Loading...
593, Construct Tennis Court, CorrespondenceMembers of the City Council City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, Ca 90274 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Council: By DEC 13 2002 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS As is explained in detail in my attached letter to the Association, I am increasingly concerned that actions taken by the Association and the City in approving the building and landscaping of my neighbor's property at 16 Crest West is making it appear that my neighbor owns my land. I own to the center of my neighbor's circular driveway that borders my land, 14 Crest Road West. I did not want it built but was informed that the Association approved and since they had the easement they could give access away. I was assured that this in no way would affect my ownership or control of my land. I received the same assurances as I questioned my neighbor's landscaping of my land in the easement which borders our properties. Then a small rock wall and a wall of small trees bordering the driveway were added on my land as well as theirs. The landscaping of my land by my neighbor makes it increasingly appear that they own my land. (Given that the original owner was allowed to put this immense house far over against one side of his property over my objections, I own very close to their house.) I therefore want a letter from the City of Rolling Hills and the Association Board's lawyers stating unequivocally the this is my land now and forever and my neighbor's do not now and never will have ownership of, nor control of, my land despite the action that the City. The Association and my neighbor's with their approval may have taken to make it appear otherwise. I have not from the beginning understood why this was approved. It is however very important to me that this in no way affects my ownership of, control of, and use of my land. Given the appearance that the combined actions of the City and the Association have created. I need written recognition, not just verbal assurances, that I am in no way relinquishing my property rights since I clearly do not wish to do so. Sincere) - Cathy icho s 14 Cres oad West Rolling Hills, Ca 90274 Board of Directors Rolling Hills Community Association 1 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 Dear Board Members: December 11, 2002 I am concerned about the actions taken by the Association and perhaps the City in regards to granting the use of my property to my neighbors at 16 Crest Road West. It increasingly looks like my property belongs to my 'neighbor. I do not want to loose rights to my land. (I fought the original house plans years ago unsuccessfully being concerned with its placement so near my property in what appeared to me to be the easement and its immense size, planned multiple family use, etc.) As it became clear that the new owners were planning to place the circular driveway on my property, I called Peggy Minor to request that this not be done. She told me that it was a grandfathered driveway because the original house used it and it was in an Association easement so according to the rules I had no say about its use by my neighbors. This seemed strange to me since the house was torn down and placed differently on the property. In addition the 15-car garage is on the opposite side of the house and has another driveway to access the house and garage. I expressed strong concerns that I did not want to loose control of, ownership of, or use of my property. Peggy assured me that that would never happen. It also seemed to me unfair to let my neighbors pave my land when they were already covering so much of their own with concrete. She explained that I had no say because the Association controls the easement and had approved the neighbor's plan. I called again when the neighbor's landscaped my property along the easement which borders our two properties, again being assured that sprinklers, lawn, etc does not affect ownership. The most recent step has been the addition of a small stone wall and a wall of trees along the driveway. It clearly makes it look as if my neighbor owns my land. I am very concerned that years from now I will be told that I gave up ownership of my property by granting my neighbors use of it. I have not. In fact I asked that this not be done. The Association and the City including whoever approves the landscape and hardscape plans has made decisions which worry me greatly. My property goes to the center of my neighbor's driveway. When the driveway was put in my property marker was removed. As the landscaping is being completed. my property more and more appears to have been granted to my neighbor. At the Christmas Party I expressed my increasing concerns to some City officials and was told that I should take action to ensure that my rights are protected. I therefore want a letter from the City of Rolling Hills and the Association Board's lawyers stating unequivocally that this is my land now and forever and that my neighbor's do not now and never will have ownership of nor control of my land despite the actions that the City, the Association, and/or my neighbor's may have taken to make it appear otherwise. Sincerely, C Cathy Nicho s 14 Cr oad West Rolling Hills, Ca 90274 city of r� ��n9 Jh/f November 20, 2002 Mr. and Mrs. Robert Nagelhout 16 Crest Road West Rolling Hills, CA 90274 IN!: -...Ors Pt:ATr .) NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E mail: cityofrh@aol.com SUBJECT: 16 Crest Road West — Tennis Court — Request for Modification Dear Mr. and Mrs. Nagelhout: Thank you for your timely response to our letter dated November 14, 2002 concerning the height of the proposed fence for the tennis court. You have indicated that you wish to apply to the Planning Commission for modification to your previously approved Conditional Use Permit. Modification to an original approval follows the same process as the original approval. The fee is 2/3 of the original fee, which in this case would be $1,133.00, payable to the City of Rolling Hills. Together with the fee, you will be required to submit 15 sets of plot plans of the tennis court and the proposed fencing, and completed application form. A certified architect or engineer must prepare the plans. An updated set of address labels for property owners within 1000-foot radius of your property will also be required. The City has address labels from your original CUP application, which date back to January 1999. Please find enclosed the appropriate forms and a schedule of Planning Commission meetings. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sir cerely �Yolanta Schwartz 1 :Planning Director Enclosures ► City ofielinl JUL November 14, 2002 Mr. and Mrs. Robert Nagelhout 16 Crest Road West Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: 16 Crest Road West — Tennis Court Dear Mr. and Mrs. Nagelhout: INC011PORAT.D NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com Your contractor, Mr. Lowell Blau called the Los Angeles County Building and Safety Department for a final inspection of the improvements on your property, which includes the tennis court. The Planning Commission Resolution No. 99-10 approving the tennis court contains conditions of approval, which must be met prior to securing a final inspection from the building department. On Wednesday, November 13, 2002 Rafael Bernal, the County Building Official and I inspected your property. We found that conditions of approval have been satisfied, with two exceptions. Section 6, subparagraph "M" of the Resolution stipulates as follows: "Tennis court fencing shall not exceed 4 feet in height above the 4 foot high retaining walls for a total of 8 feet". The posts, for the fencing, located above the retaining wall measure almost 6 feet in height, which is in violation of this condition. • In addition,. subparagraph "L" of the Resolution states "All retaining walls incorporated into the court shall not be greater than 4 feet in height at any point. Exposed exterior retaining walls shall not be permitted". A portion of the exterior wall on the southerly side is exposed and the area adjacent to it not yet landscaped. Although, it looks like you are getting ready to landscape this area to screen the wall, you have not fully complied with condition "L" of the Resolution. In order to satisfy the conditions of approval, you must lower the poles for the fence and assure that the fence and posts do not exceed four feet in height above the four -foot retaining wall. Also, you must complete the landscaping around the exposed retaining wall. Should you wish to retain the 6-foot fence, you may apply to the Planning Commission for modification of your original request. ®Pr,r11c.r1 tr f.,•, . •.t.u h • Please call us within the next seven days, but no later than November 22, 2002 to inform us of your planned action. We are ready to assist you if you have any questions or require information on how to re -apply to the Planning Commission for modification. Sincerely, 444 cfix,c xolanta Schwartz Planning Director CC: Craig R. Nealis, City Manager Rafael Bernal, District Engineering Associate Peggy Minor, RHCA Manager INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO.2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com March 7, 2001 Mr. and Mrs. Robert Nagelhout 16 Crest Road West Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: Landscape Plan —16 Crest Road West Dear Mr. and Mrs. Nagelhout: Upon review of your landscaping plan and estimated cost, it appears that the estimated cost for the landscaping, as proposed, is adequate. However, the proposed landscaping plan for screening of the tennis court is deficient and does not meet the conditions of approval of Resolution No. 99-10, paragraphs 0 , P , and Q , approved by the Planning Commission on March 16, 1999. Specifically, the tennis court will not be sufficiently screened using the proposed plant material, and the proposed spacing of the plants and the size of plants at time of planting and maturity are inadequate to meet the conditions of the Resolution. Please submit a revised landscaping plan, which meets the conditions of approval of Resolution No. 99-10, enclosed, and a revised cost estimate. Please submit these documents for our review by April 2, 2001. r We are looking forward to working with you in this matter and can provide you with a list of acceptable screening plants, if you desire. Should you have any questions, please call me at (310) 377-1521. Thank you for your cooperation. S'nc rely, olanta Schwartz Principal Planner cc: Craig R. Nealis, City Manager :3 Pririted on Recycled Paper. • Cz4 0/ Roffin9JRe January 23, 2001 Ms. Julie Heinsheimer 7 Johns Canyon Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: LANDSCAPE PLAN 16 Crest Road West Dear Julie: • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com Attached is a landscape plan for 16 Crest Road West for your review that was presented to us to be in compliance with Resolution No. 99-10 (attached). Note landscape conditions in Paragraphs P, Q and R of Section No. 8. - Also included for your review is the plant list. Please let me know if there is anything else that you require from the City or the property owner. Please return the plan, as the applicant provided only one landscape plan to the City. Si i cerely, olanta Schwartz rincipal Planner Enclosures . Printed on Recycled Paper • ComvvaA.A!411q/' t ANTHONY WORKMAN LANDSCAPE DESIGN (818) 845-4881 Trees 15 gal 15 gal 15 gal 15 gal Shrubs 1 gal 5 gal 1 gal 1 gal 1 gal. 5 gal 5 gal 5 gal 5/1 gal NAGELHOUT PROJECT 'PLANT LIST BOTANICAL NAME Schinus molle Agonis flexuosa Cercis canadensis Avocado Pittosporum tobira Osmanthus fragans Lavandula dentata Tibouchina urvilleana Erica x veitchii 'Pink Joy' Podocarpus gracilior Prunus lyonii Dodonaea viscosa 'Purpurea' Buxus microphyila ,japonica 'Green Beauty' 1 gal Trachelospermum jasminoides 1 gal Alyogyne huegelii COMMON NAME California Pepper Tree Peppermint Tree Eastern Redbud Avocado 'Hass' Wheeler's Dwarf Sweet Olive French Lavender Princess Flower Heather 'Pink Joy' Fern Pine Catalina Cherry Hopseed Bush Japnese Boxwood Star Jasmine Blue Hibiscus Sl fiH ON11108. d0 All;) SYM 4 SC 11 AF 5 CE 1 AVA 11 P 23 0 40 L 33 T 32 H 43 PG 60 CC 12 DV 133/31 B 165 5 7 AN • • Perenials 1 gal lgal Roses BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SYM Gaura Iindheimeri Achilles taygetea 'Moonshine' Rosa BOTANICAL NAME Ground Covers Festuca rubra Gaura 12 6 Yarrow 'Moonshine' 14 Y Iceberg 26 I COMMON NAME Red Fescue • Anthony Workman Landscape Design + Construction P.O. Box 2008, Burbank, Ca. 91507 (818) 845-4881 BILL: DATE: Mr. & Mrs. Nagelhout 16 Crest Road West Rolling Hills, Ca 90275 September 7, 2000 PLANTS & TREES w/ Guarantee of 1 year trees d 3 months shrubs 314/ 1 gal 942.00 274/ 5 gal 2466.00 21/ 15 gal 735.00 flats 0.00 HYDROSEEDING 2600.00 LAWN 3218.00 AMENDMENTS / FERTILIZER 1062.00 IRRIGATION 4000.00 STONE, BRICK, ETC. 200.00 LABOR WI DEMO CLEAN-UP 4400.00 LIGHTS Kichler Mini Accent - Black 77.61 Kichler Trod. Marine Lantern Path Light 1289.08 - Vintage Pewter Kichler loolvategauseLight - Verdigris 660.00 Terms: 10% Down $0.00 to maximum of $1000.00 Progress payment: Progress payment: Balance due upon completion $0.00 Total 21,649.69 0.00 Checks Received 0.00 Balance Due _ , 0 • — City 0/ Rolling -A& GODFREY PERNELL, D.D.S. Mayor JODY MURDOCK. Mayor Pro Tern THOMAS F. HEINSHEIMER Councilmember FRANK E. HILL Councilmember B. ALLEN LAY Councilmember July 25, 2000 Mr. and Mrs. Robert Nagelhout 16 Crest Road West Rolling Hills, CA 90274 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com Dear Mr. and Mrs. Nagelhout: Previously, you had forwarded correspondence to the City of Rolling Hills expressing concern over they time necessary for plan check services provided by the County of Los Angeles. We have enclosed a copy of the response from the County of Los Angeles regarding the plan check services that have been provided for your project. Should you wish to discuss this further, please do not hesitate to call. Thank you for your correspondence. Sincerely. Craig R. Nealis City Manager CRN:mlk 07/25/00nagelhout.ltr cc: Lola Ungar, Planning Director ®Printed on Recycled Paper. AUNTY OF LOS ANGEPES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 900 SOUTH FREMONT AVENUE ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91803-1331 Telephone: (626) 458-5100 HARRY W. STONE, Director July 19, 2000 Mr. Craig Nealis, City Manager City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 1-1111 JUL 2 4 2880 (*Are OF p0LLtN3'HIU.S my PLANCHECK HISTORY FOR 16 CREST ROAD WEST Dear Mr. Nealis, ADDRESS ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO: P.O. BOX 1460 ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91802-1460 IN REPLY PLEASE REFER TO FILE: LD- 6 In response to your recent request, I have attached a summary of the submittal and plancheck dates for the proposed tennis court at 16 Crest Road West. The summary indicates that the County's average plancheck turnaround time was 4 weeks, while the engineer's average turnaround time was 8 weeks. Also, we did meet the commitments mentioned in Ms. Nagelhout's letter regarding the plan turnaround time (1st submittal planchecked before December 1, and final review done within 3 weeks). As a reference, the County turnaround for planchecks at the time of these submittals was 5-6 weeks, so the summary indicates an effort was made to expedite this job within the City and respond to the applicant in a timely manner. The change of plancheckers, subsequent to the first review, was done in an effort to further expedite the review. Among other items, the plancheck included the necessary review of the plans to ensure that the site drainage was designed properly (an underground storm drain was proposed), and that no offsite properties were affected by the proposed work. We look forward to continuing to provide these services to the City of Rolling Hills. