799, Gradling and as built drainage, Staff ReportsStaff Reports
• •
&re./ 01 Roetipt9 getid
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288
Agenda Item No. 6A
Mtg. Date: 7-11-11
DATE: JULY 11, 2011
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CrITY COUNCIL
FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR V 4
THROUGH: ANTON DAHLERBRUCH, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION NO. 1109. A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR GRADING AND AS
BUILT DRAINAGE DEVICES AND A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE
MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBED NET LOT AREA OF THE LOT, IN
ZONING CASE NO. 799, AT 2 APPALOOSA LANE, (LOT 106-C-RH), (BLACK).
THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA), PURSUANT TO
SECTIONS 15304 and 15061(b)(3) OF THE ACT.
REQUEST AND RECOMMENDATION
1. Request for a Site Plan Review to retain an as graded area of 19,000 sq.ft. and as
constructed drainage devices, both located partially on adjacent property - 3
Appaloosa Lane and in roadway easement and request for a Variance to exceed the
maximum permitted disturbed area of the net lot, (55% disturbance), triggered by the
grading. A very small area of 4 Appaloosa Lane was also affected.
2. It is recommended that the City Council review the staff report, continue the
public hearing and adopt the attached Resolution or provide other direction to staff.
ZC NO. 799
•
•
BACKGROUND
3. The Planning Commission approved this project by a 3-1 vote. Commissioners
Chelf and DeRoy were absent and Chairperson Smith voted against the project.
Chairperson Smith found that the proposed landscaping plan did not meet the
Commission's direction that the graded area be planted to look natural.
4. The City Council took the case under jurisdiction and conducted a field trip and
a public hearing on February 28, 2011. The City Council, following public input and
discussion directed staff to prepare a resolution of approval to be brought back for
consideration by the City Council after the applicant receives input from other
reviewing agencies, such as Building and Safety, Department of Fish and Game and
Rolling Hills Community Association.
5. The applicant submitted application and plans to the County Building and Safety
and received a preliminary approval with conditions that the asphalt curb constructed
along the new inlet be removed and that portion of the slope be re -graded to a
maximum 2:1 slope. The RHCA approved the as built project including the granting of
an easement agreement for encroachment into the roadway easement with the drainage
devices and landscaping. RHCA requires removal of several trees and shrubs along
Appaloosa roadway easement. The Department of Fish and Game did not require any
mitigation measures and approved the project as built. Letters of review and approval
by the various agencies are enclosed.
6. The property drains in a sheet flow in northerly direction into a natural drainage
course that flows into a large drainage pipe located north of the property. This area of
the property and above it experienced frequent erosion and water crevices. Several
times in the past 10 years, the property owner received permission from the City to
import dirt to fill in the fissures of the eroded areas. Section 15.04.150 of the Building
and Construction Ordinance (Title 15) permits import of up to 500 cubic yards of dirt if
it is necessary for erosion control. In part the code states as follows:
"1. No import of soil shall be permitted to any lot in the City, except where a
variance pursuant to Chapter 17.38 has been approved.
AND
5. The City Manager or his or her designee may grant an exception to the
requirements of parts 1 and 2 of this paragraph to allow for the import or export
of soil not to exceed 500 cubic yards for remedial repair of an area of the lot
adjacent to structures, fences, corrals and riding rings that have eroded, and of
hillside or trail if he or she finds, based upon written reports and other
information submitted, that all of the following conditions are present:
ZC NO. 799
• •
(a) The project does not require a discretionary review or a grading permit (a cut
that is three feet or less, or a fill that is three feet or less or where the activity
covers 2,000 square feet or less of surface area);
and
(b) The import or export of soil is no greater than necessary to avoid a threat of
land subsidence or other imminent danger"
7. After several heavy rain storms last year, the applicant received permission from
the City, to import up to 500 cubic yards of dirt to fix the rain eroded down stream areas
of the property. However, the applicant filled in an area, which triggered the
requirement for a Site Plan Review for grading, (discretionary review). He has also
constructed drainage devices to capture the water from above and to more directly
divert it into the existing drainage course and pipe down from his property. Building
and Safety Department approval for the drainage and the grading is required.
8. The total affected area on subject lot is 14,200 square feet and on the adjacent lot
is 5,100 square feet. The total additional disturbance is 8.0% on the subject lot and 1.4%
on the adjacent lot for a total disturbance of 55.0% and 34.3%-with future stable,
respectively. A Variance for disturbance is required on the 2 Appaloosa Lane lot, as the
previously approved legal, nonconforming condition was 47% disturbance. The cut and
fill areas vary from 2.5 foot cut in the middle of the graded area to up to 6' fill above the
new drainage pipes.
MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE
9. The applicant requests to retain as graded condition on the property, which
requires a Site Plan Review and Variance applications. The Variance is for the exceedance
of the disturbed area of the lot, (55%).
10. The net lot area of the lot is 179,000 square feet. 84,000 square feet or 47% of the
net lot has been previously disturbed. The exceedance of the maximum permitted 40%
disturbance is a pre-existing condition, most likely occurring prior to 1995, when the
regulations for maximum disturbance became effective. The additional grading
contributes to the disturbance of the lot.
11. The applicant proposes to retain the flattened and graded area, as revised, to
control drainage on his property. The owner is also proposing to landscape the graded
areas with native plants of various types and tallness.
12. In response to justification for requesting a variance for the exceedance of the
disturbed net lot area, the applicant state, in part, that the disturbance of the 14,200
square foot area was for the purpose of mitigating erosion of the lot from the 2009
rainstorms and to protect the area from any further damages from future storms.
ZC NO. 799
•
•
CONCLUSION
13. When reviewing a site plan review application the Planning Commission and
City Council must consider whether 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.
14. In considering the request for a Variance, the City Council should also consider
the criteria for granting of a Variance.
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);
ZC NO. 799
• •
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. 799
o
• 0 .
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
• •
RESOLUTION NO. 1109
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING
HILLS GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR GRADING
AND AS BUILT DRAINAGE DEVICES AND A VARIANCE TO EXCEED
THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBED NET LOT AREA OF THE
LOT, IN ZONING CASE NO. 799, AT 2 APPALOOSA LANE, (LOT 106-
C-RH), (BLACK). THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT (CEQA), PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 15304 and 15061(b)(3) OF THE
ACT.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY
FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Dr. James Black duly filed an application with respect to real
property located at 2 Appaloosa Lane (Lot 106-C-RH), Rolling Hills, CA
requesting a permission to retain an as graded area of 19,000 sq.ft. located
partially on adjacent property, and drainage devices located on subject lot and
the adjacent lot and a Variance to exceed the maximum permitted disturbed area
of the net lot, (55% disturbance), triggered by the grading.
Section 2. Following Planning Commission approval of the "as built
project" and grading with certain conditions to reduce the slopes in two places,
the City Council took jurisdiction of the project. Pursuant to Section 17.54.015 of
the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, a review hearing for cases taken under
jurisdiction by the City Council shall be conducted as de novo hearings.
Section 3. The City Council conducted duly noticed public hearings to
consider the application on February 28, 2011 in the field and at their regularly
scheduled meeting, also on February 28, 2011 and on July 11, 2011. Neighbors
within 1,000-foot radius were notified of the February 28 public hearings and a
notice was published in Palos Verdes Peninsula News on February 17, 2011. The
applicant was 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, neighbors and applicant's
engineers and the City Council having reviewed, analyzed and studied said
proposal. At the February 28 public hearing, the City Council postponed making
a decision on this application until all reviews and approvals are completed by
other permitting agencies.
Section 4. The project received approval from the following agencies:
Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Committee and the Board of
Directors and California Department of Fish and Game. Preliminary approval
was granted by the Los Angeles County Building and Safety Department.
ZC NO. 799
2 Appaloosa
o
•
•
Section 5. In 2008 a new 8,381 square foot residence with 669 square
foot garage, trellises and porches to replace an existing residence and garage was
approved, and a, minor Variance to encroach with 54 square feet of the new
residence up to 4.4-feet into the side yard setback. 47.0% of the lot was
previously disturbed. The previous approval for the new residence did not call
for additional disturbance, and thus no Variance was necessary.
Section 6. The property drained in a sheet flow in northerly direction
into a natural drainage course that flows into a large drainage pipe located north
of the property. This area of the property and above it experienced frequent
erosion and water crevices. Several times in the past 10 years, the property owner
received permission from the City to import dirt to fill in the fissures of the
eroded areas. Section 15.04.150 of the Building and Construction Ordinance (Title
15) permits import of up to 500 cubic yards of dirt if it is necessary for erosion
control.
Section 7. After several heavy rain storms in 2009, the applicant
received permission from the City, to import dirt to fix the rain eroded down
stream areas of the property. The applicant filled in an area, which triggered the
requirement for a Site Plan Review for grading, (discretionary review). He has
also constructed drainage devices to capture the water from above and to more
directly divert it into the existing drainage course and pipe down from his
property. Such drainage devices require building permit. Some of the grading
and drainage devices were constructed on the adjacent property, 3 Appaloosa
Lane, and require recordation of an off -site construction covenant agreement.
Some of the grading was also done at 4 Appaloosa Lane and will be repaired and
dirt removed.
Section 8. The City Council finds that the project qualifies as an
exemption from environmental review under the California Environmental
Quality Act, pursuant to Sections 15304 and 15061(b)(3) of the Act.
Section 9. 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 building or structure may be constructed. With respect to
the Site Plan application for grading of the lower portion of the lot the City
Council makes the following findings of fact:
A. The as graded condition complies with and is consistent with the
General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance (with the granting of the variance
below) because the as graded condition will protect the property from erosion
due to rainfall. The drainage devices are necessary to convey runoff in an orderly
manner without damaging the property and the adjacent road.
B. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped
state of the lot by the fact that no new structures are proposed on the property.
ZC NO. 799
2 Appaloosa
• •
C. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, as
significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped so as to maintain open
space on the property. The project will be screened from the street and
neighbors by trees and shrubs. The nature, condition, and development of
adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the topography of the lot have been
considered, and the additional grading will not adversely affect or be materially
detrimental to the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the additional
grading was done on a portion of the lot which is least intrusive to surrounding
properties and will be further screened and landscaped with trees and shrubs.
The resulting grading creates gentler slopes, and corrects drainage problems on
the property without compromising the stability of the lot.
D. The resulting grading will be landscaped and the property will be
screened from the public view.
E. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect
drainage flow. Drainage has been designed to follow the existing drainage
course, but in a more direct manner, via drainage pipes and dissipater. The
proposed drainage plan has been approved by Los Angeles County Building and
Safety, with minor conditions. Without the repair and construction of drainage
devices and grading, the area would continue to erode and possibly undermine
the road above, which would have a negative effect on the health and safety of
the adjoining residents. The State of California Department of Fish and Game
reviewed the project and found that no mitigation measures are required.
F. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature
trees and supplements these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping. A
landscaping plan is on file with the City, which is compatible with and enhances
the rural character of the community. The Rolling Hills Community Association
Landscaping Committee reviewed and approved a landscaping plan.
G. The project conforms to the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act and is exempt.
Section 10. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Rolling Hills
Municipal Code permit approval of a Variance from the standards and
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances applicable to the property and not applicable to other similar
properties in the same zone prevent the owner from making use of a parcel of
property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties in the same vicinity. A
Variance to Section 17.16.070 (B) is required because it states that the lot
disturbance shall be limited to 40.0% of the net lot area. The applicant is
requesting a Variance because total disturbance of the net lot area is proposed to
be 55.0%. With respect to this request for a Variance, the City Council finds as
follows:
A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and
conditions applicable to this property that do not apply generally to the other
ZC NO. 799
2 Appaloosa
•
•
properties in the same zone. The property is unique in that it is irregular in
shape, with the road splitting the property for about 100 feet. 47.0% of the lot was
previously disturbed in an area at the south portion of the property and the
additional 8% disturbance became necessary for erosion control.
B. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and
zone, but which would be denied to the property in question absent a variance.
The overage is not significant and the property owner should not be denied to
safeguard his property from erosion and flooding. The area of the property
where improvements were made takes on a large amount of water run-off from
uphill properties, which was causing erosion of this portion of the lot.
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. Significant portions of the lot
will be left undeveloped so as to maintain open space on the property. The as
graded condition is on a portion of the lot which is not intrusive to surrounding
properties, and will be screened from nearby residences and from the street and
trail so that the as graded condition 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.
D. In granting the variance, the spirit and intent of the Zoning
Ordinance will be observed. The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to regulate
development in an orderly fashion and in a manner consistent with the goals and
policies of the General Plan. Approval of the variance will not impede any goals
of the Zoning Ordinance or the General Plan. Rather, the variance will allow the
property owner to enjoy the same rights and privileges afforded to other
property owners in the vicinity, where the topography of the lots dictate grading
requirements for property stabilization and erosion control. The overage
requested is not substantial and does not undermine the spirit or intent of the
Zoning Ordinance.
E. 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.
F. 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.
G. The previously conducted grading improves slope stability and
erosion control through the use of approved drainage devices and grading of the
slopes, and will permit the owner to enjoy their property without deleterious
infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners. This Variance is to
ZC NO.799
2 Appaloosa
4
•
legalize previously created condition. The landscaping on the property will mask
the previously graded condition and it will not look unnatural.
Section 11. Based upon the foregoing findings, the City Council hereby
approves the Site Plan Review and Variance applications for Zoning Case No.
799 for grading of a 19,000 square foot area (portion on adjacent property) and a
Variance to exceed the maximum permitted disturbed net lot area by 15.0%
(55.0%) as shown on the Development Plans dated June 29, 2011 and a
landscaping plan dated January 12, 2011 as amended by the conditions of the
Rolling Hills Community Association, subject to the following conditions:
A. The Site Plan Review and Variance approval shall expire within
two years from the effective date of approval. All required permits,
encroachment covenants and easement agreements shall be obtained and the
project completed within that two-year period.
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 hereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicants have 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. Any modification to this project or to the property, including
grading, structural development, import/export of dirt or other development
may only be permitted with the appropriate discretionary approval.
D. The grading, drainage devices and disturbance of the property
shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan
on file dated June 29, 2011.
E. The final working drawings shall be submitted and approved by
the Los Angeles County Department of Building and Safety and Public Works
Department, and all conditions of that department shall be met.
F. No import of dirt is permitted with this application. The applicant
may export up to 100 cubic yards of dirt to bring the existing graded condition to
a more natural look, and to remove the dirt from the adjacent property (4
Appaloosa).
G. The disturbed area of the lot, as amended, shall not exceed 98,200
square feet or 55.0% of the net lot area.
H. The drainage devices shall be maintained in a proper working
order and shall be cleared of any weeds, dirt and debris on a regular basis.
ZC NO. 799
2 Appaloosa
5
• •
I. The disturbed areas under consideration in this application, shall
be landscaped. Landscaping shall include water efficient irrigation, to the
maximum extent feasible, that incorporates low gallonage irrigation system,
utilizes automatic controllers, incorporates an irrigation design using
"hydrozones," considers slope factors and climate conditions in design, and
utilizes means to reduce water waste resulting from runoff and overspray and is
subject to the requirements of the City of Rolling Hills Water Efficient Landscape
Ordinance.
J. The landscaping shall substantially comply with the plan dated
January 11, 2011, as amended by conditions of the Rolling Hills Community
Association, and shall be maintained in good condition at all times. Trees and
shrubs shall be planted so as not to impair views of neighboring properties but to
naturally screen the disturbed area. No tress or shrubs shall be planted as to
result in a hedge like screen.
K. All drainage devices, grading areas and planting located and/or
proposed in easements are subject to RHCA review and approval. In addition, an
off -site covenant agreement for grading, drainage devices and planting on the
adjacent property shall be recorded and copy filed with the City.
L Post construction Best Management Practices for stormwater
management and erosion control shall be observed and maintained.
M. Until the applicants execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all
conditions of this Site Plan Review and Variance modification approvals, as
required by the Municipal Code, the approvals shall not be effective.
N. All conditions of the Site Plan and Variance approvals, that apply,
shall be complied with prior to the issuance of a final inspection from the County
of Los Angeles.
O. 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.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF 2011.
B. ALLEN LAY, MAYOR
ATTEST:
HEIDI LUCE, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
ZC NO. 799
2 Appaloosa
6
a •
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 1109 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING
HILLS GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR GRADING
AND AS BUILT DRAINAGE DEVICES AND A VARIANCE TO EXCEED
THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBED NET LOT AREA OF THE
LOT, IN ZONING CASE NO. 799, AT 2 APPALOOSA LANE, (LOT 106-
C-RH), (BLACK). THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT (CEQA), PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 15304 and 15061(b)(3) OF THE
ACT.
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on
, 2011 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.
ZC NO. 799
2 Appaloosa
HEIDI LUCE
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
7
0 • .
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
State of California —The Natural Resources Aaencv
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
South Coast Region
3883 Ruffin Road
San Diego, CA 92123
(8581467-4201
www dfg.ca.gov
June 16, 2011
Seiko Fujikuro
B&E Engineers
24 W. St. Joseph Street
Arcadia, CA 91007
i
JERRY BROWN. Govemor
JOHN McCAMMAN, Director
RECEIVED JUN 2 21011
Subject: Notification of Lake or Streambed Alteration No. 1600-2011-0064-R5
(#2 Appaloosa Lane)
Dear Ms. Fujikuro:
As the Department of Fish and Game (Department) explained in a previous letter to you dated
April 16, 2011, the Department had until June 15, 2011 to submit a draft Lake or Streambed
Alteration Agreement (Agreement) to you or inform you that an Agreement is not required. The
Department did not meet that date. As a result, by law, you may now complete the project
described in your notification without an Agreement.
