The project preserves and integrates into the site design, to the
greatest extent possible, existing topographic features of the site, including surrounding native
vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls);
5. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of the site
and to minimize the amount of grading required to create the building area;
6. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect
drainage flow, unless such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course;
7. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature
trees and supplements these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping which is compatible
with and enhances the rural character of the community, and landscaping provides a buffer or
transition area between private and public areas;
8. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and
safe movement of pedestrians and vehicles; and
9. The project conforms to the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act.
CRITERIA FOR VARIANCES
17.38.050 Required findings. In granting a variance, the Commission (and Council on appeal)
must make the following 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;
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;
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;
ZC NO. 901
D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed;
E. That the variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant
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.
SOURCE: City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance
ZC NO. 901
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 _5:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Subject: 5 Pine Tree Lane
Date: Monday, April 18, 2016 10:08:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: Tony Podell cawpodell@gmail.com>
To: Yolanta Schwartz <ys@cityofrh.net"
[C Wendy Starks <wstarks@cityofrh.net>
Yolanta,
In reference to Tuesday, April 19th's meeting regarding 5 Pine Tree we challenge the approval of all
permit applications until we see the staking and all reports and approvals relevant to construction of the
house, outlying buildings, pool and tennis court.
Per the plans you showed me for #S Pine Tree the driveway has been relocated further down Pine Tree, that
and no
construction trucks or vehicles of any type using #3's driveway ever is our number one priority.
Thank you for your help,
Mary and Tony Podell
P.S. Would you please email me that you received this email.
RECEIVED.
APR 1 9 2016
City of Rolling 1-11115
By
Page 1 ofl
ati R' gat
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
TO:
FROM:
APPLICATION NO.
SITE LOCATION:
ZONING AND SIZE:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
DATE PUBLISHED:
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288
Agenda Item No. 8-A
Mtg. Date: 06-21-16
HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR
WENDY STARKS, AICP, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
ZONING CASE NO. 901 -RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL
5 PINE TREE LANE (LOT 94-RH)
RA -S-2, 5.15 ACRES (EXCL. ROADWAY EASEMENT)
MS. LAUREN SHARNG
TAVISHA NICHOLSON, BOLTON ENGINEERING
APRIL 7, 2016 & MAY 5, 2016
REQUEST AND PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
1. The applicant, Ms. Sharng requests a Site Plan Review for the construction of a
new 5,250 square foot residence, with 5,250 square foot basement, 1,155 square feet
detached garages- (714 and 441 square feet each), 1,445 square feet covered porches,
including 520 sq.ft. at the stable, 964 square foot swimming pool and spa, 50 square foot
pool equipment, 300 square foot service yard, 275 square foot entryway, retaining walls,
new driveway and 350 square foot outdoor kitchen, and grading for a total of 48,150
cubic yards of dirt (11,775 c.y. cut and 11,775 c.y. fill; 12,300 c.y. over -excavation and
12,300 c.y. re -compaction). The applicant also requests a Conditional Use Permit to
construct an 800 square foot guesthouse, the detached garages, and 1,810 square foot
stable with 611 square foot loft; and Variances to exceed the maximum permitted
average height of retaining walls and to exceed the maximum permitted disturbed area
of the lot.
ZC NO. 901, 5 Pine Tree Lane
A new driveway apron is also requested, and was reviewed and recommended for
approval by the Traffic Commission. However, the applicant would like to move the
driveway apron further north, so that a large Pine Tree could be retained. The Traffic
Commission will review the apron at their July 28 meeting. A condition has been placed
in the Resolution that a new driveway apron is subject to review and approval by the
Traffic Commission.
2. The Planning Commission held public hearings on April 19, and May 17, 2016
and a field trip on May 17, 2016 and following the review and discussion of the
revisions to the project, directed staff to prepare a Resolution of approval.
3. During the May 17, 2016 field visit and during the evening public hearing concerns
were expressed about the existing shared driveway with 3 Pine Tree Lane and access to
3 Pine Tree Lane during construction and the removal of large trees to accommodate
the construction.
Together with standard findings of facts and conditions of approval, conditions specific
to this project have been included in the draft Resolution, such as:
• Ensure that vehicular access to 3 Pine Tree Lane is not impacted by construction
activities
• Demolish the driveway on 5 Pine Tree Ln, but retain the access (apron) to 3 Pine
Tree Ln over 5 Pine Tree Ln property
A new driveway apron off of Pine Tree Lane to be reviewed and approved by the
Traffic Commission
• Provide photographic evidence of the condition of the common apron and
restore it after construction, if damaged
• Ensure Best Management Practices for maintenance of the stable and manure
control
• All utility lines to be placed underground
• Provide landscaping plan prior to obtaining a grading permit
• The project is subject to the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and Low
Impact Development Ordinance
4. It is recommended that the Planting Commission review and consider the
attached Resolution 2016-15 for adoption
ZC NO. 901
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-15
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW
FOR GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENCE WITH
A BASEMENT, DETACHED GARAGES, COVERED PORCHES,
STABLE, SWIMMING POOL WITH A SPA, RETAINING WALLS AND
NEW DRIVEWAY; A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A
GUEST HOUSE, DETACHED GARAGES, AND STABLE WITH LOFT;
AND VARIANCES TO EXCEED MAXIMUM PERMITTED AVERAGE
HEIGHT OF RETAINING WALLS AND TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM
PERMITTED LOT DISTURBANCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 901 AT 5
PINE TREE LANE, (LOT 94-RH), (SHARNG).
THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. An application was duly filed by Ms. Lauren Sharng to request a
Site Plan Review for the construction of a new 5,250 square foot residence, with a 5,250
square foot basement, 1,115 square feet of detached garages (714 and 441 square feet
each), 1,445 square feet covered porches including 520 square feet at the stable, 964
square foot swimming pool and spa, 50 square foot pool equipment, 300 square foot
service yard, 275 square foot entryway, retaining walls, new driveway, 350 square foot
outdoor kitchen, and grading for a total of 48,150 cubic yards of dirt (11,775 c.y. cut and
11,775 c.y. fill; 12,300 c.y. over -excavation and 12,300 c.y. re -compaction). The applicant
also requests a Conditional Use Permit to construct an 800 square foot guesthouse, the
detached garages, and 1,810 square foot stable with 611 square foot loft; and Variances
to exceed the maximum permitted average height of retaining walls and to exceed the
maximum permitted disturbed area of the lot.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings
to consider the application at their regular meeting on April 19, 2016 and in the field on
May 17, 2016 and continued to the evening meeting of May 17, 2016. Neighbors within
1,000 -foot radius were notified of the public hearings and a notice was published in the
Peninsula News on April 7, 2016 and May 5, 2016. The applicants and their agents were
notified of the public hearings in writing by first class mail and the applicant and her
agents were in attendance at the hearings. Evidence was heard and presented from all
persons interested in affecting said proposal, and from members of the City staff. Four
residents visited the site during the noticed field trip on May 17, 2016. During the first
public hearing on April 19, 2016, the Planning Commissioners expressed concerns with
the project and specifically the crowding of the structures on the building pad, the long
driveway and walls, grading, and the proposed tennis court in the front yard area. The
project was revised to eliminate the tennis court, the size of the residence was reduced
from 5,975 square feet with a 5,000 square foot basement to 5,250 square feet with a
Reso. 2016-15
5 Pine Tree Lane
5,250 square foot basement, the porches were increased to 1,445 square feet from 1,260
square feet, the pool/spa was reduced to 964 square feet from 1,152 square feet, the 275
square feet entryway was increased from 100 square feet, and the outdoor kitchen was
reduced to 350 square feet from 460 square feet. The loft in the stable was increased
from 481 square feet to 611 square feet. The applicant withdrew the application for a
CUP and several Variances for the previously proposed tennis court. The applicants
have also removed the previously proposed two bathrooms in the guest house (and are
now proposing one bathroom which complies with the Municipal Code), an out of
grade porch at the north-west corner of the house has been decreased and some of the
hardscape and stairs to provide more landscaped areas and a less crowded condition on
the building pad. The Planning Commission has reviewed, analyzed and studied said
revised proposal.
Section 3. The property is zoned RAS-2 and the gross lot area is 5.15 acres.
The net lbt area is 4.3 acres or 187,196 square feet. The existing property is currently
developed with a single -family residence, garage, and swimming pool, which will be
demolished. Access to the property is taken from a joint driveway approach with 3 Pine
Tree Lane. A Condition of Approval is for the applicant to abandon their portion of the
joint driveway once their new driveway is constructed and remove the concrete, but
retain the access serving 3 Pine Tree Lane.
Section 4. The Planning Commission finds that the project is exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act, (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 (new
construction of single family residence and accessory structures), and Section
15061(b)(3) (common sense exemption) of the CEQA guidelines.
Section 5. Section 17.46.030 requires a development plan to be submitted for
Site Plan Review and approval before any grading requiring a grading permit or any
new building or structure may be constructed or any expansion, addition, alteration or
repair to existing buildings may be made which involve changes to grading or an
increase to the size of the building or structure by not more than 999 square feet in any
thirty-six (36) month period. The grading for the structures (new residence, garages,
swimming pool, guest house, and stable) require Site Plan Review due to the fact that
they are new structures and per Zoning Code 17.46.020.A-2. The pool requires a Site
Plan Review due to the grading required for it under Zoning Code 17.46.020.A.2(a) and
the size, and the retaining walls require a Site Plan Review due to their height being
over 3' in height and over 2.5' average.
With respect to the Site Plan for grading and the proposed structures the Planning
Commission makes the following findings of fact
A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan, the
Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses because the proposed structures comply with
the General Plan requirement of low profile, low -density residential development with
sufficient open space between surrounding_ structures and maintaining sufficient
Peso. 2016-15
5 Pine Tree Lane
setbacks to provide buffers between residential uses. Although the disturbed area
exceeds the maximum permitted amount of 40% at 45.2%, a large portion of it is for the
proposed 1,810 square foot stable with 611 square foot loft (which requires a
Conditional Use Permit), and the associated 3,900 square foot corral along with the long
driveway that is needed to accommodate horse trailers. The stable and corral promote
the rural, equestrian aesthetic of Rolling Hills. None of the structures are in setbacks.
The project conforms to Zoning Code lot coverage requirements, except for disturbance.
The net lot area of the lot is 187,196 square feet. The structural net lot coverage is
proposed at 12,279 square feet or 6.56%, which includes all of the structures, with
allowance for permitted deductions, (20% max. permitted); and the total lot coverage
proposed, including the driveway would be 29,074 square feet or 15.5%, (35% max.
permitted). The disturbed area of the lot is proposed to be 45.2%, which exceeds the
maximum allowed disturbance of 40% (Municipal Code 17.16.070B).
B. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of
the lot by minimizing building coverage. The topography and the configuration of the
lot have been considered, and it was determined that the proposed development will
not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to adjacent uses, buildings, or
structures, because the proposed project will be constructed partially on the existing
building pad of the currently developed lot, will be the least intrusive to surrounding
properties, will be screened and landscaped with trees and shrubs, is of sufficient
distance from nearby residences so that it will not impact the view or privacy of
surrounding neighbors, and will allow the owners to enjoy their property without
deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners. The proposed
project would be located on a gentler slope of the property and leaving the steeper and
more densely vegetated areas in their natural state to the north and northeast, along
with the natural drainage course.
The project promotes equestrian uses, therefore furthering the City's goal to remain an
equestrian community.
C. The proposed development, as conditioned, is harmonious in scale and
mass with the site, and is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood when compared
to other residences in the vicinity of said lot as the proposed house is 5,250 square feet
and the average in the vicinity is 5,149 square feet. The development plan follows the
natural contours of the site to minimize grading by utilizing a portion of the misting
building pad for the new development. Due to the existing house being located in the
setback and easement it is necessary to move the house and therefore drop the pad
elevation in order to achieve the necessary building pad. The residence is proposed on
the shallowest sloped area with a basement being added to increase the residence size
while reducing the footprint. The slopes being created have been rounded and it was
attempted to mimic the existing slope in the area. The use of retaining walls along the
upper side of the building pad/back yard, stable and driveway has helped to minimize
grading.
Reso. 2016-15
5 Pine Tree Lane
D. The development plan will introduce additional landscaping, which is
compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community, and the
landscaping will provide a buffer or transition area between private and public areas.
There will be some clearing of existing landscaping due to overgrowth and improper
maintenance that has become a fire hazard.
E. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the
convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the new 20'
driveway will be safer to drive on as two cars can safely pass one another. There is
ample parking in the garages and there is a proposed parking pad at the front of the
house, outside of all setbacks, as Pine Tree Lane does not have wide shoulders to park
on so all visitor parking must be contained on site. An adequate driveway is proposed
to safely accommodate horse trailers to the stable and corral area.
Section 6. Sections 17.18.060 and 17.18.090 of the Rolling Hills Municipal
Code permit approval of a stable over 200 square feet and corral over 550 square feet
with a Conditional Use Permit. The proposed 1,810 square foot stable with 611 square
foot loft and 3,900 square foot corral comply with all requirements of these sections.
Two detached garages are proposed (714 square feet and 441 square feet). Section
17.16.210 (A)(4) of the Zoning Ordinance contains conditions for a detached garage(s),
subject to approval of a conditional use permit. An 800 square foot guesthouse is
proposed. Section 17.16.210 (A)(5) of the Zoning Ordinance contains conditions for a
guesthouse, subject to approval of a conditional use permit. All of the detached
structures comply with the provisions and conditions for such structures. With respect
to this request for Conditional Use Permits, the Planning Commission finds as follows:
A. Conditionally permitted uses are not outright permitted by the Rolling
Hills Municipal Code. The Commission must consider applications for a Conditional
Use Permit and may, with such conditions as are deemed necessary, approve a
conditional use which will not jeopardize, adversely affect, endanger or to otherwise
constitute a menace to the public health, safety or general welfare or be materially
detrimental to the property of other persons located in the vicinity of such use.
B. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit for the stable, corral, detached
garages, and guest house would be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the
Zoning Ordinance and General Plan because the uses are consistent with similar uses in
the community, and meet all the applicable code development standards for a stable
and corral, detached garages, and guesthouse and they are located in areas on the
property that are adequately sized to accommodate such uses. The proposed uses are
appropriately located in that they will be sufficiently separated from nearby structures
used for habitation or containing sleeping quarters. The stable/corral would be
constructed in furtherance of the General Plan goal of promoting and encouraging
equestrian uses. The detached garages are proposed to separate the residential
structures from the stable. The proposed guesthouse in a common amenity to Rolling
Hills.
Reso. 2016-15
5 Pine Tree Lane
4
C. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent structures have been
considered, and the project will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to
these adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed uses (stable/corral,
detached garages, and guest house) are located in the middle of a 4.3 acre net lot and
their general locations are of sufficient distance from nearby residences so as to not
impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors. The proposed stable is to be
located adjacent to the corral and a path designated for equestrian uses that runs from
the stable to the driveway is separate from the other outdoor living areas on the
property and will be comprised of decomposed granite. The loft area of the stable is
directly accessed from the driveway.
D. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural
terrain, and surrounding residences because the proposed uses (stable/corral, detached
garages, and guest house) complies with the low profile residential development
patient of the community and will not give the property an over -built look, and areas
will remain open and unobstructed. The lot is 4.3 acres net in size and is sufficiently
large to accommodate the proposed uses.
The stable will be compatible with the uses in the surrounding area because
Rolling Hills is an equestrian community and stables are encoufaged. The stable will
look like a stable and the 3,900 square foot corral will promote open space on the pad.
The detached garages will be compatible with surrounding uses as they meet the
requirements of the City as well as being proportioned to the house size. They will
function like garages and not a residential structure.
The guest house will be compatible with the uses in the surrounding area
because it will have the same architectural design as the house and is in the rear yard
and is an amenity other residences in Rolling Hills have.
E. The proposed conditional uses (stable/corral, detached garages, and guest
house) complies with all applicable development standards of the zone district and
requires Conditional Use Permits pursuant to Sections 17.18.060, 17.18.090,
17.16.210(A)(4), and 17.16.210(A)(5) of the Zoning Ordinance.
F. The proposed conditional uses are consistent with the portions of the Los
Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting criteria for
hazardous waste facilities because the project site is not listed on the current State of
California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List.
Section 7. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Code permit approval of
a variance from the standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when, due to
exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property and not applicable
to other similar properties in the same zone, strict application of the Code would deny
the property owner substantial property rights enjoyed by other properties in the same
Reso. 2016-15 5
5 Pine Tree Lane
vicinity and zone. The applicant seeks a variance from the requirement 17.16.190(F) that
walls not exceed five feet or 2.5 feet in average, and from 17.16.070(B) that disturbance be
limited to 40% of the net lot area. The walls do not exceed 5' high maximum but they do
not average out to 2.5' high and require a variance. The disturbance is proposed at
45.2%, which is higher than the permitted 40% due in large part to the proposed long
driveway. With respect to this request for Variances, 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 existing lot, despite it being over 5
acres gross, has approximately half of its overall area at a slope of 2:1 or steeper and the
remainder undulated and hilly and the lot requires grading in order to create a
sufficient flat area to construct the house and accessory structures. The existing building
pad cannot be utilized in its entirety for the new development, as most of it is located in
the setback. There is a drainage course along the western property line, which must
also be avoided. In order to generate the dirt needed for the pad, it was necessary to
drop the pad and the walls helped to achieve this. However, due to the slope in the rear
of the lot, and no grading allowed in the Association easements, the average wall height
did not average to 2.5'. The majority of the walls will not be visible from the street and
will mainly only be seen by the owner as they will be flanking the residential pad. The
walls for the stable will be visible from the western side. However, there is a steep
slope between the walls and the property line along with existing vegetation, which will
add additional screening for these walls
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,
which would be denied to the property in question absent a variance, because the site is
sloped in nature so in order to provide a pad that meets the development standards,
additional grading is required and it was necessary to push the limits of grading farther
out than if the lot did not have as much slope to it. The overage is not significant and
the property owner should not be denied the privilege of a new house because the
topographic nature of the lot makes it infeasible to comply strictly with Seddon
17.16.170.
The exceedance of the disturbance is due in large part to the proposed driveway.
Any concerns voiced by residents and the Planning Conunissioners during the public
hearing were addressed in the revised site plan and during the field visit to the site.
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. A minor increase in the overall percentage of disturbed
area on the lot will have no effect on the public welfare or on property or improvements
in the vicinity and the walls which exceed 2.5' average in height are not in any setbacks
and will not cause any line of sight issues on Pine Tree Lane due to the rows of existing
trees currently in the vicinity.
Reso.2016-15 6I
5 Pine Tree Lane
D. The variance does not grant special privileges to the applicant To the
contrary, absent a variance, the property owner would be deprived of the same rights
and privileges afforded to other property owners in the vicinity. Unique circumstances
applicable to the subject property make it infeasible for the property owner to comply
with Section 17.16.070. The minor overage requested will allow the property owner to
enjoy the same rights and privileges afforded to many other properties in the vicinity
and zone.
E. 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.
F. The variance request is consistent with the General Plan. The proposed
project, together with the variance, will be compatible with the objectives, policies,
general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan and will uphold the City's
goals to protect and promote construction that is rural in nature.
Section 8. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission
hereby approves Zoning Case No. 901 request for a Site Plan Review for the construction
of a new 5,250 square foot residence, with a 5,250 square foot basement, 1,115 square feet
of detached garages (714 and 441 square feet each), 1,445 square feet covered porches
including 520 square feet at the stable, 964 square foot swimming pool and spa, 50
square foot pool equipment, 300 square foot service yard, 275 square foot entryway,
retaining walls, new driveway, 350 square foot outdoor kitchen, and grading for a total
of 48,150 cubic yards of dirt (11,775 c.y. cut, 12,300 c.y. over excavation, and 11,775 c.y.
fill, and 12,300 c.y. re -compaction); Conditional Use Permit to construct an 800 square
foot guesthouse, the detached garages, and 1,810 square foot stable with 611 square foot
loft; and Variances to exceed the maximum permitted average height of retaining walls
and to exceed the maximum permitted disturbed area of the lot. With the proposed
grading, the disturbed area of the lot would be 45.2% subject to the following conditions:
A. The Site Plan, Conditional Use Permits, and Variances approvals shall
expire within two years from the effective date of approval as defined in Sections
17.46.080, 17.42.070, and 17.38.070 unless otherwise extended pursuant to the
requirements of these sections.
B. It is declared and made a condition of this approval 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, the opportunity for a hearing has been provided, and if requested, has
been held, and thereafter the applicant fails to correct the violation within a period of
thirty (30) days from the date of the City's determination.
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 set forth in this permit, or shown otherwise on an approved plan.
Reso. 2016-15 7
5 Pine Tree Lane
D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with
the site plan on file dated May 10, 2016 except as otherwise provided in these conditions.
The working drawings submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan
check review shall conform to the approved development plan. All conditions of the Site
Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Variance approvals shall be incorporated into
the building permit working drawings, and where applicable complied with prior to
issuance of a grading or building permit from the building department.
The conditions of approval of this Resolution shall be printed onto building plans
submitted to the Building Department for review and shall be kept on site at all times.
Any modifications and/or changes to the approved project, including resulting from field
conditions, shall be discussed and approved by staff prior to implementing the changes.