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Steve Burger of our Land Development Division at (626) 458-4925. Very truly yours, HARRY W. STONE Director of Public Works (NA. TOM HOAGL491ND Land Development Division SRB:hh P\Soils Revlew\16 Crest Road West Enc. 16 CREST RD WEST SUBMITTAL SUMMARY COUNTY RECEIVED SUBMITTAL COUNTY COMPLETED FROM ENGINEER PLANCHECK 8-24-99 9/21/99 (4 WEEKS) 11/24/99 1/3/00 (5 WEEKS) 2/24/00 3/16/00 (3 WEEKS) COUNTY COMPLETED PLANS RESUBMITTED BY PLANCHECK ENGINEER 9/21/99 1/3/00 11/24/99 (9 WEEKS) 2/24/00 (7 WEEKS) • COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 900 SOUTH FREMONT AVENUE ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91803-1331 Telephone: (626) 458-5100 IIAR.RY W. STONE, Director July 19, 2000 Mr. Craig Nealis, City Manager City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 .R3 J JUL 2 4 1080 r;!?Y OF AOLUINK3'f.l.S kv PLANCHECK HISTORY FOR 16 CREST ROAD WEST Dear Mr. Nealis, ADDRESS ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO: P.O. BOX 1460 ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91802-1460 IN REPLY PLEASE REFER TO FILE: LD- 6 In response to your recent request, I have attached a summary of the submittal and plancheck dates for the proposed tennis court at 16 Crest Road West. The summary indicates that the County's average plancheck turnaround time was 4 weeks, while the engineer's average turnaround time was 8 weeks. Also, we did meet the commitments mentioned in Ms. Nagelhout's letter regarding the plan turnaround time (1st submittal planchecked before December 1, and final review done within 3 weeks). As a reference, the County turnaround for planchecks at the time of these submittals was 5-6 weeks, so the summary indicates an effort was made to expedite this job within the City and respond to the applicant in a timely manner. The change of plancheckers, subsequent to the first review, was done in an effort to further expedite the review. Among other items, the plancheck included the necessary review of the plans to ensure that the site drainage was designed properly (an underground storm drain was proposed), and that no offsite properties were affected by the proposed work. We look forward to continuing to provide these services to the City of Rolling Hills. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Steve Burger of our Land Development Division at (626) 458-4925. Very truly yours, HARRY W. STONE Director of Public Works I TOM HOAGL491ND Land Development Division SRB:hh Moils Revlew116 Crest Road West Enc. • • • 16 CREST RD WEST SUBMITTAL SUMMARY COUNTY RECEIVED SUBMITTAL COUNTY COMPLETED FROM ENGINEER PLANCHECK 8-24-99 9/21/99 (4 WEEKS) 11/24/99 1/3/00 (5 WEEKS) 2/24/00 3/16/00 (3 WEEKS) COUNTY COMPLETED PLANS RESUBMITTED BY PLANCHECK ENGINEER 9/21/99 1/3/00 11/24/99 (9 WEEKS) 2/24/00 (7 WEEKS) • city 0/ leollinFJhff GODFREY PERNELL, D.D.S. Mayor JODY MURDOCK. Mayor Pro Tern THOMAS F. HEINSHEIMER Councilmember FRANK E. HILL Councilmember B. ALLEN LAY Councilmember • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO.2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail cityohh@aol.com May 4, 2000 Mr. and Mrs. Robert Nagelhout 16 Crest Road West Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Nagelhout: Thank you for discussing the status of your landscape plan and bonding requirements with me today. As we discussed, you have indicated that you will prepare a revised landscape plan for your property. It would be appreciated if you could submit this plan to City Hall within the next sixty days, no later than July 5, 2000. A copy of the Resolution of Approval in this case is enclosed. Your plan should include the quantities and types of materials that you are proposing and a cost estimate for the material, irrigation systems and labor to complete the plan. You are encouraged to visit City Hall to review landscape plans that we have on file. Should you like to discuss this further, please do not hesitate to call. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, raig R. Nealis City Manager CRN:mlk 05/04/00nagelhout.ltr cc: Lola Ungar, Planning Director ®Printed on Recycled Paper. RESOLUTION NO. 91-3 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A POOL HOUSE, AND GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL IN ZONING CASE NO. 438. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. Hussain Shaikh with respect to real property located at 16 Crest Road West, Rolling Hills (Lot 74-A-MS) requesting: (1) a Variance to the front yard setback requirement to construct a retaining wall; (2) a Conditional Use Permit to construct a pool house; and (3) Site Plan Review approval to construct a new residence and future stable. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application on August 21, 1990, October 16, 1990 and November 20, 1990, and conducted two field visits on September 18, 1990 and November 3, 1990. The applicant thereafter submitted a revised application which the Planning Commission considered at a duly noticed public hearing held on January 15, 1991 and February 19, 1991 and at a field visit on February 16, 1991. Section 3. Sections 17.32.010 through 17.32.030 permit approval of a Variance from the standards and require- ments 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. Section 17.16.060 requires a front yard setback for every residential parcel to be fifty (50) feet. The applicant is requesting to construct a retaining wall with a maximum height of five feet (5'), averaging no more than 2.5 feet in height, which will encroach into the front yard setback. Pursuant to this Section, the Planning Commission finds that: A. There are exceptional or extraordinary circum- stances or conditions applicable to the property or to the intended uses that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone because there exists topographical constraints that justify the encroachment, in that grading will be minimized if the structure is oriented closer to the front of the lot; the encroachment is for the construction of the retaining wall only, a condition which existed with the previous residence. B. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question because other residences do not have the same topographical constraints. C. The granting of the variance would not be materi- ally detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the prop- erty or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located because the proposed project will be compat- ible with surrounding properties, since the lot is generally at a lower elevation than the roadway and surrounding properties, thereby view impacts are minimal. Section 4. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 438 to permit encroachment of the retaining wall into the front yard setback, as indicated on the development plan sub- mitted with this application and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A, subject to the conditions specified in Section 11. Section 5. The applicant has submitted plans to con- struct a pool house as shown in Exhibit A. Section 17.16.012(G) of the Municipal Code provides for the discretion of the Planning Commission to grant a Conditional Use Permit for a pool house provided no kitchen or cooking facilities are provided. Section 6. The Planning Commission makes the following findings: A. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit would not be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan and not be desirable to the public convenience and welfare because the proposed pool house would be located on the southerly edge of the building pad so as to be visibly prominent and when viewed from Crest Road West and would impair the natural vista across that portion of property from Crest Road West to the canyon and ocean below. B. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit would not be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan, because the proposed project will not comply with the low profile residential development pattern of the City. Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby denies a Conditional Use Permit for a pool house in Zoning Case No. 438. Section 8. Section 17.34.010 requires a development plan to be submitted for site plan review and approval before any building or structure may be constructed or any expansion, -2- 910306 lj A540.KGE (2) • • addition, alteration or repair to existing buildings may be made which involve changes to grading or an increase to the size of the building or structure by more than twenty five percent (25%) in any thirty-six (36) month period. Section 9. The Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact: A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses because the proposed structure complies with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low density residential development with suffi- cient open space between surrounding structures. The project conforms to Zoning Code setback and lot coverage requirements. The lot has a net square foot area of 101,240 square feet. The proposed residence (7,500 square feet), garage (1,600 square feet), swimming pool (630 square feet), and future stable (450 square feet) will total 10,180 square feet which constitutes 10% of the lot which is within the maximum 20% structural lot coverage requirement. The total lot coverage including paved areas and driveway will be 18,702 square feet which equals 18.5%. of the lot, which is within the 35% maximum overall lot coverage requirement. The proposed project is on a relatively large lot with most of the proposed structures located below the road so as to reduce the visual impact of the development and is similar and compatible with several neighboring developments. B. The proposed development preserves and integrates into the site design, to the maximum extent feasible, existing natural topographic features of the lot including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses, and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls) because grading will be minimized and most of the mature trees will not be removed, thereby retain- ing the current drainage pattern and landscape screening for the site. C. The development plan follows natural contours of the site to minimize grading and the existing drainage courses will continue to the canyons at the rear of this lot. D. The development plan incorporates existing large trees and surrounding native vegetation to the maximum extent feasible and supplements it with landscaping that is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community. E. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage because the new structures will not cause the structural and total lot coverage to be exceeded. Further, the proposed project will have a buildable pad coverage of 35%. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped so as to maintain -3- 910306 1j A540.KGE (2) trail access across the property and scenic vistas across the westerly portions of the property. F. The proposed development is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences because as indicated in Paragraph A, the maximum lot coverage requirement will not be exceeded and the proposed project is of consistent scale with the neighborhood. The ratio of the proposed structure to lot coverage is similar to the ratio found on several properties in the vicinity. G. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to convenience and safety of circulation for pedes- trians and vehicles because the proposed project will utilize the existing vehicular access, thereby having no further impact to the roadway. H. The project conforms with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and is categorically exempt from environmental review. Section 10. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review application for Zoning Case No. 438 for a proposed residential redevelopment as indicated on the development plan incorporated herein as Exhibit A and subject to the conditions contained in Section 11. Section 11. The front yard setback variance approved in Section 4 and the Site Plan Review for residential redevelop- ment approved in Section 10 are subject to the following conditions: A. All requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be com- plied with unless otherwise set forth in the Permit, or shown otherwise on an approved plan. B. The lot shall be developed and maintained in sub- stantial conformance with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A except as otherwise provided in these conditions. Due to the substantial size of the property, the westerly portion of the property shall be maintained undeveloped, so as to preserve the remaining rural and open nature of the rest of the property.. C. The lot coverage shall not exceed 18.5%. D. The equestrian trail shall be relocated along the interior of the south and westerly property line, and connected to the trail on Crest Road West. -4- 910306 1j A54O.KGE (2) • • E. The garage shall be reduced in width so as to accommodate no more than six (6) standard size automobiles when parked in a tandem configuration. The total garage opening width shall not exceed 32 feet. The front face of the garage shall be aligned with the westerly edge of the residence so as to eliminate the two-story appearance created by the high south facing wall of the westerly wing of the house. F. The retaining will incorporated into the front yard setback shall not be greater than five feet (5') in height at any point, averaging no more than 2-1/2 feet in height. G. A landscape plan must be submitted to the Landscape Committee of the Rolling Hills Community Association, which shall forward its recommendation for approval or revision to the City of Rolling Hills' Planning Department Staff for approval prior to the issuance of any grading and building permit. The landscaping plan submitted must comply with the purpose and intent of the Site Plan Review Ordinance, shall incorporate existing mature trees and native vegetation, and shall utilize to the maximum extent feasible, plants that are native to the area and/or consistent with the rural character of the community. 'A bond in the amount of the cost estimate of the imple- mentation of the landscaping plan plus 15% shall be required to be posted prior to issuance of a grading and building permit and shall be retained with the City for not less than two years after landscape installation. The retained bond will be released by the City Manager after the City Manager determines that the landscaping was installed pursuant to the landscaping plan as approved, and that such landscaping is properly established and in good condition. H. The landscape plan shall include landscaping so as to screen the residential development and pool deck area from the trails on the southerly and westerly portion of the property and from Crest Road West. The existing landscaping along the east property line shall be maintained and augmented to screen the project from the adjacent property. I. The planter area along the perimeter of the elevated deck over the garage shall have maintained landscaping to provide a noise buffer and privacy. J. The Landscape Plan shall include appropriately spaced specimen trees along Crest Road West, the type, variety and location of which shall be approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association. K. Prior to the submittal of an applicable final grading plan to the County of Los Angeles for plan check, a. -5- 910306 lj A540.KGE (2) • • • detailed grading and drainage plan with related geology, soils and hydrology reports that conform to the Development Plan as approved by the Planning Commission must be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their review. Cut and fill slopes must conform to the City of Rolling Hills standard of 2 to 1 slope ratio. L. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit. M. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of Building and Safety for plan check review must conform to the Development Plan approved with this application. N. Any modifications to the project which would constitute a modification to the Development Plan as approved by the Planning Commission, shall require the filing of an applica- tion for modification of the Development Plan pursuant to Sec- tion 17.34.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. 0. All conditions of this Variance and Site Plan Review approval must be complied with prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit from the County of Los Angeles. P. It is declared and made a condition of the Variance and the Site Plan Review approval, that if any condi- tions thereby are violated, the Permit shall be suspended and the privileges granted thereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicant has been given written notice to cease such violation and has failed to do so for a period of thirty (30). days. Q. The Variance shall expire unless used within one year from the effective date of approval as defined in Section 17.32.10 of the Municipal Code. The Site Plan Review approval shall expire within one year from the effective date of approval as defined in Section 17.34.O80.A. R. Applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this Variance and Site Plan Review, or the approval shall not be effective. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED' this757a March, 1991.ty Allan Roberts, Chairman ATTEST: Diane dawyer, Dep 910306 lj A540.KGE (2) City Clerk -6- The foregoing Resolution No. 91-3 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A POOL HOUSE, AND GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL IN ZONING CASE NO. 438. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on March 9, 1991 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Frost, Hankins, Lay and Raine; Chairman Roberts. NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None o. Deputy ity Clerk March 14, 2000 Mr. Craig Nealis City Manager City of Rolling Hills Dear Mr. Nealis, I wish to request an extension of time for the City Permit issued for construction of my Tennis Court at 16 Crest Road, Rolling Hills, California 90274. The reason for this request is that the Los Angeles County Dept. of Public Works - Grading Section has not yet approved my construction plans. According to my Engineering Consultant. Doug MacHattie, of Bolton Engineering, the Grading Section of L A. County takes an excessive amount of time reviewing projects they consider to be minor in scope. Plans were submitted on August 13, 1999 and were logged into their system. Apparently a junior plan checker was assigned to my project. I was told that permits might be ready by the 1st of December 1999. Doug later told me that the plans were taken away from the original plan checker and given to a very senior plan checker who requested some revisions. These revisions were made and the plans resubmitted in mid February, 2000. I was told that the plans would come out of plan check within three weeks from Re submittal. As of today, my plans have not come out el plan check. Bolton Engineering expects the plans to be out of plan check sometime this month. In my opinion, I think it is unreasonable for the County of Los Angeles to take over seven months to plan check a tennis court. This seems to be their standard procedure and they apparently will do nothing to speed the process. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, c.c: Lola Unger. Planning Director, City Of Rolling Hills City ofielliny CERTIFIED MAIL March 23, 1999 Mr. Robert Nagelhout 1521 Nelson Avenue Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com SUBJECT: APPEAL PERIOD AND AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM ZONING CASE NO. 593, 16 CREST ROAD WEST (LOT 74-A-MS) RESOLUTION NO. 99-10 Dear Mr. Nagelhout: This letter shall serve to notify you that the Planning Commission adopted a resolution on March 16, 1999 to approve a request for a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a tennis court at an existing single family residence at 16 Crest Road West (Lot 74-A-MS),Rolling Hills, CA in Zoning Case No. 593. That action, accompanied by the record of the proceedings before the Commission was reported to the City Council on March 22,1999. The Planning Commission's decision in this matter shall become effective thirty days after the adoption of the resolution by the Commission, unless an appeal has been filed or the City Council takes jurisdiction of the case within that thirty (301 day appeal period. (Section 17.54.010(B) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code). Should there be an appeal, the Commission's decision will be stayed until the Council completes its proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Code. If no appeals are filed within the thirty (30) day period after adoption of the Planning Commission's resolution, the Planning Commission's action will become final and you will be required to cause to be recorded an Affidavit of Acceptance Form together with the subject resolution in the Office of the County Recorder before the Commission's action takes effect. We have enclosed a copy of RESOLUTION NO. 99-10, specifying the conditions of approval set forth by the Planning Commission and the approved Exhibit A Development Plan to keep for your files. Once you have reviewed the Resolution, please complete the enclosed AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM, have the signature(s) notarized, and forward the completed form and a copy of the Resolution to: Los Angeles County Registrar -Recorder Real Estate Records Section 12400 East Imperial Highway Norwalk, CA 90650 Include a check in the amount of $9.00 for the first page and $3.00 for each additional page. ®Printed on Recycled Paper. • p The City will notify the Los Angeles County Building & Safety Division to issue permits only when the Affidavit of Acceptance is received by us and any conditions of the Resolution required prior to issuance of building permits are met. Please feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Sincerely, ‘fdStir---- Lola Ungar Planning Director cc: Mr. Douglas McHattie, Bolton Engineering Enclosures: AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM RESOLUTION NO. 99-10 EXHIBIT A DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPEAL SECTION OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE. ♦ • • RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND MAIL TO: CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 (310) 377-7288 FAX The Registrar -Recorder's Office requires that the form be notarized before recordation. AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) ZONING CASE NO. 593 SITE PLAN REVIEW VARIANCE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT I (We) the undersigned state: I am (We are) the owner(s) of the real property described as follows: 16 Crest Road West (Lot 74-A-MS), Rolling Hills, CA. This property is the subject of the above numbered case. I am (We are) aware of, and accept, all the stated conditions in said ZONING CASE NO. 593 SITE PLAN REVIEW VARIANCE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT . I (We) certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Signature Name typed or printed Address City/State Signatures must be acknowledged by a notary public. State of California ) County of Los Angeles ) On before me, Signature Name typed or printed Address City/State 3C L T Recorder's Use Only personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies) and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. Witness by hand and official seal. Signature of Notary SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF Erie /r 4,4 ' • • RESOLUTION NO. 99-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TENNIS COURT AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 593. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. Robert Nagelhout with respect to real property located at 16 Crest Road West (Lot 74-A-MS), Rolling Hills, requesting a Conditional Use Permit to construct a tennis court at an existing single family residence. Section 2. On March 9, 1991, the Planning Commission approved a Variance to the front yard setback and Site Plan Review for the construction of a new single family residence to replace an existing residence, and denial of a Conditional Use Permit for a pool house at the site in Zoning Case No. 438 by Resolution No. 91- 3, dated March 9, 1991. Building permits were issued to Mr. Hussain Shaikh for the new residence on February 12, 1993. Since that time, construction at the site has been sporadic. Most recently, the Nagelhouts bought the property and acquired building permits on July 2, 1998 to complete the 7,742 square foot residence. Section 3. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application for the Conditional Use Permit on January 19, 1999 and February 16, 1999, and at a field trip visit on February 6, 1999. The applicants were notified of the public hearing in writing by first class mail and through the City's newsletter. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal, from all persons protesting the same, and from members of the City staff and the Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. The applicants were in attendance at the hearing. The Commission expressed concerns about further development on the lot and retention of the existing horse trail across the southwestern portion of the property which was conditioned by the previous approval of the Planning Commission to be relocated along the interior of the south and westerly property line. Members of Caballeros were present at the field trip. Section 4. On January 5, 1999, Planning staff prepared an initial study for the project. The initial study found that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment if certain measures were included in the project. The Negative Declaration was prepared with those mitigation measures and was circulated to the applicant and other interested parties in accordance with State of California CEQA Guidelines. The public notice of the Planning Commission's intent to recommend approval of the Negative Declaration was published on January 9, 1999. Copies of the Negative Declaration were sent to adjacent cities and RESOLUTION NO. 99-10 PAGE 1 OF 6 • • other government agencies. No comments on the Negative Declaration were received. Section 5. The Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed Negative Declaration and finds that it represents the independent judgment of the City and that it was prepared in compliance with CEQA. Therefore, the Commission finds that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures have been added to the project, and are incorporated herein by reference. Based upon these findings, the Planning Commission hereby adopts the mitigated Negative Declaration in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 6. Section 17.16.210(A)(7) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code allows for the construction of an inset tennis court with certain conditions provided a Conditional Use Permit for such use is approved by the Rolling Hills Planning Commission. With respect to this request for a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of an inset tennis court would be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan and will be desirable for the public convenience and welfare because the use is consistent with similar and appropriately located uses in the community, and the area proposed for the tennis court would be located in an area on the property that is near property used for the La Cresta School and will not have a material impact on that property. . B. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures have been considered, and the construction of a tennis court will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed tennis court will be constructed on a portion of the secondary building pad, will be the least intrusive to surrounding properties as it will be inset, will be located near a public school district complex and playing field, and is a sufficient distance from nearby residences so that the tennis court will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors. C. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain, and surrounding residences because the tennis court will comply with the low profile residential development pattern of the community and is located on a 2.624 acre parcel of property that is adequate in size, shape and topography to accommodate such use. D. The proposed conditional use complies with all applicable development standards of the zone district because the graded area will not exceed maximum graded areas of 10,000 square feet and does not exceed maximum cubic yardage of 750 cubic yards. The applicants propose a graded area of 9,120 square feet and a balanced cut of 360 cubic yards and 360 cubic yards of fill. RESOLUTION NO. 99-10 PAGE 2 OF 6 • • E. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the portions of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan related to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities because the project site is not listed on the current State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List. F. The proposed conditional use observes the spirit and intent of Title 17 of the Zoning Code because a future stable structure and corral is proposed for the project. Section 8. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the request for a Conditional Use Permit in Zoning Case No. 593 for a proposed 7,000 square foot tennis court, as shown on the Development Plan dated January 5, 1999 and marked Exhibit A, is subject to the following conditions: A. The Conditional Use Permit approval shall expire within one year from the effective date of approval as defined in Section 17.42.070(A) unless otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of that section. B. It is declared and made a condition of the Conditional Use Permit approval, that if any conditions thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted thereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicant has been given written notice to cease such violation, the opportunity for a hearing has been provided, and if requested, has been held, and thereafter the applicant fails to correct the violation within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of the City's determination. C. All requirements of the Building and Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with unless otherwise approved by Variance. D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A dated January 5, 1999, except as otherwise provided in these conditions. E. The property on which the project is located shall contain an area of sufficient size to also provide an area meeting all standards for a stable and corral with vehicular access thereto. F. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 17,518 square feet or 19.75% and total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 29,046 square feet or 32.75%. G. All grading required for the construction of the tennis court shall be balanced on site, as regards cutting and filling and shall not exceed 720 cubic yards. RESOLUTION NO. 99-10 PAGE 3 OF 6 • • FL The area graded for the tennis court shall not exceed 9,120 square feet. I. Any grading shall preserve the existing topography, flora, and natural features to the greatest extent possible. J. A drainage system approved by the City Engineer shall be incorporated into the overall plan of the tennis court and landscaping. K. In the event that subsurface material of an archaeological, paleontological or other cultural resource is encountered during project grading or development, all grading and construction shall cease in the immediate area, and the find shall be left untouched until a qualified professional archaeologist or paleontologist, whichever is appropriate, is contacted and called in to evaluate the find and makes recommendations as to disposition, mitigation or salvage. The developer shall incur the cost of such professional investigation. The developer shall comply with the mitigation measures recommended and approved by the City for the disposition, mitigation or salvage of such material. L. All retaining walls incorporated into the court shall not be greater than four feet in height at any point. Exposed exterior retaining walls shall not be permitted. M. Tennis court _ fencing shall not exceed 4 feet in height above the 4 foot high retaining.walls for a. total of 8 feet. N. Court lighting shall not be permitted. O. The tennis court shall be screened with native drought -resistant vegetation such as Toyon and Lemonade berry on all four sides. P. Landscaping shall be designed so as not to obstruct views of neighboring properties but, to obscure residential structures and tennis court fencing. Q. The landscape plan shall include water efficient irrigation, to the maximum extent feasible, that incorporates a 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 in accordance with Section 17.27.020 (Water efficient landscaping requirements) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. R. Two copies of a preliminary landscape plan must be submitted for review by the Planning Department and include native drought -resistant vegetation that will not disrupt the impact of the views of neighboring properties prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit. The landscaping plan RESOLUTION NO. 99-10 PAGE 4 OF 6 • • submitted must comply with the purpose and intent of the Site Plan Review Ordinance, shall incorporate existing mature trees and native vegetation, and shall utilize to the maximum extent feasible, plants that are native to the area and/or consistent with the rural character of the community. A bond in the amount of the cost estimate of the implementation of the landscaping plan plus 15% shall be required to be posted prior to issuance of a grading and building permit and shall be retained with the City for not less than two years after landscape installation. The retained bond will be released by the City Manager after the City Manager determines that the landscaping was installed pursuant to the landscaping plan as approved, and that such landscaping is properly established and in good condition. S. Noise from tennis court use shall not create a nuisance to owners of surrounding properties. T. The equestrian trail at the southwest portion of the lot shall be relocated along the interior of the south and westerly property line and connected to the trail on Crest Road West. U. The provisions of Resolution No. 91-3, dated March 9, 1991 in Zoning Case No. 438 along with this resolution shall remain in full force and effect and any modifications ' to the project which would constitute additional structural development on the lot shall require the filing of a new application for Site Plan Review approval by the Planning Commission. V. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit. W. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of Building and Safety for plan check review must conform to the development plan described in Condition A. X. Building permits shall be obtained for the retaining walls and tennis court. Y. An Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth in Section 7010 of the 1996 County of Los Angeles Uniform Building Code shall be prepared to minimize erosion and to protect slopes and channels to control stormwater pollution as required by the County of Los Angeles. Z. Prior to the submittal of an applicable final grading plan to the County of Los Angeles for plan check, a detailed grading and drainage plan with related geology, soils and hydrology reports that conform to the development plan as approved by the Planning Commission must be submitted to the Rolling Hills RESOLUTION NO. 99-10 PAGE 5 OF 6 • • Planning Department staff for their review. Cut and fill slopes must conform to the City of Rolling Hills standard of 2 to 1 slope ratio. AA. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review, pursuant to Section 17.42.060, or the approval shall not be effective. BB. All conditions of this Conditional Use Permit approval must be complied with prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit from the County of Los Angeles. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 1999. ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS , ) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 99-10 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TENNIS COURT AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 593. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission cn March 16, 1999 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: Commissioners Hankins, Margeta, Sommer, Witte and Chairman Roberts. None. ABSENT: None . ABSTAIN: None . and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 99-10 PAGE 6 OF 6 • • 17.54.010 17.54 APPEALS 17.54.010 Time for Filing Appeals A. All actions of the Planning Commission authorized by this Title may be appealed to the City Council. All appeals shall be filed in writing with the City Clerk. B. All appeals must be filed on or before the 30th calendar day after adoption of the Planning Commission's resolution on the project or application. Application fees shall be paid as required by Section 17.30.030 of this Title. C. Within 30 days after the Planning Commission adopts a resolution which approves or denies a development application, the City Clerk shall place the resolution as a report item on the City Council's agenda. The City Council may, by an affirmative vote of three members, take jurisdiction over the application. In the event the City Council takes jurisdiction over the application, the Planning Commission's decision will be stayed until the City Council completes its proceedings in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter. 17.54.020 Persons Authorized to File an Appeal Any person, including the City Manager, may appeal a decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council, in accordance with the terms of this Chapter. 17.54.030 Form, Content, and Deficiencies in an Appeal Application A. All appeals shall be filed in writing with the City Clerk on a form or forms provided by the City Clerk. No appeal shall be considered filed until the required appeal fee has been received by the City Clerk. B. The appeal application shall state, at a minimum, the name and address of the appellant, the project and action being appealed, and the reasons why the appellant believes that the Planning Commission erred or abused its discretion, or why the Planning Commission's decision is not support by evidence in the record. 76 ROLLING HILLS ZONING MAY ?A, 1993 • • 17.54.030 C. If the appeal application is found to be deficient, the City Clerk shall deliver or mail (by certified mail), to the appellant a notice specifying the reasons why the appeal is deficient. The appellant shall correct the deficiency with an amendment to the appeal form within seven calendar days of receiving the deficiency notice. Otherwise, the appeal application will be deemed withdrawn, and the appeal fee will be returned to the applicant. 1754.040 Request for Information Upon receipt of a written and complete appeal application and fee, the City Clerk shall direct the Planning Commission Secretary to transmit to the City Council the complete record of the entire proceeding before the Planning Commission. 17.54,050 Scheduling of Appeal Hearing Upon receiving an appeal, the City Clerk shall set the appeal for a hearing before the City Council to occur within 20 days of the filing of the appeal. In the event that more than one appeal is filed for the same project, the Clerk shall schedule all appeals to be heard at the same time. 17.54.060 Proceedings A. Noticing The hearing shall be noticed as required by Section 17.30.030 of this Title. In addition, the following parties shall be noticed: 1. The applicant of the proposal being appealed; 2. The appellant; and 3. Any person who provided oral testimony or written comments to the Planning Commission during or as part of the public hearing on the project. B. Hearing The City Council shall conduct a public hearing pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 17.34 of this Title. The Council shall consider all information in the record, as well as additional information presented at the appeal hearing, before taking action on the appeal. 77 ROLLING HILLS ZONING MAY 24, 1993 • • 17.54.060 C. Action The Council may act to uphold, overturn, or otherwise modify the Planning Commission's original action on the proposal, or the Council may remand the application back to the Planning Commission for further review and direction. The Council shall make findings to support its decision. D. Finality of Decision The action of the City Council to approve, conditionally approve, or deny an application shall be final and conclusive. E. Record of Proceedings The decision of the City Council shall be set forth in full in a resolution or ordinance. A copy of the decision shall be sent to the applicant or the appellant. 17.54.070 Statute of Limitations Any action challenging a final administrative order or decision by the City made as a result of a proceeding in which by law a hearing is required to be given, evidence is required to be taken, and discretion regarding a final and non -appealable determination of facts is vested in the City of Rolling Hills, the City Council, or in any of its Commissions, officers, or employees, must be filed within the time limits set forth in the California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6 78 ROLLING HILLS ZONING MAY 24, 1993 m a m 0 cc cc P 852 -865 .282 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (See Reverse) ,,,rt to / berf 4/a L4 -> 11, Street and No. /sal /�/ad5€7,-P.O., Stale and ZIP �L,,�4 ri 609 • s Postage Certified Fee Special Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee Return Receipt showing to whom and Date Delivered N rn Return Re 9,d "> . to w - hom. . Date. a d�Uffe ems„ j TOT L Post ln1W Fees 1, a/ Cinark or ate 4.-r 1999 E. as SENDER: ■ Complete Items 1 and/or 2 for additional services. ' Complete items 3, 4a, and 4b. • Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can return this card to you. ■ Attach this form to the front of the maitpiece, or on the back If space does not W■rite'Retum Receipt Requested' on the maliplece below the article number. •The Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date delivered. 3. Article Addressed to: Mr. Robert Nagelhout 1521 Nelson Avenue Manhattan Beach, CA Z.C. No. 593 5. Received B : (Print Name ce la 6. signature: (Addressee orA >` is PS Form 38i 1, December 1994 90266 ;; ..:M, • i I also wish to receive the following services (for an �'1,. extra fee): \, 1. ❑ Addressee's Address as 4a. Article Number P 852 865 282 4b. Service Type ❑ Registered ❑ Express Mall 2. ❑ Restricted Delivery Consult postmaster for fee. o g E d El Certified c 0 Insured -C. co ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise 0 COD 2 7. Date of Delive-- 6. Addressee's Address (Only if requested and feels paid) 102595-97-B-0179 Domestic,Return Receipt City O/ Rolling INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 FIELD TRIP NOTIFICATION January 21, 1999 Mr. Robert Nagelhout 1521 Nelson Avenue Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 593, a request for a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed tennis court that requires grading at an existing single family residence at 16 Crest Road West (Lot 74-A-MS), Rolling Hills, CA. Dear Mr. Nagelhout: We have arranged for the Planning Commission to conduct a field inspection of your property to view a silhouette of the proposed project on Saturday. February 6. 1999. The Planning Commission's timetable is to meet at 7:30 AM at 28 Portuguese Bend Road and then proceed to 10 Eastfield Drive, 3 Crest Road West, and then to your property at 16 Crest Road West. Do not expect the Commission at 7:30 AM but, be assured that the field trip will take place before 10 AM. The site must be prepared according to the enclosed Silhouette Construction Guidelines and the following requirements: • A full-size silhouette must be prepared for ALL STRUCTURES of the project showing the footprints, and any retaining walls; • Stake or flag the limits of the tennis court and the limits of grading. • Delineate areas to be graded showing finished floor or grade elevations. The owner and/or representative should be present to answer any questions regarding the proposal. Please call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Sincere LOLA M. UNGAR PLANNING DIRECTOR cc: Mr. Douglas McHattie, Bolton Engineering ®Printed on Recycled Paper Cit RJ/t, J&�F INCORPORATED Jt,NUARY 24, )957 NO.2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX (2131377.7288 SILHOUETTE CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES. 1. When required by the Planning Commission or City Council, a silhouette of proposed construction should be erected for the week preceding the designated Planning Commission. or City Council meeting. 2. Silhouettes should be constructed with 2" x 4" lumber. Printed boards are not acceptable. 3. Bracing should be provided where possible. 4. Wire, twine or other suitable material should be used to delineate roof ridges and eaves. 5. Small pieces of cloth or flags should be attached to the wire or twine to aid in the visualization of the proposed construction. 6. The application may be delayed if inaccurate or incomplete silhouettes are constructed. 7. If you have any futher questions contact the Planning Department Staff at (213) 377-1521. .. .• V: •. it 41 PLAN SECTION • 6 FILE DD MAR 2 41999 City 0/ ROffifli. i��a INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, I95 LERK (InNNY 9. McCORMACK, eonI Y G NOrkifORTUGUESEBEND RO, IEPU I 1 ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 tfrEaollcoN j7IL`7a TO: County Clerk County of Los Angeles 12400 East Imperial Highway Norwalk, CA 90650 G. MORLA NOTICE OF DETERMINATION HAY 1 91999 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 anvil i q9 of the Public Resources Code. ZONING CASE NO. 593 Project Title FROM: City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 NONE LOLA UNGAR State Clearinghouse No. Lead Agency (If submitted to Clearinghouse) Contact Person (310) 377-1521 Area Code/Phone 16 CREST ROAD WEST (LOT 74-A-MS). ROLLING HILLS. CA 90274. LOS ANGELES COUNTY Project Location (include county) Project Description: Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a tennis court at an existing single family residence. This is to advise that the PLANNING COMMISSION has approved the above described project on Marcll 16. 