592, accepting existing Grading of , Resolutions & Approval Conditions•
pCE.11:UE
NOV 1 81999
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
Fly
'FEE
CODE
REC.
FEE
N/A
0
99-0909703
REC EDIFILED IN OSFFICIAL RECORDS
ORD RECORDER' OFFICE n.
'f LOS ANGELES COUNTY 1 ^ k
CALIFORNIA
�..: 999 MAY 19 1
9:21 AM 1
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE RESERVED FOR RECORDER S USE
TITLE(S)
N/A 0
NO. NO
PAGES TITLES
• 20
19 04 19
PCOR D.A. SURVEY NOTIF. INVOL ; NON
LIEN CONF.
Assessor s Identification Number (AIN)
To Be Completed By Examiner Or Title Company In Black Ink
FEE MON.
EXAMINER S INT.
Number of Parcels Shown
Revision Number
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. 592
) §§
Ik99 C909703
['FEE $3r
T Recorder's Use Only
0
D.A. FEE Code 20 $ .. 0
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:
3 Crest Road West (Lot 115-1-RH), Rolling Hills, CA.
This property is the subject of the above numbered case.
am (We are) aware of, and accept, all the stated conditions in said tX/- / n /
ZONING CASE NO. 592
SITE PLAN REVIEW
VARIANCE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
I (Weclarunder the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Signature
�0 L617l.�rG
Name printed
A dress
r N CI�ic_c' CA-
City/State °24"1
115
Signatures must be acknowledged by a notary oublic.
Signature
Name typed or printed
Address
City/State
L
8� , A 7-7-"A
L
State of California )
County of Loc Angolec )5 hC"i 6 C.v
On tin.cCY-S 1 ci before me, ki Z AN
personally appeared Co \ e. M 11.3
r proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(I) whose name(se)
is/Pe subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that Ye/she/toy executed the same in /her/tf it
authorized capacity(j,es) and that by lys/her/fir signature 1) on the instrument the personV), or the entity upon behalf
of which the person(1q) acted, executed the instrument.
NAS LOZANI
Commission 0 1153753
Notary Public - California
San Francisco County
My Comm. Expires Sep 26, 2001
Witness by hand and official seal.
a
1 1 ij. s
Signature of Notary
SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF
•
XGf/B/ T Lj
C9C97C 3 ' 3
RESOLUTION NO. 99-9
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL
TO AUTHORIZE THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF AN EXISTING
ILLEGALLY GRADED HILLSIDE AREA AT AN EXISTING SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 3 CREST ROAD WEST (LOT 115-1-RH) AND
THAT AFFECTS PROPERTY AT 2 QUAIL RIDGE ROAD NORTH (LOT
115-2-RH) IN ZONING CASE NO. 592.
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. Tien (Tony) Zee and Ms.
Colette Zee, Intex Properties Corporation with respect to real property located at 3
Crest Road West (Lot 115-1-RH), Rolling Hills requesting Site Plan Review to
authorize the continued existence of an existing illegally graded hillside area at an
existing single family residence that affects property at 2 Quail Ridge Road North
(Lot 115-2-RH). The applicants voluntarily reported the illegal grading and made
application on December 28, 1998.
Section 2. On November 1, 1995, the Planning Commission approved a
Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a 330 square foot pool house at.
the northwest portion of the lot and Site Plan Review was approved for the
development of the pool area that required grading. The project was abandoned .by
the applicants when they decided not to build the . pool .house but instead build a
pool only in the rear. yard, at the northeast portion of the lot that. did not require Site
Plan Review. The soil from the pool excavation was used to fill the illegally graded
hillside area.
Section 3. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public
hearing to consider the application for Site Plan Review 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 and from members of the City staff and the Planning
Commission having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. The applicants'
representative was in attendance at the hearing. Members of Caballeros were in
attendance at the field trip. A letter from Mr. Karl Fjoslien, LAGreens, A Division
of Landscape West, was introduced that described two railroad tie landscape walls at
the northwest and northeast corners of the lot that are founded in dirt and do not
have a concrete foundation. The northwest wall crosses the northern adjoining
property line and includes approximately 190 square feet of that property.