E. Prior to submittal of final working drawings to Building and Safety
Department for issuance of building permits, the plans for the project shall be submitted
to City staff for verification that the final plans are in compliance with the plans approved
by the Planning Commission.
F. A licensed professional preparing construction plans for this project for
Building Department review shall execute a Certificate affirming that the plans conform
in all respects to this Resolution approving this project and all of the conditions set forth
therein and the City's Building Code and Zoning Ordinance.
Further, the person obtaining a building and/or grading permit for this project
shall execute a Certificate of Construction stating that the project will be constructed
according to this Resolution and any plans approved therewith.
G. Structural lot coverage of the lot shall not exceed 12,279 square feet or 6.56%
of the net lot area, in conformance with lot coverage limitations (20% maximum).
The total lot coverage proposed, including structures and flatwork, shall not
exceed 29,074 square feet or 15.5%, of the net lot area, in conformance with lot coverage
limitations (35% max).
H. Grading for this project shall not exceed 11,775 cubic yards of cut and 11,775
cubic yards of fill; 12,300 cubic yards of over -excavation, and 12,300 cubic yards of
recompaction and shall be balanced on site. The disturbed area of the lot, including the
approved stable and corral shall not exceed 45.2%.
L The residential building pad is proposed at 44,100 square feet and shall not
exceed coverage of 9,344 square feet or 21.2% with allowed deductions. The stable pad is
proposed at 5,720 square feet and shall not exceed 2,149 square feet of coverage or 37.6%
with allowed deductions.
Reso. 2016-15
5 Pine Tree Lane
J. A new driveway shall be provided per the Fire Department requirements
and the apron of the driveway shall be subject to review and approval by the Traffic
Commission
Further, the portion of the existing shared driveway with 3 Pine Tree Lane that is
located on the property at 5 Pine Tree Lane shall be abandoned and the concrete removed
once the new driveway off Pine Tree Lane is completed. At no time shall vehicular access
to 3 Pine Tree Lane be impacted by construction activities at 5 Pine Tree Lane. The
driveway apron serving 3 Pine Tree Lane, but located on 5 Pine Tree Lane shall be
unaffected by this development and shall be available at all times for egress and ingress
to 3 Pine Tree Lane. Photographic evidence of the condition of the shared driveway and
apron with 3 Pine Tree Lane shall be submitted to the Planning Department before any
construction or demolition. Any damage caused to the apron, easements or curbs by
construction activities shall be restored at the expense of the applicant.
K. Access to the stable and to the corral shall be decomposed granite or like
100% pervious roughened material.
L. Only one sanitary facility consisting of a shower, sink, and a toilet and a
kitchenette is permitted in the guesthouse per Section 17.16.210(A)(5)(c).
M. A minimum of four -foot level path and/or walkway, which does not have
to be paved, shall be provided around the entire perimeter of all of the proposed
structures, or as otherwise required by the Fire Department.
N. At any time there are horses on the property, Best
Management Practices (BMPs) shall be applied for manure control, including but not be
limited to removal of the manure on a daily basis or provision of a receptacle with a tight
closing lid that is constructed of brick, stone, concrete, metal or wood lined with metal or
other sound material and that is safeguarded against access by flies. The contents of said
receptacles shall be removed once a week. It is prohibited to dispose of manure or any
animal waste into the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4), into natural
drainage course or spread on the property.
O. The pool equipment area shall be enclosed and screened with landscaping.
Per LA County Building Code, pool barrier/fencing shall be required.
P. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Lighting Ordinance
of the City of Rolling Hills (RHMC 17.16.190 E), pertaining to lighting on said property,
roofing and material requirements of properties in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity
Zone.
Q. All utility lines to the residence, guesthouse, detached garages, and stable
shall be placed underground, subject to all applicable standards and requirements.
Reso. 2016-15
5 Pine Tree Lane
J
R. A drainage plan, as required by the Building Department shall be prepared
and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of a construction permit. Such plan shall be
subject to LA County Code requirements.
S. All graded slopes shall be landscaped. A Landscaping plan shall be
submitted to the City in conformance with Fire Department Fuel Modification
requirements and graded slopes. Prior to finaling the project, trees and shrubs shall be
planted to screen the project from the neighbors. The landscaping shall not form a hedge
like screen but be offset. The height of any new trees and shrubs, to be planted in
conjunction with this project, shall not at any time exceed the ridgeline of the roof of the
structures, which they are screening. The landscaping plan shall utilize to the maximum
extent feasible, plants that are native to the area, are water -wise and are consistent with
the rural character of the community.
The landscaping shall be subject to the requirements of the City's Water Efficient
Landscape Ordinance, (Chapter 13.18of the RHMC).
T. The setback lines and roadway easement lines in the vicinity of the
construction for this project shall remain staked throughout the construction. A
construction fence may be required.
U. Perimeter easements, including roadway easements and trails, if any, shall
remain free and clear of any improvements including, but not be limited to fences-
indudingconstruction fences, any hardscape, driveways, landscaping, irrigation and
drainage devices, except as otherwise approved by the Rolling Hills Community
Association.
V. Minimum of 50% of any construction materials must be recycled or diverted
from landfills. The hauler of the materials shall obtain City's Construction and
Demolition permits for waste hauling prior to start of work and provide proper
documentation to the City.
W. During construction, conformance with the air quality management district
requirements, stormwater pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances
and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle
trips, noise, dust, and objectionable odors shall be required.
X. During construction, all parking shall take place on the project site, on the
new driveway and, if necessary, any overflow parking shall take place within the
unimproved roadway easements on the east side of Pine Tree Lane adjacent to project site
only, and shall not obstruct neighboring driveways. During construction, to the
maximum extent feasible, employees of the contractor shall car-pool into the City.
Y. During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule and
regulate construction and related traffic noise throughout the day between the hours of 7
Reso.2016-15 10
5 Pine Tree Lane rJ
AM and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when construction and mechanical
equipment noise is permitted, so as not to interfere with the quiet residential
environment of the City of Rolling Hills.
Z. The contractor shall not use tools that could produce a spark, including for
clearing and grubbing, during red flag warning conditions. Weather conditions can be
found at:
httpr,/fwww.wrh.noaa.gov/lox/main.php?suite=safetp&page=hazard definitions#FIRE.
It is the sole responsibility of the property owner and/or his/her contractor to monitor
the red flag warning conditions. Should a red flag warning be declared and if work is to
be conducted on the property, the contractor shall have readily available fire
distinguisher.
AA. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water
Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices
(BMP's) requirements related to solid waste, drainage and storm water drainage facilities
management and to the City's Low Impact development Ordinance (LID). Further the
property owners shall be required to conform to the County Health Department
requirements for a septic system
AB. Prior to finaling of the project an "as graded" and an "as constructed" plans
and certifications, including certifications of ridgelines of the structures, shall be provided
to the Planning Department and the Building Department to ascertain that the completed
project is in compliance with the approved plans. In addition, any modifications made to
the project during construction, shall be depicted on the "as built/as graded" plan.
AC. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of
this permit pursuant to Zoning Ordinance, or the approval shall not be effective. The
affidavit shall be recorded together with the resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADO1'1 E'D THIS 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2016.
BRAD CHEL.F, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK
Reso. 2016-15
5 Pine Tree Lane
Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public
hearing on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section
17.54.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code and Code of Civil Procedure Section
1094.6.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
) §§
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2016-15 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR
GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENCE WITH A
BASEMENT, DETACHED GARAGES, COVERED PORCHES, STABLE,
SWIMMING POOL WITH A SPA, RETAINING WALLS AND NEW DRIVEWAY;
A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A GUEST HOUSE,
DETACHED GARAGES, AND STABLE WITH LOFT; AND VARIANCES TO
EXCEED MAXIMUM PERMIT I D AVERAGE HEIGHT OF RETAINING WALLS
AND TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERIvIlTTED LOT DISTURBANCE IN
ZONING CASE NO. 901 AT 5 PINE TREE LANE, (LOT 94-RH), (SHARNG).
was approved and adopted at regular meeting of the Planning Commission on
June 21, 2016 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
HEIDI LUCE,
Reso. 2016-15
5 Pine Tree Lane
terf eiR�gal
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO.2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 80274
(310) 377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288
Agenda Item No.: 5-A
Mtg. Date: 07/11/16
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR
THROUGH: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER W~ 1�
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2016-15. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A
SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENCE
WITH A BASEMENT, DETACHED GARAGES, COVERED PORCHES, STABLE,
SWIMMING POOL WITH A SPA, RETAINING WALLS AND NEW DRIVEWAY; A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A GUEST HOUSE, DETACHED
GARAGES, AND STABLE WITH LOFT; AND VARIANCTFS TO EXCEED MAXIMUM
PERMITTED AVERAGE HEIGHT OF RETAINING WALLS AND TO EXUthD THE
MAXIMUM PERMUTED LOT DISTURBANCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 901 AT 5 PINE
TREE LANE, (LOT 94-RH), (SHARNG).
AND
RECOMMENDATION FROM THE TRAFFIC COMMISSION TO APPROVE A NEW
DRIVEWAY APRON
REQUEST, PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AND BACKGROUND
1. It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this report or provide
other direction to staff.
2. The applicant, Ms. Lauren Shang requested a Site Plan Review for the
construction of a new 5,250 square foot residence, with a 5,250 square foot basement,
1,115 square feet of detached garages (714 and 441 square feet each), 1,445 square feet
covered porches including 520 square feet at the stable, 964 square foot swimming pool
and spa, 50 square foot pool equipment, 300 square foot service yard, 275 square foot
entryway, retaining walls, new driveway, 350 square foot outdoor kitchen, and grading
for a total of 48,150 cubic yards of dirt (11,775 c.y. cut and 11,775 c.y. fill; 12,300 c.y. over -
excavation and 12,300 c.y. re -compaction). The applicant also requests a Conditional
Use Permit to construct an 800 square foot guesthouse, the detached garages, and 1,810
square foot stable with 611 square foot loft; and Variances to exceed the maximum
permitted average height of retaining walls and to exceed the maximum permitted
disturbed area of the lot, at 5 Pine Tree Lane. The existing residence is proposed to be
demolished.
3. Currently the existing driveway apron serves two properties, 3 and 5 Pine Tree
Lane, and at its starting point off of Pine Tree Lane is located in its entirety on 5 Pine
Tree Lane; and it then widens out towards each property. With the new project the
access past the apron to 5 Pine Tree Lane will be abandoned, however, it is a
requirement of the approval that the apron leading to 3 Pine Tree Lane remains intact. A
new driveway will serve 5 Pine Tree Lane. The Traffic Commission recommended
approval of the new apron.
4. The Planning Commission by a vote 4-0 approved the project being satisfied with
the modifications made by the applicant to the project. (Commissioner Kirkpatrick was
absent - however, at the previous meeting of the Planning Commission he voted to
direct staff to bring a Resolution of approval).
The Commissioners found that the project is compatible with the neighborhood, that the
changes made by the applicant were satisfactory and addressed their concern, that the
project promotes equestrian uses in the City, that the project is not crowded or obtrusive
to neighbors, that it corrects access to the property and adjacent property, that the
project to maximum extent practicable utilizes the existing building pad, leaving the
most steeper areas intact and that in general it is an improvement over the existing
conditions on the property.
Together with standard findings of facts and conditions of approval, conditions specific
to this project have been included in the Resolution, such as:
• Ensure that vehicular access to 3 Pine Tree Lane is not impacted by construction
activities.
•: Demolish the driveway on 5 Pine Tree Ln, but retain the access (apron) to 3 Pine
Tree Ln over 5 Pine Tree Ln property.
• A new driveway apron off of Pine Tree Lane to be reviewed and approved by the
Traffic Commission.
• Provide photographic evidence of the condition of the common apron and restore
it after construction, if damaged.
• Ensure Best Management Practices for maintenance of the stable and manure
control.
• All utility lines to be placed underground.
• Provide landscaping plan prior to obtaining a grading permit
The project is subject to the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and Low
Impact Development Ordinance.
5. During the review process concerns were expressed 'by the 'Commissioners
regarding the location of the originally proposed tennis court, grading and variances
requested for the tennis court. The applicant withdrew the request for the tennis court
ZC NO. 901
and has revised the project by decreasing the size of the residence and out of grade
porches. In addition, some of the hardscape and stairs were eliminated to provide more
landscaped areas and a less crowded condition on the building pad.
Several neighbors expressed concerns with the project as well. At the onset of the
proceedings, the neighbor at 3 Pine Tree Lane was concerned with the project in general,
but more specifically with what effect the project will have on their common driveway.
Since that time he sold the property and the new property owner, Mr. Keith Murphy,
submitted two emails, one before he took possession of the property and one afterwards,
also expressing concerns. Following Planning Commission approval, Mr. Murphy
visited City Hall and reviewed the files for this project. Mr. Murphy has corresponded
with staff by email regarding appeal procedures, but as of the writing of this report no
correspondence was received to that effect. In addition, during the field trip the property
owner at 10 Pine Tree Lane expressed concerns that the project will be visible from his
property and that many Pine Trees and other vegetation will be removed. The
correspondence is attached.
Also enclosed is a letter to the City Council from Lauren Shrang, the property owner of 5
Pine Tree Lane, received on July 6, 2016. In her letter, Ms. Shrang summarizes the
approval process that she went through and Mr. Murphy's objections. She states that
she offered to meet with him but is unable to arrange a date. She expresses that if Mr.
Murphy appeals the decision of the Planning Commission, it will substantially delay her
project and states that Mr. Murphy did not submit a specific objection, but a general one
to the entire project.
6. The property is zoned RAS-2'and the gross lot area is 5:15 acres. The net lot area
is 4.3 acres or 187,196 square feet. The existing property is currently developed with a
single -family residence, garage, and swimming pool, which will be demolished. Access
to the property is taken from a joint driveway approach with 3 Pine Tree Lane.
7. A previous property owner was granted an approval to subdivide the property
into a two -lots. The approval expired on January 12, 2013. In 2004 approval was granted
to separate the driveway access to 3 and 5 Pine Tree Lane and construct two new
driveways, one on each property, however the driveways were not constructed.
MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE
8. The new residence is proposed at '5;250 square feet and the floor level will be
about 10' lower than the existing residence on the lot removing potential view issues
from neighbors. The proposed residence will have a maximum ridge height of 17'6"
above the finished floor, plus 3' high chimneys. Most of the residence has an out of
grade condition. The maximum ridge height of the residence with the out of grade
condition is 176" which will be softened by a 2'6" high planter wall on the northwest
corner where the out of grade condition is the most significant. Most of the north face of
the residence except for the front entrance is proposed to have an out -of -grade condition.
ZC NO. 901
The remainder of the residence varies in height above the finished grade between 2.5 to 4
feet.
The garages are proposed to have a maximum ridge height of 14'. The guest house will
have a maximum ridge height of 15'6" above finished floor plus a 3' high chimney. The
stable ridge will be 25' from the finished floor. Viewing from the driveway, the stable
would be below the driveway but the loft is proposed to be 11'4" in height and accessed
from the driveway. As a condition of approval all access areas for the stable including by
the loft will be required to be decomposed granite or other pervious material.
The basement is proposed to be 5,250 square feet and be contained entirely within the
footprint of the new residence with 4 light wells proposed. The residence is proposed on
the shallowest sloped area with a basement being added to increase the residence size
while reducing the footprint. None of the proposed structures are in setbacks or
easements.
9. The lot drains to the north of the property and the run-off from the proposed
structures is proposed to be collected in underground pipes that will flow into a 360
square foot bio-filtration unit with maximum 3' high walls, which will filter the water
and disperse into a dissipater, located just below it with maximum 4' high walls.
10. The applicant is proposing a new driveway off of Pine Tree Lane. Per the Fire
Department requirement, the driveway will be 20' wide and include a turn -around area
to accommodate fire truck access. The proposed driveway is 10,400 square feet of which
8.1% is in the front setback and complies with Section 17.16.150B that states that
driveways shall not cover more than 20% of the area of the setback in which they are
located and the Traffic Commission reviewed the driveway access at their May 26th
meeting and recommended approval. Since that time the applicant proposes to move the
driveway further north, approximately 20 feet, in order to retain one or two Pine Trees.
The Traffic Commission will review this access at their July 23rd meeting and staff will
report their recommendations to the City Council afterwards. Meanwhile, the originally
approved driveway apron stays. An 850 square foot guest parking pad is proposed in
front, but below the residence, and adjacent to the drcular driveway. The front of the
house will be accessed by stairs from the guest parking.
11. The applicant is proposing a 3' to 5' high maximum retaining walls along the
entire perimeter of the building pad. A 3' high max retaining wall along the northern
portion of the driveway is proposed and a 4' high maximum wall is proposed along the
guest parking area. A 3'-5' high retaining wall is proposed along the southern perimeter
of the building pad. The walls will not average out to 2.5' in height, and the applicants
requests a variance.
12. An 800 square foot guest house is proposed. Section 17.16.210 (A) (5) of the Zoning
Ordinance contains conditions for a guest house, subject to approval of a conditional use
permit. These conditions, listed below, are intended to ensure that such structures are
ZC NO. 901
ancillary uses, do not eliminate an existing or future development for a stable and are
not converted to other than permitted uses.
REQUIREMENTS
PROPOSED
Shall not exceed eight hundred square feet
An 800 square foot guest house is
proposed.
Shall not be located in the front yard or any
setback.
The guest house is not in the
front yard or any setback.
A kitchenette and sanitary facility consisting of
a shower, sink and toilet shall be permitted.
ofpp cant p alb to meet ditihe
requirement
No vehicular access or paved parking area
shall be developed within fifty feet of the guest
house.
The driveway is more than fifty
feet away.
Occupancy of the guest house shall be limited
to persons employed on the premises, the
immediate family of the occupants of the main
residence or by the temporary guests of the
occupants of the main residence. No
temporary guest may remain in occupancy for
more than thirty days in any six-month period.
This is a standard condition of
approval.
Renting of a guest house is prohibited.
T a standard condition of
approval.
13. Two detached garages are proposed (714 square feet and 441 square feet). Section
17.16.210 (A)(4) of the Zoning Ordinance contains conditions for a detached garage(s),
subject to approval of a conditional use permit. These conditions, listed below, are
intended to ensure that such structures are ancillary uses, do not eliminate an existing or
future development for a stable and are not converted to other than permitted uses.
REQUIREMENTS
PROPOSED
Shall not be located in the front yard or
any setback
Not located in front yard or setback
A sink and toilet are permitted
Not proposed
A kitchen or kitchenette shall not be
permitted
Not proposed
No sleeping quarters or renting of the
structure shall be permitted
Standard condition
The Planning Commission shall have the
ability to limit the size of the detached
garage in relationship to the size of the
residence, topography, size of the lot and
other conditions
Planning Commission did not require
smaller size.
ZC NO. 901
14. A 1,810 square foot stable is proposed with a 611 square foot loft above that will
be accessed directly from the main driveway. Two 260 square foot attached porches on
either end of the stable are also proposed (total porches 520 square feet). Pedestrian
access to the lower stable area will be provided via stairway south of the stable, and for
horses from the lower corral area north of the stable, via a 10' wide path extending
directly from the driveway and which will have decomposed granite surface. The corral
is proposed at 3,900 square feet. A 100 square foot open horse wash rack is also
proposed in the south-eastern most portion of the corral area. A 5' high maximum
retaining wall runs the perimeter of the corral.
Pursuant to the zoning code requirements the following is applicable to this request:
REQUIREMENTS
PROPOSED
Minimum 6' wide access with roughened
surface
10 'wide access -way joining existing
driveway with roughened surface (not
paved)
Stable, corral not to be located on slopes
greater than 4:1
Grading with 5' retaining wall; 1,450
cubic yards (550 cy cut; 900 cy. fill)
Not in front yard or side or front setback.
May be located up to 25' in rear setback.
Not proposed in any setback
Stable min. 35' from any residential structure
Proposed stable more than 35' from
any residential structure.
Stable building to be designed for rural and
agricultural uses only, but may include storage
for vehides, household items
Stable is proposed with 5 stalls, tack
space that is 15.5% of the structure, anc
a 611 square foot feed/ loft area, all
designed for rural and agricultural
uses.
Size to include the entire footprint including
loft, if any
Ground floor (1,810 sf.):
1,010 sf. stalls; 425 sf center aisle; 375 si
tack room
Loft (611 sf.) - feed/hay storage area
Minimum of 60% shall be maintained for
agricultural uses
Agricultural uses 84.5%
Maximum of 40% not to exceed 800 s.f. may be
maintained for a tack room use
Tack use area comprises 375 sf. or
155%
Includes tack room/storage &
bathroom
Tack area may have sanitary and kitchen
amenities
Bathroom proposed; no kitchen
Tack area may have glazed openings
Will install
Agricultural space entry doors to be min. 4'wide
& 7.5' high; appearance of a stable door
Shall be a condition of approval.
Loft is permitted
Loft; proposed for feed/hay storage
Loft plate height may not exceed 7 _
The total height of the structure at its
ZC NO. 901
highest peak is proposed to be 25' witli
a 7' plate height shown for the loft.
(Plate heights per condition of
approval.)