Please note that pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 1602(a)(4)(D), if you proceed with
this project, it must be the same as described and conducted in the same manner as specified
in the notification and any modifications to that notification received by the Department in writing
prior to June 15, 2011. This includes completing the project within the proposed term and
seasonal work period and implementing all avoidance and mitigation measures to protect fish
and wildlife resources specified in the notification. If the term proposed in your notification has
expired, you will need to re -notify the Department before you may begin your project. Beginning
or completing a project that differs in any way from the one described in the notification may
constitute a violation of Fish and Game Code section 1602.
Also note that while you are entitled to complete the project without an Agreement, you are still
responsible for complying with other applicable local, state, and federal laws. These include,
but are not limited to, the state and federal Endangered Species Acts and Fish and Game Code
sections 5650 (water pollution) and 5901 (fish passage).
Finally, if you decide to proceed with your project without an Agreement, you must have a copy
of this letter and your notification with all attachments available at all times at the work site. If
you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Rick Mayfield (805) 388-0153 or
rmayfield@dfg.ca.gov.
Sincerely
ick Mayfield
Environmental Scientist
Conserving California's Wird-ife Since 1870
(310) 544-6222
May 5, 2011
o�c" is Cul Comma zity
of S ancho �aLo1 ` V£2d£1
No. 1 PORTUGUESE BEND RD. • ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
ROLLING HILLS
Dr. James Black
2 Appaloosa Lane
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Dear Dr. Black:
410
.s Latw012
CALIFORNIA
(3101 544-6766 FAX
f ; .,,111)
This letter is a follow up to your request to the RHCA Board for a license for an as -built
drainage structure, remedial grading and planting in the easements of both your property
at 2 Appaloosa Lane and the Fozoonmehr property at 4 Appaloosa Lane. The Board of
Directors approved your request at this morning's meeting with the condition that some
of the pepper trees and oleanders immediately adjacent to the road be removed to allow
use of the road shoulder for walking and parking.
After reviewing the area, the RHCA would like the following foliage removed prior to
completing the license agreement: starting at the northernmost end of your property
going south, the first four pepper trees and seven oleander bushes.
The next step for completing the licensing process is for the RHCA's legal counsel to
prepare the legal documents for both properties. Once all the documents are signed,
RHCA's legal counsel will have them recorded with Los Angeles County. Legal fees for
license agreements are $450 for each agreement, plus a $250 as -built fee. You will
receive an invoice with the prepared agreements.
If you have any questions about the licensing process or removal of the trees and
oleanders, please contact the Association office.
Sincerely,
Kris en Raig
Manager
cc: Dr. S. Fozoonmehr
(1?) Black-2Appaloosa-Approved 05-05-1 1
$mE A00RE
c
DESIGN ENGINEER/AP NT
County of Los Angeles - Department of Public Works
Building and Safety/Land Development Division
GRADING REVIEW SHEET
(2008 Los Angeles County Building Code)
tS i� 12.0 �9 l bOOCS 0°0 (
DISTRICT NO GRADING PERMIT APPUCAT
4tr
'"ez?.<1-D L mtqgwl ILa)
EARTHWORK VOLUME CRE R
0 ENGINEERED GRADING PROJECT DESCRIPTION
0 REGULAR GRADING
((0?--(0
TELEPHONE NO
r 1
TELSOyE N0
ENTRY
6/5/I
PL
AN C)4ECK EAP110Es
t)�h
JNSTRUCTIONS TO BUILDING AND SAFETY DISTRICT OF = PRIOR T ANCE OF GRA
1. Post a Grading Permit Security of $ . Based on C.Y and drainage facilities at a
cost estimate of $ . See enclosed 'Fee and Bond Amount Worksheet. (Section J103.7.3 of
the County of Los Angeles Building Code)
2. A supplemental plan check fee of is required due 10 additional earthwork volumes of (cy) not induded in
original grading application and/or (hrs) due to additional plan review beyond the inlbal and second plan
check. (Section 107 of the County of Los Angeles Building Code)
3. The grading permit shall be based on a volume of cubic yards of earthwork. Total grading
volume Is based on the larger of the cut or fill plus any over excavation volumes and alluvial removals.
4. This Grading Permit requires a Licensed Contractor. (See AM 30.04)
5. Provide an approved copy of the Wet Weather Erosion Control Plan for grading activities dunng rainy season (October
15 - April 15).
8. The site is located within the California Coastal Zone. The Coastal Development Permit issued for this project site is CDP
7. Venfy that the applicant has submitted the acknowledgment and acceptance forms concerning the employment of a Field
Engineer and of Project Consultants with signatures of the owner and ell consultants. See documents 'A' & B'.
8. Place a'Notice of Unearthed Fir in the project address Ile identifying on -site uncertified fills Reber to the enclosed plot
plan identifying limits and depth of uncertified tills on this site.
9. These plans have standard retaining walls which require a separate building permit The grading permit should not be
issued until building permits have been obtained.
10. The appropriate City Engineer/Planning Director must approve the grading plan prior to issuance of the grading permit.
11. A landscape permit is recjllired for this project. Prior to rough grade approval, a landscape permit must be obtained.
Building Permit Technician shall place a hold on the property in the county DAPTS. Refer to'Water•Ef dent Landscape
Ordinance' Chapter 2.7, Title 23 of California Code of Regulations (AB 1881).
12 A permit horn Construction Division or CALTRANS is required for any proposed work within County (or CALTRANS)
maintained road right-of-way or Flood Control right-of-way
13 Project Is located in a Very High Fire Hazard Seventy Zone. A permit/approval is required to comply with spark arrester
requirements for construction equipment. (Section 318.12 of Los Angeles County Fire Code)
14 For Grading Projects in Rolling Hills: Grading permits shall not be Issued unless the building plans corresponding to the
proposed grading have been submitted for plan check (City Requirement)
ONCE YOUR GRADING PLAN HAS BEEN APPROVED COPIES
WILL BE SENT TO THE LOCAL BUILDING AND SAFETY
DISTRICT OFFICE FOR ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT.
COPIES OF THE APPROVED GRADING PLAN WILL BE
PROVIDED TO YOU WHEN THE GRADING PERMIT IS ISSUED
BY THE LOCAL BUILDING AND SAFETY DISTRICT OFFICE.
NOTE: UPON RECEIVING THE GRADING FILE AND
APPROVED PLANS THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DISTRICT
OFFICE MAY REQUIRE UP TO 18 BUSINESS HOURS TO
PROCESS AND ISSUE THE GRADING PERMIT.
Rev 03/15/2010
Page 1
APPROVAL STAMP AREA
(DO NOT WRITE IN THIS AREA)
ca-unAs.
•
INSTRUCTIONS — PLEASE READ
•
SUBMITTAL DAJ / / _
2 U
2 ,
3 4,10 11
4
5
2
3
4
NOTE: APPLICATIONS FOR GRADING PERMITS FOR WHICH NO PERMIT IS ISSUED WITHIN ONE YEAR
FOLLOWING THE DATE OF APPLICATION SHALL EXPIRE BY LIMITATION.
(Section 106.4.1.1 of the Buitding Code)
Corrections are required for circled item numbers. All corrections and comment idenbfied on the returned check print
must be incorporated Into the plans. Revised plans must be resubmitted for review.
Retum this review sheet along with check print, revised plans, reports, and all requested supporting information.
When responding to corrections or comment a eet�tl e ji^a�natyr of actions is encouraged.
Your plans have l�yt raviey+tQ by lawn checker is available for office hours and
meetings on 5�1 / from 1 only. AU other meetings must have a
scheduled appointment Please phone ( 1 for questions and to schedule an appointment
FOR UP-TO-DATE Drainage and Grading Plan Check COUNTER HOURS, PLEASE VISIT
http:I/dow.tacountv.9ovlbsd/offices/ AND SELECT THE APPROPRIATE OFFICE FROM THE INTERACTIVE MAP.
��
5. l Numbers in parentheses refer to Sections of the latest edition of the County of Los Angeles Building Code, I.e. (J101.1).
PLAN CC K STATUS AND OUTSTANDING CORRE ]'JONg:
PLANS NOT APPROVED, resubmit two (2) / _four (4) sets of revised grading plane for review with
information and corrections as circled. Gradlna Plans to be approved mot have 'wet' stamps and signatures of
Cahfornie registered Civil Engineer In addition_ clans rnust_be siamed and stamped bx the Soils Engineer and
E main eel ma Geologist as applicable
Pleas* return check print. grading review sheet, and supporting Infornatlon with submittal.
Note: After the third review, plans are checked on an hourly basis. Supplemental plan check fee will be collected prior
to issuance of the grading permit. (107.6 d 107.9, Hem 10).
ORIGINAL PLAN CHECK
REVIEW DATft
le) /'2..-f
4(pli /
(,)/2:2,A
,1»
EXTENSIO
TOTAL ADDITIONAL HOURS FOR REVIEW
�kd rt.g OD t h
TOY
Page 2
REVIEW HOURS
I
REVIEW HOURS
i i
AGENCY APPROVALS
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF REGIONAkPLANJINQ
Department of Regional Planning, 320 W. Temple, Hall of Records, Los Angeles CA 90012 (213) 974.6411
1. Approval from the Department of Regional Planning (DRP) is required b verify grading and proposed land use is
conformance with Title 21 (Subdivision Code) and Title 22 (Zoning Code). Provide a copy of al approved documents, e.g.
Plot Plan, Conditional Use Permit, Conditons, Oak tree permit, etc... v ith your grading plan submittal (J103.8)
The following Bems may require approval as determined by DRP:
❑ Site may be located in or near a Hillside Management Area or Significant Ecological Area.
❑ Project may qualify as a 'Solid Fill Project'. (Title 22, Section 22.08.190).
❑ Project may qualify as an 'Offsite Transport Grading Project'. The volume of earthwork imported or exported from or
to the site exceeds 10,000 cubic yards, (Title 22. Section 22.08.070) An approved haul route for transport may be
required.
❑ Project may qualify as an 'onsite Transport Grading Project'. Project cumulative earthwork volumes exceed 100.000
(cut and fill volumes added). (Title 22, Section 22.08.070).
CI Project may be located within the Community Standards District.
(Title 22, Section 22.44.080)
❑ Project encroaches within protected zone of an oak tree. (Title 22, Section 22.58.2080) A copy of the Oak Tree Permit
and Report must be provided. See Item A 38g for additional requirements.
❑ 'Certificate of Compliance' may be required to verify property is a legally subdivided lot (Title 21, Section 21.04.020)
❑ Conformance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) may be required. An'Inibal Study
Questionnaire may be needed to determine If the project Is subject to the provisions of CEQA.
❑ Proposed project appears to vary from approved Tentative Conditions, Community Standards District, or Conditional
Use Permit due to the following:
GEOTECHNICALf1ND MATERIALS ENGINEERING DIVISION (GMED. GEO1,OQy AND $AILS SECTION)
Geology and Solis Section, 900 S. Fremont Ave, Alhambra • 3RD Floor, CA 91803 (626) 458.4925
2. A recent (one year or less) soils engineering and/or geology investigation report may be required. The reports shall
provide information on the nature, distribution, physical and engineering properties of the soils onsite and/or soils to be
used as fill, and indude recommendations on grading procedures. Provide copies of the original soils engineering and/or
geologic reports and all supplemental/addendum reports for the grading files. The reports must comply with the provisions
of the 'Manual for Preparation of Geotechnical Reports' which is available at jrttol/drnv lacountV coy/tamed/Manual odt.
3. The soils engineering and geological reports must be reviewed and approved by the Geology and Soils Section prior to
approval of the grading plans. All recommendations and notes as indicated in the soils engineering and/or geologic
review sheets must be added to the grading plans.
LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION (HYDROLOGY UNIT)
Hydrology Section, 900 S. Fremont Ave, Alhambra • 3RD Floor, CA 91803 (626) 458.4921
4, A detailed hydrology study Is required for the project and must be processed, submitted and approved by Land
Development Division prior to resubmittal of the grading plan. A detailed hydrology study for your site is required due to
the following:
Q The project onsite drainage is greater than 10 acres.
Q The project location has significant contributory off -site drainage which impacts structures or proposed drainage.
devices.
Q The project requires detention of flows and routing analysis.
Q Existing drains in the protect area do not have adequate capacity, or the project is located in an area with known
drainage defidencies.
Hydrology Studies processed by Land Development must be prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer. A
minimum of three maps and supporting analysis must be submitted for processing Fees and additional information on
requirements for hydrology studies can be obtained from Land Development Division at (826) 456-4921.
jjEEARTMENT OF FISH AND GAM(;
omla Department of Fish and Game, 4949 Viewrldge Avenue, San Diego, CA 92123 (858) 467-4201
ork within or near the watercourse (streambed) requires approval from the California Department of Fish and Game.
nor to grading plan approval, a copy of the Streambed Alteration Permit and conditions of approval from the California
Department of Fish and Game must be submitted for reference. (Sections 1601 to 1817 of the California Fish and Game
Code). When proposed grading does not require a Streambed Alteration Agreement, a letter from Fish & Game indicating
they have no requirements must be provided.
jl S ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEER§
Department of the Army, Los Angeles District, Corps of Engineers, 911 Wilshire Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90017
(213) 452- 3412.
6. Work within or near the watercourse (streambed) requires approval from Inc U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Submit a
copy of the 404 Permit for proposed work within the streambed(s). Any condition in the permit, which Impacts project
grading or construction should be detailed and noted on the plans. This includes all restricted areas, special
requirements, and planting as applicable. Prior to approval a copy of Inc permit must be provided for reference
Page 3
cALIFORNIA COAST . Mfy11SSION
South Central Coast Area • (West of City of Los Angeles): California Coastal Commission, 89 S. California St., Ventura,
CA 93001, (805) 585-1800
•
South Coast Area • (All areas south east of City of Los Angeles Boundary): California Coastal Commission, 200. Ocean
Gate, 10th Floor, Long Beach, CA 90802, (582) 590-5071
7. Site is (may be) located within the Coastal Zone as determined by the California Coastal Act. Obtain approval from the
Department of Regional Planning
8. Work within the Coastal Zone requires a 'Coastal Development Permit' (CDP). Obtain and submit a copy of the CDP
from the California Coastal Commission for the proposed sits work. All conditions of the CDP must be incorporated into
the project grading plans as applicable.
STATE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION
Abandonment of Oil & Gas Wells Los Angeles Area- District 1: 5816 Corporate Ave. Suite 200, Cypress, CA 90630-4731,
(714) 816.6847
9. Project construction encroaches or may impact an existing oil or gas well. Obtain and provide Department of
Conservation approval for all wells impacted by proposed project construction, prior to grading plan approval.
10. Obtain and provide Department of Conservation approval for abandonment of all gas and oil wells Impacted by proposed
project construction. prior to grading plan approval.
Department of Conservation Office of Mine Reclamation: 801 K Street, MS 09-06 Sacramento, CA 95814-3529,
(916) 323.9198
11. Project construction encroaches or may impact an existing mine, Prior to grading plan approval, provide/obtain
Department of Conservation, Office of Mine Reclamation approval for all mines impacted by proposed project
construction.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT
12. Fire Department Access is required for access to all proposed structures. Grading plans must reflect proposed access:
❑ For single family residences where the topography is relatively pat, and access Is less than 150 feet in length, a
statement signed by the owner or Registered Civil Engineer (see Attachment) is required verifying that the
Owner/Engineer is aware of Fire Department access road requirements. Access requiremenb will be reviewed
and approved by Fire Department prior to issuance of building permits
❑ For Commercial Developments or Single Family Residences where access is difficult due to topography or natural
drainage courses, Fire Department approval is required prior to grading plan approval.
13. The project is located in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone and requires Fire Department/Forestry Division approval of
a fuel modification, landscape, and irrigation plan. Under Section 317.2.1 of the County of Los Angeles Fire Code
projects which propose a new structure, or addition/modification to an existing structure which exceeds 50% or more
square footage of the exsting structure, require Fire Department approval. Contact the local Fire Station or Fire
Prevention Bureau to obtain approval. Note no. 28 from the enclosed grading notes must be added to the grading plans.
It is the responsibility of the Design Engineer to verity landscaping proposed on the grading plan complies with the Fire
Department Fuel Modification plan and requirements. A copy of Fire Department approved Fuel Modification Plan and
related documents must be provided prior to grading plan approval.
REGIONA(. WATER QUALITY CONTRQL BOARD
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, 320 W. 4th SL, Ste 200, Los Angeles, CA 90013
(213) 576-6600
14. Proposed grading requires de-watenng operation for the discharge of non -storm related flows. Approval from the
Regional Water Quality Control Board is required prior to grading approval.
AIR OUALIT( MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
ForJudsdlctlon determination, please vlsl tt ;(Mvrw2 aamd aovhvebaool/oisaol2NEMao3D asox
South Coast Air Quality Management District, 21885 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91785
(909) 396-2000
15. Projects with 50 acres of disturbed area or 5,000 cubic yards or more of grading are required to comply with Rule 403 (e).