1999 and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project:' 1. The project [_will, L will not] have a significant effect on the environment. 2. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 3. Mitigation measures [Lwere, _ were not] made a condition of the approval of the project. 4. A statement of Overriding Considerations [ was,, was not] adopted for this project. 5. Findings EL were, _were not] made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. This document is being filed in duplicate. Please acknowledge the filing date and return acknowledged copy in the enclosed self-addressed envelope. L. Lver.C-- -Signature (Public Age Date received for filing:. March 17. 1999 Date 0:1 . UNTILAPR 2 3 "tgg9 — PLANNING DIRECTOR Title THIS NOVICE WAS POS`TLD MAR 2 4 1399 -r REGISTRAR«REt OMER/COVITTY CL trz- ®Printed on Recycled Paper. Project Title/Location Project Title: Location: Proponents: City ape erne �uee INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION De Minimus Impact Finding Name and Address of Project Proponent (include county): ZONING CASE NO. 593 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 MAR 2 41999 CON :. cCO , GOUN I Y CLERK 16 CREST ROAD WEST (LOT 74-A-MS), ROLLING HILLS. C LOS ANGELES COUNTY MR. AND MRS. ROBERT NAGELHOUT 74, DEPUTY G. MORLA Project Description: Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a tennis court at an existing single family residence. Findings of Exemption (Attach Required Findings): The Planning Commission finds that there is no evidence that the proposed tennis court will have an effect on endangered or threatened species of plants and animals. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed tennis court will not have an effect on wetlands and that water courses will not be eliminated or converted. The Planning Commission has determined that the proposed tennis court will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and has adopted a Negative Declaration consistent with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Certification: I hereby certify that the lead agency has made the above findings of fact and that based upon the initial study and hearing record the project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. aete/v re LOLA UNGAR (/ Title: (Chief Planning Official) Lead Agency: Date: Planning Director City of Rolling Hills March 17, 1999 ®Printed on Recycled Paper. City ot Rolling January 26, 2000 Mr. Robert Nagelhout 16 Crest Road West Rolling Hills, CA 90274 • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cltyofrh@aol.com SUBJECT: EXPIRATION OF APPROVALS FOR ZONING CASE NO. 593 CONSTRUCTION OF A TENNIS COURT 16 CREST ROAD WEST (LOT 74-A-MS) Dear Mr. Nagelhout: This letter is to inform you that it has been almost one year since the approval of Zoning Case No. 593. Approvals will expire on March 16. 2000. You can extend approvals for one year only if you apply to the Planning Commission in writing to request an extension prior to the expiration date. The filing fee for the time extension is $200 to be paid to the City of Rolling Hills. Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Lola Ungar Planning Director cc: Mr. Douglas McHattie, Bolton Engineering ®Printed on Recycled Paper • • City O/ /0/fifl JUL INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 STATUS OF APPLICATION January 7,1999 Mr. Robert Nagelhout 1521 Nelson Avenue Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 593, a request for a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed tennis court that requires grading at an existing single family residence at 16 Crest Road West (Lot 74-A-MS), Rolling Hills, CA. Dear Mr. Nagelhout: Pursuant to state law the City's staff has completed a preliminary review of the application noted above and finds that the information submitted is: X Sufficiently complete as of the date indicated above to allow the application to be processed. Please note that the City may require further information in order to clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise supplement the application. If the City requires such additional information, it is strongly suggested that you supply that information promptly to avoid any delay in the processing of the application. The applications for Zoning Case No. 593 have been set for public hearing consideration by the Planning Commission at their meeting on Tuesday. Tanuary 19.1999. The meeting will begin at 7:30 PM in the Council Chambers, Rolling Hills City Hall Administration Building, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills. You or your designated representative must attend to present your project and to answer questions. The staff report for this project will be available at the City Hall after 3:00 PM on Friday, January 15,1999. We will forward a copy to you. Please call me when you receive this letter if you have any questions at (310) 377-1521.• Sincerel LOLA UNGAR PLANNING DIRECTOR cc: Mr. Douglas McHattie, Bolton Engineering Printed on Recycled Paper. January 5, 1999 • • 0/ Ailing /i INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cltyofrh@aol.com Mr. Robert Nagelhout 1521 Nelson Avenue Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY NEGATIVE DECLARATION DETERMINATION REQUEST FOR APPLICANTS CONCURRENCE ZONING CASE NO. 593 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PROPOSED TENNIS COURT THAT REQUIRES GRADING AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 16 CREST ROAD WEST (LOT 74-A-MS), ROLLING HILLS. Dear Mr. Nagelhout: On January 5, 1999, the Planning staff of the City of Rolling Hills completed its review of the Environmental Questionnaire and other data regarding your project. From this review, a preliminary determination was made that a Negative Declaration would be the appropriate environmental document, providing the applicant concurs with the attached environmental conditions by either revising the project or agreeing to meet the provisions of the conditions. A Negative Declaration is a determination that although a proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in the case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. If the applicant agrees to the attached conditions, the document should be signed, dated and returned to the Planning Department at the above address along with a check made out to the CITY OF ROLLING HILLS in the amount of $1.300. (The document copy is for your records). The fee is charged by the State Department of Fish and Game in the amount of $1,250 and Los Angeles County Clerk in the amount of $25 for two separate filing fees). In order to continue with the Environmental review process on this application, please sign and submit the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration along with the required $1,300 within 30 days from the above date. Additional processing fees may be required if the Planning Commission or the City Council does not approve this Negative Declaration and requires additional environmental studies of the project. Please note that the mitigation measures listed on the Negative Declaration do not have to be met before the document is signed and returned with the fee. If you or your consultants desire to have the proposed mitigation measures modified please contact me as soon as possible. Any modifications to the proposed mitigated measures may necessitate the reconsideration of the proposed environmental determination. If you have any questions regarding environmental documentation or your tentative map, please call me at (310) 377-1521. Sincerely, 261p0r— LOLA UNGAR PLANNING DIRECTOR cc: Mr. Douglas McHattie, Bolton Engineering ®Printed on Recycled Paper. • • City 0/ Rotting _II; to INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 January 5, 1999 Mr. Robert Nagelhout 1521 Nelson Avenue Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 MITIGATION MEASURES (PROJECT CHANGES/CONDITIONS) DUE TO ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mall: cltyotrh@aol.com PROJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 593 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PROPOSED TENNIS COURT THAT REQUIRES GRADING AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 16 CREST ROAD WEST (LOT 74-A-MS), ROLLING HILLS. The City of Rolling Hills Planning staff has determined that the following conditions or changes in the project are necessary in order to assure that there will be no substantial evidence that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment: Mitiaation Measures 1. The applicant shall prepare and submit to the City 15 sets of a preliminary grading plan showing proposed drainage facilities, structures, driveways, building pad(s), stable, corral, and blue line streams, for the lot at least 30 days prior to the Planning Commission hearing on the project application. 2. The property owner shall be required to conform with local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence. 3. In the event that subsurface material of an archaeological, paleontological or other cultural resource is encountered during project grading or development, all grading and construction shall cease in the immediate area, and the find shall be left untouched until a qualified professional archaeologist or paleontologist, whichever is appropriate, is contacted and called in to evaluate the find and makes recommendations as to disposition, mitigation or salvage. The developer shall incur the cost of such professional investigation. The developer shall comply with the mitigation measures recommended and approved by the City for the disposition, mitigation or salvage of such material. ®Printed on Recycled Paper. City • ofieoffin • PAGE 2 MITIGATION MEASURES ZONING CASE NO. 593 MR. ROBERT NAGELHOUT 16 CREST ROAD WEST (LOT 74-A-MS), ROLLING HILLS INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cltyofrh@aol.com As the applicant, I agree to incorporate these changes/conditions into my project, and understand that the public hearing and consideration by the City of Rolling Hills will be on the project changed/conditioned. Applicant(s) Signature Applicant(s) Signature Date Date Applicant(s) (Print) If no response is received within 15 days, the Environmental Determination requires that these changes/conditions be included in project. LOLA UNGALANNING DIRECTOR //I� 9`I Date Printed on Recycled Paper. t • • City a/ RO/A PAGE 2 MITIGATION MEASURES ZONING CASE NO. 593 MR. ROBERT NAGELHOUT 16 CREST ROAD WEST (LOT 74-A-MS), ROLLING HILLS COPY INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com As the applicant, I agree to incorporate these changes/conditions into my project, and understand that the public hearing and consideration by the City of Rolling Hills will be on the project changed/conditioned. Applicant(s) Signature Applicant(s) Signature Applicant(s) (Print) Date Date If no response is received within 15 days, the Environmental Determination requires that these changes/conditions be included in project. LOLA UNGAR<)'LANNING DIRECTOR Date " ®Printed oP Recycled Paper. Cu,• • fRolling.J�FG NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cltyofrh@aol.com PROJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 593 .The applicant is requesting Site Plan Review to permit the construction of a proposed tennis court that requires grading at an existing single family residence at 16 Crest Road West (Lot 74-A-MS), Rolling Hills, CA. Application has been filed with the City of Rolling Hills for approval of the project known as ZONING CASE NO. 593 to be at 16 Crest Road West (Lot 74-A-MS). Rollina Hills. CA and to be implemented by Mr. Robert Naaelhout. The request is briefly described as: A proposal to construct a new tennis court that requires grading at a lot where there is an existing single family residence. Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines of the City of Rolling Hills, the Lead Agency has analyzed the project and determined that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment. Based on this finding, the Lead Agency prepared this NEGATIVE DECLARATION. FINDINGS OF NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: BASED ON THE ATTACHED INITIAL STUDY, AND CONDITION(S) (IF APPLICABLE), IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. A period of at least 20 days from the date of publication of the notice of this NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be provided to enable public review of the project specifications, the Initial Study and this document prior to the final adoption of the NEGATIVE DECLARATION by the Lead Agency. A copy of the project specifications is on file in the offices of The City of Rollina Hills. 2 Portuauese Bend Road. Rollina Hills. CA 90274. Date: January 5, 1999 By: _ .. �..z. Lola Ungar, Planni irector Printed on Recycled Paper .‘N G Hut, • • go HO C20 ' at CLiff0//?//ng _ _II INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 am- rmi-o at NO.2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cltyotrh@aol.com NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Planning Commission of the City of Rolling Hills will hold a Public Hearing at 7:30 PM on Tuesday, January 19, 1999, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA for the purpose of receiving public input regarding the following: ZONING CASE NO. 593, a request for a Conditional Use Permit to permit th'e construction of a proposed tennis court that requires grading at an existing single family residence at 16 Crest Road West (Lot 74-A-MS), Rolling Hills, CA. MUNICIPAL CODE APPLICATIONS: Section 17.16.210 (A)(7) - Conditional Use Permit required for tennis court. After reviewing the Initial Study for the project, staff has determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures have been added to the project. Accordingly, a Negative Declaration has been prepared. Any person is welcome to review the subject application and plans prior to the public hearing at the City Hall Administration Building located at 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA. If you challenge the approval or denial of this subdivision application in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. Publish in Palos Verdes Peninsula News on January 9, 1999. ®Printed on Recycled Paper. �0����6 NIL` �'\ i1ff/0//tfl9 DO/ L1L6 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 APPENDIX I CITY OF ROLLING HILLS PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE APPLICATION NO: ZONING CASE NO. 593 NAME & ADDRESS OF \PPLICANT: Mr. Robert Nagelhout 1521 Nelson Avenue Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 NO.2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityotfi@aol.com LOCATION OF PROJECT: 16 CREST ROAD WEST (LOT 74-A-MS), ROLLING HILLS PROPOSED PROJECT: The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed tennis court that requires grading at an existing single family residence. BOOK, PAGE & PARCEL NO. 7569-022-005 EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: EXISTING ZONING: Residential Agricultural -Suburban - 2 acre minimum net lot area. RA-S-2, Residential Agricultural -Suburban - 2 acre minimum net lot area. PROPOSED ZONING: Same. PRESENT LAND USE: Single family residential. LOCATION MAP: Attached. ZONING CASE NO. 593 I-1 Printed on Recycled Paper. s • I. APPLICABILITY OF THE INITIAL STUDY A. Is the proposed action a "project" as defined by CEQA? (See Section I. of the City's CEQA Guidelines. If more than one application is filed on the same site, consider them together as one project). X Yes No 1. If the project qualifies for one of the Categorical Exemptions listed in Section I.C. of the City's CEQA Guidelines, is there a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect due to special circumstances? Yes X No N/A II. INITIAL STUDY REVIEW A. Does the project require a 30-day State Clearinghouse review for any of the following reasons? Yes X No 1. The lead agency is a state agency. 