Exterior area of stables may not to be paved
Dirt or D.G. (condition of approval)
Corral minimum 550 sf.; fenced and contiguous
to stable. (Planning Commission may determine
the size of a corral)
Proposed 3,900 sq. ft. corral enclosed
with 5' high maximum retaining walls
Access slope not to exceed 25%
From main driveway at 16% maximua
slope
Commercial uses or sleeping is not allowed
Applicant is not proposing any
commercial uses or sleeping in the
stable
The applicant must comply with all other requirements of Chapter 17.18 of the Zoning
Ordinance pertaining to stables, as well as to all other regulations including, but not be
limited to undergrounding of utility lines to the structures, lighting, roof material, Fire
Department requirements and others.
15. The proposed disturbed area will be 45.2%, which exceeds the maximum allowed
disturbance of 40% (Municipal Code 17.16.070B). The project does not qualify for greater
than 40% disturbance, as the resulting slopes will not be less than 2:1 grade. Grading for
this project is proposed to be 11,775 cubic yards of cut and 11,775 cubic yards of fill,
12,300 cubic yards of over -excavation, and 12,300 cubic yards of recompaction and will
be balanced on site. The cut/excavation is for the guest house, driveway, front of the
lot, north horse access, and south portion of the lot primarily, and 1,300 cubic yards is for
the basement excavation. The fill is primarily for the north side of the house, the
driveway, and southwest corner of the area behind the new driveway approach, and
12,300 cubic yards recompaction. The stable pad has a total cut of 550 cubic yards, and
900 cubic yards of fill.
16. There are two building pads proposed. The residential building pad is proposed
at 44,100 square feet and will have coverage of 9,344 square feet or 21.2% with allowed
deductions, (previously with the tennis court -38.6%). The stable pad is proposed at 5,720
square feet with 2,149 square feet of coverage or 37.6% with allowed deductions.
17. The structural net lot coverage is proposed at 12,279 square feet or 6.56% with
allowed deductions (previously with tennis court - 10.7%), (20% max. permitted); and
the total lot coverage is proposed at 29,074 square feet or 15.5%, (previously with tennis
court -20.8%), (35% max. permitted).
18. In describing the criteria to be satisfied for a variance to exceed the maximum
permitted disturbance and walls that exceed 2.5' average height the applicant states: the
existing house on the property is located partially in the setback and has structures in the
easement. The proposed project complies with development standards and moves all proposed
ZC NO. 901
existing house on the property is located partially in the setback and has structures in the
easement. The proposed project complies with development standards and moves all proposed
structures out of setbacks and more centrally on the lot, including the residence, which creates a
large front yard. Every effort has been made to keep the development centrally located on one
main pad to further limit the increase in disturbance. 'The disturbed area is proposed to be above
the development standards due to the existing topography of the site. The lot is sloped in nature
and in order to provide a building pad that meets the development guidelines, additional grading
and disturbance is required; the proposed retaining walls will help to limit this disturbance.
However, a variance is required due to their average height. When looking at the breakdown of
site disturbance, approximately 15% of the overall disturbance comes from equestrian uses, (i.e.
the stable and corral), and if these items were not being proposed the development would not
require a variance for disturbed area. The applicant believes that the addition of these equestrian
facilities help to further the City of Rolling Hills as an equestrian community and therefore the
variance should be granted. At the recommendation of the Planning Commission, alternative lot
configurations were also analyzed however the number of walls and disturbance was lowest
with the currently proposed plan
19. Rolling Hills Community Association will review this project at a later date.
20. When reviewing a development application the Planning Commission must
consider whether the proposed project meets the criteria for a Site Plan Review,
Conditional Use Permit and Variances, and must find that the proposed uses are
consistent with the General Plan and development standards of the City, including
provision for open space and maintaining rural environment and that the uses will not
adversely affect adjacent properties.
21. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
ZC NO. 901
Zoning Case No. 901
SITE PLAN REVIEW
PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED
PROPOSED -PC APPROVED
RA -S- 2 ZONE SETBACKS
NEW RESIDENCE VVITH
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES,
DETACHED GARAGES,
STABLE/LOFT
NEW RESIDENCE WITH
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES,
DETACHED GARAGES,
STABLE/LOFT
Front: 50 ft from front easement line
Side: 35 ft. from property line
Rear: 50 ft from rear easement line
STRUCTURES
Residence
Basement
Garage attached
Garage detached
Pool/spa
Pool Equip.
Guest House
Stable
Loft for Stable
Recreation Court
Att. Cov. Porches
Entryway
Service yard
Outdoor Kitchen
5,975 sq.ft
5,000 sq.ft.
714 sq.ft
441 sq.ft.
1,152sq.ft.
50 sq.ft
800 sq.ft
1,810 sq.ft
611 sq.ft
7,000 sq.ft
1,360 sq.ft.
100 sq.ft.
300 sq.ft
460 sq.ft.
Residence
"Basement
Garage detached
Garage detached
Pool/spa
Pool Equip.
Guest House
Stable
•Loft for Stable
Att Cov. Porches
Entryway
Service yard
Outdoor Kitchen
5,250 sq.ft.
5,250 sq.ft.
714 sq.ft.
441 sq.ft.
964 sq.ft.
50 sq.ft
800 sq.ft
1,810 sq.ft
611 sq.ft
1,445 sq.ft.
275 sq.ft.
300 sq.ft
350 sq.ft.
(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).
TOTAL
20,162 sq.ft
TOTAL
12,399sq.ft
STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE
20,042 sf w/allowances 10.7% of
187,196 sq.ft. net lot area
12,279 sf w/allowances 6.56% of
187,196 sq.ft. net lot area
(20% maximum)
TOTAL LOT COVERAGE
39,002 w/allowances or 20.8% of
187,196 sq.ft. net lot area
29,074 w/allowances or 15.53% of
187,196 sq.ft. net lot area
(35% maximum)
BUILDING PADS (30% guideline)
38.6% of 44,100 sq.ft. pad
37.6% of 5,720 sq.ft pad
21.2% of 44,100 sq.ft. pad
37.6% of 5,720 sq.ft pad
Residential
Stable
GRADING
12,745 cy cut, 12,745 cy fill,
10,300 cy overexcavation, 10,300
cy recompaction = balanced on
site. •
11,775 cut, 11,775 cy fill, 12,300 cy
overexcavation, 12,300 cy
recompaction = balanced on site.
Site Plan Review required if
excavation and/or fill or combination
thereof that is more than 3 feet in
depth and covers more than 2,000
sq.ft) must be balanced on site.
DISTURBED AREA
45.2% (84,550 sq. ft)
45.2% (84,550 sq. ft.)
(40% maximum; any graded building
pad area, any remedial grading
(temporary disturbance), any graded
slopes and building pad areas, and
any nongraded area where
impervious surfaces exist)
STABLE (min. 450 SO.FT.
1,810 sq. ft. with 611 sq. ft loft-
3,900 sq. ft.
1,810 sq. ft. with 611 sq. ft. loft-
3,900 sq. ft.
& 550 SO.FT. CORRAL)
STABLE ACCESS
Proposed from Residence Pad
Proposed from Residence Pad
ROADWAY ACCESS
New off Pine Tree Lane
New off Pine Tree Lane
VIEWS
Planning Commission condition
Planning Commission condition
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Planning Commission condition
Planning Commission condition
"Loft for stable and basement are not included in the calculations for structural coverage
ZC NO. 991
NEARBY PROPERTIES (For information only)
Address
House size in
sq.ft.
Lot Area (gross
acres)
1 Pine Tree
*6,516
4.66
2 Pine Tree
*6,211
2.24
3 Pine Tree
*4,674
5.13
4 Pine Tree
*8,961
4.38
6 Pine Tree
6,148
1.31
7 Pine Tree
3,912
5.64
8 Pine Tree
2,812
2.23
10 Pine Tree
3,253
2.49
23 Portuguese Bend Road
*3,348
2.42
2 Pheasant Lane
5,651
5.0
Average
5,149
3.9
5 Pine Tree Lane
5,250 Proposed
5.15
NOTE The above do not include garages, basements or accessory structures.
SOURCES: Assessors' records * City address file records
The following table lists stables /sizes approved since 2011
Location
Square Feet / No. of Stories
11 Blackwater Cyn. Rd.
890 sq. ft. one story
5 Buggy Whip
890 sq. ft. one story
0 Chestnut
900 sq. ft. one story
9 Chuckwagon Rd.
1,296 sq. ft. first floor / 792 sq. ft. loft
2,088 sq.ft. total
10 Crest Rd. W.
735 sq. ft. first floor / 453 sq. ft. Loft
1,188 sq.ft. total
49 Eastfield
600 sq. ft. one story
12 Johns Cyn. Rd.
735 sq. ft. one story
3 Meadowlark
480 sf. first floor / 360 sf. loft
840 sq.ft. total
29 Middleridge Rd. S.
2,160 sq. ft. first floor / 800 sf. loft with
center aisle; 2,960 sq.ft. total
6 Portuguese Bend Rd.
450 sq. ft. one story
77 Crest Rd. E
3,456 sq. ft. first floor/ 235 sq.ft loft with
center isle; 3,691 sq.ft. total
1 Pine Tree Lane
2,976 sq. ft. one story
11 Saddleback
2,415 sq. ft. with 625 sq. ft. loft with
center isle; 3,040 sq.ft. total
34 Saddleback Rd.
Proposed 976 sq.ft. - one story
5 Pine Tree Lane
1,810 sq. ft. with 611 sq. ft. loft;
2,421 sq.f.t total
ZC NO. 901
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT:
11.42.050 Basis for approval or denial of conditional use permit.
The Commission (and Council on appeal), in acting to approve a conditional use permit
application, may impose conditions as are reasonably necessary to ensure the project is
consistent with the General Plan, compatible with surrounding land use, and meets the
provisions and intent of this title. In making such a determination, the hearing body shall find
that the proposed use is in general accord with the following principles and standards:
A. That the proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan;
B. That the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and
structures have been considered, and that the use will not adversely affect or be materially
detrimental to these adjacent uses, building or structures;
C. That the site for the proposed conditional use is of adequate size and shape to
accommodate the use and buildings proposed;
D. That the proposed conditional use complies with all applicable development
standards of the zone district;
E. That the proposed use is consistent with the portions of the Los Angeles County
Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste
facilities;
F. That the proposed conditional use observes the spirit and intent of this title.
SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA
11.46.010 Purpose.
The site plan review process is established to provide discretionary review of certain
development projects in the City for the purposes of ensuring that the proposed project is
consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates environmentally and aesthetically sensitive
grading practices; preserves existing mature vegetation; is compatible and consistent with the
scale, massing and development pattern in the immediate project vicinity; and otherwise
preserves and protects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills.
11.46.050 Required findings.
A. The Commission shall be required to make findings in acting to approve,
conditionally approve, or deny a site plan review application.
B. No project which requires site plan review approval shall be approved by the
Commission, or by the City Council on appeal, unless the following findings can be made:
1. The project complies with and is consistent with the goals and
policies of the general plan and all requirements of the zoning ordinance;
2. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped
state of the lot by minimizing building coverage. Lot coverage requirements are regarded as
maximums, and the actual amount of lot coverage permitted depends upon the existing
buildable area of the lot;
3.
The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the
natural terrain and surrounding residences;
4. The project preserves and integrates into the site design, to the
greatest extent possible, existing topographic features of the site, including surrounding native
vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls);
ZC NO. 901
5. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of the site
and to minimize the amount of grading required to create the building area;
6. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect
drainage flow, unless such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course;
7. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature
trees and supplements these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping which is compatible
with and enhances the rural character of the community, and landscaping provides a buffer or
transition area between private and public areas;
8. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and
safe movement of pedestrians and vehicles; and
9. The project conforms to the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act.
CRITERIA FOR VARIANCES
17.38.050 Required findings. In granting a variance, the Commission (and Council on appeal)
must make the following 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;
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;
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;
D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed;
E. That the variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant;
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.
SOURCE: City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance
ZC NO. 901
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-15
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW
FOR GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENCE WITH
A BASEMENT, DETACHED GARAGES, COVERED PORCHES,
STABLE, SWIMMING POOL WITH A SPA, RETAINING WALLS AND
NEW DRIVEWAY; A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A
GUEST HOUSE, DETACHED GARAGES, AND STABLE WITH LOFT;
AND VARIANCES TO EXCEED MAXIMUM PERMITTED AVERAGE
HEIGHT OF RETAINING WALLS AND TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM
PERMITTED LOT DISTURBANCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 901 AT 5
PINE TREE LANE, (LOT 94-RH), (SHARNG).
THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. An application was duly filed by Ms. Lauren Sharng to request a
Site Plan Review for the construction of a new 5,250 square foot residence, with a 5,250
square foot basement, 1,115 square feet of detached garages (714 and 441 square feet
each), 1,445 square feet covered porches including 520 square feet at the stable, 964
square foot swimming pool and spa, 50 square foot pool equipment, 300 square foot
service yard, 275 square foot entryway, retaining walls, new driveway, 350 square foot
outdoor kitchen, and grading for a total of 48,150 cubic yards of dirt (11,775 c.y. cut and
11,775 c.y. fill; 12,300 c.y. over -excavation and 12,300 c.y. re -compaction). The applicant
also requests a Conditional Use Permit to construct an 800 square foot guesthouse, the
detached garages, and 1,810 square foot stable with 611 square foot loft; and Variances
to exceed the maximum permitted average height of retaining walls and to exceed the
maximum permitted disturbed area of the lot.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings
to consider the application at their regular meeting on April 19, 2016 and in the field on
May 17, 2016 and continued to the evening meeting of May 17, 2016. Neighbors within
1,000 -foot radius were notified of the public hearings and a notice was published in the
Peninsula News on April 7, 2016 and May 5, 2016. The applicants and their agents were
notified of the public hearings in writing by first class mail and the applicant and her
agents were in attendance at the hearings. Evidence was heard and presented from all
persons interested in affecting said proposal, and from members of the City staff. Four
residents visited the site during the noticed field trip on May 17, 2016. During the first
public hearing on April 19, 2016, the Planning Commissioners expressed concerns with
the project and specifically the crowding of the structures on the building pad, the long
driveway and walls, grading, and the proposed tennis court in the front yard area. The
project was revised to eliminate the tennis court, the size of the residence was reduced
from 5,975 square feet with a 5,000 square foot basement to 5,250 square feet with a
Reso. 2016-15 1
5 Pine Tree Lane
5,250 square foot basement, the porches were increased to 1,445 square feet from 1,260
square feet, the pool/spa was reduced to 964 square feet from 1,152 square feet, the 275
square feet entryway was increased from 100 square feet, and the outdoor kitchen was
reduced to 350 square feet from 460 square feet. The Loft in the stable was increased
from 481 square feet to 611 square feet. The applicant withdrew the application for a
CUP and several Variances for the previously proposed tennis court. The applicants
have also removed the previously proposed two bathrooms in the guest house (and are
now proposing one bathroom which complies with the Municipal Code), an out of
grade porch at the north-west corner of the house has been decreased and some of the
hardscape and stairs to provide more landscaped areas and a less crowded condition on
the building pad. The Planning Commission has reviewed, analyzed and studied said
revised proposal.
Section 3. The property is zoned RAS-2 and the gross lot area is 5.15 acres.
The net lot area is 4.3 acres or 187,196 square feet. The existing property is currently
developed with a single -family residence, garage, and swimming pool, which will be
demolished. Access to the property is taken from a joint driveway approach with 3 Pine
Tree Lane. A Condition of Approval is for the applicant to abandon their portion of the
joint driveway once their new driveway is constructed and remove the concrete, but
retain the access serving 3 Pine Tree Lane.
Section 4. The Planning Commission finds that the project is exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act, (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 (new
construction of single family residence and accessory structures), and Section
15061(b)(3) (common sense exemption) of the CEQA guidelines.
Section 5. ^e.tion 17.46.030 requires a development plan to be submitted for
Site Plan Review and approval before any grading requiring a grading permit or any
new building or structure may be constructed or any expansion, addition, alteration or
repair to existing buildings may be made which involve changes to grading or an
increase to the size of the building or structure by not more than 999 square feet in any
thirty-six (36) month period. The grading for the structures (new residence, garages,
swimming pool, guest house, and stable) require Site Plan Review due to the fact that
they are new structures and per Zoning Code 17.46.020.A-2. The pool requires a Site
Plan Review due to the grading required for it under Zoning Code 17.46.020.A.2(a) and
the size, and the retaining walls require a Site Plan Review due to their height being
over 3' in height and over 2.5' average.
With respect to the Site Plan for grading and the proposed structures the Planning
Commission makes the following findings of fact
A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan, the
Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses because the proposed structures comply with
the General Plan requirement of low profile, low -density residential development with
sufficient open space between surrounding structures and maintaining sufficient
Reso. 2016-15 2
5 Pine Tree Lane
setbacks to provide buffers between residential uses. Although the disturbed area
exceeds the maximum permitted amount of 40% at 45.2%, a large portion of it is for the
proposed 1,810 square foot stable with 611 square foot loft (which requires a
Conditional Use Permit), and the associated 3,900 square foot corral along with the long
driveway that is needed to accommodate horse trailers. The stable and corral promote
the rural, equestrian aesthetic of Rolling Hills. None of the structures are in setbacks.
The project conforms to Zoning Code lot coverage requirements, except for disturbance.
The net lot area of the lot is 187,196 square feet. The structural net lot coverage is
proposed at 12,279 square feet or 6.56%, which includes all of the structures, with
allowance for permitted deductions, (20% max. permitted); and the total lot coverage
proposed, including the driveway would be 29,074 square feet or 15.5%, (35% max.
permitted). The disturbed area of the lot is proposed to be 45.2%, which exceeds the
maximum allowed disturbance of 40% (Municipal Code 17.16.070B).
B. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of
the lot by minimizing building coverage. The topography and the configuration of the
lot have been considered, and it was determined that the proposed development will
not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to adjacent uses, buildings, or
structures, because the proposed project will be constructed partially on the existing
building pad of the currently developed lot, will be the least intrusive to surrounding
properties, will be screened and landscaped with trees and shrubs, is of sufficient
distance from nearby residences so that it will not impact the view or privacy of
surrounding neighbors, and will allow the owners to enjoy their property without
deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners. The proposed
project would be located on a gentler alope of the property and leaving the steeper and
more densely vegetated areas in their natural state to the north and northeast, along
with the natural drainage course.
The project promotes equestrian uses, therefore furthering the City's goal to remain an
equestrian community.
C. The proposed development, as conditioned, is harmonious in scale and
mass with the site, and is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood when compared
to other residences in the vicinity of said lot as the proposed house is 5,250 square feet
and the average in the vicinity is 5,149 square feet The development plan follows the
natural contours of the site to minimize grading by utilizing a portion of the existing
building pad for the new development. Due to the existing house being located in the
setback and easement it is necessary to move the house and therefore drop the pad
elevation in order to achieve the necessary building pad. The residence is proposed on
the shallowest sloped area with a basement being added to increase the residence size
while reducing the footprint. The slopes being created have been rounded and it was
attempted to mimic the existing slope in the area. The use of retaining walls along the
upper side of the building pad/back yard, stable and driveway has helped to minimize
grading.
Reso. 2016-15 3
5 Pine Tree Lane
D. The development plan will introduce additional landscaping, which is
compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community, and the
landscaping will provide a buffer or transition area between private and public areas.
There will be some clearing of existing landscaping due to overgrowth and improper
maintenance that has become a fire hazard.
E. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the
convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the new 20'
driveway will be safer to drive on as two cars can safely pass one another. There is
ample parking in the garages and there is a proposed parking pad at the front of the
house, outside of all setbacks, as Pine Tree Lane does not have wide shoulders to park
on so all visitor parking must be contained on site. An adequate driveway is proposed
to safely accommodate horse trailers to the stable and corral area.
Section 6. Sections 17.18.060 and 17.18.090 of the Rolling Hills Municipal
Code permit approval of a stable over 200 square feet and corral over 550 square feet
with a Conditional Use Permit. The proposed 1,810 square foot stable with 611 square
foot loft and 3,900 square foot corral comply with all requirements of these sections.
Two detached garages are proposed (714 square feet and 441 square feet). Section
17.16.210 (A)(4) of the Zoning Ordinance contains conditions for a detached garage(s),
subject to approval of a conditional use permit. An 800 square foot guesthouse is
proposed. Section 17.16.210 (A)(5) of the Zoning Ordinance contains conditions for a
guesthouse, subject to approval of a conditional use permit. All of the detached
structures comply with the provisions and conditions for such structures. With respect
to this request for Conditional Use Permits, the Planning Commission finds as follows:
A. Conditionally permitted uses are not outright permitted by the Rolling
Hills Municipal Code. The Commission must consider applications for a Conditional
Use Permit and may, with such conditions as are deemed necessary, approve a
conditional use which will not jeopardize, adversely affect, endanger or to otherwise
constitute a menace to the public health, safety or general welfare or be materially
detrimental to the property of other persons located in the vicinity of such use.
B. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit for the stable, corral, detached
garages, and guest house would be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the
Zoning Ordinance and General Plan because the uses are consistent with similar uses in
the community, and meet all the applicable code development standards for a stable
and corral, detached garages, and guesthouse and they are located in areas on the
property that are adequately sized to accommodate such uses. The proposed uses are
appropriately located in that they will be sufficiently separated from nearby structures
used for habitation or containing sleeping quarters. The stable/corral would be
constructed in furtherance of the General Plan goal of promoting and encouraging
equestrian uses. The detached garages are proposed to separate the residential
structures from the stable. The proposed guesthouse in a common amenity to Rolling
Hills
Reso. 2016-15
5 Pine Tree Lane
C. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent structures have been
considered, and the project will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to
these adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed uses (stable/corral,
detached garages, and guest house) are located in the middle of a 4.3 acre net lot and
their general locations are of sufficient distance from nearby residences so as to not
impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors. The proposed stable is to be
located adjacent to the corral and a path designated for equestrian uses that runs from
the stable to the driveway is separate from the other outdoor living areas on the
property and will be comprised of decomposed granite. The loft area of the stable is
directly accessed from the driveway.
D. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural
terrain, and surrounding residences because the proposed uses (stable/corral, detached
garages, and guest house) complies with the low profile residential development
pattern of the community and will not give the property an over -built look, and areas
will remain open and unobstructed. The lot is 4.3 acres net in size and is sufficiently
large to accommodate the proposed uses.
The stable will be compatible with the uses in the surrounding area because
Rolling Hills is an equestrian community and stables are encouraged. The stable will
look like a stable and the 3,900 square foot corral will promote open space on the pad.
The detached garages will be compatible with surrounding uses as they meet the
requirements of the City as well as being proportioned to the house size. They will
function like garages and not a residential structure.
The guest house will be compatible with the uses in the surrounding area
because it will have the same architectural design as the house and is in the rear yard ''
and is an amenity other residences in Rolling Hills have.
E. The proposed conditional uses (stable/corral, detached garages, and guest
house) complies with all applicable development standards of the zone district and
requires Conditional Use Permits pursuant to Sections 17.18.060, 17.18.090,
17.16.210(A)(4), and 17.16.210(A)(5) of the Zoning Ordinance.
F. The proposed conditional uses are consistent with the portions of the Los
Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting criteria for
hazardous waste facilities because the project site is not listed on the current State of
California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List.
Section 7. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Code permit approval of
a variance from the standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when, due to
exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property and not applicable
to other similar properties in the same zone, strict application of the Code would deny
thc property owner substantial property rights enjoyed by other properties in the same
Reso. 201615
5 Pine Tree Lane
vicinity and zone. The applicant seeks a variance from the requirement 17.16.190(F) that
walls not exceed five feet or 2.5 feet in average, and from 17.16.070(B) that disturbance be
limited to 40% of the net lot area. The walls do not exceed 5' high maximum but they do
not average out to 2.5' high and require a variance. The disturbance is proposed at
45.2%, which is higher than the permitted 40% due in large part to the proposed long
driveway. With respect to this request for Variances, 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 existing lot, despite it being over 5
acres gross, has approximately half of its overall area at a slope of 2:1 or steeper and the
remainder undulated and hilly and the lot requires grading in order to create a
sufficient flat area to construct the house and accessory structures. The existing building
pad cannot be utilized in its entirety for the new development, as most of it is located in
the setback. There is a drainage course along the western property line, which must
also be avoided. In order to generate the dirt needed for the pad, it was necessary to
drop the pad and the walls helped to achieve this. However, due to the slope in the rear
of the lot, and no grading allowed in the Association easements, the average wall height
did not average to 2.5'. The majority of the walls will not be visible from the street and
will mainly only be seen by the owner as they will be flanking the residential pad. The
walls for the stable will be visible from the western side. However, there is a steep
slope between the walls and the property line along with existing vegetation, which will
add additional screening for these walls.
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,
which would be denied to the property in question absent a variance, because the site is
sloped in nature so in order to provide a pad that meets the development standards,
additional grading is required and it was necessary to push the limits of grading farther
out than if the lot did not have as much slope to it. The overage is not significant and
the property owner should not be denied the privilege of a new house because the
topographic nature of the lot makes it infeasible to comply strictly with Section
17.16.170.
The exceedance of the disturbance is due in large part to the proposed driveway.
Any concerns voiced by residents and the Planning Commissioners during the public
hearing were addressed in the revised site plan and during the field visit to the site.
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. A minor increase in the overall percentage of disturbed
area on the lot will have no effect on the public welfare or on property or improvements
in the vicinity and the walls which exceed 2.5' average in height are not in any setbacks
and will not cause any line of sight issues on Pine Tree Lane due to the rows of existing
trees currently in the vicinity.
Reso. 2016-15
5 Pine Tree Lane
D. The variance does not grant special privileges to the applicant. To the
contrary, absent a variance, the property owner would be deprived of the same rights
and privileges afforded to other property owners in the vicinity. Unique circumstances
applicable to the subject property make it infeasible for the property owner to comply
with Section 17.16.070. The minor overage requested will allow the property owner to
enjoy the same rights and privileges afforded to many other properties in the vicinity
and zone.
E. 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.
F. The variance request is consistent with the General Plan. The proposed
project, together with the variance, will be compatible with the objectives, policies,
general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan and will uphold the City's
goals to protect and promote construction that is rural in nature.
Section 8. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission
hereby approves Zoning Case No. 901 request for a Site Plan Review for the construction
of a new 5,250 square foot residence, with a 5,250 square foot basement, 1,115 square feet
of detached garages (714 and 441 square feet each), 1,445 square feet covered porches
induding 520 square feet at the stable, 964 square foot swimming pool and spa, 50
square foot pool equipment, 300 square foot service yard, 275 square foot entryway,
retaining walls, new driveway, 350 square foot outdoor kitchen, and grading for a total
of 48,150 cubic yards of dirt (11,775 c.y. cut, 12,300 c.y. over excavation, and 11,775 c.y.
fill, and 12,300 c.y. re -compaction); Conditional Use Permit to construct an 800 square
foot guesthouse, the detached garages, and 1,810 square foot stable with 611 square foot
loft; and Variances to exceed the maximum permitted average height of retaining walls
and to exceed the maximum permitted disturbed area of the lot. With the proposed
grading, the disturbed area of the lot would be 45.2% subject to the following conditions:
A. The Site Plan, Conditional Use Permits, and Variances approvals shall
expire within two years from the effective date of approval as defined in Sections
17.46.080, 17.42.070, and 17.38.070 unless otherwise extended pursuant to the
requirements of these sections.
B. It is declared and made a condition of this approval 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, the opportunity for a hearing has been provided, and if requested, has
been held, and thereafter the applicant fails to correct the violation within a period of
thirty (30) days from the date of the City's determination.
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 set forth in this permit, or shown otherwise on an approved plan.
Reso. 2016-15 7
5 Pine Tree Lane
D. The lot shall be developed and maintained sin substantial conformance with
the site plan on file dated May 10, 2016 except as otherwise provided in these conditions.
The working drawings submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan
check review shall conform to the approved development plan. All conditions of the Site
Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Variance approvals shall be incorporated into
the building peiiidt working drawings, and where applicable complied with prior to
issuance of a grading or building permit from the building department.
The conditions of approval of this Resolution shall be printed onto building plans
submitted to the Building Department for review and shall be kept on site at all times.
Any modifications and/or changes to the approved project, including resulting from field
conditions, shall be discussed and approved by staff prior to implementing the changes.
B. Prior to submittal of final working drawings to Building and Safety
Department for issuance of building permits, the plans for the project shall be submitted
to City staff for verification that the final plans are in compliance with the plans approved
by the Planning Commission.
F. A licensed professional preparing construction plans for this project for
Building Department review shall execute a Certificate affirming that the plans conform
in all respects to this Resolution approving this project and all of the conditions set forth
therein and the City's Building Code and Zoning Ordinance.
Further, the person obtaining a building and/or grading permit for this project
shall execute a Certificate of Construction stating that the project will be constructed
according to this Resolution and any plans approved therewith.
G. Structural lot coverage of the lot shall not exceed 12,279 square feet or 6.56%
of the net lot area, in conformance with lot coverage limitations (20% maximum).
The total lot coverage proposed, including structures and flatwork, shall not
exceed 29,074 square feet or 15.5%, of the net lot area, in conformance with lot coverage
limitations (35% max).
H. Grading for this project shall not exceed 11,775 cubic yards of cut and 11,775
cubic yards of fill; 12,300 cubic yards of over -excavation, and 12,300 cubic yards of
recompaction and shall be balanced on site. The disturbed area of the lot, including the
approved stable and corral shall not exceed 45.2%.
I. The residential building pad is proposed at 44,100 square feet and shall not
exceed coverage of 9,344 square feet or 21.2% with allowed deductions. The stable pad is
proposed at 5,720 square feet and shall not exceed 2,149 square feet of coverage or 37.6%
with allowed deductions.
Reso. 2016-15
5 Pine Tree Lane
8
0
J. A new driveway shall be provided per the Fire Department requirements
and the apron of the driveway shall be subject to review and approval by the Traffic
Commission.
Further, the portion of the existing shared driveway with 3 Pine Tree Lane that is
located on the property at 5 Pine Tree Lane shall be abandoned and the concrete removed
once the new driveway off Pine Tree Lane is completed. At no time shall vehicular access
to 3 Pine Tree Lane be- impacted by construction activities at 5 Pine Tree Lane. The
driveway apron serving 3 Pine Tree Lane, but located on 5 Pine Tree Lane shall be
unaffected by this development and shall be available at all times for egress and ingress
to 3 Pine Tree Lane. Photographic evidence of the condition of the shared driveway and
apron with 3 Pine Tree Lane shall be submitted to the Planning Department before any
construction or demolition. Any damage caused to the apron, easements or curbs by
construction activities shall be restored at the expense of the applicant
K Access to the stable and to the corral shall be decomposed granite or like
100% pervious roughened material.
L. Only one sanitary facility consisting of a shower, sink, and a toilet and a
kitchenette is permitted in the guesthouse per Section 17.16.210(A)(5)(c).
M. A minimum of four -foot level path and/or walkway, which does not have
. to be paved, shall be provided around the entire perimeter of all of the proposed
structures, or as otherwise required by the Fire Department.
N. At any time there are horses on the property, Best
Management Practices (BMPs) shall be applied for manure control, including but not be
limited to removal of the manure on a daily basis or provision of a receptacle with a tight
closing lid that is constructed of brick, stone, concrete, metal or wood lined with metal or
other sound material and that is safeguarded against access by flies. The contents of said
receptacles shall be removed once a week. It is prohibited to dispose of manure or any
animal waste into the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4), into natural
drainage course or spread on the property.
O. The pool equipment area shall be enclosed and screened with landscaping.
Per LA County Building Code, pool barrier/fencing shall be required.
P. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Lighting Ordinance
of the City of Rolling Hills (RHMC 17.16.190 E), pertaining to lighting on said property,
roofing and material requirements of properties in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity
Zone.
Q. All utility lines to the residence, guesthouse, detached garages, and stable
shall be placed underground, subject to all applicable standards and requirements.
Reso.201615 i 9
5 Pine Tree Lane
R. A drainage plan, as required by the Building Department shall be prepared
and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of a construction permit. Such plan shall be
subject to LA County Code requirements.
S. All graded slopes shaft be landscaped. A landscaping plan shall be
submitted to the City in conformance with Fire Department Fuel Modification
requirements and graded slopes. Prior to finaling the project, trees and shrubs shall be
planted to screen the project from the neighbors. The landscaping shall not form a hedge
like screen but be offset. The height of any new trees and shrubs, to be planted in
conjunction with this project, shall not at any time exceed the ridgeline of the roof of the
structures, which they are screening. The landscaping plan shall utilize to the maximum
extent feasible, plants that are native to the area, are water -wise and are consistent with
the rural character of the community.
The landscaping shall be subject to the requirements of the City's Water Efficient
Landscape Ordinance, (Chapter 13.18of the RHMC).
T. The setback lines and roadway easement lines in the vicinity of the
construction for this project shall remain staked throughout the construction. A
construction fence may be required.
U. Perimeter easements, including roadway easements and trails, if any, shall
remain free and clear of any improvements including, but not be limited to fences -
including construction fences, any hardscape, driveways, landscaping, irrigation and
drainage devices, except as otherwise approved by the Rolling Hills Community
Association.
V. Minimum of 50% of any construction materials must be recycled or diverted
from landfills. The hauler of the materials shall obtain City's Construction and
Demolition permits for waste hauling prior to start of work and provide proper
documentation to the City.
W. During construction, conformance with the air quality management district
requirements, stormwater pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances
and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle
trips, noise, dust, and objectionable odors shall be required.
X. During construction, all parking shall take place on the project site, on the
new driveway and, if necessary, any overflow parking shall take place within the
unimproved roadway easements on the east side of Pine Tree Lane adjacent to project site
only, and shall not obstruct neighboring driveways. During construction, to the
maximum extent feasible, employees of the contractor shall car-pool into the City.
Y. During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule and
regulate construction and related traffic noise throughout the day between the hours of 7
Reso. 2016-15 ( 10
5 Pine Tree Lane
AM and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when construction and mechanical
equipment noise is permitted, so as not to interfere with the quiet residential
environment of the City of Rolling Hills.
Z. The contractor shall not use tools that could produce a spark, including for
clearing and grubbing, during red flag warning conditions. Weather conditions can be
found at:
http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/Iox/maimphp?suite=safety&page=hazard definitions#FIRE.
It is the sole responsibility of the property owner and/or his/her contractor to monitor
the red flag warning conditions. Should a red flag warning be declared and if work is to
be conducted on the property, the contractor shall have readily available fire
distinguisher.
AA. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water
Quality. Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices
(BMP's) requirements related to solid waste, drainage and storm water drainage facilities
management and to the City's Low Impact development Ordinance (LID). Further the
property owners shall be required to conform to the County Health Department
requirements for a septic system.
AB. Prior to finaling of the project an "as graded" and an "as constructed" plans
and certifications, including certifications of ridgelines of the structures, shall be provided
to the Planning Department and the Building Department to ascertain that the completed
project is in compliance with the approved plans. In addition, any modifications made to
the project during construction, shall be depicted on the "as built/as graded" plan.
AC. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of
this permit pursuant to Zoning Ordinance, or the approval shall not be effective. The
affidavit shall be recorded together with the resolution.
PASSED, £ ' ' ' O / WI ADOPTED THIS 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2016.
, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK
Reso. 2016-15
5 Pine Tree Lane
Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public
hearing on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section
17.54.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code and Code of Civil Procedure Section
1094.6.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
) §§
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2016-15 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR
GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENCE WITH A
BASEMENT, DETACHED GARAGES, COVERED PORCHES, STABLE,
SWIMMING POOL WITH A SPA, RETAINING WALLS AND NEW DRIVEWAY;
A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A GUEST HOUSE,
DETACHED GARAGES, AND STABLE WITH LOFT; AND VARIANCES TO
EXCEED MAXIMUM PERIVIITTED AVERAGE HEIGHT OF RETAINING WALLS
AND TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED LOT DISTURBANCE WI
ZONING CASE NO. 901 AT 5 PINE TREE LANE, (LOT 94-RH), (SHARNG).
was approved and adopted at regular meeting of the Planning Commission on
June 21, 2016 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Cardenas, Gray, Smith and Chairman Chelf.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Kirkpatrick.
ABSTAIN: None.
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following
Administrative Offices
"bVM t 41Nw
HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK
Reso. 2016-15
5 Pine Tree Lane
12
RECEIVED
City Council Members,
JUL 062016
My name is Lauren Shamg. My husband Chris and 1 purchased 5
Pine Tree in December 2015, with the intent of building a new home.
Currently, we are renting a house at 25 Caballeros Road with our 3
children and 2 horses. We recognize that the building process takes a
substantial amount of time and we retained an architect, an engineer
and a soil expert even before we closed escrow in order to efficiently
pursue the project, even if saving only a few weeks. Our horses am
living in very cramped conditions and we am anxious about moving
them and our family into our new home.
We submitted our preliminary plans to the Planning Director in
February of 2016 and were placed on the April Planning Commission
Agenda for our first hearing. At the April Planning Commission Public
Hearing we received immediate feedback from the Commission
relating to the size and scale of the development. The design team
then revised the plans and re -submitted to the City Planning Director
prior to the May 1 7th meeting. The site staking for the May 17'" field
trip was based on the updated plans, which incorporated the Planning
Commission's input including substantially decreasing the size of the
house, the covered porches, and the swimming pool, along with
eliminating the tennis court.
At the May 17 meeting, Mr. Keith Murphy, a prospective buyer of 3
Pine Tree Lane, emailed the City seven hours before the scheduled
meeting. The email categorically objects to every aspect of our
proposed project and practically our right to build a residence on our
property. Mr. Murphy did not attend the meeting but Mr. Anthony
Podell, the legal owner of 3 Pine Tree, was in attendance and he
endorsed our project, at which time the Planning Commission
directed staff to prepare a Resolution of Approval by a 4-0 vote of the
Planning Commission.
On June 21st, Mr Murphy, by now the owner of 3 Pine Tree, emailed
the city four hours before the scheduled Planning Commission
meeting. This time he asked that the Planning Commission delay
their vote so that he could "undertake further review of our plan(s)" for
5 Pine Tree. Again, Mr. Murphy was not in attendance for the
meeting. The Planning Commission voted to accept the Resolution of
Approval, as presented by City Staff, with a 4-0 vote.
--
Mr. Murphy's second email dated June 21 was especially
disappointing because I had just met the Murphys' in the RHCA's
offices the week before. We exchanged phone numbers and I offered
to go over the plans with them. In this neighborly exchange, I also
teamed that Mr. Podell had taken the Murphy's over to our staked
property at 5 Pine Tree and showed them the scope and size of the
project.
I teamed that an inquiry about the appeal process has been made by
Mr. Murphy. As of now, I do not know if he has or will file an
appeal. I have offered to meet with Mr. Murphy to explain our plans
that the Planning Commission already approved. As of the time of
this email, we have been in contact but unable to arrange a date.
Mr. Murphy's emails from May 17 shows that he was apparently
aware of our project at least as of that time and that he has already
had weeks if not months to "undertake further review of the plan." I
reckon that he must have closed the escrow on or about June 13. I
would like to think that his escrow allowed him plenty of time to
conduct his due diligence. Due diligence isn't something to be done
after the fact, nor at my expense. I have followed the rules. My plans
have been on file, in plain view, with the City for months. This is an
open and transparent process that has well -established integrity. I
believe in and invested in the process. Delaying our project will set us
back both time -wise and financially.
Furthermore, I don't believe the appeal process applies in this case.
Mr. Murphy has nothing to appeal because he never formally
submitted any specific objections to the project in accordance with
the City's rules and regulations and he was therefore never tumed
down for anything.
I think the Planning Commission has done a professional and
thorough job on reviewing and approving my proposed plan. If Mr:
Murphy submits an appeal, I think it should be denied.
Thanks for your consideration,
My best,
Lauren Shamg
RECELVtL
.JUL 0 6 2016
City of Rolling i,+itb
By
Tuesday, June 21, 201( )3:12 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Subject: RE: In Re: Zoning Case No. 901
Date: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 1:53:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: Keith Murphy <KMurphy@organovo.com>
To: Yolanta Schwartz <ys@cityofrh.net>
CC: cari corbalis (caricorbalis@gmail.com) <caricorbalis@gmail.com>
To whom It may concern,
1 understand that the project at 5 Pine Tree Lane, Zoning Case No. 901, is to be visited this evening. 1
would like to request that a vote on approval of the project be deferred to the next meeting. Mr. Tony
Podell, the former owner, let me know that my objections were not considered at the previous meeting
due to my lack of standing as not yet being the owner of 3 Pine Tree. Now that I have taken possession
(only in the past few business days), 1 request that sufficient time be allowed for me to undertake further
review of the plan prior to any vote on approval.
Thanks and best regards,
Keith Murphy
3 Pine Tree Lane
From: Keith Murphy
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2016 10:53 AM
To: 'ys@cityofrh.net' <ys@cityofrh.net>
Cc: cari corbalis (caricorbalis@gmail.com) <caricorbalis@gmail.com>
Subject: In Re: Zoning Case No. 901
To whom it may concern,
Regarding Zoning Case No. 901, a proposal for construction at 5 Pine Tree Lane,:l.'wish to state some
objections. First, I object to each detail in the current proposal as submitted. Secondly, I further explicitly
object to each detail in the current proposal that requires an easement, allowance, or variance. In
addition, I specifically object to the size of the residence, the size of the basement, the presence of and
size of detached garages, the retaining walls, the required excavation, the required grading, the required
re -compaction, the size of the stable and loft. I object to the Issuance of a variance to exceed the
maximum permitted height of retaining walls, and to the issuance of a variance to exceed the maximum
permitted disturbed area. I object on the environmental impact, the impact on the stability of the hillside,
the impact on the watershed, and the impact on view rights.
Please acknowledge receipt of these objections. Thank you.
Keith Murphy
Chief Executive Officer
Organovo, Inc.