A Large Operation Notification (Form 403 N) and Dust Control Plan shall be submitted to the South Coast Air Quality
Management District. Prior to grading plan approval, an approval letter shall be submitted to Building and Safety. This
excludes agrlcuttural use, emergencies, and utilities.
Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District, 43301 Division Street, Suite 206, Lancaster, CA 93535
(661) 723.8070
16 Projects that meet either of the following requirements must submit a Dust Control Plan to the Antelope Valley Air Quality
Management District in accordance with AV-AWMD Rule 403. The Dust Control Plan approval letter must be submitted to
the local Building and Safety office prior to issuance of a grading permit.
O Resident's)! Development with a disturbed area 0110 acres or greater or a Commercial Development with a disturbed
area of 5 acres or greater.
O Any project that has 7,500 cubic yards of grading or more. This excludes agncultural use. emergencies, utilities, and
residential properties with a disturbed area of less than hall an acre.
Page 4
•
- .: ..
—•
r .
Qt)NTY OF LOS ANGE),g§ DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS €NVIRONJNENTAL PROGRAMS DIVISIQN
Environmental Programs Division, 900 S. Fremont Ave • Annex Building 3rd Floor, Alhambra, CA 91803
(626) 458.3517
17. A Recycling and Reuse Plan from Environmental Programs Division is required for ell grading permits In the
unincorporated area of the County of Los Angeles In accordance with the Construction and Demolition (C&D) Debris
Recycling and Reuse Ordinance (Ch 20.87 of the Los Angeles County Code). Applications can be obtained online at
www,88Bcleanla.cort and are available at the local Building and Safety Office or directly from Environmental Programs
Division. Applications can be submitted by hand, by mall (see address, above) or by fax: (626) 458-3593. Proof of
approval Is required prior to grading plan approval. Applicant should submit copy of EPD approval when resubmitting
grading plans.
16. Project Is Located within 1,000 feet of a landfill. Grading and Building permits issued for projects in this area will require
approval from the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Environmental Programs Division, Engineering
Section. The following note must be added to the grading plans:
'Project is located within 1,000 feet of a landfill. Prior to issuance of a building permit approval from the County of Los
Angeles Department of Public Works Environmental Programs Division is required.'
19. Plan shows Injection well, clarifier, and/or seepage pit for disposal of industrial waste. Obtain approval from
Environmental Programs Division.
LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
Road and Grading Section, 900 S. Fremont Ave, Alhambra - 3RD Floor, CA 91803 (626) 458-4921
STREET IMPROVEMENT AND ROAD DEDICATIONS
20. Under Title 22, Section 22.48 of Los Angeles County Zoning Code, ali Commercial, Apartment & Industrial developments
within an R-3 zone (or greater) may require road improvements and/or easements to be dedicated or reserved for future
road Improvements. Obtain approval from Land Development Division, Road and Grading Section, for proposed work.
Grading must be consistent with required improvements and/or future road dedications. Call (826) 4584921 for plan
review fees and submittal requirements
EXISTING OR PRIVATE/FUTURE ROAD RIGHT OF WAY
21. Obtain approval from Land Development Division, Road and Grading Section for proposed work within or impacting
crusting or private/future road right of way or slope easements for road widening. Call (628) 458-4921 for plan review fees
and submittal requirements.
PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY AND EASMENTS
22. Any work within or impacting the County, CALTRANS, or City maintained road right-of-way OR easement requires an
excavation/encroachment permit.
NOTE: If item # 20 or #21 is required above; approval from Land Development Division is required before obtaining a
permit
O Prior to grading plan approval, provide an encroachment permit from the following agency:
• Prior to issuance of grading permit by the local Building and Safety District Office, obtain and submit an
encroachment permit from the following agency:
a. COUNTY MAINTAINED ROADS - Construction Division, 900 S. Fremont Ave, Alhambra - 8th Floor, CA 91803
(628) 458-4909. (For additional locations, please calf for information.)
b. CALTRANS MAINTAINED ROADS - For permit information call (213) 897-3631.
c CITY MAINTAINED ROADS AND/OR CITY UTILITY EASEMENTS - Contact the City for permit information and
requirements.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT — STORM DRAIN CONNECTIONS & ENCROACHMFNS,S
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT - Construction Division, 900 S. Fremont Ave, Alhambra • 8th
Floor, CA 91803 (626) 458-3129
23. Any storm drain connections or construction which encroaches within a Los Angeles County Food Control District
easement requires a permit
P ATE/UTILITY EASEMENT
ny proposed work within a Private/Ubtity Easement or Access Easement requires permission letters and/or covenants
from easement holder. Permission from the easement holder may not be required if it can be shown the proposed
. construction work is consistent and in conformance with the intended easement use. gpiea of recorded easements shall
be submitted for review. %Grading plans must show all bearings, distances, (linear and curve data) for the entire
easement(s).
The following note shall be added to the grading plan:
•As Civil Engineer/Land Surveyor of this project, I have identified the location of all easements which are depicted on
1 these plans. I have reviewed the proposed easement documents and verified the proposed construction does not conflict
or Interfere with the intended easement use.'
Civil Engineer/Land Surveyor (Stamp and Signature) Date
Page 5
qC)
A,saik
S on i rl .u.
25
11n; . Utilities, sic11 es water, electrical, plumbing, mechanical, and sewer shown on grading plans, may require a separate rJD { • ' C
permit. Add note on grading plans/utility plans which labels the utilities are provided for reference only and separate .- }i r
to \ • permits may be required. /
,� :i
RADING DOCUMENTATION `. ''
,f ,� • NTRACT CITY REQUIREMENTS
` n'�' rovide copy of City conditions/resolution, for proposed project (Conditional Use Permit, Tentative Conditions, plot plan -
"Exhibk A' or City planning Approval) All applicable planning conditions, which affect or impact the proposed project
grading or drainage must be incorporated into the project grading plans. Project grading plans can not be a roved until
it can be verified all City planning condibons (As applicable] erg satisfied. dln�I 1-h 1 Ls ssoc
ru zi"t- 160 fi
lOgA
0
btain and provide planning approval from City of
DING VOLUME. AND BOND DETERMINATION S+61.4-TS
28. Submit volume calculations (signed and stamped by a registered uvd engineer). A suppleritental plan check fee will be
required for additional volumes not identified on the original grading application.
Note: Grading permit application, permit fees, and grading secuntres (bonds) are based on the larger of the cut and fill
volumes plus O.) the amount of over-excavetion/allu lal removal and recompactlon.
For grading projects where the volume of earthwork handled exceeds 1000 cubic yards, a grading pemtit security (bond)
is required (J103.7.1). The amount of security required for a grading pemrt will be provided upon grading plan approval.
Grading Bond must be submitted at the Local Budding and Safety Office prior to issuance of grading permit. Standard
Bond documents ere available at htto./Awww.dpw.lacotxtty.00v/bsd/ogplicatlonsfindex,cfrrt. Search for Grading Permit
Security document (GPS Securtty.pdf)
29. Submit a cost estimate of all drainage devices (such as catch basins, drain pipe, inlets and outlets, energy druipators)
constructed per the grading plans that are not to be maintained by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District
(J103.7.3)
OFFSITE WORK
roposed project construction requires offsite work or grading outside the limits of the property line. A grading permit is
equtred for each site. (J103.1) In lieu of separate grading permits for each property, notarized and recorded covenants
from the owners of the properties involved may be provided for minor grading as determined by the Building Official.
Any proposed construction that changes or alters the existing drainage pattern to adjacent (off -site) property requires a
notarized and recorded oftsde drainage release covenant or easement from the owner of adjacent property.
Covenant documents are available at htto:/fwww.dow.tacountypov/bsd/oubl' riirdax. Search for Offsite
Covenants (Mite Covenants poll)��^
TRACT OR PARCEL MAP GRADING PLANS
31. A copy of the following items must be provided for reference with your grading submittal: (Plans can not be approved
until a copy of the conditions has been provided.)
❑ Approved tentative map & conditions and/or conditonal use permit (CUP)
❑ A copy of the Final Tract or Parcel Map
❑ Approved Hydrology. storm drain plans, street plans, (If submitting revised grading plans a copy of the approved
grading plan should be provided).
32. The proposed graded pad elevations and contours do not substantially conform to the approved tentative map. Obtain
and submit Regional Planning approval. Department of Regional Planning, 320 W. Temple, Hall of Records. Los
Angeles (213) 974-8411
33. All conditions of tentative approval for the subject property must be incorporated on the plans. Plans do not conform due
to the following.
34. Deed Restrictions for the private maintenance of drainage devices on lots will be required prior to Tract clearance by the
Drainage and Grading Unit. Place the following note on the plans "Deed Restrictions are required for Lots
for private maintenance of drainage devices.
35. Screen walls specifically required by the conditions of approval for Tracts or Parcel Maps must be shown on, and bonded
per grading plans.
38 Show and label on grading plans all dedicated 'open space' lots.
37. For subdivision projects, all improvements within street right-of-way or storm drain easement must be labeled "Construct
per The Approved Street Plans" or 'Construct per the Approved PD No
DOCUMENTATION
�, P ' r to issuance of grading permit by the local Building and Safety District Office. obtain and provide the following:
4
Submit, with signatures of the owner and all consultants, the acknowledgment forrns concerning the employment
of a Design/Field Engineers and Project Consultants Sea ached copies of consultant forms (Documents 'A'
and'B1 to be submitted at the local Building and Safety Office prior to issuance of the grading permit.
b. The grading application has expired. Plans will not be reviewed until an extension (if eligible) or new plan check
fees are paid. (107.4)
Page 6
• •
Provide an 8WX11" Plot Plan dearly identifying limits and depths of on -site uncertified fills and label "Notice of
Uncertified Fills." This notice will be added to the District Office address folder for the site.
d. Obtain Sewer Demolition Permit from building and safety for the existing septic tank or seepage pit to be
abandoned.
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS TO BE SHOWN ON THE PLANS
39. The following information is to be included on the Cover Sheet of the grading plans. (J104 2.3)
f sf Add all applicable grading notes and completed Grading Project Information to the cover sheet (first sheet) of
grading plans, see enclosed grading notes and project Information. Cover sheet should have a Title Block for
Design Engineer which includes designers name, company, and phone number.
t PProvide a vicinity sketch which clearly shows project site location. ;
✓ Provide benchmark information and reference all information utilized to determine survey elevations If multiple
benchmarks were utilized, benchmarks should be Indicated on all pages as applicable.
d. A legend must be provided that identifies existing and proposed contours, cut/fill daylight lines, over -excavation
limits, wall location, property lines, right-of-ways, easements, County/City boundaries, utilities, storrn drains, etc.
Provide an index map that dearly Identifies project boundaries and page locations of proposed grading.
T following general information or details must be Included on the grading plans. (J104.2.3)
Prior to grading plan approval, all sheets of grading plans and calculations must be 'net stamped and signed by
a California Registered Civil Engineer, SeiteEng' - 3�.' •;1.
c.
Boundary lines, tract boundaries, tit lines, county/city boundaries, road right-of-way lines. an easements st be
identified end labeled on plans,
Show existing contours of entire site. Clarify between original (natural) and proposed conburs. Ad existing
grading must be permitted and meet current Code requirements.
d. North arrow and scale of plans. Plan scale shall be 1"S40'.
e. Clearly indicate location of any existing or proposed structures on the site and any structures on adjacent land
within 15 feet of the property line.
0
Show location of existing and/or proposed septic tanks, pits, and leach fields.
Show location, specify trunk diameter and tree number, show and label canopy (dripline) and protected zone of
all oak trees on grading plans. All work which impacts en oak tree must be per an approved Oak Tree Permit.
The following must be shown on the grading plans:
• Show actual drip line (canopy)
• Show protected zone (5 feet beyond canopy)
Label Oak Tree number and diameter.
Label all trees to be removed or which encroachment is allowed per the approved Oak Tree permit and
report
All recommendations and conditions Included In the approved Oak Tree Permit end report shall be
complied with. The following is required on the plans:
h. Show legal and physical access from subject lot(s) to a publicly maintained street. (Note: Details of access are not
required on the grading plans, if separate street plans are being processed through Land Development Division)
If access to subject lot extends through adjacent lot(a), provide the following information:
Show ad amass easements Information on plans including easement beenngs, distances, curve data and
easement description.
Provide a list of all existing onsite easement, document numbers and recording dates
Show location. width, slope of access road, and Fire Department turn -around. In areas where access is difficult
due to the topography. Fire Department approval is required prior to grading approval and will be indicated below.
The following Geotechnicat/Geological information or details must be included on grading plans. (J104.3)
a. Show subdrains under all fills to be placed In natural drainage courses unless the soils engineer specifically
recommends the omission of such drains. (J107.3) Provide a detail of subdrain construction and materials as
recommended by the soils engineer. The outlet should be embedded In concrete for its protection. Details and
location of the outlet must be shown on plans.
Fill placed over existing terrain steeper than 5:1 gradient and fill exceeding 5 feet in depth must be property keyed
and benched into bedrock or other competent material. Provide a keying and benching detail with all dimensions
as deterrnined by a Soils Engineer. (J107.3)
Combination fill -over -cut slopes cannot be approved unless specifically recommended by the soils engineer and
geologist. Provide a cross -sectional detail of each slope as shown on the plan.
d. Show location and cross -sectional detail of ail buttress fills, stabilization fills, blanket fills (seals), shear keys,
and/or other similar protective measures recommended ty the project geologist or soils engineer. Plan view
should clearly identify limits and location of all keyways and other protective measures,
e. No oversized material Is to be placed into proposed fills unless specifically recommended and inspected by a Soils
Engineer and approved by the Building Official. If recommended by the Soils Engineer, indicate the location of
rock disposal area(s). Include the elevations, extent, compaction methods, end cross -sections. As -graded plans
must show the exact location and elevation of rock disposal area(s).
Page 7
1)0
•
•1 alluvium and colluvium removals.
Outline the proposed area to be over -excavated and recompacted in the plan view and show the depths clearly in
either plan or a profile view as recommended by the soils engineering and/or geological report. This' includes
Show location of cut -fill Contact (daylight line) using special fines and indicate cut and fill side of tine.
All graded slopes shall be shown on the plans as follows
Define slopes by finished/proposed contour lines.
Specify proposed slope angle ratio of all cut and fill slopes (use ratio of horizontal to vertical distance).
c. Label proposed slopes as "cut' or'1111."
d. Indicate proposed sit and/or fill slope areas on plan by shading.
Show and label slope setbacks from top and/or toe of both existing and proposed slopes to property lines or
building locations. Setbacks must conform to minimum requirements of Sections J108 and 1805.3 of the Building
Code. Encroaching into the setback from a property line will require a notarized and recorded offsite covenant
from adjacent property owner accepting the encroachment.
For slopes with a surface gradient steeper than 2:1, the Geotechnicat Engineer shall submit satisfactory soil test
data and engineering calculations to substantiate the stability of all such slopes and slope surfaces under
saturated conditions. (J108.1)
No fill may toe out on existing terrain that has a slope steeper than 2:1, unless substantiated by a Registered Soils
Engineer and approved by the Building Official. (J107.2)
43 Site Development and Grading shall be designed to provide access to all entrances and exterior ground floor exits4or
structures, and access to normal paths of travel (11278.1). The following Accessibility details must be Included on the
�Q .( grading plans.
\
(2// °C * b. Ramp shall not encroach into any accessible parking space or the adjacent access aisle. The maximum cross
slope in any direction of an accessible parking space and adJacent access aisle shall not exceed 2 percent.
.3.3}
Provide a lounger or curb in each parking area to prevent encroachment o1 cars over the required wldlh of • walkways. (1129B.3.3, Fig 11B-18A, 188 & 18C)
Provide
�Y d Provide a continuous common surface for walks end sidewalks, not interrupted by steps or by abrupt changes in
level exceeding W. (1133B.7.1) Should change not exceeding W occur, they shall be beveled with a slope no
greater than one unit vertical to 2 units horizontal (50 percent), except that level changes not exceeding Y.' may
be vertical. (11388.7.4, Fig 11 B-5E(c) & (d))
e. Provide a curb ramp for abrupt changes in level greater than W. (113813.7.4)
f. Walk and sidewalk surface cross slopes shall not exceed Y.' per foot (11338.7.1.3)
g. Walks, sidewalks, and pedestnan ways shall be free of gratings whenever possible. For gratings located in the
S\ ►,/ surface of any of these areas, gnd openings in gratings shall be limited to'W in the direction of traffic flow. If
gratings have elongated openings, they shall be placed so that the long dimension is perpendicular to the
dominant direction of travel. (1133E37.2, Fig 11B-7E(a))
Maximum slopes of adjoining gutters, road surface immediately adJacent to the curb ramp or accessible route,
shall not exceed one unit vertical to 20 units horizontal (5 percent slope) with 4 feet of the top and bottom of the
curb ramp. The slope of the fanned or flared side of curb ramps shall not exceed One unit vertical to 10 horizontal
(10 percent slope). (1127B.5.3)
i. The maximum slope of a ramp that serves any exit way, provides access for persons with physical disabilities, or
is in the accessible route of travel shell be 1 foot rise In 12 feet of horizontal run (8.3 percent gradient). The feast
possible slope shall be used for any ramp. (11338.5.3)
a.
h.