Section 4. Section 17.46.030 requires a development plan to be submitted
for site plan review and approval before any grading requiring a grading permit or
any building or structure may be constructed or any expansion, addition, alteration
RESOLUTION NO. 99-9
PAGE 1 OF 5
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 at least 1,000 square feet and has
the effect of increasing the size of the building or structure by more than 25% in any
36-month period. The applicant requests Site Plan Review to authorize the
continued existence of an existing illegally graded hillside area at an existing single
family residence at 3 Crest Road West (Lot 115-1-RH), an area covering
approximately 15,400 square feet and up to 4.5 feet in depth that affects 190 square
feet of the property at 2 Quail Ridge Road North (Lot 115-2-RH). With respect to the
Site Plan Review application, the Planning Commission makes the following
findings of fact:
A. The existing illegal grading 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 sufficient 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 98,700 square feet. The existing residence (7,193 sq.ft.), garage
(748 sq.ft.), swimming pool (914 sq.ft.), future stable (450 sq.ft.), guest house (675
sq.ft.), and service yard (96 sq.ft.) has 10,308 square feet which constitutes 10.4% of the
lot which is within the maximum 20% structural lot coverage requirement. The
total lot coverage including paved areas and driveway has 18,937 square feet which
equals 19.2% of the lot, which is within the 35% maximum overall lot coverage
requirement.
B: The illegal grading 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 a minimum amount of grading would be
allowed to remain to provide drainage that will flow away from the graded area,
landscape walls, the existing residence, and neighboring residences.
C. The illegal grading, as conditioned, is harmonious in scale and mass
with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences. As indicated in
Paragraph A, the lot coverage maximum will not be exceeded and the project is
consistent with the scale of the neighborhood when compared to this irregular -
shaped lot. Grading shall be permitted only to restore the natural slope of the
property.
D. The development plan incorporates existing large trees and native
vegetation to the maximum extent feasible. Specifically, the development plan
preserves several mature trees and shrubs.
E. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and
undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage because the future
stable structure will not cause the structural and total lot coverage to be exceeded.
Further, the proposed project is designed to minimize grading. Significant portions
RESOLUTION NO. 99-9
PAGE 2 OF 5
•
409 (909703 s
of the lot will be left undeveloped so as to maintain scenic vistas across the
northwesterly portions of the property.
F. The development plan incorporates grading that will not modify
existing drainage channels nor redirect drainage flow, except to redirect flow into an
existing drainage course.
G. The development plan preserves surrounding native vegetation and
mature trees and supplements these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping
which is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community, and
landscaping provides a buffer or transition area between private and public areas.
H. The illegal development is sensitive and not detrimental to the
convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the
proposed project will utilize the same driveway to Crest Road West for access.
I. The project conforms with the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act and is categorically exempt from environmental
review.
Section 5. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission
hereby approves the Site Plan Review application for Zoning Case No. 592 to
authorize the continued existence of an existing illegally graded hillside area at an
existing single family residence that affects property at 2 Quail , Ridge Road North
(Lot 115-2-RH) as indicated on the development plan incorporated herein- as Exhibit
A and subject to the following conditions:
A. The Site Plan Review approval shall expire within one year from the
effective date of approval as defined in Section 17.46.080(A) unless otherwise
extended pursuant to the requirements of that section.
B. It is declared and made a condition of the Site Plan Review 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. Grading shall not exceed 820 cubic yards of cut soil and 820 cubic yards
of fill soil.
RESOLUTION NO. 99-9
PAGE 3 OF 5
E. Any new garden or retaining walls shall require Planning Department
review and approval.
F. Structural coverage of the residential building pad shall not exceed
21.4% and structural coverage of the pool pad shall not exceed 6.4%.
G. Prior to the submittal of an applicable final grading plan to the County
of Los Angeles for plan check, a detailed grading and drainage plan with related
geology, soils and hydrology reports that conform to the development plan as
approved by the Planning Commission must be submitted to the Rolling Hills
Planning Department staff for their review. Cut and fill slopes must conform to the
City of Rolling Hills standard of 2 to 1 slope ratio.
H. 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.
I. 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.
J. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions
of this Site Plan Review, or the approval shall not be effective.
K. All conditions of this Site Plan Review 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 ONT 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 1999.
ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
MARILYN KFIZN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
RESOLUTION NO. 99-9
PAGE 4 OF 5
•
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
)
)§
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 99-9' entitled:
•
99 € 909703
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL
TO AUTHORIZE THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF AN EXISTING
ILLEGALLY GRADED HILLSIDE AREA AT AN EXISTING SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 3 CREST ROAD WEST (LOT 115-1-RH) AND
THAT AFFECTS PROPERTY AT 2 QUAIL RIDGE ROAD NORTH (LOT
115-2-RH) IN ZONING CASE NO. 592.
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on
March 16, 1999 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Hankins, Margeta, Sommer, Witte and
Chairman Roberts.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None .
ABSTAIN: None.
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
1
RESOLUTION NO. 99-9
PAGE 5 OF 5
1
• 17.54.010
99 C9O9703 b
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 24, 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.
17.54.040 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
•
99 tke9703
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
ROLLING HILLS ZONING
78 MAY 24, 1993