6275 Nancy Ridge Dr.
San Diego, CA 92121
(858) 550-9993
kmurohvraoroanovo.com
RECEIVED
JUN 21 2016
City of Rolling Hills
By
Page 1 of 1
kECEIVED
MAY 1 i2016
From: Keith Murphy <KMurphy@organovo.com> City of Rolling Hills
Date: Tuesday, May 17, 2016 10:52 AM By
To: Yolanta Schwartz <ys@cityofrh.net>
Cc: "cari corbalis (caricorbalis@gmail.com)" <caricorbalis@gmail.com>
Subject: In Re: Zoning Case No. 901
To whom it may concern,
Regarding Zoning Case No. 901, a proposal for construction at 5 Pine Tree
Lane, I wish to state some objections. First, I object to each detail in the
current proposal as submitted. Secondly, 1 further explicitly object to each
detail in the current proposal that requires an easement, allowance, or
variance. In addition, I specifically object to the size of the residence, the size
of the basement, the presence of and size of detached garages, the retaining
walls, the required excavation, the required grading, the required re -
compaction, the size of the stable and loft. I object to the issuance of a
variance to exceed the maximum -permitted height ofretainingwalls; and°to--
the issuance of a variance to exceed the maximum permitted disturbed area. I
object on the environmental impact, the impact on the stability of the hillside,
the impact on the watershed, and the impact on view rights.
Please acknowledge receipt of these objections. Thank you.
Keith Murphy
Chief Executive Officer
Organovo, Inc.
6275 Nancy Ridge Dr.
San Diego, CA 92121
(858) 550-9993
kmurphy@organovo.com
Tuesday, Apr1119, 2011 —5:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Subject: 5 Pine Tree Lane
Date: Monday, April 18, 2016 10:08:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: Tony Node <awpodell@gmail.com>
To: Yolanta Schwartz <ys@cityofrh.net>
CC: Wendy Starks cwstarks@cltyofrh.net>
Yolanta,
In reference to Tuesday, April 19th's meeting regarding 5 Pine Tree we challenge the approval of all
permit applications until we see the staking and all reports and approvals relevant to construction of the
house, outlying buildings, pool and tennis court.
Per the plans you showed me for tf5 Pine Tree the driveway has been relocated further down Pine Tree, that
and no
construction trucks or vehicles of any type using tf3's driveway ever Is our number one priority.
Thank you for your help,
Mary and Tony Podell
P.S. Would you please email me that you received this email.
RECEIVED
APR 19 2016
City of Rolling Hills
By
Page 1 of 1
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
C' y of Rolli Hill
By� Planning rnm,J1dY3 Jnlr'ainrl
From: W,lbnm Resole
fc: at. 9o1 5P,nrrrec bane
\
1 .11:1-;
\
PC 04/19/16
NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS
ZONING CASE NO. 901. Request for a Site Plan Review for the construction of a new
5,975 square foot residence, with 5,000 square foot basement, 1,155 square feet
detached garages, 1,360 square feet covered porches, including for guest house and
stable, 1,152 square foot swimming pool, spa, entryway, retaining walls, driveway and
outdoor kitchen and grading for a total of 46,090 cubic yards of dirt, which includes
over -excavation and re -compaction; a Conditional Use Permit to construct an 800 square
foot guest house, the detached garages, 7,000 square foot tennis court and 1,810 square
foot stable with 611 square foot loft; and Variances to locate the tennis court in the front
yard area of the lot, to exceed the maximum permitted grading quantities for the tennis
court, to exceed the maximum permitted average height of retaining walls and to exceed
the maximum permitted disturbed area of the lot in Zoning Case No. 901, at 5 Pine Tree
Lane, (Lot 94-RH), Rolling Hills, CA. (Sharng). The project is exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3 exemption
Guidelines.
Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz
stated that a letter was received from Mr. Podell (3 Pine Tree Lane) and has been placed on the dais
expressing concern regarding the shared driveway and parking of construction vehicles. She stated that
the lot, which is 5 acres in size was previously approved for subdivision but the lot was not subdivided
and the approval has since expired. She reviewed the lot configuration and easements stating that the
applicant is proposing a new residence, with a basement, detached garages and other amenities
including a guesthouse, swimming pool, stable and corral. She further reviewed the applicant's
request for a tennis court, which is proposed to be located in the front yard area of the lot. She
reviewed the grading and disturbance stating that the applicant is requesting a Variance for disturbance
proposed at 45.2%. She further reviewed the proposed walls, new driveway and stable access. She
stated that the grading is proposed at 12,745 cu. yds. of cut and 12,745 cu. yds. of fill with 10,300 cu.
yds. of over excavation and recompaction. She further reviewed the tennis court requirements and the
variances being requested as well as the proposed guesthouse. She stated that the applicant is
proposing one bathroom on the interior of the guesthouse and one bathroom on the exterior of the
guesthouse. She reviewed the stable configuration stating that the proposed stable meets the Zoning
Code requirements for stable use. She stated the building pad is proposed at 44,100 sq. ft. with
coverage at 38.6% including the tennis court and entire development. She stated that structural lot
coverage is proposed at 10.7% and total lot coverage is proposed at 20.8%. Discussion ensued
concerning the location and access to the stable.
Tavisha Nicholson, Bolton Engineering addressed the Planning Commission to further explain the
applicant's request stating that the tennis court was located in the front yard to make the best use of the
lot.
Discussion ensued concerning the location of the tennis court and the variance being requested. The
Planning Commission expressed concern regarding the location of the tennis court, the driveway
configuration and the crowding on the building pad.
Following staffs presentation, public testimony and discussion, the members of the Planning
Commission asked the applicant to submit revised plans to address the Planning Commission's
concerns regarding the project. The public hearing was continued.
PC 5/17/16 FT
ZONING CASE NO. 901. Request for a Site Plan Review for the construction of a new 5,250
square foot residence, with 5,250 square foot basement, 1,155 square feet detached garages,
covered porches, including at stable, 964 square foot swimming pool, spa, entryway, retaining
walls, driveway and outdoor kitchen and grading for a total of 46,090 cubic yards of dirt, which
includes over -excavation and re -compaction; a Conditional Use Permit to construct an 800
square foot guest house, the detached garages, and 1,810 square foot stable with 481 square foot
loft; and Variances to exceed the maximum permitted average height of retaining walls and to
exceed the maximum permitted disturbed area of the lot in Zoning Case No. 901, at 5 Pine Tree
Lane, (Lot 94-RH), Rolling Hills, CA. (Sharng).
Others present for this field trip were:
Tavisha Nicholson, Engineer
Tony Inferrera, Architect
Paul Mckeown of Mckeown Construction Inc.
Lauren Sharng, Property Owner
Mr. and Mrs. Hynes, property owners 23 Crest Road East
Jim Aichele, Resident 14 Crest Road West
William Hassoldt, 10 Pine Tree Lane
Planning Director Schwartz described the project and explained that the portion of the existing
driveway located on the property will need to be abandoned or a conditional use permit would
be required to retain it. She stated that the driveway apron must remain on the project site as it
serves the adjacent property at 3 Pine Tree Lane. Ms. Nicholson walked the group through the
project and explained the staking. Planning Director Schwartz stated that in an effort to address
some of the concerns the Planning Commission had at the previous meeting, the applicant's
removed the proposed tennis court, reduced the size of the house and made the swimming pool
and outdoor kitchen smaller and relocated the outdoor kitchen towards the back wall. She
explained that a new driveway apron is proposed and that the Traffic Commission will review
it at their May 26th meeting. Mr. Hassoldt expressed concerns about the ridge height as it can be
seen from his property, especially once brush and trees are cleared. Discussion ensued about
elevations, grading, and slopes for the project. The property owner explained that she desires a
long flat driveway for horse trailers and for parking on -site for her guests as there is limited
parking available on Pine Tree Lane. Commissioner Chelf inquired why at least one of the
garages couldn't be attached to the house. Ms. Sharng stated that architecturally the design
works best for her and the future use of the property. It was pointed out that the two-story
stable would be seen from across the canyon and responding to Commissioner's questions
Planning Director Schwartz advised there were no inquiries about the stable or about the project
in general by any residents, except for Mr. Hassoldt and Mr. Podell, the property owner at 3
Pine Tree Lane who expressed concerns regarding the use of the common driveway. Following
brief discussion regarding the landscaping and grading of the project, and discussion about
lowering the building pad, the group walked over to Mr. Hassoldt's property at 10 Pine Tree
Lane to view the staking from his perspective and noticed from the driveway that some of the
ridgeline of the proposed house was visible through the trees.
PC 05/17/2016
ZONING CASE NO. 901. Request for a Site Plan Review for the construction of a new
5,250 square foot residence, with 5,250 square foot basement, 1,155 square feet of
detached garages, 1,445 covered porches, including at guest house and stable, 964 square
foot swimming pool/spa, entryway, retaining walls, driveway, 350 square foot outdoor
kitchen and grading for a total of 48,150 cubic yards of dirt, which includes over -
excavation and re -compaction; a Conditional Use Permit to construct an 800 square foot
guest house, the detached garages, and a 1,810 square foot stable with 481 square foot
loft; and Variances to exceed the maximum permitted average height of retaining walls
and to exceed the maximum permitted disturbed area of the lot in Zoning Case No. 901, at
5 Pine Tree Lane, (Lot 94-RH), Rolling Hills, CA. (Sharng). The project is exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3
exemption Guidelines.
Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz
reviewed the applicant's request to construct a new house in Zoning Case No. 901 at 5 Pine Tree Lane
and stated that the Planning Commission visited the site carlicr today. She stated that the Planning
Commission reviewed this case last month and asked the applicant to revise the project to lessen the
crowding on the building pad. She stated that a correspondence was received today from Keith
Murphy expressing concern regarding the project. In response to the Planning Commission, it was
noted that Mr. Murphy is not currently a property owner in the City. Planning Director further
reviewed the applicant's request. She stated that there is currently a joint driveway on the property that
serves both 3 and 5 Pine Tree Lane and it would be required that access to 5 Pine Tree Lane remain
open during construction and after the project is completed, the portion serving 5 Pine Tree Lane
would be abandoned because a new driveway is being constructed in a different location. She further
reviewed the drainage and setbacks. She noted that the tennis court originally proposed has been
eliminated from the project. She stated that there is an out of grade condition proposed but it meets the
Zoning Code requirements. She further reviewed the new driveway access, which includes access to
the stable She reviewed the development standards stating that the applicant is requesting a variance to
exceed the maximum disturbance with disturbance proposed at 45.2%. She further reviewed the
proposed coverages and grading.
Chairman Chelf called for public comment.
Tavisha Nicholson addressed the Planning Commission to further explain the changes that were made
to the project and the reasoning for the location of the driveway. She stated that the proposed location
of the house is designed to take best advantage of the existing views.
Lauren Shamg, 5 Pine Tree Lane (property owner) addressed the Planning Commission stating that she
is an equestrian and she looks forward to having a useful, equestrian property. She further explained
the project design.
William Hassoldt, 10 Pine Tree Lane addressed the Planning Commission to express concern
regarding the elevation of the house. He submitted photographs showing how the project is visible
from a window in their house. He expressed further concern regarding the location and length of the
driveway. He suggested an alternate location for the driveway so that the two Pine Trees can be saved.
Page 1 of 2
PC 05/17/2016
Tony Podell, 3 Pine Tree Lane addressed the Planning Commission to request that the driveway access
to his property remain as is; and to request that the construction vehicles do not use his driveway.
Hearing no further public comment, Chairman Chelf asked for comments from the Planning
Commission.
Vice Chairman Gray stated for the record that he listened to the meeting tape from the last time the
Planning Commission considered this case. He commented that he appreciates that the tennis court was
eliminated but he is concerned about the two separate garages. He commented that he is also
concerned about the visibility of the stable from across the canyon. With regard to the driveway and
the retaining walls, he commented that he thinks that it can be addressed with landscape screening.
Commissioner Cardenas commented that he believes the location of the driveway makes sense and he
is not opposed to the retaining walls. He expressed his support for the proposed stable.
Commissioner Smith commented that she is happy to have additional equestrians in the community
and. overall, she is supportive of the project as revised. She also commented that throughout the
community, houses are visible through trees so she is not concerned about that issue.
•
Chairman Chelf expressed appreciation to the applicant for addressing the concerns raised and
commented that he is not concerned about the location of the driveway and he too feels that the issues
raised could be addressed with landscape screening.
Following brief discussion, Commissioner Cardenas moved that the Planning Commission direct staff
to prepare a Resolution granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 901 at 5 Pine
Tree Lane with the standard findings of fact and conditions of approval plus conditions that the old
driveway be abandoned and that construction vehicles do not use the neighboring driveway at 3 Pine
Tree Lane. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion, which carried without objection. The applicant
was also asked to submit a landscaping plan to show screening of the wall.
Page 2 of 2
PC 6/21/16
RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-15. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW, FOR
GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENCE WITH A BASEMENT,
DETACHED GARAGES, COVERED PORCHES, STABLE, SWIMMING POOL WITH A SPA,
RETAINING WALLS, NEW DRIVEWAY; A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT
A GUEST HOUSE, DETACHED GARAGES, AND STABLE WITH LOFT; AND VARIANCES
TO EXCEED MAXIMUM PERMITTED AVERAGE HEIGHT OF RETAINING WALLS AND
TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED LOT DISTURBANCE IN ZONING CASE NO.
901 AT 5 PINE TREE LANE, (LOT 94-RH), (SHARNG).
Chairman Chelf introduced this item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz
briefly reviewed the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 901 at 5 Pine Tree Lane stating that at
its last meeting, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a Resolution approving this
project and that resolution is presented for consideration with the standard findings of fact and
conditions of approval as well as certain conditions specific to this project. She noted that the
proposed driveway was reviewed by the Traffic Commission and recommended for approval but
the applicant has since revised the driveway location to address concems raised. She reviewed the
new driveway configuration stating that it will be moved 20 ft. to the North so that the Pine trees
can be retained. She stated that this change will be reviewed by the Traffic Commission at its July
meeting and the resolution contains a condition that the driveway is subject to Traffic Commission
review and approval. She stated that today, an e-mail was received from the new property owner
at 3 Pine Tree Lane requesting that that the Planning Commission defer its decision on this matter
to give him an opportunity to review the plans. Discussion ensued concerning this request and it
was noted that there are no specific objection presented in the correspondence.
Chairman Chelf called for public comments.
Lauren Shamg, 5 Pine Tree Lane addressed the Planning Commission regarding the request to
defer stating that she met the new owners at the RHCA office recently and offered to show them
the plans and review the project. She stated that the new owners were aware of the project when
they purchased the property and requested that the decision not be deferred.
Tavisha Nicholson, Bolton Engineering addressed the Planning Commission to further explain the
revised driveway configuration.
Following brief discussion, Vice Chairman Gray moved that the Planning Commission adopt
Resolution No. 2016-15 granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 901 at 5
Pine Tree Lane. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion, which carried without objection.
TO:
FROM:
THRU:
SUBJECT:
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288
Agenda Item No.: 6-B
Mtg. Date: 08/08/16
HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR (if
RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER
CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 1187: A RESOLUTION OF
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS,
CALIFORNIA, FINDING THE CITY TO BE IN CONFORMANCE
WITH THE CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (CMP) AND
ADOPTING THE CMP LOCAL DEVELOPMENT REPORT, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 65089.
PUBLISHED: JULY 28, 2016
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council open the public hearing, take public testimony,
and adopt Resolution No. 1187 and the 2016 Local Development Report.
BACKGROUND
Attached is a Resolution and Local Development Report certifying that the City of
Rolling Hills has taken all of the required actions and is in conformance with all
applicable requirements of the 1997 Congestion Management Program (CMP), as
amended in 2010. Adoption of this resolution and report does not alter any local
programs or responsibilities of the City.
The CMP is a state mandated program, which became effective with voter approval of
Proposition 111 in 1990. The program is intended to address the impact of new
construction and local growth on the regional transportation system and air quality.
Every year, since 1995, as required by the Program, the City held a public hearing and
adopted Resolution finding the City to be in conformance with the CMP and adopted
the CMP Local Implementation Report.
DISCUSSION
Beginning in 1995, local jurisdictions were required to annually demonstrate a positive
balance of transportation improvement "credits" over new development "debits" to
preserve their compliance with the CMP. Construction of a NEW single family home
represents a 6.8 points debit, whereas demolition of a single-family residence represents
a 6.8 points credit. Currently, the City has a positive balance of 51.8 credits. In 1995, the
City of Rolling Hills was successful in acquiring Congestion Management Program
credits from the City of Rolling Hills Estates in the name of mutual aid and because we
have worked closely with the City of Rolling Hills Estates on numerous local and
regional issues (i.e. Palos Verdes Drive North Improvements and Transportation
Development Act Funds for Sidewalk and Bike Path Phase II Improvements).
Since 2006, the MTA has suspended the requirement for demonstrating a positive credit
balance. However, cities must continue to report their new net development activity
and self -certify conformance with all elements of the CMP. The MTA is currently
looking to revising the CMP regulations, and until the new requirements become
effective the balance of credits will be frozen. A negative balance or non-compliance
with the CMP can cost a City gas tax funds allocation.
In the past year, the City issued one permit for demolitionof an existing home (6 -
Portuguese Bend Road) and one permit was issued to re -construct the same home,
showing a balance of zero effect on transportation or air quality.
In the past, staff requests a waiver from the CMP reporting, as there are no public roads
in the City and the City does not receive gas tax funds, and the City's development is
too minimal to affect regional transportation or air quality. The Metropolitan
Transportation Authority rejected the request on the basis that the law does not contain
provisions for waiving the requirements for cities such as Rolling Hills and in the spirit
of cooperation with all of the LA County cities requires such reporting.
CONCLUSION
Pursuant to the State requirement it is in order to hold a public hearing and adopt the
attached Resolution demonstrating to the State City's construction trends and no impact
on congestion or air quality.
RESOLUTION NQ. 1187
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS,
CALIFORNIA, FINDING THE CITY TO BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE
CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (CMP) AND ADOPTING THE CMP
LOCAL DEVELOPMENT REPORT, MI ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65089.
WHEREAS, CMP statute requires the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority ("LACMTA"), acting as the Congestion Management Agency for Los Angeles County, to
annually determine that the County and cities within the County are conforming to all CMP
requirements; and
WHEREAS, LACMTA requires submittal of the CMP Local Development Report by September
1 of each year; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a noticed public hearing on August 8, 2016.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City has taken all of the following actions and the City is in conformance
with all applicable requirements of the 2010 CMP adopted by the LACMTA Board on October 28,
2010.
The City has locally adopted and continues to implement a transportation demand management
ordinance, consistent with the minimum requirements identified in the CMP Transportation Demand
Management Chapter.
The City has locally adopted and continues to implement land use analysis program, consistent
with the minimum requirements identified in the CMP Land Use Analysis Program Chapter.
The City has adopted a Local Development Report, attached hereto and made a part hereof,
consistent with the requirements identified in the 2010 CMP. This report balances traffic congestion
impacts due to growth within the City with transportation improvements, and demonstrates that the City
is meeting its responsibilities under the Countywide Deficiency Plan.
Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall forward a
copy of this Resolution to the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8th DAY OF AUGUST 2016.
BEA DIERINGER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK
Resolution No. 1187 — CMP 1
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
) §§
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 1187 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ,ROLLING HILLS,
CALIFORNIA, FINDING THE CITY TO BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE
CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (CMP) AND ADOPTING THE CMP
LOCAL DEVELOPMENT REPORT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65089.
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on August 8, 2016 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
HEIDI LUCE
CITY CLERK
Resolution No. 1187 — CMP 2
•
City of Rolling Hills
2016 CMP Local Development Report
Reporting Period: JUNE 1, 2015 - MAY 31, 2016
Contact: Yolanta Schwartz
Phone Number: 310 377-1521
Date Prepared: July 29, 2016
CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Rollin. Hills
2016 DEFICIENCY PLAN SUMMARY
IMPORTANT: All "#value!" cells on this page are automatically calculated.
Please do not enter data in these cells.
DEVELOPMENT TOTALS
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY
Single Family Residential
Multi -Family Residential
Group Quarters
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY
Commercial (less than 300,000 sq.ft.)
Commercial (300,000 sq.ft. or more)
Freestanding Eating & Drinking
NON -RETAIL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY
Lodging
Industrial
Office (less than 50,000 sq.ft.)
Office (50,000-299,999 sq.ft.)
Office (300,000 sq.ft. or more)
Medical
Government
Institutional/Educational
University (# of students)
OTHER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY
ENTER IF APPLICABLE
ENTER IF APPLICABLE
EXEMPTED DEVELOPMENT TOTALS
Exempted Dwelling Units
Exempted Non-residential sq. ft. (in 1,000s)
Dwelling Units
1.00
0.00
0.00
1,000 Net Sq.Ft.2
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.000 Net Sa.Ft.2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Daily Trips
0.00
0.00
0
0
Page 1
2. Net square feet is the difference between new development and adjustments entered on pages 2 and a
City of Rolling Hills Date Prepared: July 29, 2016
2016 CMP Local Development Report
Reporting Period: JUNE 1, 2015 - MAY 31, 2016
Enter data for all cells labeled "Enter." If there are no data for that category, enter "0."
PART 1: NEW DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY
Category
Dwelling
Units
Single Family Residential
1.00
Multi -Family Residential
0.00
Group Quarters
0.00
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY
Category
1,000 Gross
Square Feet
Commercial (less than 300,000 sq.ft.)
0.00
Commercial (300,000 sq.ft. or more)
0.00
Freestanding Eating & Drinking
0.00
NON -RETAIL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY
Category
1,000 Gross
Square Feet
Lodging
0.00
Industrial
0.00
Offide (less than 50,000 sq.ft.)