Surface slopes of accessible parking spaces shall be the minimum possible and shall not exceed one uni?vertical
to 50-units horizontal (2-percent slope) in any direction. (11298.3.4)
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM INPDES1 REQUIREMENTS
STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION REQUIREMENTS
44. All active grading projects with grading proposed within the rainy season, October 15 to April 15, require a wet weather
(Erosion Control) plan. Grading permits will not be issued until wet weather (Erosion Control) plans are approved or
details for erosion control are included with the grading plan. (J110)
Please note Grading projects with a disturbed (graded) area 1 acre or greater where a Local Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan or State Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan is required (See Item below) do not require a separate
wet weather (Erosion Control) plan. Wet weather erosion control is a part or element of these plans: however the erosion
control element must be updated annually.
Th lowing requirements to control and protect pollutants generated from grading construction activities are based on
th roject size:
b.
For small Construction sites with a disturbed (graded) area less that one acre, stormwater pollution control
measures (BMPs) must be incorporated on the site dunng construction. Attached Best Management Practice
(BMP) notes must be placed on plans. (see attached BMP notes)
For all medium and large construction sites with a disturbed (graded) area of one acre or greater, a Local Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (LOCAL SWPPP) must be reviewed and approved poor to approval of the
grading plans Please see enclosed Local SWPPP review sheet.
c. In addition to a Lord SWPPP, a State Stone Water Pollution Prevention Plan (STATE SWPPP) must be prepared
and a 'Notice of Intent' (N01) filed with the State Water Resources Control Board. Prior to grading approval
applicant must tile a NOI and obtain a Waste Discharger identification number (WDID) from the State Water
Resources Control Board. Please see enclosed Lout SWPPP review sheet
Page 8
• •
STANDARD URBAN STORMWATER MITIGATION PLAN (SVSMp)
46. State taw under the County of Los Angeles 'National Pollution Discharge Elimination System' (NPDES) permit requires
certain new development and redevelopment projects/activities to incorporate post construction Best Management
Practices (BMPs) into the grading plans to control pollutants and hydro -modifications. Please refer to the attached
SUSMP review sheet for specific comments and requirements.
DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS
(lowing drainage information or details must be included on grading plans. (J104.2.3)
Show contours, topography, elevations, flow fines, 8 flow arrows as necessary to define site drainage.
Provide complete construction details of all drainage devices proposed on project grading plans. Plan must show
materials, dimension, location, construction notes, cross sections, and elevations needed to construct proposed
devices. All drainage devices must be defined by showing finished flow Ilne elevations and slopes. Plans must
reference LACDPW or Standard Plans for Public Works Construction (APWA standards) as applicable. Complete
details for all other proposed devices must be shown on plans Plans must Include afl applicable notes and
specifications
c. Show the location of any existing or proposed storm drains and associated easement and reference them on the
plans. Show all details including pipe sizes, invert elevations, type of construction material, inlet and outlet
structures, energy dissipater, profiles, etc
d. Provide a cross-section of access road to define drainage.
e. Clean outs are required at all points of closed drains where the grade changes from a steep to a relatively flat
slope. The menhole(s) or cleanout(s) must be detailed on the plans and easily accessible. Clean outs must be
provided every 50 feet for residential projects.
Provide concrete interceptor swales, to handle tributary flow and debris at locations shown on the plans. Concrete
swales are required to be paved with three (3) inches minimum thickness of concrete or gunite with minimum
reinforcement of 6 x 6 - 10/10 welded wire fabric (WWF). Details of concrete swale(s) must be shown on the
grading plan.
O. Show flow,elevation of ail drainage devices et inlets, outlets, grade breaks and at 100' intervals where applicable.
48. Drainage is not permitted to sheet over any manufactured slope except in approved devices. Concentrated drainage is
not permitted to discharge onto any graded slope. Berms, interceptor drains, swales or other devices shall be provided at
the top of cut or fill slopes to prevent surface waters from overflowing onto and damaging the face of a slope. Berns used
for slope protection shall not be Less than 12 inches above the level of the pad and shall slope back at least 4 feet from
the top of the slope. (J109.3)
a. Provide a paved interceptor drain at top of graded slope(s) Interceptor drains shall be installed along the top of
graded slopes greater than 5 feet In height receiving drainage from a slope with a tributary width greater than 30
feet measured horizontally. They shall have a minimum depth of 1 foot and a minimum width of 3 feet. The slope
shall not be less than 50 units horizontal to 1 unit vertical (2 percent). Concrete swales are required to be paved
with three (3) inches minimum thickness of concrete or gunite with minimum reinforcement of 6 x 6 - 10/10
welded wire fabric WF). Details of concrete swale(s) must be shown on the grading plan (J 109.3)
49. Clearly define drainage pattern at the property ime(s). Define offsite drainage pattern tributary to subject site. Plans
should clearly define off site areas that contribute to the site by stowing, contours, elevations, or now lines & arrows as
applicable. Plans must demonstrate how tributary drainage will be conveyed through and around the proposed site. If
applicable, an offsite map at a scale of no less than 1"=1000' may be used to define the offsite tributary areas. A scale
better than 1"ii1000' may be required if sufficient contours or elevations are needed to establish flow conditions.
Cut-off wails are required on all inlet and outlet structures. Details must be shown on plans.Z.--
Velocity reducers (i.e energy dissipaters) are required where drains discharge onto natural ground. If nprap Is to be used
specify class and size. Show on plan and provide cross section detail which sh thickness, length, and embedment
depth of rocks. ),.,0%.11-
''tJ-,_fir ..)-1. exf, ,
52 Provide parkway drain per /dty sta ards (If located in Road Right of Way a separ to permit for wt /pp�� 8� ..
required, see Item 0 22 above. l
DRAINAGE ANALYSI,� i , ( 1 c r� v
53. Any alteration of the natural drainage pattem, es a result of the proposed, grading and construction requires a drainage
release covenant (See item X 30). Hydrology/hydraulic analysis are required to determine if changes in Pre -development
and Post -development conditions have occurred. (J109.4)
Submit hydrology and hydraulic calculations for sizing of drainage devices proposed on the grading plans. Hydraulic
Analysis
should be provided for sizing of anpipes, inlets, swales. enerov dissin.srrrs, parkway drains, cutoff walls. levee
linings, or other proposed drainage devices (2 sets of all analysis are required. Calculations should be signed and
stamped by a Civil Engineer registered in Califomia )
55 Proposed project has grading or structure located near or within in a flood hazard. Provide hydrology/hydraulic analysis
for determining flood hazard limits and impacts due to the proposed project. Grading or structures inside a flood hazard
area must be protected. Plans showing for protecting or removing the Flood Hazard must be prepared by a California
Registered Civil Engineer and demonstrate structures are adequately protected Details of all protective measures must
be shown on the grading plans.
56 This property is in a Federally designated flood hazard area. All work within Zone A must meet requirements of the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), Chapter 44, Section 60.3. The minimum floor elevation for proposed
structures shall be per Bench Mark reference no. . FIRM panel No.
, Flood Zone , Floodway name . An elevation certificate will be
required to be filed at the local office of Building and Safety Once to finished floor elevation has been established The
Page 9
• •
certificate must be completed by a California Registered Civil Engineer or a Land Surveyor. Provide hydrology/hydraulic
analysis to determine the water surface elevation.
0 Place the following note on the cover sheet:
This site is in a Federally Designated Flood Zone 'A'. All future buildings, and other structures (including walls and
fences) proposed within Zone A must meet requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), Chapter 44,
Section 60.3 and Title 26, Sections 110.1 and 110.2 of the Los Angeles Building Code.
57. The proposed Tract or Parcel Map grading work impacts or encroaches into the Federal Designated Flood Zone "A." It
will be necessary to process a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) before this grading plan can be approved.
Please see attached information for processing CLOMRs (may be required for large single lot developments as
/ determined by the Building Official).0 Fopitams 053 through 57 above the following analysis is required:
A hydrology study per LACDPW Rational or Modified method is required. See LADPW Hydrology Manual for
requirements. The Rational Method may be used for sub areas less than 40 acres and when storage pouting is
not necessary. Time of Concentrations may be determined using the'TC Program' which is available at
J+tto rtwww.dpw.lacounty aovrwrd/oublication/
b. A gradual varied flow analysis is required (WSPG, HEC-II & NEC-RAS or an approved program) The analysis
shall address adverse effects on the grading and adjacent properties. Proposed structures shaft be designed with
considerations of flood forces i.e.: impact, scour, and buoyancy.
LOT DRAINAGE
ROUGH GRADED PADS
59. Label sufficient pad finish spot elevations to verify pad area will have a minimum slope of 2% toward the intended
drainage outlet Label rough graded pad slope, 2% minimum. (J109.5)
FINE (PRECISE) GRADED PAD
60. Show location of proposed structure(s) on building pad(s). Buildings, foundations, pools and building footings must
comply with slope setback requirements (1805.3) and building setback requirements per (Title 22, Zoning Code). Define
fine drainage around structure by providing flow directional arrows and appropriate flow line elevations of graded Swale to
verify slope from the high point to the point of outlet. All graded swales must have a minimum slope of 1 % towards street
or acceptable cutlet and side slopes of 2% minimum and 21% maximum. Paved (concrete) surfaces may drain away
from structures at a minimum slope of 4%. Specify graded swales high point elevations and graded Swale elevations at
building corners.
61. Provide a detail of typical side swale between adjacent lots
62. Label the finish floor (FF), finish pad (FP) elevations and adjacent grades to proposed buildings.
63. Provide and label a minimum 2% drainage slope away from proposed structures and property lines.
64. Show a detail on the plan of paved side swales when a stoop, fireplace, NC unit, or other obstruction is within five feet of
the property line and/or top or toe of slope.
,SUMP CONDITIONS & PUMP
65. The project requires a sump pump to outlet drainage from the site. Submit sump pump sizing calculations along with
pump manufacturers design information and rating curves. Plans must show complete details for sump pumps on the
plans including, pipes, valves, dimensions, material type and size, elevations, cross sections, and construction notes. A
separate electrical permit from Building end Safety is required. Calculations must be prepared, signed, and stamped by
a California Registered Civil Engineer.
TERRACE DRAINAGE REOUIREMENTS TO BE SHOWN ON PLANS
68. Drainage terraces at least 8 feet in width shall be established on all cut or fill slopes steeper than 3:1 at not more than 30-
foot vertical intervals to control surface drainage and debris. When only one terrace is required it shall be at mid -height.
Drainage terraces are required to be paved with three (3) inches minimum thickness of concrete or gunite with minimum
reinforcement of 8 x 6. 10/10 welded wire fabric (WWF). Show a detail of terrace on the grading plan. (J109.2)
67. For slopes steeper than 3:1 gradient end between 100 feet and 120 feet in height, one drainage terrace near mid -height
shall be provided and not be leas than 20 feet in width, a minimum of 8 feet of which must be paved. (J109.2)
88. Erosion is a problem for all graded slopes higher than 30 feet. For slopes flatter than 3 units horizontal to 1 unit vertical
and steeper than 5 units horizontal to 1 unit vertical, a paved swale or ditch shall be installed at 30 foot vertical intervals to
control surface drainage and debris. Swales shall be sized based on contributory area and have adequate capacity to
convey intercepted waters to the point of disposal as defined in Section J109.5. Swales must be paved with reinforced
concrete not less than 3 inches in thickness, reinforced with 6-inch by 8-inch No.10 by No.10 welded wire fabric' or
equivalent reinforcing centered In the concrete slab or an equivalent approved by the Building Official. Swales must have
a minimum flow line depth of 1 foot and a minimum paved width of 18 inches. Swales shall have a minimum gradient of
not less than 5 percent There shall be no reduction in grade along the direction of lbw unless the velocity of flow Is such
that slope debris will remain in suspension on the reduced grade.
69. Demonstrate that the maximum length of terrace or Swale that may tontnbute to any down drain is 300 feet in any
direction as required. (J109.2)
70 Provide open clown drains unless specifically approved by the Building Official
71 Provide a detail on Inc plans of transition structures for open drains where the grade changes from a steep to a relatively
flat slope.
72. Show flow line elevations of all drainage terraces at each change in grade and at approximate 100 feet Intervals. The
flow Ilne gradient can be no less than 5% and no greater than 12%. There shall be no reduction in grade along the
Page 10
c)Oto
• •
1/
direction of flow unless it can be shown that the velocity of flow will be such that the debris will remain in suspension on
the reduced grade to prevent silt deposition. (J109.2)
73. Terrace drains are to be used for drainage generated from manufactured slopes. Provide separate drainage system for
natural areas. The draining of natural slope runoff to terrace drain system is not permitted The terrace drain system is
only designed and intended to drain flows generated from the slope itself.
74 Sufficient access for the maintenance of slope and terrace drains must be provided and shown on plans.
jtETAlNING WALL AND FREE STANDING WALLS
75. STANDARD RETAINING AND SCREEN WALLS — These walls are not plan checked. constructed, inspected, or
permitted per the grading permit Separate plan checking and permitting is required label all standard retaining walls
'To be constructed per separate permit'. Retaining wall permits) and grading and permit must be issued concurrently.
76. GENERAL WALL COMMENTS
a. Define proposed drainage scheme around walls Flows tributary to top of proposed retaining wall(s) must be
conveyed around the wall(s) by a concrete swale or en approved drainage system. (I.e. inlet and pipe) Provide
details of drainage system or swele. Show flow line elevations, Swale, inletand outlet details.
b. Show and label applicable setbacks from walls to structures and top and/or toe of both existing and proposed
slopes end property Imes.
77. SEGMENTAL EARTH (GEOGRID) RETAINING WALLS: These walls are plan checked, constructed, bonded, and
Inspected per the grading plans and permit. The following is required for the proposed geogrid wall:
a. Details and stability analysis for geogrid walls must be approved by the Soils and Geology Section of the
Department's Geotechnical and Materials Engineering Division
b. Provide on plans all manufacturers construction instructions and installation procedures for the construction of the
segmental earth retaining walls. Proposed wall systems must have en approved ICBO Evaluation Report/ICC-ES
Legacy Report, which must be labeled on the plan. Walls not approved through a report will require additional
review by Research Section.
c. The geogrid fabric must be mechanically anchored to the facing units Provide details of the facing unit and the
mechanical connection.
d. Provide adequate wall sections (wall face, endpoints, curves/comers, areas adjacent to drainage courses) and
label the geogrid type, location, spacing and embedment length behind the rntenor face of the block unit
e. Label all pertinent geotechnical recommendations, such as maximum allowable rock size, placement/compaction
specifications for the backfdl, overexcavation, and minimum distance from compaction equipment to wall face.
f. In order to prevent future damage to the geogrid wall, a Restricted Use Area (RUA) for the embedment area of
reinforcing geognd must be recorded This area shall extend 10' horizontally beyond the limits of the embedment
area. Show and label the RUA on the grading plans including bearings and distances of boundary.
O For Subdivisions, the RUA must be established and recorded on the Final Tract or Parcel Map.
O For Non — Subdivisions, a sketch and restricted use covenant must be recorded on the property. (See
attached covenant)
SLOPE PLANTING. IRRIGATION AND EROSION CONTROL.
The surface of all cut slopes more than 5 feet in height and fill slopes more than 3 feet in height shall be protected
against damage from erosion by planting with grass or ground cover plants. (J110.1) Slopes exceeding 15 feet In vertical .,`
height shall also be planted with shrubs, spaced at not to exceed 10 feet on centers; or trees, spaced at not to exceed 20
feet on center, or a combination of shrubs and trees at equivalent spacing, In addition to the grass or ground cover
prams. The plants selected and planting methods used shall be suitable for the soil end climatic conditions of the site.
Note: Planting may be modified for the site if specific recommendations are provided by both the Soils Engineer and a
Landscape Architect Specific recommendations must consider soils and climatic conditions, irrigation requirements.
tenting methods, fire retardant characteristics, water efficiency, maintenance needs, and other regulatory requirements.
Recommendations must include a finding that the alternative planting will provide a permanent and effective method of
erosion control. Modifications to planting must be approved by the Building Official poor to installation.
Slopes required to be planted by Subsection J110.3 of the Building Code and as indicated In item no. 78 above shalt be
provided with an approved system of irrigation that is designed to cover all portions of the slope. For slopes less than 20
feet in vertical heigh), hoje bibs to permit hand watering will be acceptable if such hose bibs are installed at conveniently
accessible locations where a hose no longer than 50 feet is necessary for irrigation.
Note: The requirements for permanent Irrigation systems may be modified upon specific recommendation of a
landscape architect or equivalent authority that. because of the type of plants selected, the planting methods used and
the spit and climatic conditions at the site and irrigation will not be necessary for the maintenance of the stope planting
items no. 78 and 79 above, the following is required.
For slopes less than 20' In vertical height, notes no 48 and 47 of the attached general notes must be added to the
grading plans.
b For slopes 20' or more in vertical height, provide a landscape and irrigation plan specifying the selected planting
and irngation for all graded slopes. Include the selection and spacing of all ground cover, shrubs. and trees. in
addition to location and details for the selected irngation system. The plan should address all manufactured
slopes that are proposed on the grading plans A separate plumbing permit may be required for the proposed
irrigation system. The landscape plan must be stamped by a licensed civil engineer or landscape architect
Page 11
•
•
N W\).