2. There is a State "responsible agency" (any public agency which has discretionary approval over the project). 3. There is a State "trustee agency" (California Department of Fish and Game, State Department of Parks and Recreation, University of California, and State Lands Commission). 4. The project is of Statewide or areawide significance including the following: (A) A proposed local general plan, element, or amendment thereof for which an EIR was prepared. (B) A project which would interfere with the attainment or maintenance of State or national air quality standards including: (1) A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units. (2) A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or encompassing more than 500,000 square feet of floor space. (3) Commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or encompassing more than 250,000 square feet of floor space. ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-2 • • (4) A proposed hoteVmo el development of more than 500 rooms. (5) A proposed industrial, manufacturing or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons occupying more than 40 acres of land, or encompassing more than 650,000 square feet of floor area. (C) A project which would substantially affect sensitive wildlife habitats including but not limited to riparian for rare and endangered species as defined by Fish and Game Code Section 903. (D) A project which would interfere with attainment of regional water quality standards as stated in the approved a -eawide waste water management plan. III. PROJECT ASSESSMENT A. Project Description: The applicant is proposing the construction of a new tennis court that requires grading at a lot where there is an existing 'single family residence. B. Description of the Project Site: (Describe the project site as it exists at the present time, including information on topography, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site, and use of the structures.) The project site is a 2.624 acre site with a large estate -size single story ranch style residence, garage and swimming pool that is under construction. The surrounding areas of the homesite consist of undulating hillsides and knolls covered by grasses and mature shrubs and trees, with some areas being heavily wooded. Native birds and animals frequent the area such as sparrows, crows, raccoons, possum, skunks, gophers, and an occasional fox. C. Surrounding Land Uses: The surrounding properties consist of single family residential building sites as well as a continuation high school, administrative offices, the Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority, and a district maintenance yard all under the auspices of the Palos Verdes Unified School District at the west side of the property. These residential and school district areas also consist of undulating hillsides and knolls covered by grasses and mature shrubs and trees with some areas being heavily wooded. • The school district property also provides expansive parking areas for its various uses. The same native birds and ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-3 animals frequent the area such as sparrows, crows, raccoons, possum, skunks, gophers, and an occasional fox. D. Is the proposed project consistent with: City of Rolling Hills General Plan Applicable Specific Plan City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance South Coast Air Quality Management Plan Congestion Management Plan Regional Comprehensive Plan Yes No N/A X X E. Have any of the following studies been submitted? Geology Report Hydrology Report Soils Report Traffic Study Noise Study Biological Study Native Vegetation Preservation Plan Solid Waste Generation Report Public Services/ Infrastructure Report X Historical Report Archaeological Report Paleontological Study Line of Sight Exhibits Visual Analysis Slope Map Fiscal Impact Analysis Air Quality Report Hazardous Materials/Waste v ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-4 • • IV. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: (Select one) X I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the • environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. This initial study was prepared by: Date: January 5, 1999 LOLA UNGAR, PLANNING DIRECTOR [Signature] ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-5 • • V. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or (Mitigated) Negative Declaration. In this case a discussion should identify the following: A. Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. NONE. B. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. C. Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site - specific conditions for the project. ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-6 • • EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: VI. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact' answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). VII. All answers must take account of the whole action Involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. VIII. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact` entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. IX. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section V, "Earlier Analysis," above may be cross-referenced). X. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEOA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. See Section 15063(c)(3)(D) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section V, above. XI. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): a r.,•.`'�s {f;I s,.-i.Sy+�.,.. i:, I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? 0 0 0 Ei b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or El 0 0 polices adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the 0 0 0 El vicinity? d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. 0 0 CI IE impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? 143#01$IgniCantIrripatt... siniOad , �.,. ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-7 • • e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local 0 ❑ population projections? b) Induce substantial growth In an area either 0 ❑ directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? III. GEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ❑ ❑ b) Seismic ground shaking? 0 0 c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ 0 d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ❑ ❑ e) Landslides or mudflows? 0 0 f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil 0 0 conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? g) Subsidence of the land? 0 0 h) Expansive soils? ❑ 0 I) Unique geologic or physical features? 0 0 IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, ❑ ❑ or the rate and amount of surface runoff? ❑ ❑ b) Exposure of people or property to water related ❑ 0 hazards such as flooding? c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration ❑ Cl of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any 0 ❑ water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of 0 ❑ water movements? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless ' Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 0 0 O 0 t x❑ El El O ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-8 • • Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated impact Impact f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either ❑ 0 ❑ through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? 0 0 0 h) Impacts to groundwater quality? Cl 0 ❑ i) Substantial reduction in the amount of 0 0 ❑ groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to ❑ 0 0 an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? 0 0 ❑ c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or 0 ❑ 0 cause any change in climate? d) Create any objectionable odors? 0 0 El VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 0 0 ❑ b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., 0 ❑ 0 sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to 0 0 0 nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? CI 0 0 e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ❑ 0 0 f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting 0 0 0 alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? ❑ ❑ CI VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in Impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their ❑ ❑ habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage 0 0 trees)? 0 CI a 0 a 0 0 CI C1 Cl 0 0 0 ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-9 • • Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No impact Incorporated impact Impact c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., 0 0 © 0 oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal 0 0 ® 0 pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 0 ❑ El ❑ VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation ❑ 0 0 ❑x plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 0 0 0 El inefficient manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known 0 0 0 El mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of ❑ 0 0 hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency 0 ❑ 0 response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential 0 0 0 health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of 0 ❑ 0 potential health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable ❑ 0 0 brush, grass, or trees? X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? 0 0 p 0 b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 0 0 XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? e) Other governmental services? o ❑ ❑ o ❑ ❑ o ❑ ❑ o o ❑ o o ❑ El a 0 ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-10 • • Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? ❑ 0 0 b) Communications systems? 0 ❑ 0 c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution 0 0 0 facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? 0 0 0 e) Storm water drainage? 0 0 ❑ f) Solid waste disposal? ❑ 0 0 g) Local or regional water supplies? 0 ❑ 0 XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? 0 0 ❑ b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? 0 ❑ 0 c) Create light or glare? ❑ 0 IXI XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? 0 ❑ b) Disturb archaeological resources? 0 ❑ c) Affect historical resources? 0 0 0 d) Have the potential to cause a physical change 0 ❑ 0 which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within 0 0 0 the potential impact area? XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or 0 0 0 regional parks or other recreations facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ❑ 0 0 El 0 O 0 El 0 0 0 0 ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-1 1 • • Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade 0 0 ❑ ❑x the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important example of the major period of Califomia history or prehistory? XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important example of the major period of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects.) d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier Analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. See Section 15063(c)(3)(D) of the State CEQA Guidelines. In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets. a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El O ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-12 • • Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated impactImpact b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which 0 0 0 0 effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are `Less 0 0 0 0 than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated, describe the mitigation measures which were Incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site - specific conditions for the project. The following analysis is a description of the findings contained in the Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Issues Checklist Form which preceded this page. A detailed discussion of all potential environmental impacts checked "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" is provided, along with appropriate mitigation measures. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Item III. GEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS, f-i. Although approval of the project will result in future disruptions, displacements, compaction, or overcrowding of the soil, during future construction these will occur in order to preserve the integrity of the property. Any displacement and recompaction of the soil will be required to conform with local ordinances and engineering practices and should not cause a significant environmental impact. Also, during future construction, there will be removal of natural vegetative cover, potentially causing an increase in soil erosion by wind action or storm water runoff. This reduction of vegetative cover and the increased runoff associated with the movement of soil may cause a slight increase in the soil deposition, siltation, or erosion in or near the ocean. As the movement of soil is limited to a tennis court, related erosion impacts will be less than significant. Mitiaation Measures 1. The applicant shall prepare and submit to the City 15 sets of a preliminary grading plan showing proposed drainage facilities, structures, driveways, building pad(s), stable, corral, and blue line streams, for the lot at least 30 days prior to the Planning Commission hearing on the project application. 