0.00
Office (50,000-299,999 sq.ft.)
0.00
Office (300,000 sq.ft. or more)
0.00
Medical
0.00
Government
0.00
Institutional/Educational
0.00
University (# of students)
0.00
OTHER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY
Description
(Attach additional sheets if necessary)
Daily Trips
0
ENTER IF APPLICABLE
0.00
ENTER IF APPLICABLE
0.00
Page 2
•
City of Rolling Hills Date Prepared: July 29, 2016
2016 CMP Local Development Report
Reporting Period: JUNE 1, 2015 - MAY 31, 2016
Enter data for all cells labeled "Enter." If there are no data for that category, enter "0."
PART 2: NEW DEVELOPMENT ADJUSTMENTS
IMPORTANT: Adjustments may be claimed only for 1) development permits that were both
issued and revoked, expired or withdrawn during the reporting period, and 2) demolition of any
structure with the reporting period.
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ADJUSTMENTS
Category
Dwelling
Units
Single Family Residential
0.00
Multi -Family Residential
0.00
Group Quarters
0.00
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY
Category
1,000 Gross
Square Feet
Commercial (less than 300,000 sq.ft.)
0.00
Commercial (300,000 sq.ft. or more)
0.00
Freestanding Eating & Drinking
0.00
NON -RETAIL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY
Category
1,000 Gross
Square Feet
Lodging
0.00
Industrial
0.00
Office (less than 50,000 sq.ft.)
0.00
Office (50,000-299,999 sq.ft.)
0.00
Office (300,000 sq.ft. or more)
0.00
Medical
0.00
Government
0.00
Institutional/Educational
0.00
University (# of students)
0.00
OTHER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY
Description
(Attach additional sheets if necessary)
Daily Trips
(Enter "0" if none)
Removal of underground tanks
0.00
ENTER IF APPLICABLE
0.00
Page 3
City of Rolling Hills Date Prepared: July 29, 2016
2016 CMP Local Development Report
Reporting Period: JUNE 1, 2015 - MAY 31, 2016
Enter data for all cells labeled "Enter." If there are no data for that category, enter "0."
PART 3: EXEMPTED DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY
TOTALS)
(NOT INCLUDED IN NEW DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY
LowNery Low Income Housing
0
Dwelling Units
High Density Residential
Dwelling Units
0
Near Rail Stations
Mixed Use Developments
0
1,000 Gross Square Feet
Near Rail Stations
0
Dwelling Units
Development Agreements Entered
1,000 Gross Square Feet
0
into Prior to July 10, 1989
0
Dwelling Units
Reconstruction of Buildings
1,000 Gross Square Feet
0
Damaged due to "calamity"
0
Dwelling Units
Reconstruction of Buildings
1,000 Gross Square Feet
0
Damaged in Jan. 1994 Earthquake
0
Dwelling Units
Total Dwelling Units
0
Total Non-residential sq. ft. (in 1,000s)
0
Page 4
Exempted Development Definitions:
1. LowNery Low Income Housing: As defined by the California Department of Housing and Community
Development as follows:
- Low -Income: equal to or less than 80% of the County median income, with adjustments for family size.
- Very Low -Income: equal to or less than 50% of the County median income, with adjustments for family size.
2. High Density Residential Near Rail Stations: Development located within 1/4 mile of a fixed rail passenger
station and that is equal to or greater than 120 percent of the maximum residential density allowed under
the local general plan and zoning ordinance. A project providing a minimum of 75 dwelling units per acre
is automatically considered high density.
3. Mixed Uses Near Rail Stations: Mixed -use development located within 1/4 mile of a fixed rail passenger
station, if more than half of the land area, or floor area, of the mixed use development is used for high
density residential housing.
4. Development Agreements: Projects that entered into a development agreement (as specified under Section
65864 of the California Government Code) with a local jurisdiction prior to July 10, 1989.
5. Reconstruction or replacement of any residential or non-residential structure which is damaged or destroyed,
to the extent of > or = to 50% of its reasonable value, by fire, flood, earthquake or other similar calamity.
6. Any project of a federal, state or county agency that is exempt from local jurisdiction zoning regulations and
where the local jurisdiction is precluded from exercising any approval/disapproval authority. These locally
precluded projects do not have to be reported in the LDR.
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
TO:
FROM:
THRU:
SUBJECT:
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA• 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288
Agenda Item No.: 7-A
Mtg. Date: 08/08/16
HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY
COUNCIL
YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR
RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER Ma") �J
REPORT ON STATUS OF RESOLUTION REQUESTED IN ZONING
CASE NO. 880 AT 15 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD (LOT 78-RH),
ROLLING HILLS CA, (HASSOLDT).
APPLICATION NO.
SITE LOCATION:
ZONING AND SIZE:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PUBLISHED:
DATE: AUGUST 8, 2016
ZONING CASE NO. 880
15 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD (LOT 78-RH)
RA -S-1, 1.06 ACRES GROSS
MR. AND MRS. HASSOLDT
GARY WYNN, WYNN ENGINEERING
OCTOBER 15, 2015
DECEMBER 31, 2015
FEBRUARY 11, 2016
JUNE 30, 2016
At the July 11, 2016 City Council meeting, after several public hearings and
continuances of the case, members of the City Council by a vote 3-1, with Mayor
Dieringer objecting and Councilmember Pieper recused, directed staff to prepare a
Resolution granting a partial approval in Zoning Case No. 880, 15 Portuguese Bend
Road of the requested variances and site plan review to encroach with 61 square feet of
a mostly completed 300 square foot house addition and eaves into the side yard setback
and to provide a 2' wide walkway along the perimeter of the addition with a 6' high
retaining wall, which would also encroach into the side setback. The request granted by
the City Council was for the variance for the room addition together with the eaves; the
request not granted was for the 2' wide walkway along the perimeter of the addition,
which includes the 6' high retaining wall.
ZC NO. 880 -15 Portuguese Bend Road
During the proceedings members of the Council indicated that they would consider a
proposal with a higher retaining wall encroaching further into the side yard setback
with greater cut slope, if such construction would result in a 4' -wide walkway around
the addition. To accomplish this an up to 7' high retaining wall would have to be
constructed, which would encroach up to 12 feet into the side yard setback for a short
distance.
The Rolling Hills Community Association granted a license agreement to the applicants
to construct an up to 7' tall retaining wall in the easement, with additional conditions.
The applicants have stated that they now wish to comply with the RHCA directive
regarding the easement conditions, and with the zoning code to provide a 4' -wide
walkway around the addition, which necessitates a 7' high retaining wall. Their
engineer has submitted a site plan to that effect. The new proposal must be noticed in
the newspaper and neighbors notified, and a public hearing held before the City
Council. Staff is prepared to bring the new proposal to the City Council at the August
22, 2016 City Council meeting.
Based on the City Council's prior indication of a preferred project, staff will also bring a
Draft Resolution of approval for Council's consideration at the August 22, 2016 public
hearing meeting, at which time the Council could approve the project and the
resolution or take other action.
ZC NO. 880 -15 Portuguese Bend Road
Or
Agenda Item No: 9-B
Mtg. Date: 08/08/16
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
PROPOSED
TREES AND VIEWS ORDINANCE
Page I 0
5/19/2016
The following definitions shall be added to Chapter 17.12, Definitions. When there is a
conflict between the definitions below and the definitions currently in Chapter 17.12,
these definitions shall apply.
DEFINITIONS
17.12 Words, terms and phrases.
For the purpose of this chapter, the meaning and construction of words and
phrases hereinafter set forth shall apply:
"Crown" means the rounded structure of branches that make up the top of a tree.
"Crown lifting" means removing the lower branches of a tree so that a view can be
experienced under the tree.
Page 1 1
"Crown reduction" means a method of pruning that reduces a tree's height and/or spread.
Crown reduction means the reduction of the top, sides or individual limbs of a tree by means of
removal of leaders or the longest portion of limbs to a lateral limb large enough to assume the
tree's growth.
"Damage" means to endanger the health or vigor of a tree or vegetation, including, but
not limited to, girdling, severe pruning (topping or heading back), interfering with the water
supply, applying chemicals, or re -grading around the base of the trunk so as to disrupt the feeder
root zone of the tree or vegetation.
"Decision -making body" means an arbitrator or a judicial body.
"Established view" means the particular "view," as defined herein, from a view seeker's
real property that existed on the date the property was most recently purchased for fair market
value through an arms -length purchase or sale (as evidenced by a deed).
"Established trees and/or vegetation" means trees and/or vegetation as they existed on a
tree/vegetation owner's real property on the date the property was most recently purchased
for fair market value through an arms -length purchase or sale (as evidenced by a deed). "Existed"
means the height and spread of the trees and vegetation as of that date.
Page 12
"Heading back" means the reduction of the mass of a tree by cutting back major limbs
and/or the trunk to stubs. Heading back damages and weakens a tree, makes it susceptible to
disease, and usually results in explosive new growth as the tree attempts to save itself by
replacing foliage. Headed back trees appear disfigured and mutilated. "Heading back" as
defined herein is considered to beseverepruning and its use shall be extremely
limited.
"Lacing" means a method of pruning trees that selectively removes excess (primarily
interior) limbs and foliage to improve the structure of a tree and to provide a view through a tree.
Boforo and After
Lacing
"Maintenance" means pruning a tree with the primary objective of preserving or
improving tree health and structure and enhancing aesthetics.
"Person" means any individual, individual, corporation, partnership, firm or other
legal entities.
Page 1 3
"Pruning" means the removal of plant material from a tree or vegetation.
"Real property" means rights or interests of ownership of land and all appurtenances to
the land including buildings, fixtures, vegetation and improvements erected upon, planted or
affixed to the land.
"Stand thinning" means the selective removal of trees from a grove of trees.
"Topping" means the removal of the entire top of a tree's crown by cutting back large
diameter branches to stubs and/or truncating the main stem/trunk. Topping damages and weakens
trees, often results in explosive new growth as the tree attempts to save itself by replacing canopy
foliage, and topped trees appear disfigured and mutilated. Topping is considered severe pruning and
its use shall be extremely limited.
wiN4464*
"Tree" means any perennial vegetation with a woody main -stem or trunk (sometimes
multiple trunks) ordinarily growing to a considerable height, and usually developing branches at
some distance from the ground. References herein to "tree" shall include the plural, any "tree" or
"trees."
"Tree/vegetation owner" means any real property owner in the City of Rolling Hills, or
authorized agent of such property owner, who owns real property in Rolling Hills on which tree(s)
and/or vegetation is located.
"Vegetation" means all types of plants, bushes, hedges and shrubs, including trees.
"View" means a vision of visually impressive scenes or vistas from a viewing point such as
the Pacific Ocean, off -shore islands, distant mountains, lights of the Los Angeles basin, the Palos
Verdes hills and canyons, Los Angeles harbor and/or Long Beach harbor. A view may be panoramic,
which is an extensive view in at least two directions. A view may incorporate structures, established
trees, or established vegetation in the foreground or background that provides visual perspective.
"View," "the view" and "views" are synonymous and singular.
Page 1 4
"View and tree/vegetation equity" means a fair,reasonable, and balanced accommodation
of real property rights of view seekers deriving from preserving or restoring an established view, and
real property rights of tree/vegetation owners deriving from trees and/or vegetation on their real
property, such as privacy, shade, soil stability, and the use and enjoyment of real property.
"View Seeker" means any real property owner in the City of Rolling Hills, or authorized
agent of such property owner, who alleges tree(s)/vegetation located on a tree/vegetation owner's
property in the near vicinity within the City of Rolling Hills is/are causing unreasonable impairment
of a view benefiting view seeker's real property.
"Viewing point" is a location within a principal residence from which a person can experience
a view, such as the living, family, kitchen and dining rooms, rooms that have features such as picture
windows, sliding glass doors or french doors and within exterior areas immediately adjacent to the
principal residence, such as patios, balconies and decks. Minor rooms such as bathrooms, garages,
and closets are excluded.
Page 15
The following replaces Chapter 17.26 in its entirety.
Chapter 17.26
TREES AND VIEWS PRESERVATION
Sections:
17.26.010 Intent and purpose.
17.26/020 Retroactivity of revised Chapter 17.26
17.26.030 Burden of Proof and Criteria for determining unreasonable view impairment.
17.26.040 Criteria for determining appropriate preservation and/or restoration actions.
17.26.050 Hierarchy of view preservation/restoration actions.
17.26.060 Committee on Trees and Views.
17.26.070 Desirable and undesirable trees.
17.26.080 View and tree/vegetation equity process.
17.26.090 Initial discussion.
17.26.100 View claim procedure.
17.26.110 Mediation.
17.26.120 Assistance of Committee on Trees and Views.
17.26.130 Arbitration.
17.26.140 Litigation.
17.26.150 Preservation/restorative action limitations.
17.26.160 Implementation of preservation/restorative actions.
17.26.180 Responsibility for view preservation/restoration action
and subsequent maintenance.
17.26.190 Notification of subsequent owners.
17.26.200 Liability and Indemnification.
17.26.210 Severability.
17.26.010 Intent and purpose.
The City of Rolling Hills enjoys both beautiful views and an abundance of trees and
other vegetation, and values both as contributing to the unique character of the city and
enhancing the quality of life.
Views of the Pacific Ocean, off -shore islands, lights of the Los Angeles basin, the
Palos Verdes hills or canyons, the Los Angeles and Long Beach harbors and so forth are a
special quality of real property ownership for many residential lots in the city. Views
contribute to real property values.
Trees and vegetation produce significant psychological and tangible benefits for
both residents and the broader community. Trees and vegetation provide shade,
reduce energy costs, provide privacy, provide visual screens and buffers between
properties, modify temperatures, screen winds, stabilize soil, replenish oxygen to the
atmosphere, remove pollutants from the air, mitigate soil erosion, and provide
wildlife habitat. Trees and vegetation contribute to real property values.
Page 1 6
The benefits derived from an established view and the benefits derived from trees
and vegetation may come into conflict. Views have the potential to be diminished or
eliminated by trees and other vegetation growing on nearby private or dtyproperty. Trees
and other vegetation, particularly when such trees are not properly maintained, can
produce harmful effects both on the property on which they are planted and/or on
neighboring properties.
The purpose of this Chapter 17.26 is to:
1. Establish a right of a real property owner (view seeker) in the City of Rolling Hills to preserve
and/ or restore an established view that has been unreasonably impaired by the
trees/vegetation of a tree/vegetation owner,
2. Establish a right of a real property owner ( tree/vegetation owner) in the City of Rolling Hills to
preserve and maintain established trees and vegetation,
3. Mitigate the inherent conflict between an established view and trees/vegetation by establishing
procedures for the protection of an established view and/or abatement of view impairments
created by trees and vegetation, while at the same time protecting trees and vegetation from
indiscriminate damage or removal,
4. Preserve real property rights of tree/vegetation owners by not unreasonably reducing privacy,
shade, soil stability, and other beneficial factors provided by trees and/or vegetation on their
property. The goal is to provide equity between the real property rights of view seekers with
established views and the real property rights of tree/vegetation owners,
5. Assure that remediation of impairments of established views are to the greatest degree possible
compliant with tree maintenance and pruning standards of the International Society of
Arboriculture (ISA), so as not to damage trees and/or vegetation.
17.26.020 Retroactivity of revised Chapter 17.26.
This revised Chapter 17.26 shall be effective retroactively to the date Chapter 17.26
wasfirst made an ordinance of the Gtyof Rolling Hills.
17.26.030 Burden of Proof and Criteria for determining unreasonable view impairment
(A) The view seeker shall be entitled to seek to preserve or restore a view from only one "viewing
point," as defined herein. If the property of the view seeker has more than one unique and
different view, such view seeker shall be entitled to apply for the preservation or restoration of a
second view from an additional viewpoint;
(B) The view seeker shall prove the following by clear and convincing evidence:
1. The most recent date that the view seeker's real property was conveyed for fair market value in
an arms -length transaction (as evidenced by a deed),
2. That the view seeker had an established view, as defined in Section 17.12, from each viewing
point sought in its view claim and the specific parameters of such established view,
3. The extent to which the view seeker's established view has been diminished by the
trees/vegetation of the tree/vegetation owner,
4. The particular remediation measures needed to preserve or restore the established view as
requested by the view seeker, and
Page 1 7
5. That this established view has been unreasonably impaired by a tree/vegetation owner's
trees/vegetation, as measured by the criteria listed in (D);
(C) The "clear and convincing evidence," of an established view and that this established view is
unreasonably impaired by a tree/vegetation owner's trees/vegetation, as required in (8) 2-4 of this section,
shall be established by evidence weighed in the following order of priority:
a. Dated photographic prints, negatives, slides, or digital images [California
Evidence Code Section 1500.6(a)] ,
b. Locations of trees/and or vegetation shown on site plans of the real property,
c. Expert testimony, and lastly
d. Other evidence;
(D) The following factors are to be considered (but are not exclusive) in determining whether an
unreasonable impairment of an established view has occurred:
1. The quality of the established view from the view seeker's real property, including the existence
of landmarks, vistas, or other unique features of an established view and the extent to which a
restoration of the established view would substantially enhance a reasonable person's enjoyment of
the view seeker's property taken as a whole;
2. The extent to which tree(s) and/or vegetation on the tree/vegetation owner's real property
obscure the established view;
3. The nature, significance and number of viewing points on the view seeker's real property from
which the established view is claimed;
4. The extent to which the established view has been or is already diminished by a legal building
structure, by obstructions that are not trees and/or vegetation or by the trees/vegetation of the view
seeker;
5. The extent to which the view seeker has maintained the established view alleged in its view
claim via informal agreements with the current or prior owners of the real property as to which the view
complaint has been filed and/or has filed previous view complaints against such owners that have
maintained the established view alleged. View seekers who have not maintained the established view
alleged in their view claim within 10 years of 1988, the original date of this Ordinance, or within 10 years]
of the most recent date that the view seeker's real property was conveyed for fair market value in an]
arms -length transaction (as evidenced by a deed), whichever is later, shall not be entitled to al
panoramic view, even if such a view is shown to be the view seeker's established view. The extent to
'which the view seeker failed to maintain its own established view, whether panoramic or not, shall be
weighed heavily in evaluating the alleged unreasonableness of the view impairment;
6. The extent to which tree(s) and/or vegetation on the tree/vegetation owner's real property
that obscure the established view are established trees and/or vegetation, as defined by this chapter.
Such established trees and/or vegetation that were already part of the view seeker's established view,
as defined herein, shall be considered less of an impairment than trees and/or vegetation that have
been planted and have grown into the view seeker's view after the most recent date that the view
a eeker's real property was conveyed for fair market value in an arms -length transaction (as evidenced
by a deed)[
Page 1 8
7. The extent to which tree(s) and/or vegetation on the tree/vegetation owner's real property
that obscures the established view are significant to the tree/vegetation owner and provide important
benefits related to the use, enjoyment and value of the tree/vegetation owner's real property, based on
the following factors:
(a) Visual screening or privacy, and sound buffering between properties, provided by
trees/vegetation,
(b) Shade, energy conservation and/or climate control
(c) Soil stability, as determined by soil composition, degree of slope and extent of the tree's root
system when a tree is proposed to be removed,
(d) Softening or reduction in the scale and mass of structures; aesthetics of the
trees/vegetation,
(e) Community/neighborhood quality, value or significance,
(f) Historical context due to the age of the tree/vegetation,
(g) Rare and interesting botanical species,
(h) Habitat value for wildlife.
For example, even a significant impairment of an established view has been shown, such
impairment shall not be deemed unreasonable, requiring removal and/or alteration of specific
trees/vegetation, if such removal and/or alteration would unreasonably impact the privacy and security
of the tree/vegetation owner, cause a substantial adverse impact on the stability of a hillside, drainage
or erosion control on the tree/vegetation owner's property or substantially decrease the
tree/vegetation owner's reasonable enjoyment of his or her property as a whole.
8. The extent to which the particular preservation or remediation measures requested by the view
seeker to preserve or restore its established view will destroy, harm or otherwise adversely affect the
health of the obstructing trees/vegetation or will destroy the aesthetic value of the trees/vegetation.
No such preservation or remediation measures shall be permitted that will destroy, harm or otherwise
adversely affect the health of the obstructing trees/vegetation. Measures that will destroy the aesthetic
value of the trees/vegetation are to be avoided. Removal of a healthy tree is to be avoided unless, after
due consideration of the other criteria listed in (D) of this section, such removal is determined to be
absolutely necessary to restore an established view that has been substantially impaired.
17.26.040 Criteria for determining appropriate preservation/restoration actions.
If it has been determined that an unreasonable impairment of an established view
by a tree/vegetation owner's trees or vegetation exists, the following factors shall be
considered in determining the appropriate preservation or restorative actions regarding
such trees and/or vegetation:
1. Mitigating factors. The following non -ranked factors shall be considered in
determining appropriate actions to preserve or restore an established view, while at
the same time accommodating real property rights of tree/vegetation owners:
Page 1 9
(a) Visual screening or privacy, and sound buffering between properties,
provided by trees /vegetation,
(b) Shade, energy conservation and/or climate control
(c) Soil stability, as determined by soil composition, degree of slope and
extent of the tree's root system when a tree is proposed to be removed,
(d) Softening or reduction in the scale and mass of structures;
aesthetics of the trees/vegetation,
(e) Community/neighborhood quality, value or significance,
(f) Historical context due to the age of the tree/vegetation,
(g) Rare and interesting botanical species,
(h) Habitat value for wildlife.