NJ 6 c- ec
2)@)
'''k' Q\:-)„A \'—'
--2 -zr --c- -7 c=?-1
2‘_ .1,- 4,„',')--
\- 0 \-- .&.,
cQ i__.-
\,
(0)
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
THROUGH:
erre/ Rot/419 qeeid
. INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288
Mtg. Date: 2-28-11
Agenda Item 5A
FEBRUARY 28, 2011
HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE
CITY COUNCIL
YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR (i i
i
ANTON DAHLERBRUCH, CITY MANAGER
APPLICATION NO.
SITE LOCATION:
ZONING AND SIZE:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:..
PUBLISHED:
ZONING CASE NO. 799
2 APPALOOSA LANE
RAS-2, 5.0 ACRES (GROSS)
DR. JAMES BLACK
B & E ENGINEERING
FEBRUARY 17, 2011
REQUEST AND RECOMMENDATION
1. The applicant, Dr. James Black requests a Site Plan Review to retain an as graded
condition and as built drainage devices on the lot and a Variance to exceed, due to the
grading, the maximum permitted disturbed area of the lot. The drainage devices and
grading encroach onto the adjacent property owners' property and are also located in
RHCA roadway easements. Earlier during the Planning Commission proceedings, the
applicant withdrew a request for a Variance to import additional dirt.
2. It is recommended that the City Council, having viewed the project in the field
earlier today, continue the public hearing and provide direction to staff.
BACKGROUND
3. The property is zoned RAS-2 and the gross lot area is 5.0 acres. The net lot area,
as calculated for development purposes, is 179,000 square feet or 4.1 acres. The lot is
irregular in shape. A roadway easement is located along the westerly side of the
property, however the actual paved road, Appaloosa Lane, in the area under
consideration, is located outside the roadway easement on adjacent lot - 3 Appaloosa
Lane. The paved portion of the road continues on 3 Appaloosa to a point where it
ZC No. 799
2 Appaloosa
• •
traverses the subject property where it divides the lot and provides access as a
driveway easement to two other properties, 4 and 5 Appaloosa Lane.
4. In 2008 a new 8,381 square foot residence with 669 square foot garage, trellises
and porches to replace an existing residence and garage, and a minor Variance to
encroach with 54 square feet of the new residence up to 4.4-feet into the side yard
setback was approved. 47.0% ofthe lot was previously disturbed. The previous
approval for the new residence did not call for additional disturbance, and thus no
Variance was necessary. The residence is currently under construction.
5. The property drains in a sheet flow in northerly direction into a natural drainage
course that flows into a large drainage pipe located north of the property. This area of
the property and above it experienced frequent erosion and water crevices. Several
times in the past 10 years, the property owner received permission from the City to
import dirt to fill in the fissures of the eroded areas. Section 15.04.150 of the Building
and Construction Ordinance (Title 15) permits import of up to 500 cubic yards of dirt if
it is necessary for erosion control. In part the code states as follows:
"1. No import of soil shall be permitted to any lot in the City, except where a
variance pursuant to Chapter 17.38 has been approved.
AND
5. The City Manager or his or her designee may grant an exception to the
requirements of parts 1 and 2 of this paragraph to allow for the import or export
of soil not to exceed 500 cubic yards for remedial repair of an area of the lot
adjacent to structures, fences, corrals and riding rings that have eroded, and of
hillside or trail if he or she finds, based upon written reports and other
information submitted, that all of the following conditions are present:
(a) The project does not require a discretionary review or a grading permit (a cut
that is three feet or less, or a fill that is three feet or less or where the activity
covers 2,000 square feet or less of surface area);
and
(b) The import or export of soil is no greater than necessary to avoid a threat of.
land subsidence or other imminent danger".
6. After several heavy rainstorms last year, the applicant was granted permission
from the City to import up to 500 cubic yards of dirt to fix the rain eroded down stream
areas of the property. The applicant filled in an area, which triggered the requirement
for a Site Plan Review for grading, (discretionary review). He has also constructed
drainage devices to capture the water from above and to more directly divert it into the
existing drainage course and pipe down from his property. Building and Safety
Department approval and permit for the drainage and the grading is required.
7. Following Planning Commission approval of the "as built project" with certain
conditions to reduce the slopes across two places, the City Council took jurisdiction of
the project. Pursuant to Section 17.54.015 a review hearing for cases taken under
jurisdiction by the City Council shall be conducted as de novo hearings. A field trip
public hearing was scheduled for February 28, 2011. Neighbors within 1,000-foot radius
were notified of the hearing and a notice was published in Palos Verdes Peninsula
News on February 17, 2011.
8. The applicant . proposes to retains the "as built" drainage devices including
drainage pipes, concrete inlet and dissipater. A grading plan and hydrology study were
prepared by the applicant's engineer for the "as built" condition and submitted to City
engineers, (LA County Public Works Department). Upon review of the hydrology study
the drainage and grading engineer requires a larger dissipater. Therefore, should the
project be approved, the as built dissipater will be enlarged. As part of a building
permit process, the County will require recordation of an off site construction covenant
for work on the adjacent property. CA Department of Fish and Game permit as well as
a license agreement for construction in the RHCA easement will also be required.
Therefore, any approval of this project will be subject to approvals granted by other
agencies.
9. The applicant submitted a landscaping plan for the affected area showing a
meadow area consisting of buffalo grass, white yarrow, California poppy, lupine, and
various fruit tress. Other plants, such as California fuchsia, and yankee point are
proposed for the slope below Appaloosa Lane. Most of the plants are considered native
and drought tolerant. In the meadow, the buffalo grass can grow up to 12" without
moving; the poppies up to 18" and the other meadow plants can grow up to 5 feet in
height.
10. The total affected area on subject lot is 14,200 square feet and on the adjacent lot
is 5,100 square feet. The total additional disturbance is 8.0% on the subject lot and 1.4%
on the adjacent lot for a total disturbance of 55.0% and 34.3%-with future stable,
respectively. A Variance for disturbance is required on the 2 Appaloosa Lane lot, as the
previously approved legal, nonconforming condition was 47% disturbance. The cut and
fill areas vary from 2.5 foot cut in the middle of the graded area to up to 6' fill in the
area of the new drainage pipes.
11. The property owner at 3 Appaloosa Lane, onto whose property some of the work
encroaches, indicated during the Planning Commission meetings that he is satisfied
with the project and agreed to sign the off site covenant agreement, as long as the City's
engineers are satisfied with the way the work was done and as Iong as he won't be
liable for the work or maintenance of the landscaping and drainage devices. The
property owners at 4 and 5 Appaloosa Lane indicated during the Planning Commission
proceedings that they were very dissatisfied with the unpermitted grading and
construction and requested that any dirt on 4 Appaloosa be removed. The applicant
agreed to remove the dirt. They also submitted pictures of the property at different
times through the past 5 years.
MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE
12. The applicant requests to retain as graded condition on the property, which
requires a Site Plan Review and Variance applications. The Variance is for the exceedance
of the disturbed area of the lot (55%).
13. The net lot area of the lot is 179,000 square feet. 84,000 square feet or 47% of the
net lot has been previously disturbed. The ceedance of the maximum permitted 40%
. •
disturbance is a pre-existing condition, most likely occurring prior to 1995, when the
regulations for maximum disturbance became effective. The additional grading
contributes to the disturbance of the lot.
14. - The applicant proposes to retain the graded area and drainage devices to control
drainage on his property.
15. In response to justification for requesting a variance for the exceedance of the
disturbed net lot area, the applicant state, in part, that the disturbance of the 14,200
square foot area was for the purpose of mitigating erosion of the lot from the 2009
rainstorms and to protect the area from any further damages from future storms.
CONCLUSION
16. When reviewing a site plan review application and a variance the City Council
should consider the criteria for granting of a Site Plan Review and Variance, enclosed.
OTHER AGENCIES REVIEW
17. The Rolling Hills Community Association Board of Directors will review the
project at a later date to consider a license agreement.
18. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
19. As part of the grading permits, the CA Department of Fish and Game review of
the project will be required.
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 byother 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
December 15, 2020
To: City of Rolling Hills
RE: Zoning Case NO. 799 - 2 Appaloosa Lane
Dear Sirs:
C, i 20
,
C, ty ;,:
As long-time residents of Appaloosa Lane we are writing this letter to address the
many concerns we have in regard to the infractions that occurred during the grading of
the canyon at #2 Appaloosa Lane.
Over the course of the past several years we have witnessed many obvious violations:
• grading without a proper city permit altering the aesthetics of our canyon
• grading without a proper county permit
• importing soil and grading on neighbors' properties
• importing soil and grading of city easements
• no prior lot line study
• no approved engineering plan
• no compaction or composition testing - was the soil clean and free of
contaminants?
We feel it is necessary that steps be taken to correct these violations and to make certain
this does not become a precedent in other canyons bordering homes in Rolling Hills...
Our recommendations for con•ection are:
• removal of some or all of the soil on neighbors' properties to restore natural
grade of canyon
• letter of apology to neighbors for the improper and illegal dumping of soil without
their permission
• restore/recondition the canyon to its natural state with native plants under the
supervision of a professional contractor ensuring for proper drainage
• close the apparent loophole in city procedures that allowed these infractions to
occur - (i.e. importing of large amounts of soil from inside and outside of the
city to control "erosion")
We feel it is very important for the integrity of our city that proper measures be followed
by everyone. Engineers must review requests for the redistribution of such large amounts
of soil before approval is granted. This should never be the decision of non -qualified
city employees or its residents.
Respectfully submitted,
'k C
Marion A. Scharffenberger
4 Appaloosa Lane
Dr. James Scharffenberger
5 Appaloosa Lane
f�)
Prometrium.
PROGESTERONE, USP
11) Capsules 100mg lip Capsules 200 mg
,-e) s cAmcd-��—
C-U /�-►� o7.- I; t.
li S DC1 6
Y 1 u/orrI' vri ,Q-
tpfr 1-4i^ C 7 sp
s) to-rcri 4-0 LIG so =
-c)) 0,cort4-11 cchauN mna
r �2. -- (my,
Incsr—- p0)
,4"1
r
a
1067
(1-3
•
1/4
tool
Se ou V
•2aab'
•
&eel 01 Reeeeof Wed
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288
Agenda Item No. 4A
Mtg. Date: 2-14-11
DATE: FEBRUARY 14, 2011
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR
THROUGH: ANTON DAHLERBRUCH, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2011-01. A RESOLUTION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING
SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR GRADING AND AS BUILT
DRAINAGE DEVICES AND A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM
PERMITTED DISTURBED NET LOT AREA OF THE LOT, IN ZONING CASE
NO. 799, AT 2 APPALOOSA LANE, (LOT 106-C-RH), (BLACK). THE PROJECT
IS EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA), PURSUANT TO SECTIONS
15304 and 15061(b)(3) OF THE ACT.
RECOMMENDATION
1. It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this report or provide
other direction to staff.
REQUEST AND PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
2. Request for a Site Plan Review to retain an as graded area of 19,000 sq.ft. and as
constructed drainage devices, both located partially on adjacent property - 3
Appaloosa Lane and in roadway easement and request for a Variance to exceed the
maximum permitted disturbed area of the net lot, (55% disturbance), triggered by the
grading. A very small area of 4 Appaloosa Lane was also filled in.
ZC NO.799 1
• •
3. The Planning Commission adopted the attached Resolution by a 3-1 vote,
granting the request. Commissioners Chelf and DeRoy were absent and Chairperson
Smith voted against the project. Chairperson Smith found that the proposed
landscaping plan did not meet the Commission's direction that the graded area be
planted to look natural.
At the prior public hearing at which the Commission directed staff to bring forth a
Resolution of Approval, Commissioner Chelf voted for preparation of the resolution
and Commissioner DeRoy voted against it. However, she stated that she would like to
see the landscaping plan before making her final decision.
BACKGROUND
4. In 2008 the Planning Commission approved a new 8,381 square foot residence
with 669 square foot garage, trellises and porches to replace an existing residence and
garage, and a minor Variance to encroach with 54 square feet of the new residence up to
4.4-feet into the side yard setback. 47.0% of the lot was previously disturbed. The
previous approval for the new residence did not call for additional disturbance, and
thus no Variance was necessary. The residence is currently under construction.
5. The property is zoned RAS-2 and the gross lot area is 5.0 acres. The net lot area,
as calculated for development purposes, is 179,000 square feet or 4.1 acres. The lot is
irregular in shape. A roadway easement is located along the westerly side of the
property, however the actual paved road, Appaloosa Lane in the area under
consideration, is located outside the roadway easement on adjacent lot - 3 Appaloosa
Lane. The paved portion of the road continues on 3 Appaloosa to a point where it
traverses the subject property where it divides the lot and provides access as a
driveway easement to two other properties, 4 and 5 Appaloosa Lane.
6. The property drains in a sheet flow in northerly direction into a natural drainage
course that flows into a large drainage pipe located north of the property. This area of
the property and above it experienced frequent erosion and water crevices. Several
times in the past 10 years, the property owner received permission from the City to
import dirt to fill in the fissures of the eroded areas. Section 15.04.150 of the Building
and Construction Ordinance (Title 15) permits import of up to 500 cubic yards of dirt if
it is necessary for erosion control. In part the code states as follows:
"1. No import of soil shall be permitted to any lot in the City, except where a
variance pursuant to Chapter 17.38 has been approved.
AND
5. The City Manager or his or her designee may grant an exception to the
ZC NO. 799
• •
requirements of parts 1 and 2 of this paragraph to allow for the import or export
of soil not to exceed 500 cubic yards for remedial repair of an area of the lot
adjacent to structures, fences, corrals and riding rings that have eroded, and of
hillside or trail if he or she finds, based upon written reports and other
information submitted, that all of the following conditions are present:
(a) The project does not require a discretionary review or a grading permit (a cut
that is three feet or less, or a fill that is three feet or less or where the activity
covers 2,000 square feet or less of surface area);
and
(b) The import or export of soil is no greater than necessary to avoid a threat of
land subsidence or other imminent danger".
7. After several heavy rain storms last year, the applicant received permission from
the City, to import up to 500 cubic yards of dirt to fix the rain eroded down stream areas
of the property. However, the applicant filled in an area, which triggered the
requirement for a Site Plan Review for grading, (discretionary review). He has also
constructed drainage devices to capture the water from above and to more directly
divert it into the existing drainage course and pipe down from his property. Building
and Safety Department approval for the drainage and the grading is required.
8 The applicant submitted "as built" grading and drainage plan to the County
Building and Safety Department. The plans were reviewed by the County and returned
to the applicant's engineers for corrections. Pending City action, the applicant's
engineer will submit revised plans to the County for further review and approval. As
part of a building permit process, the County will require recordation of an off site
construction covenant for work on the adjacent property. Approval from the RHCA will
also be required.
9. After a field visit to the property, the Planning Commission requested that the
applicant revise the plan to bring the area to more natural condition. The adjacent
property owners at 4 and 5 Appaloosa Lane objected to the project and submitted
historical pictures of dirt stored on the property. The applicant disputed some of the
pictures as the RHCA from time to time stores dirt on his property and also during
construction of 1 Sagebrush Lane, the City allowed storage of dirt on the applicant's
property. At a subsequent meeting, the Commission requested that a landscaping plan
be submitted that would make the area look natural.
10. Per Planning Commission request, the applicant submitted revised grading plan.
The applicant will retain the "as built" drainage devices including drainage pipes,
concrete inlet and dissipater. As a result of a hydrology study for the area, the LA
County drainage and grading engineer requires a larger dissipater, therefore the as built
dissipater will be enlarged. The as graded slopes along Appaloosa Lane will remain.
The applicant will remove 100 cubic yards of dirt from the graded areas and from the
ZC NO.799
• •
neighbors' property on 4 Appaloosa Lane and shave off some of the dirt from the areas
of concern to the Planning Commission. In addition, the applicant withdrew a request
for a Variance to import additional dirt, which was originally part of the application.
The applicant also submitted a landscaping plan for the area under consideration.
11. The total affected area on subject lot is 14,200 square feet and on the adjacent lot
is 5,100 square feet. The total additional disturbance is 8.0% on the subject lot and 1.4%
on the adjacent lot for a total disturbance of 55.0% and 34.3%-with future stable,
respectively. A Variance for disturbance is required on the 2 Appaloosa Lane lot, as the
previously approved legal, nonconforming condition was 47% disturbance. The cut and
fill areas vary from 2.5 foot cut in the middle of the graded area to up to 6' fill above the
new drainage pipes.
MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE
12. The applicant requests to retain as graded condition on the property, which
requires a Site Plan Review and Variance applications. The Variance is for the exceedance
of the disturbed area of the lot, (55%).
13. The net lot area of the lot is 179,000 square feet. 84,000 square feet or 47% of the
net lot has been previously disturbed. The exceedance of the maximum permitted 40%
disturbance is a pre-existing condition, most likely occurring prior to 1995, when the
regulations for maximum disturbance became effective. The additional grading
contributes to the disturbance of the lot.
14. The applicant proposes to retain the flattened and graded area, as revised, to
control drainage on his property.
15. In response to justification for requesting a variance for the exceedance of the
disturbed net lot area, the applicant state, in part, that the disturbance of the 14,200
square foot area was for the purpose of mitigating erosion of the lot from the 2009
rainstorms and to protect the area from any further damages from future storms.
CONCLUSION
ZC NO. 799 -4-
•
16. When reviewing a site plan review application the Planning Commission
considered whether 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. In considering the request for a Variance, the Commission should consider the
criteria for granting of a Variance.