2. The property owner shall be required to conform with local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence. Item IV. WATER a. The proposed project may alter drainage patterns, increase runoff and reduce water absorption by the placement of the tennis court, the introduction of impervious surface materials and irrigation systems. However, due to the nominal increase in development ZONING CASE NO. 593 I-13 • • proposed and permitted by the General Plan, the impacts are not expected to be substantial. b. No major floodplains exist in the City. Flood waters generally flow through the canyon areas. The General Plan does not permit development in the canyons, and so changes in the course or flow of floodwaters is not anticipated. Item V. AIR QUALITY d. While increased development of a tennis court will generate slight increases in objectionable odors during construction, the resultant impact on air quality will be less than significant. Item VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. a-e. Any additional development within the City will reduce the amount of native vegetation which will be replaced, in some instances, by non-native species. But, due to the limited growth proposed, this impact will be less than significant. In addition, the General Plan and Zoning Code set forth policies which encourage the retention and use of native drought tolerant vegetation in landscaping. No known rare and endangered species of plants exist in the City. As further development occurs in Rolling Hills, the natural habitat of the area will be slightly reduced. But, the impact of the current proposal is expected to be less than significant. Large lot, estate density development proposed for this project provides the opportunity to retain substantial amounts of existing habitat. The Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly, a butterfly which had not been seen in the Rolling Hills area since May, 1986, is listed b y the Federal Government as endangered. In 1994, the Palos Verdes Blue was seen at the nearby San Pedro Fuel Depot Station and is currently being studied by the State Department of Fish and Game. The local California gnatcatcher is on the Federal list of threatened species and on the Concerned list of the State, and in a recent census, a number of pairs were located in the adjacent City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Several other animals do occur, however, that are considered as candidates for protection by either the Federal Government or the State Government. Target species for the Palos Verdes Peninsula Area that are also being studied by the State of California Department of Fish and Game are the Cactus Wren and the Coast Horned Lizard. The impact of the proposed future development of a tennis court will be less than significant. Item X. NOISE a. During the duration of future construction, there will be noise related to the construction of a tennis court. But after construction, intermittent recreational noise is not expected to be a significant environmental impact. Item XIII AESTHETICS c. Tennis court lighting is not permitted. Light and glare impacts therefore are expected to be less than significant. Item XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES a-b. While prior tilling and dry farming may have disrupted potential remains, grading prior to construction may uncover a cultural resource. Mitiaation Measures 3. In the event that subsurface material of an archaeological, paleontological or other cultural resource is encountered during project grading or development, all grading and construction shall cease in the immediate ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-14 • • area, and the find shall be left untouched until a qualified professional archaeologist or paleontologist, whichever is appropriate, is contacted and called in to evaluate the find and makes recommendations as to disposition, mitigation or salvage. The developer shall incur the cost of such professional investigation. The developer shall comply with the mitigation measures recommended and approved by the City for the disposition, mitigation or salvage of such material. ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-15 c,y <ie0t& January 5, 1999 Los Angeles County Clerk Environmental Filings Department 12400 East Imperial Highway Norwalk, CA 90650 Attn: Angel Shells INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF..90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cltyofrh@aol.com SUBJECT: NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION ZONING CASE NO. 593 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PROPOSED TENNIS COURT THAT REQUIRES GRADING AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 16 CREST ROAD WEST (LOT 74-A-MS), ROLLING HILLS. Dear Angel: Enclosed find a Notice of Intent to file a Negative Declaration and a Notice of Public Hearing regarding Zoning Case No. 593, a request to construct a new tennis court that requires grading at a lot where there is an existing single family residence at 16 Crest Road West in the City of Rolling Hills. Please post for 30 days and after that time please stamp and return to the City in the enclosed self-addressed envelope. LOLA UNGAR PLANNING DIRECTOR ®Printed on Recycled Paper., urat:14.1,1"111LEIVI`12•1,1ATIlir 112.4,110la;le•TAIIII,11 :111lli PAY * TO THE ORDER OF CITY OF ROLL1 2 PORTUGUESE BEND RO ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 ILLS UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Palos Verdes 507 Silver Spur Rolling Hills Estates, ,,0274 16-49/1220 NUMBER 12325 ********************* Twenty -Five and 00/100 *********************** County of LA County Recorder Registrar -Recorder 12400 E. Imperial Highwa Norwalk, CA 90650 DATE Jan 11 99 AMOUNT .$25.00. AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE t11 ._L.I l:1- AR:f=i-1F ll•� astwlll.trl,l•11.1,l4=1_tlm•1:111a1•1u_I•fuAl•I1.1:4aI• I:.011.I.01,00• Ur• I>;n_11 , 411,•11 II 41 No raw......1+.040ly► II■0L23250 1:L220004961:0732002L751I' CITY OF ROLLING HILLS County of LA County Recorder c37 INVOICE NO Filing -Crest NUMBER 12325 Jan 11 99 GROSS AMT DISCOUNT NET 25.00 0.00 25.00 Audited and approved for payment :. CITY OF ROLLING HILLS County of LA County Recorder c37 INVOICE NO Filing -Crest NUMBER 12325 Jan 11 99 GROSS AMT DISCOUNT NET 25.00 0.00 25.00 Audited and approved for payment,: 25.00 --4/�C! AUTHORED SIGNATURE S1ifeguard* LITHO USA SFSII 16/9S) U M97SF016535M 10/9 Cu,• • Rolling .wee January 5, 1999 Palos Verdes Peninsula Center Library 650 Deep Valley Drive Palos Verdes Peninsula, CA 90274 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 Email: cityofrh@aol.com SUBJECT: NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION ZONING CASE NO. 593 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PROPOSED TENNIS COURT THAT REQUIRES GRADING AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 16 CREST ROAD WEST (LOT 74-A-MS), ROLLING HILLS. After reviewing the Initial Study for the subject project, staff has determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures have been added to the project. Accordingly, a Negative Declaration has been prepared. We have enclosed the proposed Negative Declaration for the subject case. Please review and direct all written comments to the City of Rolling Hills by January 25, 1999. Feel free to contact me at (310) 377-1521. Sincerely, g6- LOLA UNGAR PLANNING DIRECTOR ENCLOSURE: Negative Declaration Notice of Public Hearing ®Printed on Recycled Paper, • • City °Periling INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com January 5, 1999 Mr. Douglas Prichard, City Manager City of Rolling Hills Estates 4045 Palos Verdes Drive North Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 SUBJECT: NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION ZONING CASE NO. 593 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PROPOSED TENNIS COURT THAT REQUIRES GRADING AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 16 CREST ROAD WEST (LOT 74-A-MS), ROLLING HILLS. Dear Mr. Pf.oh E l After reviewing the Initial Study for the subject project, staff has determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures have been added to the project. Accordingly, a Negative Declaration has been prepared. We have enclosed the proposed Negative Declaration for the subject case. Please review and direct all written comments to the City of Rolling Hills by January 25, 1999. Feel free to contact me at (310) 377-1521. SiraceXely, LOLA UNGAR PLANNING DIRECTOR ENCLOSURE: Negative Declaration Notice of Public Hearing c. Printed on Recycled Paper. • • CU, 0/ Rotting _AIL January 5, 1999 Mr. Les Evans, City Manager City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 7 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com SUBJECT: NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION ZONING CASE NO. 593 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PROPOSED TENNIS COURT THAT REQUIRES GRADING AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 16 CREST ROAD WEST (LOT 74-A-MS), ROLLING HILLS. Dear Mr. Ev : After reviewing the Initial Studyfor the subject project, staff has determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures have been added to the project. Accordingly, a Negative Declaration has been prepared. We have enclosed the proposed Negative Declaration for the subject case. Please review and direct all written comments to the City of Rolling Hills by January 25, 1999. Feel free to contact me at (310) 377-1521. Sincerely, OLA UNGAR PLANNING DIRECTOR ENCLOSURE: Negative Declaration Notice of Public Hearing ®Printed on Recycled Paper. • • City 01) R0fA Jh/'t? January 5, 1999 Dr. Ira Toibin Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District 3801 Via La Selva Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com SUBJECT: NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION ZONING CASE NO. 593 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PROPOSED TENNIS COURT THAT REQUIRES GRADING AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 16 CREST ROAD WEST (LOT 74-A-MS), ROLLING HILLS. Dear Dr. Toibin: After reviewing the Initial Study for the subject project, staff has determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures have been added to the project. Accordingly, a Negative Declaration has been prepared. We have enclosed the proposed Negative Declaration for the subject case. Please review and direct all written comments to the City of Rolling Hills by January 25, 1999. Feel free to contact me at (310) 377-1521. LOLA UNGAR PLANNING DI ENCLOSURE: Negative Declaration Notice of Public Hearing 4.• Printed on Recycled Paper. • City O� /eof/tng IIIii�a INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX (310) 377.7288 E-mait cityofrh@aol.com PROJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 593 The applicant is requesting Site Plan Review to permit the construction of a proposed tennis court that requires grading at an existing single family residence at 16 Crest Road West (Lot 74-A-MS), Rolling Hills, CA. Application has been filed with the City of Rolling Hills for approval of the project known as ZONING CASE NO. 593 to be at 16 Crest Road West (Lot 74-A-MS). Rolling Hills. CA and to be implemented by Mr. Robert Naoelhout. The request is briefly described as: A proposal to construct a new tennis court that requires grading at a lot where there is an existing single family residence. Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines of the City of Rolling Hills, the Lead Agency has analyzed the project and determined that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment. Based on this finding, the Lead Agency prepared this NEGATIVE DECLARATION. FINDINGS OF NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: BASED ON THE ATTACHED INITIAL STUDY, AND CONDITION(S) (IF APPLICABLE), IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. A period of at least 20 days from the date of publication of the notice of this NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be provided to enable public review of the project specifications, the Initial Study and this document prior to the final adoption of the NEGATIVE DECLARATION by the Lead Agency. A copy of the project specifications is on file in the offices of The City of Rolling Hills. 2 Portuguese Bend Road. Rolling Hills. CA 90274. Date: January 5, 1999 By: Lola Ungar, Planni ►d 'rector sa Printed on Recycled Paper • C2ily `l2 rlin9 per, INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, (957 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE . PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310)377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-maik cityoffi@aol.com NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Planning Commission of the City of Rolling Hills will hold a Public Hearing at 7:30 PM on Tuesday, January 19, 1999, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA for the purpose of receiving public input regarding the following: ZONING CASE NO. 593, a request for a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed tennis court that requires grading at an existing single family residence at 16 Crest Road West (Lot 74-A-MS), Rolling Hills, CA. MUNICIPAL CODE APPLICATIONS: Section 17.16.210 (A)(7) - Conditional Use Permit required for tennis court. After reviewing the Initial Study for the project, staff has determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures have been added to the project. Accordingly, a Negative Declaration has been prepared. Any person is welcome to review the subject application and plans prior to the public hearing at the City Hall Administration Building located at 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA. If you challenge the approval or denial of this subdivision application in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. Publish in Palos Verdes Peninsula News on January 9, 1999. ®Printed on Recycled Paper. i l .3 000 • M J 1 L. �� J .� I N, .\ 0' i r s•+ ! / 2 •a"wy do • ,- f Q�Q s.24,,k 1, Dsr ,cr • Coovry 1!%%40,,i I r' °j+ =tr y A44..Os / 107 �. -�J _4 113 `mot--7 gi Ac iek 09 G &,1s gown I► illi ��_ �iT Oita. CAUL 10214 ... !+•t� �.1 c� Na Zonin = nit Map u ills CA Viol Robe RoadRolling A MILE Mx • avowalAcopos Mr Crest 1 • • City 0/ Rotting JUL APPENDIX I CITY OF ROLLING HILLS PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 APPLICATION NO: ZONING CASE NO. 593 NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT: Mr. Robert Nagelhout 1521 Nelson Avenue Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 NO.2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 E-mait cityofrh@aol.com LOCATION OF PROJECT: 16 CREST ROAD WEST (LOT 74-A-MS), ROLLING HILLS PROPOSED PROJECT: The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed tennis court that requires grading at an existing single family residence. BOOK, PAGE & PARCEL NO. 7569-022-005 EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: Residential Agricultural -Suburban - 2 acre minimum net lot area. EXISTING ZONING: RA-S-2, Residential Agricultural -Suburban 2 acre minimum net lot area. PROPOSED ZONING: Same. PRESENT LAND USE: Single family residential. LOCATION MAP: Attached. ZONING CASE NO. 593 I-1 Printed on Recycled Paper • • I. APPLICABILITY OF THE INITIAL STUDY A. Is the proposed action a "project" as defined by CEQA? (See Section I. of the City's CEQA Guidelines. If more than one application is filed on the same site, consider them together as one project). X Yes No 1. If the project qualifies for one of the Categorical Exemptions listed in Section I.C. of the City's CEQA Guidelines, is there a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect due to special circumstances? Yes X No N/A II. INITIAL STUDY REVIEW A. Does the project require a 30-day State Clearinghouse review for any of the following reasons? Yes X No 1. The lead agency is a state agency. 2. There is a State "responsible agency" (any public agency which has discretionary approval over the project). 3. There is a State "trustee agency" (California Department of Fish and Game, State Department of Parks and Recreation, University of California, and State Lands Commission). 4. The project is of Statewide or areawide significance including the following: (A) A proposed local general plan, element, or amendment thereof for which an EIR was prepared. (B) A project which would interfere with the attainment or maintenance of State or national air quality standards including: (1) A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units. (2) A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or encompassing more than 500,000 square feet of floor space. (3) Commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or encompassing more than 250,000 square feet of floor space. ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-2 • • (4) A proposed hoteVmotel development of more than 500 rooms. (5) A proposed industrial, manufacturing or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons occupying more than 40 acres of land,) or encompassing more than 650,000 square feet of floor area. (C) A project which would substantially affect sensitive wildlife habitats including but not limited to riparian for rare and endangered species as defined by Fish , and Game Code Section 903. (D) A project which would interfere with attainment of regional water quality standards as stated in the approved areawide waste water management plan. Ill. PROJECT ASSESSMENT A. Project Description: The applicant is proposing the construction of a new tennis court that requires grading at a lot where there is an existing single family residence. B. Description of the Project Site: (Describe the project site as it exists at the present time, including information on topography, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site, and use of the structures.) The project site is a 2.624 acre site with a large estate -size single story ranch style residence, garage and swimming pool that is under construction. The surrounding areas of the homesite consist of undulating hillsides and knolls covered by grasses and mature shrubs and trees, with some areas being heavily wooded. Native birds and animals frequent the area such as sparrows, crows, raccoons, possum, skunks, gophers, and an occasional fox. C. Surrounding Land Uses: The surrounding properties consist of single family residential building sites as well as a continuation high school, administrative offices, the Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority, and a district maintenance yard all under the auspices of the Palos Verdes Unified School District at the west side of the property. These residential and school district areas also consist of undulating hillsides and knolls covered by grasses and mature shrubs and trees with some areas being heavily wooded.. The school district property also provides expansive parking areas for its various uses. The same native birds and ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-3 animals frequent the area such as sparrows, crows, raccoons, possum, skunks, gophers, and an occasional fox. D. Is the proposed project consistent with: City of Rolling Hills General Plan Applicable Specific Plan City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance South Coast Air Quality Management Plan Congestion Management Plan Regional Comprehensive Plan Yes X No N/A X E. Have any of the following studies been submitted? Geology Report Hydrology Report Soils Report Traffic Study Noise Study Biological Study Native Vegetation Preservation Plan Solid Waste Generation Report Public Services/ Infrastructure Report Historical Report Archaeological Report Paleontological Study Line of Sight Exhibits Visual Analysis Slope Map Fiscal Impact Analysis Air Quality Report Hazardous Materials/Waste ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-4 • IV. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: (Select one) X I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. effect on the I find that although the proposed project could have a signific an effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because tie mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant affect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyz 3d in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has bee I addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on at .ached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially si jnificant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because ail potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursu nt lo that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon he proposed project. This initial study was prepared by: I � Date: January 5, 1999 LOLA UNGAR, PLANNING DIRECTOR [Signature] ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-5 • s V. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or (Mitigated) Negative Declaration. In this case a discussion should identify the following: A. Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. NONE. B. Impacts adeauatelv addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Mitiaation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site - specific conditions for the project. ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-6 • • EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: VI. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). VII. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. VIII. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. IX. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section V, "Earlier Analysis," above may be cross-referenced). X. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. See Section 15063(c)(3)(D) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section V, above. XI. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): 0 LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or polices adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project El 1900040 0 c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the ❑ 0 0 vicinity? d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. 0 0 0 impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-7 • • Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an 0 ❑ 0 Ox established community (including a low-income or minority community)? II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local 0 ❑ population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either 0 ❑ directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable 0 0 housing? Ili. GEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts Involving: a) Fault rupture? 0 0 b) Seismic ground shaking? ❑ 0 c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ 0 d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? 0 0 e) Landslides or mudflows? 0 ❑ f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil ❑ 0 conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? g) Subsidence of the land? 0 ❑ h) Expansive soils? ❑ 0 i) Unique geologic or physical features? 0 0 IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, 0 0 or the rate and amount of surface runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related 0 0 hazards such as flooding? c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration ❑ ❑ of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any ❑ ❑ water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of 0 0 water movements? CI a p 0 0 0 ❑x 0 ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-8 g) f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact of o ❑ • ;© O ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ,0 D ❑ .I V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to O i ❑ ❑ an existing or projected air quality violation? ij b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? 0 0 0 c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or 0 ❑ O cause any change in climate? d) Create any objectionable odors? 0 ❑ ©, i 0 VI, TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ❑ 0 0 ❑ ❑ b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? El 0 ❑; p ❑ ❑ a ❑ e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ❑ , 0 0 f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal ❑ ❑ ❑ result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? ❑ ❑ a El 0 ❑ n ❑ ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-9 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., 0 0 © 0 oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal 0 0 ® 0 pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 0 0 0 0 VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ❑ ❑ ❑ o ❑ ❑ o ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 0 ❑ 0 0 ❑ 0 0 ❑ 0 0 ❑ ❑ ❑x b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 0 0 XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? 0 0 0 b) Police protection? 0 ❑ 0 c) Schools? 0 0 0 d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? 0 0 ❑ e) Other governmental services? 0 0 0 O 0 El O El El El El O ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-10 • • XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? b) Communications systems? c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? e) Storm water drainage? f) Solid waste disposal? g) Local or regional water supplies? XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? b) Disturb archaeological resources? c) Affect historical resources? d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or 0 regional parks or other recreations facilities? Potentially SigiCant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact o i ❑ o o ❑ o 0 0 ❑ 0 0 ❑ 0 0 ❑ +O 0 o ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ C ❑ C ❑ C ❑ C b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ❑ O p El EI El ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-1 1 • • Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade 0 0 0 the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important example of the major period of California history or prehistory? XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade 0 0 0 the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important example of the major period of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve 0 0 ❑ short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are ❑ 0 0 individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects.) d) Does the project have environmental effects 0 0 0 which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier Analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. See Section 15063(c)(3)(D) of the State CEQA Guidelines. In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets. 0 ED a x❑ a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses 0 0 0 0 and state where they are available for review. ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-12 • Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which ❑ 0 3 0 effects from the! above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysisJ c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less 0 0 p 0 than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," descnbe the mitigation measures which were incorporated For Fefined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site - specific conditions for the project. The following analysis is a description of the findings contained in the Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Issues Checklist Form which preceded this page. A detailed discussion of all potential environmental impacts checked "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" is provided, along with appropriate mitigation measures. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Item III. GEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS. f-i. Although approval of the project will result in future disruptions, displacements, compaction, or overcrowding of the soil, during future construction these w'll occur in order to preserve the integrity of the property. Any displacement and recompaction of the soil will be required to conform with local ordinances and engineering practices and should not cause a significant environmental impact. Also, during future construction, there will be removal of natural vegetative cover, potentially causing an increase in soil erosion by wind action or storm water runoff. This reduction of vegetative cover and the increased runoff associated with the movement of soil may cause a slight increase in the soil deposition, siltation, or erosion in or near the ocean. As the movement of soil is limited to a tennis court, related erosion impacts will be less than significant. Mitigation Measures 1. The applicant shall prepare and submit to the City 15 sets of I a preliminary grading plan showing proposed drainage facilities, structures, driveways, building pad(s), stable, corral, and blue line streams, for the lot at least 30 days prior to the Planning Commission hearing on the project application. 2. The property owner shall be required to conform with local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence. Item IV. WATER a. The proposed project may alter drainage patterns, increase runoff and reduce water absorption by' the placement of the tennis court, the introduction of impervious surface matenals and irrigation systems. However, due to the nominal increase in development ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-13 • • proposed and permitted by the General Plan, the impacts are not expected to be substantial. b. No major floodplains exist in the City. Flood waters generally flow through the canyon areas. The General Plan does not permit development in the canyons, and so changes in the course or flow of floodwaters is not anticipated. Item V. AIR QUALITY d. While increased development of a tennis court will generate slight increases in objectionable odors during construction, the resultant impact on air quality will be less than significant. Item VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. a-e. Any additional development within the City will reduce the amount of native vegetation which will be replaced, in some instances, by non-native species. But, due to the limited growth proposed, this impact will be less than significant. In addition, the General Plan and Zoning Code set forth policies which encourage the retention and use of native drought tolerant vegetation in landscaping. No known rare and endangered species of plants exist in the City. As further development occurs in Rolling Hills, the natural habitat of the area will be slightly reduced. But, the impact of the current proposal is expected to be less than significant. Large lot, estate density development proposed for this project provides the opportunity to retain substantial amounts of existing habitat. The Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly, a butterfly which had not been seen in the Rolling Hills area since May, 1986, is listed b y the Federal Government as endangered. In 1994, the Palos Verdes Blue was seen at the nearby San Pedro Fuel Depot Station and is currently being studied by the State Department of Fish and Game. The local California gnatcatcher is on the Federal list of threatened species and on the Concerned list of the State, and in a recent census, a number of pairs were located in the adjacent City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Several other animals do occur, however, that are considered as candidates for protection by either the Federal Government or the State Government. Target species for the Palos Verdes Peninsula Area that are also being studied by the State of California Department of Fish and Game are the Cactus Wren and the Coast Horned Lizard. The impact of the proposed future development of a tennis court will be less than significant. Item X. NOISE a. During the duration of future construction, there will be noise related to the construction of a tennis court. But after construction, intermittent recreational noise is not expected to be a significant environmental impact. Item XIII AESTHETICS c. Tennis court lighting is not permitted. Light and glare impacts therefore are expected to be less than significant. Item XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES a-b. While prior tilling and dry farming may have disrupted potential remains, grading prior to construction may uncover a cultural resource. Mitiaation Measures 3. In the event that subsurface material of an archaeological, paleontological or other cultural resource is encountered during project grading or development, all grading and construction shall cease in the immediate ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-14 • • area, and the find shall be left untouched until a qualified professional archaeologist or paleontologist, whichever is appropriate, is contacted and called in to evaluate the find and makes recommendations as to disposition, mitigation or salvage. The developer shall incur the cost of such professional investigation. The developer shall comply with the mitigation measures recommended and approved by the City for the disposition, mitigation or salvage of such material. ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-15