No removal or alteration of such trees/vegetation shall be ordered if such removal and/or
alteration would unreasonably impact the privacy and security of the tree/vegetation owner, cause a
substantial adverse impact on the stability of a hillside, drainage or erosion control on the
tree/vegetation owner's property or substantially decrease a reasonable person's enjoyment of the
tree/vegetation owner's property as a whole;
2. Hazards posed by the tree(s) or vegetation including, but not limited to disease, fire
danger or the danger of falling limbs or trees. If a deciding body finds that a tree or
other vegetation constitutes a hazard and is being maintained by the tree/vegetation
owner in disregard of the safety of others, the tree/vegetation owner may be required
to pay 100 percent of the cost of correction;
3. The species, age, projected rate of growth, and proper maintenance/pruning
requirements of the tree(s) and/or vegetation, as determined in a written opinion
issued by an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) certified master arborist or
an American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA) registered consulting arborist, who
has personally evaluated the trees/vegetation; No preservation or remediation
measures shall be permitted that, in the opinion of such arborist, will destroy, harm or
otherwise adversely affect the health of the obstructing trees/vegetation;
4. Environmental Review. In no event shall preservation/restoration action be required if
such action would adversely affect the environment. Any proposed agreement or order
by a decision -making body shall be reviewed by city staff to determine any required
environmental review. If the remediation action is determined by city staff not to be
exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), city staff shall arrange for
a CEQA environmental review to determine CEQA compliance and/or conditions. Costs
of environmental review shall be paid initially by the view seeker, provided, however,
that the ultimate responsibility for such costs may subsequently be modified by mutual
agreement of the parties or by order of a decision -making body.
17.26.050 Hierarchy of view preservation/restoration actions.
The intent in effecting preservation or restoration of established views is to comply
as much as is reasonably possible with tree maintenance and pruning standards of the
International Society of Arboriculture (ISA). All preservation or restoration actions, shall be
Page 1 10
conducted in a manner that, in the opinion of an ISA certified master arborist or ASCA
registered consulting arborist, would not destroy the visual proportions of the
tree/vegetation, adversely affect the tree and/or vegetation's growth pattern or health, or
otherwise damage the tree and/or vegetation in question.
View preservation and restoration actions may include, but are not limited to the following,
in order of preference:
1. lacing. lacing is the most preferable pruning technique that removes excess foliage
and can improve the structure of the tree. Views can be provided through laced
trees,
2. Crown Raising. Crown raising may be utilized to provide a view under the crown of a
tree,
3. Crown Reduction. Crown reduction may be used to reduce the height and/or spread
of a tree/vegetation,
4. Stand Thinning. The removal of some of the total number of trees from a grove of trees
may be used, to thin out the grove in order to provide a view through the grove,
5. Heading Back or Topping. Heading back or topping of trees is considered severe pruning
and is only permitted for trees or vegetation previously planted and maintained as a
hedge, espalier or in pollard form,
6. Tree/Vegetation Removal. Removal of trees and/or vegetation may only be considered
as provided in Section 17.26.030(D)8 and when the above -mentioned preservation
actions are judged to be ineffective. Such removal shall be accompanied by
required replacement plantings of appropriate vegetation to mitigate the level of
real property benefits lost due to tree/vegetation removal, unless waived by the
tree/vegetation owner. The view seeker shall bear the cost of replacement
planting, unless otherwise agreed between the parties or ordered by a
decision -making body.
17.26.060 Committee on Trees and Views.
A Committee on Trees and Views ("Committee") is established for the purpose of advising
view seekers and tree owners about the provisions of this chapter, providing research and
evaluation, facilitating discussions among the parties to arrive at an equitable agreement among
the parties, and documenting findings and non -binding recommendations. The role of the
Committee shall be advisory in nature and shall not be binding in establishing the preservation or
restoration of an established view. Participation of the city and/or any committee of the
city in the view and tree/vegetation equity process is as a facilitator, and shall not be
construed in any manner as the city becoming a party to the dispute between the view seeker
and the tree/vegetation owner(s).
The Committee shall be composed of no less than three members, selected from among
real property owners in the city and appointed by the City Council whenever a vacancy occurs.
Page 1 11
17.26.070 Desirable and undesirable trees.
The Committee on Trees and Views is authorized and directed to prepare a list of
desirable and undesirable trees appropriate for planting within the city. The list shall be
based upon ability of the tree species to flourish in Rolling Hills, tree size and shape, rate of
growth, depth or spread of roots,fire resistance/hazard, fall rate of leaves or bark or fruit
or branches, and other factors related to safety, maintenance and appearance. The
purpose of this provision is to make information available to real property owners which
may serve to avoid future view claims and/or fire hazards, and other proceedings
authorized by this chapter (Ord. 239 411(part), 1993).
17.26.080 View and tree/vegetation equity process.
A view seeker shall follow the process established by this chapter in seeking
assistance from the city for preservation or restoration of an alleged estabfshedview.
Participation of the city in the view and tree/vegetation equity process is as a facilitator,
and shall not be construed in any manner as the city becoming a party to the dispute
between the view seeker and the tree/vegetation owner(s):
1. A view seeker applicant must complete the "initial discussion" process described
in Section 17.26.090.
2. If that initial discussion process does not yield a result in an agreement mutually
equitable to the view seeker and the tree/vegetation owner, then the view seeker
may file a view claim with the city and request mediation, as described in Sections
17.26.100 and 17.26.110.
3. If the tree/vegetation owner refuses to participate in mediation or if
mediation is unsuccessful in resolving the claim, the view seeker may next
pursue resolution by requesting assistance from the Committee 'on
Trees and Views as described in Sec. 17.26.120.
4. If the recommendation of the Committee on Trees and Views is not
accepted by the view seeker and the tree/vegetation owner, either
party may appeal the recommendation to Rolling Hills City Council for a
recommended resolution.
5. If the recommendation of the City Council is not accepted by the view
seeker and the tree/vegetation owner, the view seeker may next pursue
resolution by arbitration, as set forth in Section 17.26.130.
6. If arbitration is not accepted by the tree/vegetation owner, the view seeker may
then initiate litigation as described in Section 17.26.140. The prevailing party in any
civil action brought pursuant to this chapter shall be entitled to recover its reasonable
costs and attorneys' fees incurred in the litigation, subject to the following exception:
a tree/vegetation owner who prevails in litigation shall not be entitled to recover
attorneys' fees and costs if the tree/vegetation owner has declined to participate i n
view and tree/vegetation equity processes set forth in Sections 17.26.090 (Initial
Discussion), 17.26.110 (Mediation), and/or 17.26.130 (Arbitration). The notice of the
Page 1 12
view claim and request for mediation provided by the city in accordance with Section
17.26.100 shall inform the tree/vegetation owner of this provision and the
consequences of non -participation in the initial discussion, mediation, and/or
arbitration process.
17.26.090 Initial discussion.
A view seeker, who believes that one or more trees or vegetation on another person's
real property in the city has caused unreasonable impairment of an alleged established view
from the view seeker's real property, shall first notify the tree/vegetation owner in writing
of suchconcerns. The written notification shall request personal discussions to enable the
view seeker and tree/vegetation owner to attempt to reach a mutually agreeable
solution. The notification shall include a copy of the view preservationordinance (Chapter
17.26 of this code), available from the city. Failure of the tree/vegetation owner to respond to
the written request for initial discussion within thirty days from the date of delivery shall be
deemed formal refusalby the tree/vegetation owner to participate in the initial discussion.
The view seeker shall invite the tree/vegetation owner to examine the alleged view impairment
from the viewing point on the view seeker's real property. Theviewseekershall provide tothe
tree/vegetation owner evidence of the alleged established view and a description of the nature and extent
of the alleged impairment (17.26.030).
The tree/vegetation owner is urged to invite the view seeker to examine the situation
from its real property. If the tree and/or vegetation owner purchased its real property after the
view seeker purchased their real property, the tree/vegetation owner should provide the view seeker
with evidence of the date they took title to their real property. The tree/vegetation owner should also
provide clear and convincing evidence of the state (height and spread) of alleged established trees
and or/vegetation on their property as of the date that they took title, if more recent that the date
that the view seeker purchased their property (17.26.030).
Criteria to be considered in evaluating appropriate preservation and/or
restoration actions are contained in Section17.26.040. A hierarchy of view
preservation and/or restoration actions is contained in Section 17.26.50.
After discussions, the view seeker shall document and provide in written form
to the tree/vegetation owner the specifics of a view remediation proposal:
1. Which specific trees or vegetation are proposed to be remedied;
2. What specific remediation is requested for each tree and/or
vegetation, including diagrams or marked -up photographs, describing
such proposed remediation;
3. What replacement plantings, if any, are proposed;
4. Who is to pay for the proposed remediation and replacement
plantings;
5. Who is to pay for future tree/vegetation maintenance, and how such
maintenance is to be administered,
Page 1 13
6. Other pertinent details of the proposed remediation.
If the initial discussion is refused by the tree/vegetation owner, or if the parties cannot
come to an agreement about view preservation/restoration actions required to mitigate view
seeker's alleged view impairment, the view seeker may proceed with the subsequent view
claim procedure outlined in Section 17.26.100.
17.26.100 View claim procedure
If the initial discussion outlined in Section 17.26.090 does not result in an
agreement between the v i e w seeker and the tree/vegetation owner, the
view seeker mayfile a written view claim with the city requesting assistance of the city in
pursuing remediation of the alleged impairment of an established view. Participation of the
city and or its committee in the view and tree/vegetation equity process is as a facilitator,
and shall not be construed in any manner as the city becoming a party to the dispute
between the view seeker and the tree/vegetation owner(s).
(1) Proof of initial discussion. Before application may be made, the view seeker applicant
shall provide written proof that the initial discussion process contained in 17.26.090 has been
attempted and failed.
(2) Application Required. The view seeker applicant shall submit a completed application for
remediation of the alleged impairment of an established view (view claim) on a form provided by
the city. The application shall be accompanied by a fee as shall be set from time to time by the City
Council. During the course of a view action, an applicant may be required to amend an application
or to provide supplemental materials.
(3) Financial Responsibility and Indemnification Agreement. The
view seeker applicant shall execute a financial responsibility and
indemnification agreement with the city agreeing to indemnify the city of
any liability and agreeing to pay the entire cost of the view claim process
and the view preservation or remediation actions, except as otherwise may
be later agreed between view seeker and the tree/vegetation owner or as
later specified by a decision -making body. View seeker shall post a payment
bond at the time a view claim is submitted.
(4) View claim procedure. A view claim to preserve or restore view shall
consist of all of the following:
a) The address in the city of the view seeker's real property, and
evidence confirming the ownership and the date of acquisition of
the view seeker's real property;
Page 1 14
b) The address in the city of the real property upon which the trees and/or
vegetation allegedly impairing a view are located and the tree/vegetation
owner's name;
c) Evidence that initial discussion as described in Section 17.26.090 has been
requested and has failed;
d) View point(s) from which an alleged established view is/are claimed;
e) A description of the nature and extent of the alleged unreasonable
impairment of an established view, including the clear and convincing
evidence that supports such claim, such as:
i) Dated photographic prints, negatives, slide, or digital images;
ii) Locations of trees/and or vegetation shown on site plans of the real
property,
iii) Expert testimony, and lastly
iv) Other evidence;
f) The location of all specific trees and/or vegetation alleged to have
caused the view impairment. Such evidence must show the extent to
which the alleged established view has been allegedly impaired by
trees and/or vegetation;
g)
Specific actions proposed by the view seeker to preserve/restore the
alleged established view (Sec. 17.26.090);
17.26.110 Mediation.
If the initial discussion outlined in Section 17.26.90 has not resulted in an agreement
between the view seeker and the tree/vegetation owner, the view seeker may request
mediation assistance to resolve the view claim.
1. Upon receiving the written view claim, financial responsibility and indemnification
agreement, payment bond, and processing fee, city staff shall prepare and send by
certified mail to the tree/vegetation owner a copy of the written view claim and a
notice requesting that the tree/vegetation owner agree to participate in a mediation
process to attempt to resolve the view claim. City staff shall provide the tree/vegetation
owner with a copy of this ordinance Chapter 17.26;
2. The notice of the view claim and request for mediation provided by the city in accordance
with Section 17.26.100 shall inform the tree/vegetation owner of the provision i n
Sec. 17.26.140 that a tree/vegetation owner who prevails in litigation shall not be entitled
to recover attorneys' fees and costs if the tree/vegetation owner has declined to participate
in the view and tree/vegetation equity processes set forth in Sections 17.26.090 (Initial
Discussion), 17.26.110 (Mediation), and/or 17.26.130 (Arbitration);
Page 1 15
3. The tree/vegetation owner shall have 30 days from delivery of the request for mediation
to either accept or decline mediation. The notice sent to the tree/vegetation owner shall
inform the tree/vegetation owner that a failure to respond to the request for mediation
within 30 days from the date of delivery of the notice shall be deemed a refusal of the
mediation process by the tree/vegetation owner;
4. City staff shall notify all real property owners within 1,000 feet of the tree/vegetation
owner's property of the pending view claim, of their right to file their own view claim
against the same tree/vegetation owner within 45 days of the city's mailing of notice of the
original view claim, and that any view claim that they file against the tree/vegetation
owner will be subject to a two-year deferral, if it is not filed within 45 days of the city's
mailed notice of the view seeker's original claim. Any view claim(s) submitted by nearby
real property owners after being advised by staff of the pending view claim, to the extent
possible, shall be combined with the subject view claim for purposes of mediation and/or
arbitration.;
5. If the tree/vegetation owner agrees to participate in a mediation process, the mediator
shall be chosen by the parties from a list maintained by the city of qualified and
professionally trained mediators, including but not limited to, members of the American
Arbitration Association. In the event the parties are unable to agree on a mediator from
the approved list, city staff shall randomly select a mediator from the list. City staff, in
consultation with the mediator, shall establish a date for mediation, and a written notice
of the mediation hearing date shall be sent to each party by certified mail;
6. The mediator shall be guided by the provisions of this chapter, including the evaluation
criteria set forth in Sections 17.26.030 and 17.26.040, and the hierarchy of preservation
actions set forth in Section 17.26.050, respectively, in attempting to resolve the view
claim. The mediator may also solicit recommendations of an ISA certified master arborist
or ASCA registered consulting arborist and other experts;
7. The role of the mediator shall be advisory in nature and shall not be binding in establishing the
preservation or restoration of an established view. Any agreement reached between
t h e parties as a result of the mediation process described herein shall be reduced to
writing and signed by the mediator and all of the parties. Two copies of such agreement
shall be submitted to thecity clerk;
8. The costs of mediation, including advice of experts, if any, shall be paid initially by the
view seeker, provided, however, that the ultimate responsibility for such costs may
subsequently be modified by mutual agreement of the parties. The mediator shall
recommend a just and reasonable allocation of responsibility for the costs of
mediation, including for experts if any, as a part of the mediation process;
9. If an agreement is reached through mediation, it shall be reduced to writing and provided
to the city for implementation in accordancewith Section 17.26.160.
Page 1 16
17.26.120 Assistance of Committee on Trees and Views.
If the initial discussion outlined in Section 17.26.090 or mediation outlined in Sections
17.26.110 does not result in an agreement between the tree /vegetation owner and the view
seeker, the view seeker may request assistance from the Committee onTrees and Views.The role
of the Committee shall be advisory in nature and shall not be binding in establishing the
preservation or restoration of an established view. Participation of the city and/or its
committee in the view and tree/vegetation equity process is as a facilitator, and shall not be
construed in any manner as the city becoming a party to the dispute between the view seeker
and the tree/vegetation owner(s). The following process shall apply:
1) Public Hearing. The matter shall be returned to the City Manager, who shall schedule the
matter for a public hearing before the Committee on Trees and Views. (Ord. 292 §5,
2003; Ord. 239 §11(part), 1993. Public notice of the hearing shall be given a minimum of
fifteen days prior to the hearing. The hearing shall not proceed unless proof is shown
that the owner of the tree or other obstructing vegetation (tree/vegetation owner) has
received notice of the hearing as provided herein;
2) Such public notice shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested to:
a) the owner of the real property on which the tree or vegetation allegedly
unreasonably impairing an alleged established view is located (tree/vegetation
owner). Such notice shall inform such owner that all costs incurred by the city,
including costs for experts, shall be paid initially by the view seeker, provided,
however, that the ultimate responsibility for such costs may be subsequently
modified by mutual agreement of the parties, and
b) the complainant (view seeker);
3) Notice shall be given by first class mail to all real property owners within five hundred
feet of the exterior boundary of the property on which the tree or vegetation allegedly
unreasonably impairing an established view is located, and to other persons who, in the
Committee's judgment, might be affected;
4) Content of Notice. The notice shall state the name of the complaining party (view
seeker), the name of the real property owner against whom the complaint is filed
(tree/vegetation owner), the location of the tree or other vegetation, and the time and
place of hearing. The notice shall invite written comments to be submitted prior to or at
the hearing. Where there is more than one real property with trees/vegetation that
impairs the claimed view of viewseeker, the Committee will deal with all of those
properties, to the extent possible, in a consolidated manner to arrive at a
comprehensive recommendation;
Page 1 17
5) Conduct of Hearing. The Committee shall adopt rules for the conduct of required
hearings. At the hearing, the Committee shall consider all written and oral testimony
and evidence presented in connection with the application. The Committee shall be
guided by the provisions of this chapter, including the evaluation criteria set forth
in Sections 17.26.030 and 17.26.040, and the hierarchy of preservation actions set
forth in Section 17.26.050, respectively, in attempting to resolve the view claim.
a) Professional advisors. The Committee may at its discretion retain an ISA certified
master arborist or ASCA registered consulting arborist to provide expert advice
to the Committee. The Committee may retain other professionals, as needed, to
provide expert opinions and cost estimates to the Committee.
b) The City Attorney may attend public hearings only to assure the legality of the
proceedings, but shall not in any way represent the interests of either the view
seeker or the tree -owner. Participation of the city and/or its committee in the
view and tree/vegetation equity process is as a facilitator, and shall not be
construed in any manner as the city becoming a party to the dispute between
the view seeker and the tree/vegetation owner(s).
c) The view seeker and tree/vegetation owner may at their own discretion and
their own expense appoint authorized agents, and/or retain legal counsel,
arborists, surveyors and other professionals.
6) Findings. Based on the evidence received and factors contained in Sec. 17.26.030,
17.26.040, and 17.26. 050, the Committee may find :
a) That there is no established view within the meaning of this chapter;
b) That there is an established view within the meaning of this chapter, but that the
established view is not unreasonably impaired based on the criteria and factors
provided in this chapter; or
c) That there is an established view within the meaning of this chapter and that the
established view is unreasonably impaired based on the criteria and factors provided
in this chapter;
d) That the remediation proposed by the view seeker is permitted within the
meaning of this chapter and reasonable or not permitted or not reasonable;
e) That, if the proposed remediation plan is not deemed to be reasonable, the
Committee shall formulate an alternative remediation plan;
f) The Committee shall make specific written findings regarding the aforementioned
determinations and any other related determinations supported by substantial
evidence;
Page 1 18
7) Actions. If the Committee determines that there is an established view that is
unreasonably impaired by tree/vegetation owner's trees and/or vegetation, it shall
provide :
a) Non -binding recommendations as is necessary to remediate the viewimpairment and
to restore or preserve the applicant's established view, as defined in Sec. 17.26.050
(Hierarchy of view preservation/restoration actions;
b) To minimize the number of trees/vegetation to be trimmed or removed, the
Committee may recommend remediation of the view impairment in increments to
determine the effect of each incremental remediation before ordering further
remediation;
c) The Committee may recommend conditions as are necessary to prevent future view
impairments.
d) In no event shall restorative action be required if such action would adversely affect
the environment or would unreasonably detract from the privacy or enjoyment of the
real property on which the objected to vegetation is located or would violate any
other conditions and proscriptions provided in this chapter;
8) Finality of Decision. In the event that the recommendations of the Committee are accepted
by the tree/vegetation owner and the view seeker, the Committee's recommendation shall
be final 30 days after the adoption of its written findings, unless it is appealed to the City
Council pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 17.54. (Ord. 295 §7 (Ex. B (part)), 2004; Ord.
239§11(part), 1993);
a) Any agreement reached between the the view seeker and the
tree/vegetation owner as a result of the p rocess described herein shall
be reduced to writing and signed by all of the parties, and two copies
shall be submitted to thecity clerk. The agreement shall be implemented in
accordance with Section 17.26.160;
b) It is the intention of this section that any advisory recommendations of the Committee
be admissible as evidence in any civil action brought pursuant to Section 17.26.140 of
this chapter.
17.26.130 Arbitration.
If the proceedings under Sections 17.26.90 (Initial Discussion), 17.26.110 (Mediation),
and/or 17.26.120 (View Committee or City Council on appeal) fail to achieve agreement
between the tree/vegetation owner and the view seeker, the view seeker may deliver by
certified mail to the tree/vegetation owner a request to participate in a binding arbitration
process. The tree/vegetation owner shall have thirty days from the delivery of the request for
arbitration to either accept or decline arbitration. Failure to respond within thirty days shall
be deemed a formal refusal of arbitration.