OTHER AGENCIES REVIEW
18. Rolling Hills Community Association approval is required.
19. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
20. As part of the grading permit, other agencies approval may be required, (i.e. CA
Department of Fish and Game).
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
ZC NO. 799 -5-
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. 799 -6-
RESOLUTION NO. 2011-01
RESOLUTION NO. 2011-01. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING SITE
PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR GRADING AND AS BUILT
DRAINAGE DEVICES AND A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE
MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBED NET LOT AREA OF THE LOT, IN
ZONING CASE NO. 799, AT 2 APPALOOSA LANE, (LOT 106-C-RH),
(BLACK). THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA),
PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 15304 and 15061(b)(3) OF THE ACT.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Dr. James Black duly filed an application with respect to real
property located at 2 Appaloosa Lane (Lot 106-C-RH), Rolling Hills, CA
requesting a permission to retain an as graded area of 19,000 sq.ft. located
partially on adjacent property, and drainage devices on the lot and a Variance to
exceed the maximum permitted disturbed area of the net lot, (55% disturbance),
triggered by the grading.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public
hearings to consider the application on November 16, December 21, 2010 and at a
field trip visit on November 16, 2010. The applicant was 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, Los Angeles County Public Works staff and the Planning Commission
having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. The property owner and
his representatives were in attendance at the hearings.
Section 3. In 2008 the Planning Commission approved a new 8,381
square foot residence with 669 square foot garage, trellises and porches to
replace an existing residence and garage, and a minor Variance to encroach with
54 square feet of the new residence up to 4.4-feet into the side yard setback.
47.0% of the lot was previously disturbed. The previous approval for the new
residence did not call for additional disturbance, and thus no Variance was
necessary.
Section 4. The property drains in a sheet flow in northerly direction
into a natural drainage course that flows into a large drainage pipe located north
of the property. This area of the property and above it experienced frequent
erosion and water crevices. Several times in the past 10 years, the property owner
received permission from the City to import dirt to fill in the fissures of the
eroded areas. Section 15.04.150 of the Building and Construction Ordinance (Title
ZC NO. 799
2 Appaloosa
1
15) permits import of up to 500 cubic yards of dirt if it is necessary for erosion
control.
Section 5. After several heavy rain storms in 2009, the applicant
received permission from the City, to import up to 500 cubic yards of dirt to fix
the rain eroded down stream areas of the property. The applicant filled in an
area, which triggered the requirement for a Site Plan Review for grading,
(discretionary review). He has also constructed drainage devices to capture the
water from above and to more directly divert it into the existing drainage course
and pipe down from his property. Such drainage devices require building
permit. Some of the grading and drainage devices were constructed on the
adjacent property, 3 Appaloosa Lane, and require recordation of an off -site
construction covenant agreement.
Section 6. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as
an exemption from environmental review under the California Environmental
Quality Act, pursuant to Sections 15304 and 15061(b)(3) of the Act.
Section 7. 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 building or structure may be constructed. With respect to
the Site Plan application for grading of the lower portion of the lot the Planning
Commission makes the following findings of fact:
A. The as graded condition complies with and is consistent with the
General . PIan and the Zoning : Ordinance (with the granting of the variance
below) because the as graded condition will protect the property from erosion
due to rainfall. The drainage devices are necessary to convey runoff in an orderly
manner without damaging the property and the adjacent road.
B. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped
state of the lot by the fact that no new structures are proposed on the property.
C. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, as
significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped so as to maintain open
space on the property. The project will be screened from the street and
neighbors by trees and shrubs. The nature, condition, and development of
adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the topography of the lot have been
considered, and the additional grading will not adversely affect or be materially
detrimental to the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the additional
grading was done on a portion of the lot which is least intrusive to surrounding
properties and will be further screened and landscaped with trees and shrubs.
The resulting grading creates gentler slopes, and corrects drainage problems on
the property without compromising the stability of the lot.
D. The resulting grading will be landscaped and the property will be
screened from the public view from the road and trail.
ZC NO. 799
2 Appaloosa 2
• •
E. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect
drainage flow. Drainage has been designed to follow the existing drainage
course, but in a more direct manner, via drainage pipes and dissipater. A
preliminary drainage plan has been approved by Los Angeles County Building
and Safety. Without the repair and construction of drainage devices and grading,
the area would continue to erode and possibly undermine the road above, which
would have a negative effect on the health and safety of the adjoining residents.
F. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature
trees and supplements these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping. A
landscaping plan is on file with the City, which is compatible with and enhances
the rural character of the community.
G. The project conforms to the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act and is exempt.
Section 8. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Rolling Hills
Municipal Code permit approval of a Variance from the standards and
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances applicable to the property and not applicable to other similar
properties in the same zone prevent the owner from making use of a parcel of
property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties in the same vicinity. A
Variance to Section 17.16.070 (B) is required because it states that the lot
disturbance shall be limited to 40.0% of the net lot area. The applicant is
requesting a Variance because total disturbance of the net lot area is proposed to
be 55.0%. With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission
finds as follows:
A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and
conditions applicable to this property that do not apply generally to the other
properties in the same zone. The property is unique in that it is irregular in
shape, with the road splitting the property for about 100 feet. 47.0% of the lot was
previously disturbed in an area at the south portion of the property and the
additional 8% disturbance became necessary for erosion control.
B. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and
zone, but which would be denied to the property in question absent a variance.
The overage is not significant and the property owner should not be denied to
safeguard his property from erosion and flooding. The area of the property
where improvements were made takes on a large amount of water run-off from
uphill properties, which was causing erosion of this portion of the lot.
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. Significant portions of the lot
will be left undeveloped so as to maintain open space on the property. The as
ZC NO. 799
2 Appaloosa
3 3
•
graded condition is on a portion of the lot which is not intrusive to surrounding
properties, and will be screened and landscaped with trees and shrubs from
nearby residences and from the street and trail so that the as graded condition
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.
D. In granting the variance, the spirit and intent of the Zoning
Ordinance will be observed. The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to regulate
development in an orderly fashion and in a manner consistent with the goals and
policies of the General Plan. Approval of the variance will not impede any goals
of the Zoning Ordinance or the General Plan. Rather, the variance will allow the
property owner to enjoy the same rights and privileges afforded to other
property owners in the vicinity, where the topography of the lots dictate grading
requirements for property stabilization and erosion control. The overage
requested is not substantial and does not undermine the spirit or intent of the
Zoning Ordinance.
E. 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.
F. 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.
G. The previously conducted grading improves slope stability and
erosion control through the use of approved drainage devices and grading of the
slopes, and will permit the owner to enjoy their property without deleterious
infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners. This Variance. is to
legalize previously created condition. The landscaping on the property will mask
the previously graded condition and it will not look unnatural.
Section 9. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning
Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review and Variance applications for
Zoning Case No. 799 for grading of a 19,000 square foot area (portion on adjacent
property) and a Variance to exceed the maximum permitted disturbed net lot
area by 15.0% (55.0%) as shown on the Development Plans dated December 9,
2010 subject to the following conditions:
A. The Site Plan Review and Variance approval shall expire within
two years from the effective date of approval. All required permits, including
State of California Fish and Game Department and other agencies, as necessary,
shall be obtained and the project completed within that two-year period.
ZC NO. 799
2 Appaloosa
4 9
• •
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 hereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicants have 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.
B.(1) Any modification to this project or to the property, including
grading, structural development, import/export of dirt or other development
may only be permitted with Planning Commission review and approval.
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 the Permit, or shown otherwise on
an approved plan.
D. The grading, drainage devices and disturbance of the property
shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan
on file dated December 9, 2010.
E. The working drawings shall be submitted and approved by the Los
Angeles County Department of Building and Safety and Public Works
Department.
F. No import of dirt is permitted with this application. The applicant
may export up to 100 cubic yards of dirt to bring the existing graded condition to
a more natural look, and to remove the dirt from the adjacent property (4
Appaloosa).
G. The disturbed area of the lot, as amended, shall not exceed 98,200
square feet or 55.0% of the net lot area.
H. The drainage devices shall be maintained in a proper working
order and shall be cleared of any weeds, dirt and debris on a regular basis.
I. The disturbed areas, including the flat portion, shall be landscaped.
Landscaping shall include water efficient irrigation, to the maximum extent
feasible, that incorporates low gallonage irrigation system, utilizes automatic
controllers, incorporates an irrigation design using "hydrozones," considers
slope factors and climate conditions in design, and utilizes means to reduce
water waste resulting from runoff and overspray and is subject to the
requirements of the City of Rolling Hills Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.
J. The landscaping shall substantially comply with the plan marked
Option 1 submitted to the Planning Commission and dated January 12, 2011; and
ZC NO. 799
2 Appaloosa
•
shall be maintained in good condition at all times. Trees and shrubs shall be
planted so as not to impair views of neighboring properties but to naturally
screen the disturbed area. No tress or shrubs shall be planted as to result in a
hedge like screen.
K. All drainage devices, grading areas and planting located _and/or
proposed in easements shall be reviewed and approved by the RHCA. In
addition, an off -site covenant agreement for grading, drainage devices and
planting on the adjacent property shall be recorded, as required by the L.A.
County Building Code.
L Post construction Best Management Practices for stormwater
management and erosion control shall be observed and maintained.
M. Until the applicants execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all
conditions of this Site Plan Review and Variance modification approvals, as
required by the Municipal Code, the approvals shall not be effective.
N. All conditions of the Site Plan and Variance approvals, that apply,
shall be complied with prior to the issuance of a final inspection from the County
of Los Angeles.
O. 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.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 18th DAY OF JANUARY 2011.
,e. l ..; )/U,
y V. SMITH, CHAIRPERSON
HEIDI LUCE, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
ZC NO. 799
2 Appaloosa
6
• •
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2011-01 entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2011-01. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING SITE
PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR GRADING AND AS BUILT
DRAINAGE DEVICES AND A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE
MAXIMUM PERMTU ED DISTURBED NET LOT AREA OF THE LOT, IN
ZONING CASE NO. 799, AT 2 APPALOOSA LANE, (LOT 106-C-RH),
(BLACK). THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA),
PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 15304 and 15061(b)(3) OF THE ACT.
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on
January 18, 2011 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioner Henke and Vice Chairman Pieper.
NOES: Chairperson Smith.
ABSENT: Commissioners Chelf and DeRoy.
ABSTAIN: None.
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices.
ZC NO. 799
2 Appaloosa
HEIDI LUCE
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
g
•
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
(;-;
• •
Prometrium
PROGESTERONE,USP
• Capsules 100mg Mr Capsules200mg
•
•
— 1 Lo I Lod7
•
•
�dd�u r9VrteW l,ll.6.14, Lilo digii41111111116111
- Flu
ZOO
106
it
- •L4uy
•z.QQ'i'
Zl
2_2
•
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
• •
December 15, 2020
DEC i u 2Oku
To: City of Rolling Hills
RE: Zoning Case NO. 799 - 2 Appaloosa Lane
v•
Dear Sirs:
As long-time residents of Appaloosa Lane we are writing this letter to address the
many concerns we have in regard to the infractions that occurred during the grading of
the canyon at #2 Appaloosa Lane.
Over the course of the past several years we have witnessed many obvious violations:
• grading without a proper city permit altering the aesthetics of our canyon
• grading without a proper county permit
• importing soil and grading on neighbors' properties
• importing soil and grading of city easements
• no prior lot line study
• no approved engineering plan
• no compaction or composition testing - was the soil clean and free of
contaminants?
We feel it is necessary that steps be taken to correct these violations and to make certain
this does not become a precedent in other canyons bordering homes in Rolling Hills.
Our recommendations for correction are:
• removal of some or all of the soil on neighbors' properties to restore natural
grade of canyon
• letter of apology to neighbors for the improper and illegal dumping of soil without
their permission
• restore/recondition the canyon to its natural state with native plants under the
supervision of a professional contractor ensuring for proper drainage
• close the apparent loophole in city procedures that allowed these infractions to
occur - (i.e. importing of large amounts of soil from inside and outside of the
city to control "erosion")
We feel it is very important for the integrity of our city that proper measures be followed
by everyone. Engineers must review requests for the redistribution of such large amounts
of soil before approval is granted. This should never be the decision of non -qualified
city employees or its residents.
Respectfully submitted,
Marion A. Scharffenberger
4 Appaloosa Lane
_ /srt-rnt�
4.14
Dr. James Scharffenberger
5 Appaloosa Lane
s
TO:
FROM:
&re/ Rea, gee&
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288
Agenda Item No.: 5A
Mtg. Date: 1-18-11
HONORABLE CHAIRPERSON AND MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR
APPLICATION NO.
SITE LOCATION:
ZONING AND SIZE:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PUBLISHED:
DATE:
ZONING CASE NO. 799
2 APPALOOSA LANE
RAS-2, 5.0 ACRES (GROSS)
DR. JAMES BLACK
B & E ENGINEERING
NOVEMBER 4, 2010
JANUARY 18, 2011
REQUEST AND RECOMMENDATION
1. The applicant, Dr. James Black requests a Site Plan Review to retain an as graded
area on the lot and to retain the as built drainage devices and a Variance to exceed, due
to the grading, the maximum permitted disturbed area of the lot. The drainage devices
and some of the grading encroach onto the adjacent property owners' property and are
located in RHCA easements. The applicant withdrew the request for a Variance to
import additional dirt.
2. It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the project, including
the landscaping plans and the attached Resolution No. 2011-01.
BACKGROUND
3. At the December 21, 2010 public hearing, the Planning Commission directed
staff to prepare a resolution of approval, subject to the applicant submitting a
landscaping plan to soften the look of the entire graded area using drought tolerant
plants, and keeping in character with Rolling Hills' natural environment, and that the
landscaping be planted in a manner that would not result in a hedge like look. The
applicant submitted two landscaping designs, but would prefer to utilize Plan No. 1.
Within Plan No. 1, the applicant proposes two options. One would have more fruit
trees and edible shrubs and the other would have a combination of fruit trees, edible
ZC No. 799
2 Appaloosa
• •
shrubs and native shrubs (Toyon). Plan No. 1 and Plan No. 2 are attached. Plan No. 1
contains less meadow.
4. The attached Resolution (Resolution No. 2011-01) contains standard findings
and facts and conditions, including:
• The project is subject to approval of the Building and Safety Department and all
other appropriate agencies
• The project is subject to the requirements of the Water Efficient Landscape
Ordinance of the City of Rolling Hills
• An off -site grading and landscaping agreement/covenant must be recorded
• Obtain RHCA approval for encroachment into easement.
• Comply with the landscaping plan dated January 12, 2011. Landscaping to be
kept in good condition at all times.
•
RESOLUTION NO. 2011-01
RESOLUTION NO. 2011-01. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING SITE
PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR GRADING AND AS BUILT
DRAINAGE DEVICES AND A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE
MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBED NET LOT AREA OF THE LOT, IN
ZONING CASE NO. 799, AT 2 APPALOOSA LANE, (LOT 106-C-RH),
(BLACK). THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA),
PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 15304 and 15061(b)(3) OF THE ACT.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Dr. James Black duly filed an application with respect to real
property located at 2 Appaloosa Lane (Lot 106-C-RH), Rolling Hills, CA
requesting a permission to retain an as graded area of 19,000 sq.ft. located
partially on adjacent property, and drainage devices on the lot and a Variance to
exceed the maximum permitted disturbed area of the net lot, (55% disturbance),
triggered by the grading.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public
hearings to consider the application on November 16, December 21, 2010 and at a
field trip visit on November 16, 2010. The applicant was 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, Los Angeles County Public Works staff and the Planning Commission
having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. The property owner and
his representatives were in attendance at the hearings.
Section 3. In 2008 the Planning Commission approved a new 8,381
square foot residence with 669 square foot garage, trellises and porches to
replace an existing residence and garage, and a minor Variance to encroach with
54 square feet of the new residence up to 4.4-feet into the side yard setback.
47.0% of the lot was previously disturbed. The previous approval for the new
residence did not call for additional disturbance, and thus no Variance was
necessary.
Section 4. The property drains in a sheet flow in northerly direction
into a natural drainage course that flows into a large drainage pipe located north
of the property. This area of the property and above it experienced frequent
erosion and water crevices. Several times in the past 10 years, the property owner
received permission from the City to import dirt to fill in the fissures of the
eroded areas. Section 15.04.150 of the Building and Construction Ordinance (Title
ZC NO. 799
2 Appaloosa
• •
15) permits import of up to 500 cubic yards of dirt if it is necessary for erosion
control.
Section 5. After several heavy rain storms in 2009, the applicant
received permission from the City, to import up to 500 cubic yards of dirt to fix
the rain eroded down stream areas of the property. The applicant filled in an
area, which triggered the requirement for a Site Plan Review for grading,
(discretionary review). He has also constructed drainage devices to capture the
water from above and to more directly divert it into the existing drainage course
and pipe down from his property. Such drainage devices require building
permit. Some of the grading and drainage devices were constructed on the
adjacent property, 3 Appaloosa Lane, and require recordation of an off -site
construction covenant agreement.
Section 6. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as
an exemption from environmental review under the California Environmental
Quality Act, pursuant to Sections 15304 and 15061(b)(3) of the Act.
Section 7. 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 building or structure may be constructed. With respect to
the Site Plan application for grading of the lower portion of the lot the Planning
Commission makes the following findings of fact:
A. The as graded condition complies with and is consistent with the
General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance (with the granting of the variance
below) because the as graded condition will protect the property from erosion
due to rainfall. The drainage devices are necessary to convey runoff in an orderly
manner without damaging the property and the adjacent road.
B. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped
state of the lot by the fact that no new structures are proposed on the property.
C. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, as
significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped so as to maintain open
space on the property. The project will be screened from the street and
neighbors by trees and shrubs. The nature, condition, and development of
adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the topography of the lot have been
considered, and the additional grading will not adversely affect or be materially
detrimental to the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the additional
grading was done on a portion of the lot which is least intrusive to surrounding
properties and will be further screened and landscaped with trees and shrubs.
The resulting grading creates gentler slopes, and corrects drainage problems on
the property without compromising the stability of the lot.
ZC NO. 799
2 Appaloosa
(DI
• •
D. The resulting grading will be landscaped and the property will be
screened from the public view from the road and trail.
E. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect
drainage flow. Drainage has been designed to follow the existing drainage
course, but in a more direct manner, via drainage pipes and dissipater. A
preliminary drainage plan has been approved by Los Angeles County Building
and Safety. Without the repair and construction of drainage devices and grading,
the area would continue to erode and possibly undermine the road above, which
would have a negative effect on the health and safety of the adjoining residents.
F. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature
trees and supplements these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping. A
landscaping plan is on file with the City, which is compatible with and enhances
the rural character of the community.
G. The project conforms to the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act and is exempt.
Section 8. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Rolling Hills
Municipal Code permit approval of a Variance from the standards and
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances applicable to the property and not applicable to other similar
properties in the same zone prevent the owner from making use of a parcel of
property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties in the same vicinity. A
Variance to Section 17.16.070 (B) is required because it states that the lot
disturbance shall be limited to 40.0% of the net lot area. The applicant is
requesting a Variance because total disturbance of the net lot area is proposed to
be 55.0%. With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission
finds as follows:
A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and
conditions applicable to this property that do not apply generally to the other
properties in the same zone. The property is unique in that it is irregular in
shape, with the road splitting the property for about 100 feet. 47.0% of the lot was
previously disturbed in an area at the south portion of the property and the
additional 8% disturbance became necessary for erosion control.
B. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and
zone, but which would be denied to the property in question absent a variance.
The overage is not significant and the property owner should not be denied to
safeguard his property from erosion and flooding. The area of the property
where improvements were made takes on a large amount of water run-off from
uphill properties, which was causing erosion of this portion of the lot.
ZC NO.799
2 Appaloosa
• •
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. Significant portions of the lot
will be left undeveloped so as to maintain open space on the property. The as
graded condition is on a portion of the lot which is not intrusive to surrounding
properties, and will be screened and landscaped with trees and shrubs from
nearby residences and from the street and trail so that the as graded condition
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.
D. In granting the variance, the spirit and intent of the Zoning
Ordinance will be observed. The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to regulate
development in an orderly fashion and in a manner consistent with the goals and
policies of the General Plan. Approval of the variance will not impede any goals
of the Zoning Ordinance or the General Plan. Rather, the variance will allow the
property owner to enjoy the same rights and privileges afforded to other
property owners in the vicinity, where the topography of the lots dictate grading
requirements for property stabilization and erosion control. The overage
requested is not substantial and does not undermine the spirit or intent of the
Zoning Ordinance.
E. 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.
F. 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.
G. The previously conducted grading improves slope stability and
erosion control through the use of approved drainage devices and grading of the
slopes, and will permit the owner to enjoy their property without deleterious
infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners. This Variance is to
legalize previously created condition. The landscaping on the property will mask
the previously graded condition and it will not look unnatural.
Section 9. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning
Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review and Variance applications for
Zoning Case No. 799 for grading of a 19,000 square foot area (portion on adjacent
property) and a Variance to exceed the maximum permitted disturbed net lot
area by 15.0% (55.0%) as shown on the Development Plans dated December 9,
2010 subject to the following conditions:
ZC NO. 799
2 Appaloosa
• •
A. The Site Plan Review and Variance approval shall expire within
two years from the effective date of approval. All required permits, including
State of California Fish and Game Department and other agencies, as necessary,
shall be obtained and the project completed within that two-year period.
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 hereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicants have 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 the Permit, or shown otherwise on
an approved plan.
D. The grading, drainage devices and disturbance of the property
shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan
on file dated December 9, 2010.
E. The working drawings shall be submitted and approved by the Los
Angeles County Department of Building and Safety and Public Works
Department.
F. No import of dirt is permitted with this application. The applicant
may export up to 100 cubic yards of dirt to bring the existing graded condition to
a more natural look, and to remove the dirt from the adjacent property (4
Appaloosa).
G. The disturbed area of the lot, as amended, shall not exceed 98,200
square feet or 55.0% of the net lot area.
H. The drainage devices shall be maintained in a proper working
order and shall be cleared of any weeds, dirt and debris on a regular basis.
I. The disturbed areas, including the flat portion, shall be landscaped.
Landscaping shall include water efficient irrigation, to the maximum extent
feasible, that incorporates low gallonage irrigation system, utilizes automatic
controllers, incorporates an irrigation design using "hydrozones," considers
slope factors and climate conditions in design, and utilizes means to reduce
water waste resulting from runoff and overspray and is subject to the
requirements of the City of Rolling Hills Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.
J. The landscaping shall substantially comply with the plan
submitted to the Planning Commission and stamp dated January 12, 2011, and
ZC NO. 799
2 Appaloosa
• •
shall be maintained in good condition at all times. Trees and shrubs shall be
planted so as not to impair views of neighboring properties but to naturally
screen the disturbed area. No tress or shrubs shall be planted as to result in a
hedge like screen.
K. All drainage devices, grading areas and planting located and/or
proposed in easements shall be reviewed and approved by the RHCA. In
addition, an off -site covenant agreement for grading, drainage devices and
planting on the adjacent property shall be recorded, as required by the L.A.
County Building Code.
L Post construction Best Management Practices for stormwater
management and erosion control shall be observed and maintained.
M. Until the applicants execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all
conditions of this Site Plan Review and Variance modification approvals, as
required by the Municipal Code, the approvals shall not be effective.
N. All conditions of the Site Plan and Variance approvals, that apply,
shall be complied with prior to the issuance of a final inspection from the County
of Los Angeles.
O. 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.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 18th DAY OF JANUARY 2011.
JILL V. SMITH, CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
HEIDI LUCE, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
ZC NO. 799
2 Appaloosa
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2011-01 entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2011-01. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING SITE
PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR GRADING AND AS BUILT
DRAINAGE DEVICES AND A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE
MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBED NET LOT AREA OF THE LOT, IN
ZONING CASE NO. 799, AT 2 APPALOOSA LANE, (LOT 106-C-RH),
(BLACK). THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA),
PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 15304 and 15061(b)(3) OF THE ACT.
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on
January 18, 2011 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices.
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
ZC NO. 799
2 Appaloosa
TO:
FROM:
erre/ Raab, qcii4
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288
Mtg. Date: 12-21-10
Agenda Item No.: 6A
HONORABLE CHAIRPERSON AND MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR
APPLICATION NO.
SITE LOCATION:
ZONING AND SIZE:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PUBLISHED:
DATE:
ZONING CASE NO. 799
2 APPALOOSA LANE
RAS-2, 5.0 ACRES (GROSS)
DR. JAMES BLACK
B & E ENGINEERING
NOVEMBER 4, 2010
DECEMBER 21, 2010
REQUEST AND RECOMMENDATION
1. The applicant, Dr. James Black requests a Site Plan Review to retain an as graded
area on the lot and to retain the as built drainage devices and a Variance to exceed, due
to the grading, the maximum permitted disturbed area of the lot. The drainage devices
encroach onto the adjacent property owners' property and are located in RHCA
easements. The applicant withdrew the request for a Variance to import additional dirt.
2. It is recommended that the Planning Commission, review the staff report and the
revised plan and provide direction to staff.
BACKGROUND
3. The Planning Commission visited the project site in the morning of November
16, 2010 and further deliberated the case at the regular Planning Commission meeting
on November 16. At the meetings, the Planning Commission expressed concerns
regarding the amount of area graded, intrusion with the work onto the adjacent
properties and the unnatural condition of the resulting terrain. The Planning
Commission requested that the applicant revise the plan to bring the area to more
natural condition.
ZC No. 799
2 Appaloosa
-1-
• • t
4. The applicant submitted revised plans. The applicant proposes to retains the "as
built" drainage devices including drainage pipes, concrete inlet and dissipater. As a
result of a hydrology study for the area, the LA County drainage and grading engineer
requires a larger dissipater, therefore the as built dissipater will be enlarged. The as
graded slopes along Appaloosa Lane will remain. The applicant proposes to remove 100
cubic yards of dirt from the graded areas and from the neighbors' property on 4
Appaloosa Lane. He is proposing to smooth out the area between the concrete inlet and
the dissipater (at the south end of the area under consideration -see Section "C - C" on
sheet 2 of the plan), and the area towards the north end of the graded area (see Section
"B - B" on the plan) to allow the water to flow over a more natural terrain. In addition,
the applicant withdrew the Variance request to import additional dirt.
5. Since some of the grading and disturbance was on the neighbors' property, the
engineers adjusted the calculations for the project. The total affected area on subject lot
is 14,200 square feet and on the adjacent lot is 5,100 square feet. The total additional
disturbance is 8.0% on the subject lot and 1.4% on the adjacent lot for a total disturbance
of 55.0% and 34.3%-with future stable, respectively. A Variance for disturbance is
required on the 2 Appaloosa Lane lot, as the previously approved legal, nonconforming
condition was 47% disturbance. The cut and fill areas vary from 2.5 foot cut in the
middle of the graded area to up to 6' fill above the new drainage pipes.
6. In 2008 the Planning Commission approved a new 8,381 square foot residence
with 669 square foot garage, trellises and porches to replace an existing residence and
garage, and a minor Variance to encroach with 54 square feet of the new residence up to
4.4-feet into the side yard setback. 47.0% of the lot was previously disturbed. The
previous approval for the new residence did not call for additional disturbance, and
thus no Variance was necessary. The residence is currently under construction.
7. The property is zoned RAS-2 and the gross lot area is 5.0 acres. The net lot area,
as calculated for development purposes, is 179,000 square feet or 4.1 acres. The lot is
irregular in shape. A roadway easement is located along the westerly side of the
property, however the actual paved road, Appaloosa Lane in the area under
consideration, is located outside the roadway easement on adjacent lot - 3 Appaloosa
Lane. The paved portion of the road continues on 3 Appaloosa to a point where it
traverses the subject property where it divides the lot and provides access as a
driveway easement to two other properties, 4 and 5 Appaloosa Lane.
8. The property drains in a sheet flow in northerly direction into a natural drainage
course that flows into a large drainage pipe located north of the property. This area of
the property and above it experienced frequent erosion and water crevices. Several
times in the past 10 years, the property owner received permission from the City to
import dirt to fill in the fissures of the eroded areas. Section 15.04.150 of the Building
and Construction Ordinance (Title 15) permits import of up to 500 cubic yards of dirt if
it is necessary for erosion control. In part the code states as follows:
"1. No import of soil shall be permitted to any lot in the City, except where a
variance pursuant to Chapter 17.38 has been approved.
AND
-2-
• •
5. The City Manager or his or her designee may grant an exception to the
requirements of parts 1 and 2 of this paragraph to allow for the import or export
of soil not to exceed 500 cubic yards for remedial repair of an area of the lot
adjacent to structures, fences, corrals and riding rings that have eroded, and of
hillside or trail if he or she finds, based upon written reports and other
information submitted, that all of the following conditions are present:
(a) The project does not require a discretionary review or a grading permit (a cut
that is three feet or less, or a fill that is three feet or less or where the activity
covers 2,000 square feet or less of surface area);
and
(b) The import or export of soil is no greater than necessary to avoid a threat of
land subsidence or other imminent danger".
9. After a heavy rain storm last year, the applicant received permission from the
City, to import up to 500 cubic yards of dirt to fix the rain eroded down stream areas of
the property. The applicant filled in an area, which triggered the requirement for a Site
Plan Review for grading, (discretionary review). He has also constructed drainage
devices to capture the water from above and to more directly divert it into the existing
drainage course and pipe down from his property. Building and Safety Department
approval for the drainage and the grading is required.
10. The applicant submitted the original (as submitted for the November 16
meetings) "as built" grading and drainage plan to the County Building and Safety
Department. The plans were reviewed by the County and returned to the applicant's
engineers for corrections. Pending City action, the applicant's engineer will submit
revised plans to the County for further review and approval. As part of a building
permit process, the County will require recordation of an off site construction covenant
for work on the adjacent property. A license agreement for construction in the RHCA
easement may also be required.
MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE
11. The applicant requests to retain as graded condition on the property, which
requires a Site Plan Review and Variance applications. The Variance is for the exceedance
of the disturbed area of the lot (55%).
12. The net lot area of the lot is 179,000 square feet. 84,000 square feet or 47% of the
net lot has been previously disturbed. The exceedance of the maximum permitted 40%
disturbance is a pre-existing condition, most likely occurring prior to 1995, when the
regulations for maximum disturbance became effective. The additional grading
contributes to the disturbance of the lot.
13. The applicant proposes to retain the flattened and graded area, as revised, to
control drainage on his property and not use it for any activities or construction.
However, nothing in the Zoning or Building Codes prevents the applicant from using
this area for playing, without erecting any structures. (If the area were to be fenced in or
paved it would be considered a sports court, which would require a Conditional Use
Permit. However, sports courts are not allowed in setbacks or easement).
-3c..3)
-
•
14. In response to justification for requesting a variance for the exceedance of the
disturbed net lot area, the applicant state, in part, that the disturbance of the 14,200
square foot area was for the purpose of mitigating erosion of the lot from the 2009 rain
storms and to protect the area from any further damages from future storms.
CONCLUSION
15. When reviewing a site plan review application the Planning Commission should
consider whether 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.
16. In considering the request for a Variance, the Commission should consider the
criteria for granting of a Variance.
OTHER AGENCIES REVIEW
17. The Rolling Hills Community Association Board of Directors will review the
project at a later date to consider a license agreement.
18. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
19. As part of the grading permits, the CA Department of Fish and Game review of
the project will be required.
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;
-4- 3
• •
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
!Y;
TAt
•
Prometrium
PROGESTERONE, USP
Capsules 100mg qv Capsules 200 mg
.a1, 41 T`Ag__ oP, I IUD- t/ 1 -d—
pi1,\.e'1-e1 S ` 1 /l, St--
.11..-0 /}-►O u2.t.
N p7_ UV t caQOALi
n S v Qt/t-1 , ]
rr_��9� Q�tn�L
rf3 ri Lam" C
bo to-cA41 (2.0.4sAtta .011a).ARil pot ,Qtrq
l
•
•
AIL
(5
Ozoo
•z
•
December 15, 2020
To: City of Rolling Hills
RE: Zoning Case NO. 799 - 2 Appaloosa Lane
Dear Sirs:
DEC ci %if1v
C tv ,:;f Hotting
As long-time residents of Appaloosa Lane we are writing this letter to address the
many concerns we have in regard to the infractions that occurred during the grading of
the canyon at #2 Appaloosa Lane.
Over the course of the past several years we have witnessed many obvious violations:
• grading without a proper city permit altering the aesthetics of our canyon
• grading without a proper county permit
• importing soil and grading on neighbors' properties
• importing soil and grading of city easements
• no prior lot line study
• no approved engineering plan
• no compaction or composition testing - was the soil clean and free of
contaminants?
We feel it is necessary that steps be taken to correct these violations and to make certain
this does not become a precedent in other canyons bordering homes in Rolling Hills.
Our recommendations for correction are:
• removal of some or all of the soil on neighbors' properties to restore natural
grade of canyon
• letter of apology to neighbors for the improper and illegal dumping of soil without
their permission
• restore/recondition the canyon to its natural state with native plants under the
supervision of a professional contractor ensuring for proper drainage
• close the apparent loophole in city procedures that allowed these infractions to
occur - (i.e. importing of large amounts of soil from inside and outside of the
city to control "erosion")
We feel it is very important for the integrity of our city that proper measures be followed
by everyone. Engineers must review requests for the redistribution of such large amounts
of soil before approval is granted. This should never be the decision of non -qualified
city employees or its residents.
Respectfully submitted,
Marion A. Scharffenberger
4 Appaloosa Lane
Dr. James Scharffenberger
5 Appaloosa Lane
G3)
MEMORANDUM
TO: ZC 763 Project File: 2 Appaloosa
FROM: Rosemary Lackow, Planning Assistant
SUBJECT: Determinations for 2 Appaloosa (SPR Modification/ Variance)
DATE: December 14, 2010
CEQA
Staff has determined that the referenced project (Site Plan Review ModificationNariance) is
categorically exempt from CEQA review, pursuant to Sections 15304 and 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA
Guidelines.
1. Section 15304: This "Class 4" group of exemptions is applicable to "minor public or private
alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy,
mature, scenic trees except for forestry and agricultural purposes."
2. Section 15061(b)(3): This exemption applies to projects "where it can be seen with certainty that
there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment".