Page 1 19
If arbitration is accepted, within thirty days of such acceptance the parties shall agree in
writing to the selection of an arbitrator, who shall be chosen from a I ist provided by the city
of qualified and professionally trained arbitrators, including but not limited to, members of
the American Arbitration Association. If the parties are unable to agree on a specific
arbitrator within thirty days, city staff shall randomly select an arbitrator from the list
maintained by the city. In addition, either party may petition a court of competent jurisdiction to
appoint an arbitrator.
The arbitrator shall be guided by the provisions of this chapter, including the
evaluation criteria set forth in Sections 17.26.030 and 17.26.040, and the hierarchy of
preservation/restoration actions set forth in Section 17.26.050, respectively, in attempting
to resolve the view claim, and shall submit a complete written decision to the view seeker
and the tree/vegetation owner. Costs of remediation, tree/vegetation replacement,
maintenance of trees/vegetation and related items shall be included in the decision. Any
decision of the arbitrator shall be enforceable pursuant to the provisions of California Code
of Civil Procedure Section 1285 et seq., and two copies o f the decision shall be submitted to
the city clerk.
The costs of arbitration shall be paid initially by the view seeker, provided, however,
that the ultimate responsibility for such costs may subsequently be modified either by
mutual agreement of the parties or by a determination of the arbitrator as to a just and
reasonable allocation of financial responsibility. The decision of the arbitrator shall be
implemented in accordance with Section 17.26.160.
17.26.140 Litigation.
If a view seeker has attempted to obtain but has been unsuccessful in obtaining an
agreement or resolution under Sections 17.26.90 (Initial Discussion), 17.26.110 (Mediation),
17.26.120 (View Committee or City Council on appeal), and/or 17.26.130 (Arbitration) of this
chapter, the view seeker may initiate civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction for
resolution of his/her view claim under the provisions of this chapter. It is the intent of this
chapter that the evaluation criteria set forth herein in sections 27.26.30, 17.26.40, and
17.26.50 are utilized in adjudicating view claims in civil litigation. In the event of civil litigation,
the view seeker shall provide two copies of the filed complaint to the city clerk.
The prevailing party in any civil action brought pursuant to this chapter shall be
entitled to recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees incurred in the litigation, subject to
the following exception: a tree/vegetation owner who prevails in litigation shall not be entitled to
recover attorneys' fees and costs if the tree/vegetation owner has declined to participate view
and tree/vegetation equity processes set forth in Sections 17.26.090 (Initial Discussion),
17.26.110 (Mediation), and 17.26.130 (Arbitration). The notice of the view claim and request for
mediation provided by the city in accordance with Section 17.26.100 shall inform the
tree/vegetation owner of this provision and the consequences of non -participation in the initial
discussion, mediation, and/or arbitration process.
Page 1 20
A decision established by litigation shall be implemented in accordance with Section
17.26.160.
17.26.150 Preservation/restorative action limitations.
Except as otherwise authorized by law, no tree and/or vegetation on real property
owned or controlled by another person may be removed, destroyed or otherwise altered unless
the view seeker either enters into a written agreement with the tree/vegetation owner
providing for such removal, destruction or alteration or obtains anarbitration award or
judicial decision specifying, in detail, the nature and timing of the preservation or restorative
actions and specified replacement plantings, and the parties responsible for performing such
action.
17.26.160 Implementation of preservation/restorative action.
Restorative action may be determined by agreement among the view seeker and the
tree/vegetation owner, through arbitration, or through litigation.
(1) Within thirty days of a mutual agreement between the parties or arbitration
award or judicial decision ordering restorative action by the tree/vegetation
owner, the view seeker shall obtain and present to the tree/vegetation owner
three bids from licensed,bondedand qualified contractors for performance of the
work, as well as a cash deposit in the amount of the lowest bid. In order to
qualify, the contractors must provide insurance which protects and indemnifies
the city and the view seeker from damages attributable to negligent or wrongful
performance of the work. Any such insurance shall be subject to the approval of
the city.
(2) The owner of the obstructing vegetation (tree/vegetation owner), if required to
remediate the view impairment, may hire any licensed, bonded and qualified
contractor to perform the restorative action (as long as the insurance requirements
of this section are satisfied), at a cost up to the lowest bid obtained by the view
seeker for the same work, but shall be responsible for any cost above the amount of
the cash deposit. The work shall be completed no more than thirty days from receipt
of the cash deposit, absent good cause.
(3) The implementation method provided for in this section may be modified by
mutual agreement of the parties or by any decision -making body.
(4) The costs of implementation shall be paid initially by the view seeker,
provided, however, that the ultimate responsibility for such costs may
subsequently be modified either by mutual agreement of the parties or by a
determination of a decision -making body as to a just and reasonable
allocation of financial responsibility.
Page 1 21
17.26.180 Responsibility for view preservation/restorative action and
subsequent maintenance.
The view seeker shall be responsible for paying the cost of any and all view claim
processes and determined preservation/restoration actions unless the parties agree to share
the costs in some other manner, or it is otherwise determined by arbitration or court order.
Subsequent maintenance of trees and vegetation shall be the responsibility of the tree/vegetation
owner, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties or required pursuant to any final arbitration
decision or court order. If the tree/vegetation owner agrees to remove a
tree/vegetation in lieu of required pruning, the costs of removal and for any
replacement plantings shall be borne by the view seeker, unless otherwise agreed
or stipulated.
17.26.190 Notification of subsequent owners.
It is not the intent or purpose of this chapter for the city to create either a covenant
running with the land or an equitable servitude (for example, easement or license). However, the
city will keep a record of agreements and decisions reached pursuant to this chapter of which it is
notified, and will provide those agreements and/or decisions as part of the pre -purchase inspection
report to prospective purchasers of real property in the city who request such a report.
This section does not preclude recording of the agreements -or decisions if that is agreed to
by the parties or mandated by a decision -making body.
17.26.200 Liability and Indemnification.
(1) Participation of the city and/or its committee in the view and tree/vegetation
equity process is as a facilitator, and shall not be construed in any manner as the city
becoming a party to the dispute between the view seeker and the tree/vegetation owner(s).
The city shall not be liable for any damages, injuries, costs or expenses by reason of any advisory
opinion issued by the Committee on Trees and Views or the City Council on appeal, a city
employee or official or any agreements or determinations resulting from mediation, arbitration or
litigation concerning view claims or a view seeker's assertions pertaining to views remedied or
protected herein;
(2) The applicant shall execute a financial responsibility agreement with the city
and post a payment bond at the time a view claim is submitted as described in Section
17.26.100. The applicant must agree to pay the entire cost of the view claim process and
view preservation/remediation, except as otherwise may be agreed between the view
seeker and the tree/vegetation owner or as required by a decision -making body. The
view seeker shall agree to indemnify city of any liability;
(3) Under no circumstances shall the city have any responsibility or liability to
enforce or seek any legal redress, civil or criminal, for any decision that any other person or
entity makes concerning a view claim;
Page 1 22
(4) A failure to comply with the provisions of this chapter is not a misdemeanor,
and the enforcement of this chapter shall be only by the affected and interested private
parties.
17.26.210 severability.
(1) If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this
ordinance or the application thereof to any persons or place, is for any reason held to be
invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision
shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance. The City Council hereby
declaresthat it would have adopted this ordinance, and each any every section, subsection,
subdivision,sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one
or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be
declared invalid or unconstitutional.
(2) The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause the same
to be published in accordance with law.
Page 1 23
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288
Agenda Item No.: 10-A
Mtg. Date: 08/08/16
HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER '
YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR
DISCUSSION AND APPROVAL - PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL FOR
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE TENNIS COURT AREA.
AUGUST 8, 2016
ATTACHMENT:
July 12, 2016 letter from RHCA concerning main gate bathroom
Preliminary cost estimate & plans
BACKGROUND
The California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA) that provides the City's
insurance expressed concern that the tennis court facilities, including the bathroom, are
not handicap accessible. The tennis court lot is a City property that is being leased to the
Rolling Hills Community Association. The CJPIA's concerns were shared with the City
Council, RHCA staff and Board. Although the City's priority was to make the facilities
ADA compliant, the RHCA thought it would also be a good time to update and
improve the entertainment facilities between courts 1 and 2/3 (cabana, seating areas,
outdoor kitchen, fire pit, and storage facilities).
Staff from both agencies were directed to work with the Tennis Club and over the last
year have been developing a work plan for modifications to the facilities, including the
bathroom, for ADA compliance. RHCA engaged a landscape architect Deborah Richie-
Bray to design an ADA compliant bathroom and pathways into the courts and
entertainment area from Portuguese Bend Road. She designed the bathroom, paths and
one handicap parking space. LA County Building and Safety plan checker reviewed the
plan for ADA code compliance and provided input. The plan was modified to meet the
code requirements. The plan also included a very preliminary concept for remodeling
and updating of the entertainment area for handicap accessibility.
Following a few meetings recently with the Tennis Club representatives and direction
from the Tennis Club liaisons from the City Council and the RHCA Board, the
landscape architect was directed to prepare a larger and more attractive facility for the
enjoyment of all residents of the City. This would allow community groups like the
Tennis Club, Caballeros, Women's Club and Seniors Group to have a nice place to have
functions for 100 plus people that does not presently exist in Rolling Hills.
Another direction from these meetings was to develop architectural plans that are
currently being prepared for storage facilities - one at the cabana and a new one to be
located behind the southernmost tennis court. Once the architectural plans are
prepared, a structural engineer will be engaged to prepare calculations for structural
elements of the structures.
RECOMMENDATION
It is requested that the City Council review and approve the preliminary plan and
concept. If there are no significant issues, authorize staff to proceed to hire an engineer
to prepare detailed specifications for the structures and cost estimates.
This is only an overall and preliminary concept and a more detailed plan with more
accurate costs will be provided to the City Council at a later date, however the handicap
accessibility, parking, paths and walkways will most likely not change. LA County
Public Works Department staff informed us that their structural engineers could
prepare the necessary structural calculations, documents and plans to be ready for plan
check review (under the City Services agreement with the County). For cost
comparison, staff will also request a proposal from another engineer.
Conceptual Plan for Improvements to Tennis Court Picnic Area
Enclosed are conceptual plans and very preliminary cost estimates for improvements to
the Tennis Court Picnic area. The project will be divided into two parts - Demolition,
ADA hardscape compliance and associated changes to the irrigation/landscaping that
will be funded by the City; and the construction of the entertainment area that includes
the cabana and outdoor kitchen/seating area and storage facilities, that will be funded
by the Association. The RHCA Board reviewed this plan and cost estimates and
authorized their staff to proceed. If City Council does not have any objections or
material changes to the plans, the next step is to have the city move forward with
engineering. The Tennis Club board has reviewed and approved the concept, and
shared the plans with its membership at its Annual BBQ on July 17th. The Association
and City staff will present the concept to the Women's Club on August 11 to receive
their input.
If all goes well, demolition could begin in the late fall. Once final plans are prepared for
the cabana/outdoor kitchen, fire pit and storage facilities; they will be submitted to the
Planning Commission, Architectural Committee, RHCA Board and City Council for
final approval and to go forward with obtaining construction bids. Right now the
estimates show that the RHCA and City are paying almost equal shares of the cost of
the project (not counting that the City needs to pay prevailing wages for its portion of
the project). This could change as decisions are made on amenities and materials.
Included with this report is a request to the City Council from the RHCA to reimburse
them for half of the cost to retrofit the bathroom at the guard shack for ADA
compliance. Because the public uses the bathrooms in connection with their use of a
City recreational facility (tennis courts), the City may properly contribute towards
bringing the bathrooms ADA compliant. However, the City may not contribute
towards a public works construction project in excess of $5,000 that is not bid in
accordance with the Public Contract Code; accordingly, staff proposes that the City pay
25% towards the bathroom remodel, up to $5,000 and in addition, the City will pay 66%
($20,000) of the costs associated with the project's engineering, plan check and permits.
With the present estimates, both agencies will be paying 50% of the total costs for all
these items. The RHCA is now ready to proceed with the ADA bathroom
improvements and are soliciting construction bids. Funds are available in the current
RHCA budget for this improvement, but they will not commence with the work until
they know the City will pay for 25% or up to $5,000 of the cost.
FISCAL IMPACT
The enclosed cost estimates for the different aspects of the project ($316,951.50) are very
rough and they do not include payment of prevailing wages that will be required for
the labor portion of the project paid by the City. It is expected that the cost associated
with City's portion of the improvements will be 15% or greater than shown here. The
City Council appropriated $50,000 as a placeholder for the area improvements in the FY
2016-17 Budget. At this time staff is not asking for appropriation of additional funds,
just approval of the conceptual plan and acknowledgement that costs identified are on
track with what the City Council is expecting to fund for this project. Furthermore, staff
is requesting that the City Council agree to appropriate up to $5,000 to reimburse the
RHCA for the bathroom upgrade at the gatehouse to become ADA compliant. Once the
plans are finalized and more accurate cost estimate is available, staff will bring it back
to the City Council for appropriation of funds.
It is anticipated that the City will pay for the following improvements:
1. Pathways, railings, low walls along pathways $87,652
and flatwork for ADA compliance.
2. ADA Restroom (25%) $ 5,000
3. Lighting $18,200
4. Planting/ Irrigation (50%) $35,000
5. Engineering, plan check $20,000
& permits (66%)
TOTAL: $165,852*
Plus payment of prevailing wages for the items the $186,980
City will be responsible for constructing Q 15%**
*Based on the currently proposed project, it is estimated that the RHCA portion would be about
$152,750 for which they approved $160,000 for the project at its July 70: Board meeting.
**The 15% increase in cost for the project is due to the requirement that the City pay prevailing
wages and is only an estimate. The true cost will not be known until the project receives bids.
YS:RC:hl
Tennis Court Improvements-stoffreport.docx
c�ofLin9 Arts C .01106.` h Community
of cRancl o Pa10 es
NO. 1 PORTUGUESE BEND RD. • ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 544-6222
ROLLING HILLS
CALIFORNIA
(310) 544-6766 FAX
RECEIVED
JUL 14 1016
City of Rolling Hills
Rolling Hills City Council By
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
July 12, 2016
Re: Improvements to Make Gatehouse Bathroom ADA Compliant
Honorable Council Members:
The RHCA in partnership with the City and Tennis Club are in the process of developing plans
to bring the entertaining area adjacent to the tennis courts into ADA compliance and to make the
area a more attractive amenity for the residents of Rolling Hills.
A requirement for ADA compliance is to have a compliant bathroom facility. Currently, tennis
players use the bathroom facility at the back of the main gatehouse. This bathroom does not
meet ADA standards and will need to be expanded, plumbing lines moved and new fixtures and
handrails and door installed to meet ADA requirements.
Estimated cost for the bathroom improvements are $15-20,000. RHCA is respectfully requesting
that the City reimburse the RHCA for 50% of the costs of these improvements.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Sincerely, ,n
Kristen Raig
Manager
CE� ,1 6*
LANDSGPB ARp11Y6C111Rg
•
•
ROLLING HILLS COMMUNITY TENNIS COURTS
MATERIAL SCHEDULE- PRELIMINAR
OATS: 6.3016
TYPE
DESCRIPTION
QTY
SIZE
UNIT PRIG?
EST. TOTAL
SUB TOTAL
2ARDSCAPE
FLATWORK
FLAGSTONE. IRREGULAR
LOVPOC
925SF
3/STHK
025
$ 23,125.00
COLORED CONCRETE
COLOR TBD
2120 SF
013
3 27560.00
DC (FIRE PR & O.F. SEATING
AREA)
COLOR TBD
862 SF
055
f 3,879.00
WALLS&COLUMNS
LOW WALL -RAMP
STUCCO
$ 12.062.50
WALL UP
STONE -'000100
165 LE
YTHK
025 each
$ 2,062.50
COLUMN
STONE VENEER
6
15'K15'K20H
0100 each
S 600.00
COLUMN CAP
STONE
6
16'%16'KTMK
050
$ 300.00
STAIRS
S 5,000.00
RAILING
ADA HANDRAIL
WROUGHT IRON/BLACK
I05LF
01WLF
S '0300.00
STMRHANORAIL
WROUGHT IRON/BLACK
37 LE
O125LF
$ 5.625.00
f 87,651.50
ENTRY TRELLIS
SIKU& II/RL MUST UEAM.
CR05.)
WWU/TON I EL/ -MAILl1
HOA
9•.UH
$ 5,000.00
f 5.000.00
FIRE PD -8'.T DIA
WALL
STUCCO
5 5,000.00
WALL CAP
STONE
5 200.00
$ 5.200.00
CABANA -STRUCTURE
CABANA BLDG.
COLUMN
STONE VENEER
10
21%21'
f 1,000.0%1
S 10.000.00
COLUMN CAP
STONE
10
21T23'K3911K
5 150.00
5 1500.03
WALL
WOOD SIDING - MATCH HOA
BLOC.
5 3500.00
OVERHEAD STRUC
STEEL WRAPPED W/ WESTERN
RED CEDER
S 12,500.00
TRELLIS
13EAM(EXTENDED FROM
CABANA BLDG.)
STEEL WRAPPED W/ WESTERN
RID CEDER
S 5,000.00
ROOF
TILE ' MATCH HOA BLDG
5 15.000.00
COUNTER TOP
COLORED CONC/COLOR TED
102 SF
S 9000.00
COUNTER VENEER
STUCCO
5 2.00000
DOOR
STANDARD/WESTERN RED
CEDAR
5 350.00
S 57.850.00
APPLIANCES
GRILL
VIKING
I
5 10.000.00
FRIDGE.
VIKING
2
5 5030.90
ICE MACHINE
VIKING
I
S 5.000.00
SINK
TBD
I
f 500.00
TV
TED
1
5 2,000.00
3 22500.00
STORAGE BLDG.
WALL
WOOD SIDING' MATCH HOA
BLDG.
5 3,500.00
DOOR
STANDARD/WESTERN RED
CEDAR
I
3 350.00
$ 3,850.00
ADA RESTROOM
WALL
WOOD SIDING - MATCH HEM
BLDG.
5 15,030.00
APPLIANCES- SINK (ADA
APPROVED'
TED
I
APPLIANCES - TOILET(ADA
APPROVED)
TBD
I
DOOR
RELOCATED EX
I
ADA REQUIRED FIXTURES
-
$ 15.000.00
LIGHTING
TREE DOWN LIGHT
FK LUMINAIRE
10
S 200.00
S 2,00000
TRELLIS DOWN LIGHT
EX LUMINAIRE '
20
S 200.00
3 5.000.03
POLE LIGHT
-
MATCH HOA
I
$I.590♦ 51,900
INSTALL
5 2500.00
WALL LIGHT. RECESSED
FKLUMINNRE
10
5 100.00
$ 1,800.00
WALL LIGHT/HOUSE LIGHT
MATCHHGA
4
$ 350.00
f 1,400.00
PATH LIGHT
F% LUMINAIRE
9
$ 200.00
$ 1,800.00
PILASTER LIGHT
F% LUMINAIRE
6
f 500.00
5 3,000.00
GEEING PENDENT LIGHT WI
FAN
TED
3
3 500.00
5 1500.00
f 18,2(0.03
MISC
SIGN BOARD W/LIGHTS
I
S 200.00
5 200.00
DRINKING FOUNTAIN
I
S 150003
5 1,50200
5 1.700.00
ENGINEERING
GRADING & DRAINAGE
3 35,000.00
3 25,000.011
STRUCTURAL CABANA
$ 25,090.00
GEOLOGIST (REPORT Is 5.000.901 S 5,000.00I
3 5.090.00
PLANTING & IRRIGATION
IRRIGATION
5 25.000.90
S 25,000.00
PIANFING
5 45,000.00
f 55.090.00
5 70,000.90
ESTIMATED GRAND TOTAL 3315,25150
\\CHERRY\Uien\PUNR\PROIECTS\2015\ROWNG RILLS TENNIS COURT\MATERIALVREUMINARY BUDGET 63036
DATE: 6/17/3016
REV. DATE: 6/30/2016
ram _%�.um,.
o„m FM,
ROLLING MILLS
COMMUNITY
TENNIS COURTS
FURNITURE RAN
PRELIMINARY
74.7011
Sn.mO
a.. ware
SIM
L-4
R E CE_l
City
By
JUL
of Rottin
-17
,Tt.v.,s.r.'i.lT.i.11�
",11IIlpinll ll l ll tt-
ROLLING HILLS
COMMUNITY
TENNIS COURTS
RANTING PLAN
PRELIMINARY
MYNA
LP -1
RECEIVED
JUL 19 2016
City of Rolling Hills
By
ROLLING HILLS COMMUNITY TENNIS COURTS CONCEPT DESIGN
I PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
24» VIA AMAUOR
FALOS VERDES IMAM, CA 90174
In :010) 3774E168
Ewwk debate klb ny..mm ..te.id+d vmn
39'-2'
TRELLIS
CROSSPIECE
IN THE FRONT
TRELLIS IN THE FRONT
7X11 BEAM
EXTENDED FROM
CABANA
B - CABANA ELEVATION
21X21 COLUMN
W/ STONE VENEER
SCALE: 1/4' = 1'-0'