These exempt determinations are based on the following:
• Project purpose and description: The project involves a private property alteration, for the
purpose of improving drainage and mitigating local erosion on the subject property within an
existing natural drainage course, without altering the existing natural drainage pattern and
location. On the uphill side of the drainage course, which is located on the adjoining property, 3
Appaloosa, the project involves a new inlet and two subsurface pipes to collect and convey
water coming from above into the course. At its downhill end on the subject site, the course will
have minor re -contouring accomplished with fill from approximately 470 cubic yards of earth
material imported from a new home construction site at 0 Pine Tree Lane, approximately one-
third mile away. Also at the downhill area, the project involves the enlargement of a rip -rap
"apron", comprised of grouted/embedded rocks/broken concrete pavement that is designed to
slow down and disperse the flow of water, thereby mitigating erosion and preventing the runoff of
sediments further downstream, without altering the overall existing drainage pattern. Overall the
remedial grading within the course covers 19,300 square feet of total surface area.
• The project location has experienced erosion multiple times in the past at which times the
property owner temporarily mitigated erosion by filling cracks or fissures with earth.
• The project area has been routinely used by the RHCA (Rolling Hills Community Association) to
store dirt used for filling in cracks for erosion control in the area and as a staging area for
maintenance of a nearby community drainage facility.
• The imported fill material, excavated from a nearby home construction site, will be compatible
with the natural features of the subject site.
• The project will not involve the removal of any visually significant vegetation or trees.
• es
• The area to be disturbed is historically a natural drainage course which is active during the rainy
season, but which typically dries up during the rest of the year, therefore no fish or other life will
be affected. A portion of the project involving the installation of one new water inlet and
subsurface piping (on 3 Appaloosa, contiguous to the subject site) was the site of a biological
resource inventory done within the last two years which concluded that there were no sensitive
biologically sensitive plants or animals in that area.
• The project is subject to a streambed alteration permit from the Department of Fish and Game,
as a routine condition of approval of a grading permit (issued by L.A. County). During that
process the project will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable Fish and Game
regulations.
• The site is not a cultural, historic or scenic resource, nor a hazardous waste site, nor are there
any unusual circumstances present that would lead one to believe that the project would result in
a significant adverse impact.
• The nature of the physical activities required to carry out the project, including grading and
construction of drainage improvement devices, fall well below the thresholds of significance for
normally associated impacts (e.g. dust, traffic and noise).
ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
Issue: Can the City administratively approve the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy to the property owner,
enabling occupancy of the new home, prior to the owner completing the discretionary review process of the Site
Plan Review modification and Variance, before the Planning Commission and City Council?
The City has determined that it has the authority to approve the issuance of a certificate of occupancy in the event
that the discretionary review process of the SPR modification for new grading/drainage improvements has not
been completed. This determination is based on the following:
• The issuance of a certificate of occupancy is a ministerial duty - if all requirements of the building permit
are met, it must be issued unless there is some exception. (reference: Section 109.1 (Los Angeles
County Code, Title 26, incorporated into the RHMC by Chapter 15.04, with some modifications). Single-
family dwelling units, as is applicable in this case, are an R-3 Group occupancy and subject to grading
requirements, which have been complied with, as a routine matter of code compliance through the plan -
check process. Subject to consensus by LA County, the City has an obligation to issue a C of 0 for the
new home, as long as there are no safety issues for any structures, it is not unsafe to occupy and no
neighboring structures are impacted.
• The grading and drainage project that is the subject of the Site Plan Review modification, is located in a
different portion of the lot as the home and primary building pad and is locationally and functionally
independent from the original Site Plan Review project which involved the construction of a new 8,300+
sq. ft. home and 679 sq. ft. garage. Further, in approving the original SPR for the new home, there were
no findings or conditions of approval that addressed the area where the new grading and/or drainage
improvements are being proposed.
L.A. County Code Reference
Title 26, 109.1 General. No building or structure or portion thereof shall be used or occupied, and no change in
the existing occupancy classification of a building or structure or portion thereof shall be made until the Building
Official has approved the building or structure or portion thereof for such use or occupancy as evidence by the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy or a temporary certificate of occupancy. A building of Group R-2 or Group
R-occupancy, if erected on a site where grading has been performed pursuant to a grading permit issued under
provisions of this Code, shall not be occupied, nor shall gas or electric utilities be connected thereto,unless the
grading has been completed in accordance with Appendix J or the building Official has found, should the grading
not be so completed, that the site conditions will pose no hazard to health, safety or welfare of occupants and/or
occupants of adjacent properties, and that a temporary certificate of occupancy has been issued. Approval of a
building or structure for use or occupancy (including, but not limited to, final inspection approval and/or issuance
of a certificate of occupancy or temporary certificate of occupancy) shall not be construed as approval of a
violation of the provisions of this Code or of other laws and regulations. Approvals presuming to give authority to
violate or cancel the provisions of this Code or of other laws or regulations are not valid. The Building Official may,
in writing, suspend or revoke any such approvals or certificates whenever the Building Official determines that the
Page 2
M IA
approval or certificate was issued in error, or on the basis of incorrect information supplied, or when it is
determined that the building or structure or portion thereof is in violation of any ordinance or regulation or any of
the provisions of this Code or other laws or regulations. Any certificate of occupancy or temporary certificate of
occupancy so issued shall be surrendered upon request of the Building Official. (Ord. 2007-0108 § 2
(part), 2007; Ord. 2002-0076 § 45, 2002: Ord. 95-0065 § 3 (part), 1995.)
Page 3
TO:
FROM:
eat, Rogeeof qieed
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288
Mtg. Date: 11-16-10
Agenda Item No.: 4B
HONORABLE CHAIRPERSON AND MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR
APPLICATION NO.
SITE LOCATION:
ZONING AND SIZE:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PUBLISHED:
DATE:
ZONING CASE NO. 799
2 APPALOOSA LANE
RAS-2, 5.0 ACRES (GROSS)
DR. JAMES BLACK
B & E ENGINEERING
NOVEMBER 4, 2010
NOVEMBER 16, 2010
REOUEST AND RECOMMENDATION
1. The applicant, Dr. James Black requests a Site Plan Review to retain an as graded
area on the lot and to retain as built drainage devices and Variances to exceed, due to
the grading, the maximum permitted disturbed area of the lot and to import additional
200 cubic yards of dirt. Portion of the drainage devices and portion of graded area
*encroach onto the adjacent property owners' property and are located in RHCA
easement.
2. It is recommended that the Planning Commission, review the staff report, view
the project in the field, open the public hearing, take public testimony and provide
direction to staff.
BACKGROUND
3. In 2008 the Planning Commission approved a new 8,381 square foot residence
with 669 square foot garage, trellises and porches to replace an existing residence and
garage, and a minor Variance to encroach with 54 square feet of the new residence up to
4.4-feet into the side yard setback. 47.0% of the lot was previously disturbed. The
ZC No. 799
2 Appaloosa
• •
previous approval for the new residence did not call for additional disturbance, and
thus no Variance was necessary. The residence is currently under construction.
4. The property is zoned RAS-2 and the gross lot area is 5.0 acres. The net lot area,
as calculated for development purposes, is 179,000 square feet or 4.1 acres. The lot is
irregular in shape. A roadway easement is located along the westerly side of the
property, however the actual paved road, Appaloosa Lane in the area under
consideration, is located outside the roadway easement on adjacent lot - 3 Appaloosa
Lane. The paved portion of the road continues on 3 Appaloosa to a point where it
traverses 2 Appaloosa Lane where it divides the lot and provides access as a driveway
easement to two other properties, 4 and 5 Appaloosa Lane.
5. The property drains in a northerly direction into a natural drainage course that
flows into a large drainage pipe located north of the property. This area of the property
and above it experienced frequent erosion and water crevices. Several times in the past
10 years, the property owner received permission from the City to import dirt to fill in
the fissures of the eroded areas. Section 15.04.150 of the Building and Construction
Ordinance (Title 15) permits import of up to 500 cubic yards of dirt if it is necessary for
erosion control. In part the code states as follows:
"1. No import of soil shall be permitted to any lot in the City, except where a
variance pursuant to Chapter 17.38 has been approved.
AND
5. The City Manager or his or her designee may grant an exception to the
requirements of parts 1 and 2 of this paragraph to allow for the import or export
of soil not to exceed 500 cubic yards for remedial repair of an area of the lot
adjacent to structures, fences, corrals and riding rings that have eroded, and of
hillside or trail if he or she finds, based upon written reports and other
information submitted, that all of the following conditions are present:
(a) The project does not require a discretionary review or a grading permit (a cut
that is three feet or less, or a fill that is three feet or less or where the activity
covers 2,000 square feet or less of surface area);
and
(b) The import or export of soil is no greater than necessary to avoid a threat of
land subsidence or other imminent danger".
6. After a heavy rain storm last year, the applicant received permission from the
City, to import up to 500 cubic yards of dirt to fix the rain eroded down stream areas of
the property. The applicant filled in an area, which triggered the requirement for a Site
Plan Review for grading, (discretionary review). He has also constructed drainage
devices to capture the water from above and to more directly divert it into the existing
drainage course and pipe down from his property. Building and Safety Department
approval for the drainage and the grading is also required.
7. The applicant graded (cut and fill) a total of 19,300 square feet of surface area,
which pursuant to the City's regulations, is considered grading and which contributed
• •
to disturbance of the lot. The disturbed area of the lot prior to the grading activity was
at 47% and was approved with the prior application as a legal non -conforming
condition on the lot. The additional grading would bring the disturbed net lot area to
58.0%, and requires a Variance. The cut and fill areas vary from 2.5 foot cut in the
middle of the graded area to up to 6' fill above the new drainage pipes.
8. The applicant submitted "as built" grading and drainage plan to the County
Building and Safety Department. The plans were reviewed by the County and returned
to the applicant's engineers for corrections. Pending City action, the applicant's
engineer will submit the corrected plans to the County for further review and approval.
Portion of the graded areas cross onto the adjacent lot and portion of the drainage
devices also encroach onto the adjacent lot and RHCA roadway easement. It will be
required that an off site construction covenant be signed bythe affected property
owners and be recorded. A review by RHCA may also be required.
MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE
9. The applicant requests to retain as graded condition on the property, which
requires a Site Plan Review and Variance applications. The Variance is for the exceedance
of the disturbed area of the lot (58.0%) and to import additional 200 cubic yards of dirt to
further flatten the northern portion of the graded area. As the dirt is not absolutely
necessary for erosion control, the import cannot be approved administratively.
10. The net lot area of the lot is 179,000 square feet. 84,000 square feet or 47% of the
net lot has been previously disturbed. The exceedance of the maximum permitted 40%
disturbance is a pre-existing condition, most likely occurring prior to 1995, when the
regulations for maximum disturbance became effective. The additional grading
contributes to the disturbance of the lot-58.0%.
11. The applicant proposes to retain the flattened and graded area as is to control
drainage and not use it for any activities or construction.
12. In response to justification for requesting a variance for the exceedance of the
disturbed net lot area, the applicant state, in part, that the disturbance of the 19,300
square foot area was for the purpose of mitigating erosion of the lot from the 2009 rain
storms and to protect the area from any further damages from future storms.
CONCLUSION
13. When reviewing a site plan review application the Planning Commission should
consider whether the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan;
incorporatesenvironmentally 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.
14. In considering the request for a Variance, the Commission should consider the
criteria for granting of a Variance. .. .
OTHER AGENCIES REVIEW
15. A license agreement from the RHCA may be required.
16. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
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 naturalcontours 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 Reauired 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
I
TO:
FROM:
•
eav Roter:a9 get&
•
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288
Mtg. Date: 11-16-10
Agenda Item No.: 6D
HONORABLE CHAIRPERSON AND MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR
APPLICATION NO.
SITE LOCATION:
ZONING AND SIZE:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PUBLISHED:
DATE:
ZONING CASE NO. 799
2 APPALOOSA LANE
RAS-2, 5.0 ACRES (GROSS)
DR. JAMES BLACK
B & E ENGINEERING
NOVEMBER 4, 2010
NOVEMBER 16, 2010
REOUEST AND RECOMMENDATION
1. The applicant, Dr. James Black requests a Site Plan Review to retain an as graded
area on the lot and to retain as built drainage devices and Variances to exceed, due to
the grading, the maximum permitted disturbed area of the lot and to import additional
200 cubic yards of dirt. The drainage devices encroach onto the adjacent property
owners' property and are located in RHCA easements.
2. It is recommended that the Planning Commission, review the staff report,
continue the public hearing, take public testimony and provide direction to staff.
The Planning Commission visited the project in the morning of November 16, 2010.
BACKGROUND
3. In 2008 the Planning Commission approved a new 8,381 square foot residence
with 669 square foot garage, trellises and porches to replace an existing residence and
garage, and a minor Variance to encroach with 54 square feet of the new residence up to
4.4-feet into the side yard setback. 47.0%of the lot was previously disturbed. The
ZC No. 799
2 Appaloosa
• •
previous approval for the new residence did not call for additional disturbance, and
thus no Variance was necessary. The residence is currently under construction.
4. The property is zoned RAS-2 and the gross lot area is 5.0 acres. The net lot area,
as calculated for development purposes, is 179,000 square feet or 4.1 acres. The lot is
irregular in shape. A roadway easement is located along the westerly side of the
property, however the actual paved road, Appaloosa Lane in the area under
consideration, is located outside the roadway easement on adjacent lot - 3 Appaloosa
Lane. The paved portion of the road continues on 3 Appaloosa to a point where it
traverses the subject property where it divides the lot and provides access as a
driveway easement to two other properties, 4 and 5 Appaloosa Lane.
5. The property drains in a sheet flow in northerly direction into a natural drainage
course that flows into a large drainage pipe located north of the property. This area of
the property and above it experienced frequent erosion and water crevices. Several
times in the past 10 years, the property owner received permission from the City to
import dirt to fill in the fissures of the eroded areas. Section 15.04.150 of the Building
and Construction Ordinance (Title 15) permits import of up to 500 cubic yards of dirt if
it is necessary for erosion control. In part the code states as follows:
"1. No import of soil shall be permitted to any lot in the City, except where a
variance pursuant to Chapter 17.38 has been approved.
AND
5. The City Manager or his or her designee may grant an exception to the
requirements of parts 1 and 2 of this paragraph to allow for the import or export
of soil not to exceed 500 cubic yards for remedial repair of an area of the lot
adjacent to structures, fences, corrals and riding rings that have eroded, and of
hillside or trail if he or she finds, based upon written reports and other
information submitted, that all of the following conditions are present:
(a) The project does not require a discretionary review or a grading permit (a cut
that is three feet or less, or a fill that is three feet or less or where the activity
covers 2,000 square feet or less of surface area);
and
(b) The import or export of soil is no greater than necessary to avoid a threat of
land subsidence or other imminent danger".
6. After a heavy rain storm last year, the applicant received permission from the
City, to import up to 500 cubic yards of dirt to fix the rain eroded down stream areas of
the property. The applicant filled in an area, which triggered the requirement for a Site
Plan Review for grading, (discretionary review). He has also constructed drainage
devices to capture the water from above and to more directly divert it into the existing
drainage course and pipe down from his property. Building and Safety Department
approval for the drainage and the grading is also required.
7. The applicant graded (cut and fill) a total of 19,300 square feet, which pursuant to
the City's regulations, is considered gradin_ and which contributed to disturbance of
the lot. The disturbed area of the lot prior to the grading activity was at 47% and was
approved with the prior application as a legal non -conforming condition on the lot. The
additional grading would bring the disturbed net lot area to 58.0%, and requires a
Variance. The cut and fill areas vary from 2.5 foot cut in the middle of the graded area
to up to 6' fill above the new drainage pipes.
8. The applicant submitted "as built" grading and drainage plan to the County
Building and Safety Department. The plans were reviewed by the County and returned
to the applicant's engineers for corrections. Pending City action, the applicant's
engineer will submit the corrected plans to the County for further review and approval.
The graded areas cross onto the adjacent lot and portion of the drainage devices also
encroach onto the adjacent lot and RHCA roadway easement. It will be required that an
off site construction covenant be signed by the affected property owners and be
recorded and a license agreement for construction in the RHCA easement obtained.
MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE
9. The applicant requests to retain as graded condition on the property, which
requires a Site Plan Review and Variance applications. The Variance is for the exceedance
of the disturbed area of the lot (58%) and to import additional 200 cubic yards of dirt to
further flatten the northern portion of the graded area. As the dirt is not absolutely
necessary for erosion control, the import cannot be approved administratively.
10. The net lot area of the lot is 179,000 square feet. 84,000 square feet or 47% of the
net lot has been previously disturbed. The exceedance of the maximum permitted 40%
disturbance is a pre-existing condition, most likely occurring prior to 1995, when the
regulations for maximum disturbance became effective. The additional grading
contributes to the disturbance of the lot.
11. The applicant proposes to retain the flattened and graded area as is to control
drainage and not use it for any activities or construction.
12. In response to justification for requesting a variance for the exceedance of the
disturbed net lot area, the applicant state, in part, that the disturbance of the 19,300
square foot area was for the purpose of mitigating erosion of the lot from the 2009 rain
storms and to protect the area from any further damages from future storms.
CONCLUSION
13. When reviewing a site plan review application the Planning Commission should
consider whether 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.
14. In considering the request for a Variance, the Commission should consider the
criteria for granting of a Variance.
OTHER AGENCIES REVIEW
• •
15. The Rolling Hills Community Association Board of Directors will review the
project at a later date to consider a license agreement.
16. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
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;
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